To the Editor:

Princeton’s zoning consultant has released its Code Diagnostic, and there is a public meeting in the Municipal Building on September 24. Very few residents have read the document. I have, and I would encourage others to do the same before the drafting begins.

Much of it deserves support. Princeton has run on two zoning codes since consolidation in 2013, with roughly 70 districts and overlays and provisions written by different hands over decades. The Diagnostic proposes to merge them into one readable code with illustrations, a single table of permitted uses, and consistent definitions. For homeowners it offers overdue relief: additions along existing nonconforming walls without a variance (p. 65), rebuilding after a fire without arguing over percentages (p. 64), a front setback rule based on the houses next door rather than a calculation spanning 500 feet (p. 16), and far easier accessory dwelling units (pp. 11–12).

My first concern is that the contract with Camiros was for the Zoning Code but what was published is a Land Development Code Diagnostic. The distinction is subtle: in a nutshell, the Zoning Code says what can be built, but the Land Use Code oversees the process. Under the proposed changes, fewer projects will require notice and a hearing: site plan thresholds are to be re-examined and minor projects streamlined (p. 61), and other changes are framed as reducing the need for variances — which are noticed hearings. A hearing is the only point at which a neighbor has a voice. If the scope changed after the contract, the public deserves to know the full scope of the contract.

My second concern is the combination of changes to residential standards. The Diagnostic proposes eliminating floor area ratio, the height-to-setback ratio, story limits, minimum lot depth, combined side setbacks, lot area per habitable room, usable open space per habitable room (pp. 14–17), and considers eliminating minimum parking requirements (p. 50). Taken together, these remove nearly every control on how much building and how many bedrooms a residential lot can hold, leaving setbacks, height in feet, and lot coverage. The numbers for each district have not been published. It also proposes creating a higher-density residential district that would allow denser housing “without special approvals,” to be adopted even if mapped nowhere at first — described in the document as a “back pocket” option (p. 33). Princeton has a charged atmosphere around teardowns and surprise new developments. Together, this set of changes promises to ramp up the tension.

Three things would address most of this: publish the proposed dimensional numbers for each district and the additional by-right capacity they create; publish the criteria for assigning neighborhoods to district types alongside the draft map rather than after it; and identify which neighborhoods and interests were represented in the stakeholder interviews that shaped it.

Now is the time in the process where public comment actually changes the outcome. Show up on September 24. By the time a draft map appears, roughly a year and a half from now, the framework will be settled.

Adam Wolf

Spruce Street