By Matthew Hersh
Residents called for neighborhood-specific maps, visual models, and clearer information about what could be built under Princeton’s proposed new zoning framework during a two-hour public meeting Thursday, September 24, at Witherspoon Hall.
About 40 people attended the presentation of the newly released Code Diagnostic, the first phase of OneCode Princeton, the Municipality’s multiyear effort to replace zoning regulations inherited from the former Borough and Township with a unified Land Development Code.
The 67-page assesment, prepared by Chicago-based planning consultant Camiros, identifies concepts that could guide the drafting of the new code and aims to simplify Princeton’s complicated zoning regulations while navigating how potential changes could affect Valley Road, Terhune Road, the Tree Streets, Ewing Street, Jefferson Road, and other established neighborhoods.
Princeton Council contracted with Camiros in August 2025, approving $83,600 for the project’s first phase.
Camiros Principal Arista Strungys emphasized that the diagnostic does not contain a proposed zoning map or final regulations, but instead identifies concepts that could guide the drafting process. Strungys said this could include reorganizing Princeton’s residential districts, permitting additional housing types in appropriate locations, making accessory dwelling units easier to construct, simplifying dimensional standards, and considering the elimination of minimum parking requirements.
“We don’t have the districts yet,” Strungys said. “We don’t have the equivalences of what you currently have to what’s going to be in the future.”
Those details, including proposed district boundaries, dimensions, and design standards, are expected to be included in the first draft of the code and presented through a public open house process next year. Camiros asked residents to submit initial comments by December 1, although Strungys said comments would continue to be accepted throughout the process. Completion is anticipated by the end of 2027.
Several residents said they could not fully evaluate the concepts without seeing how they would apply to particular properties and transitions between neighborhoods.
Spruce Street resident Adam Wolf said many neighbors would welcome a streamlined process for minor variances, but expressed concern about the effects of larger developments near existing houses. Residents of the Tree Streets also questioned how Camiros would determine the area’s future zoning designation and raised concerns about parking, speeding, and the cumulative effects of development near Nassau Street.
Strungys said Camiros is using municipal GIS data, surveys, and analysis of existing development patterns. She also stressed that proposals to eliminate controls such as floor area ratio, or FAR, would not mean that development would go unregulated.
“It’s not that we’re saying we’re just getting rid of them and we’re not going to replace them with anything else,” she said. “We’re looking at them contextually and seeing what else we would need to put in to address that.”
Valley Road resident Gail Lambert urged the consultants to examine existing development firsthand. She described an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) under construction next to her property that she said would be 68 feet long, nearly 20 feet high, and five feet from their shared property line.
“You really need to see in real life what some of the current zoning [allows] and the impact on an adjacent neighbor like myself,” Lambert said.
She also cautioned against eliminating variance proceedings, saying the process provided notice of the neighboring project and an opportunity to evaluate its effects. Strungys responded that questions about whether Princeton’s existing ADU standards permit structures that are too large are precisely the type of feedback Camiros needs before drafting new regulations.
Councilman David Cohen said any modeling of what could be built under the proposed code should be compared with the maximum development already permitted. Existing zoning, he noted, allows substantially more construction than what currently exists in many neighborhoods.
Cohen pointed to older houses divided into apartments and duplexes along Jefferson Road as familiar forms that residents generally accept, even though some could not be built under today’s regulations.
“What we’re trying to do with this new code is to try to allow stuff that’s in character, in keeping with the existing — not code — but the existing infrastructure of Princeton,” he said. “We look at what we have and what we like, and we allow more of that.”
The following day, several Princeton planning officials who led or attended Thursday’s presentation were present at a separately organized “Great Homes and Neighborhoods for All” convening at Princeton University. Led by New Jersey Future, that gathering brought together housing and land-use advocates to discuss strategies for advancing a pro-housing agenda at the state and local levels.
The event examined increasing housing supply and reforming land-use rules from a policy standpoint, while Thursday’s municipal meeting demonstrated the neighborhood-level questions that emerge when those principles are applied to particular streets and properties.
On Thursday, Dempsey Avenue resident Sam Bunting said he supported the code rewrite, arguing Thursday that the existing regulations encourage large additions, teardowns, and “McMansions” while limiting the smaller homes sought by young families and older residents looking to downsize.
He cited the Witherspoon-Jackson neighborhood and the Tree Streets as compact, historic neighborhoods that Princeton values but could not reproduce under its current rules.
“On one hand, the town is saying you can’t change this,” Bunting said. “But on the other hand, you’re saying you can’t build more like it. That does not make sense to me.”
Residents can submit comments through the project website at onecodeprinceton.com/feedback or email the Princeton Planning Department at planning@princetonnj.gov. Camiros asked residents to submit initial feedback by December 1, although comments will continue to be accepted throughout the process.