November 26, 2014

More discussion is in order on the future of the Witherspoon Street corridor, the mile-long thoroughfare between Valley Road and Nassau Street. At a meeting Monday night, Princeton Council decided to allow additional time for debating the merits of coming up with new zoning as opposed to leaving the current zoning of the street as is.

The consolidation of the former Borough and Township has allowed the opportunity for creating a new vision for the street, but the question is whether new rules are necessary. Planning director Lee Solow presented a comprehensive capacity study at the meeting, going zone-by-zone to explain the limits and opportunities associated with each section of the street. There are eight zoning districts in the corridor, most of which have been in place for more than 30 years. Some of the designations are complicated, with the floor-to-area (FAR) ratios not representative of how much square footage is actually allowed.

The capacity study included a look at individual lots to calculate the maximum building potential, using information from the tax assessor’s office. Parking requirements are controlling development possibilities, Mr. Solow said. The existing zoning allows for more density than is actually dictated by the requirements.

Witherspoon Street is home to the close-knit Witherspoon-Jackson neighborhood, several businesses, and the former Princeton Hospital, currently being demolished to make room for the 280-unit AvalonBay rental complex. The corridor was first discussed at a meeting last September, during which several area residents and business owners spoke out, some in favor of leaving the current zoning in place and others hoping for new designations that would be more restrictive to developers. Still others were interested in further development.

There were fewer members of the public taking the microphone at Monday’s meeting, a situation that caused some comment. “I’m concerned that there are not many members of the neighborhood here tonight,” said local resident Kip Cherry. Ms. Cherry added that the area is “going through an evolution,” and stressed the need for maintaining its character.

Former Borough Mayor Yina Moore summarized comments made about the issue at the most recent meeting of the Witherspoon-Jackson neighborhood association. Calling the corridor a “very important spine of the community,” she said “There is a real concern about developers buying multiple properties.”

Ms. Moore mentioned the possibility of incompatible designs, absentee ownership, and increased gentrification, among other negative results. She urged Council to take a form-based approach when looking at the zoning “to really bring the neighborhood into conformity,” urging that the zoning limit financial institutions, encourage more owner occupancy, and limit businesses to the first floor of a building.

Marvin Reed, chair of the town’s master plan committee and former Township mayor, also weighed in, urging Council to be aware of the fact that properties are being purchased on Witherspoon Street with the idea of further development. The town should have solid policies in place before potential developers make applications. “The existing zoning, while confusing, isn’t so bad,” he said, expressing views of neighborhood residents, adding that there is a strong emphasis on saving the area’s historic character.

Councilwoman Jenny Crumiller asked Mr. Solow what the potential is for developers coming in and putting in large buildings out of scale with the neighborhood. “There’s a real threat there,” Mr. Solow said. “There’s also a real opportunity.” He added that while the current zoning is complicated, it has worked.

“We embarked on this because the current zoning is confusing to the lay person,” said Mayor Liz Lempert. “Does it work well enough for us to be okay with it, or do we go to the next step? We want to do this only if we’re putting something together that’s not already there, such as a form-based code.”

Council president Bernie Miller said he thinks there is a need for more dialogue and more input from residents. “I’d like to hear more before I say ‘Let’s get a visioning statement’ or go one way or the other,” he said.

Council decided to hold another public discussion of the situation at a future meeting, probably in early January. Councilwoman Jo Butler suggested inviting some of the architects of an original study of the corridor done by the organization Princeton Future when that meeting takes place.

 

January 29, 2014

At Princeton Council’s meeting Monday night, no action had been expected to be taken during a work session on the developer’s agreement with AvalonBay. But after concerned citizens and some Council members voiced anxiety about the possibility of hazardous waste left over from an incinerator that was once on the former Princeton Hospital site, the governing body voted to hire an independent licensed state remediation professional, for up to $5,000, to ensure public safety during the demolition process.

AvalonBay is still waiting to close on the contract to build a complex of rental apartments and townhouse units on the site where Princeton Hospital stood until moving to Route 1 in Plainsboro over a year ago. The developer plans to hold a meeting with neighborhood residents before beginning demolition. Jon Vogel, AvalonBay’s vice president of development, said he expects the final contract to be signed in early February.

Mr. Vogel said the company has worked with municipal staff and industry experts to determine what the incinerator was used for. It has not been operational for more than two decades, he said, and was used to burn medical records only. The incinerator is no longer on the site, but the floor drain below where it once stood is a concern, according to Princeton’s land use engineer Jack West.

“We are addressing the issues,” Mr. West said, in response to a comment that AvalonBay is “running the show.” “They have agreed to find out what’s behind walls before knocking them down.” Regarding the incinerator, he added, “They’ll see if there are any breaks in the line, and if so, there will be soil testing. The staff is very involved. We’re not quite done, but we have addressed the majority of the issues.”

As part of the agreement, officials will be videotaping the review of the incinerator room. Bob Kiser, the town’s municipal engineer, said that the Department of Environmental Protection does not have significant concerns about the incinerator but does have possible concerns about the presence of underground fuel tanks.

Harris Road resident Marco Gattardis, a cancer researcher, told Council members that many hazardous materials were thrown down drains in past decades before rules on disposal were tightened. “I think it’s cavalier to say we don’t have to worry about these things,” he said. “I don’t believe them [AvalonBay]. And it’s a bigger issue than the incinerator itself. We need independent testing.”

Councilwoman Jenny Crumiller said hiring an independent professional was a “no-brainer.” “We shouldn’t have AvalonBay telling us what’s safe and what’s not. Of course they’re going to say it’s safe.”

Mr. Vogel said AvalonBay was not relying on the hospital’s statement that only medical records had been incinerated. “That’s why we’re looking for drain breaks and soil contamination because we think something else might be there,” he said. “I want to be very emphatic about that.” Mr. Vogel added that the residents complaining about the process were the same ones involved in litigation with the company over development of the site. “They are really just trying to stop this project.”

Members of the audience loudly protested, with one man yelling, “Hey, we’re residents, pal!”

Noise and dust monitors are also planned for the property. Water will be sprayed over the site to prevent hazardous dust from being airborne.

Also at the meeting, Council heard from Scott Sillars of the Citizens Finance Advisory Committee about how to best manage its budget surplus and how to plan for the future. Mr. Sillars said that about 15 to 20 percent of total appropriations is recommended as a good cushion of savings for unexpected expenditures like Hurricane Sandy. Mayor Lempert called the surplus “a rainy day fund” that means the municipality doesn’t have to raise taxes if the surplus dips too low. “With a small margin, then your tax rate is going up and down every year, and you don’t have stability,” she said.

Mr. Sillars said the surplus should increase by another million dollars this year. At its next meeting on February 18, Council will review a financial debt policy. Both the surplus and debt policies will likely be adopted as part of this year’s budgeting process.

Council voted to introduce an ordinance regulating parking along portions of Alexander Street, in the commuter parking lot and the Alexander Street retail parking lot, all of which have been affected by construction of Princeton University’s Arts & Transit development and the relocation of the Dinky train station.

“This is a first step, but alone it will not solve what has become a constant source of frustration and tension for those of us who use the Dinky but don’t arrive at the new lot by 7 a.m.,” said resident John Heilner, adding, “We urge everyone who has had problems parking in the new lot to come to the public hearing on February 18.”

 

July 3, 2013
page1

MIXING IT UP: A view of the townhouses at the corner of Franklin Avenue and the eastern access to the parking garage, which is part of AvalonBay’s revised proposal for a rental community at the former home of the University Medical Center of Princeton. The new design calls for five buildings instead of one. (Rendering by Tangram 3DS)

AvalonBay brought its revised plan for the former Princeton Hospital site back to the Planning Board last Thursday. With greater permeability, five buildings instead of one large edifice, a scaled-down swimming pool, and other adjustments, the developer is hoping to gain the approval of the Board, which rejected its initial plan last December.

The developer sued the Board and the town to reverse that decision, but a settlement was worked out to allow for a revised proposal. The Board must approve the reworked plan if AvalonBay has met their legal obligations, attorney Gerald Muller said in his opening remarks.

The hearing was the first of four to be devoted to the proposed 280-unit rental development. The next meetings will be held July 11, 18, and 25 at the Witherspoon Hall municipal building. Members of the community have been especially vocal on the issue since AvalonBay was first contracted to purchase the site on Witherspoon Street in 2011.

Just before last week’s meeting, representatives from Princeton Citizens for Sustainable Neighborhoods (PCSN) and members of the property service workers union 32BJSEIU held a rally outside the municipal building to protest AvalonBay’s proposal. As rain began to fall, some 30 protesters gathered to complain that the newly revised proposal is too similar to the original. Among the speakers were local residents Shirley Satterfield, Kate Warren, and Alexi Assmus.

During the public comment period at the end of the meeting, union representative Ben Bennett expressed concerns about AvalonBay’s fire safety record over several objections by the developer’s attorney that the comments were inappropriate. When the Board decided to hear Mr. Bennett out, he told them that he wants a public safety monitor on the construction site. He said that a fire at an AvalonBay construction site in Edgewater 13 years ago destroyed the project along with nearby single family homes. But Mr. Muller advised the Board that they should disregard Mr. Bennett’s testimony because it was not relevant.

Earlier in the evening, the Board heard from PCSN attorney Rob Simon on some of the organization’s objections to the plan before listening to reports from the Site Plan Review Advisory Board (SPRAB) and the Princeton Environmental Commission (PEC) about the revised proposal. Both groups recommended approving the plan, but with several conditions based on design standards and other matters. Increased bicycle storage, better distribution of the 56 affordable housing units throughout the complex, and the adoption of food waste composting were among SPRAB’s recommendations. The PEC agreed with those suggestions, adding that the potential contamination of the former hospital site be addressed, more energy-efficient windows be used, all appliances be Energy Star certified, and only native and adaptive plantings be used in the landscaping.

PEC member Wendy Kaczerski also suggested that AvalonBay treat the property as a green building site, making it an example of how a construction project can be done. “The PEC wants to commend AvalonBay for all the green improvements it intends to make,” she added. “They’ve come a long way.”

The public first heard about AvalonBay’s revised proposal at a community meeting in May. The plan calls for 24 studio apartments, 104 one-bedroom units, 120 two-bedroom apartments and 30 three-bedroom units. Building heights will be lower than in the original plan, and range from two to five stories. On the Franklin Street side of the development, three townhouse buildings with stoops and porches are in the design. A garden walk separates the largest building from the main parking garage.

Affordable housing units are in the two largest buildings as part of the plan. A public road will cut through the development, and a public park, larger than in the original plan, will be on the corner of Witherspoon Street and Franklin Avenue. “The new plan responds to comments from 2012,” said Jon Vogel, the AvalonBay vice president now in charge of the project. “Permeability was a main theme.”

—Anne Levin

 
February 27, 2013

At a meeting of Princeton Council on Monday, February 25, several opponents of developer AvalonBay’s housing plan for the former Princeton Hospital site voiced their opinions of an appeal filed February 20 by the developer in Superior Court. The appeal seeks to overturn the “illegal denial” of their plan issued by the Princeton Planning Board last December, and names the Board, the mayor, and Council as defendants.

Kate Warren, a member of the group Princeton Citizens for Sustainable Neighborhoods (PCSN), called the appeal “one more bullying tactic” by AvalonBay. PCSN has been a constant presence at meetings about the plan over the past year, challenging its density, design, and possible environmental problems with testimony from experts and attorneys. “We are asking you to put your full support behind the Planning Board’s decision,” Ms. Warren told Council.

PCSN member Alexi Assmus pointed out what she said were inaccuracies in the filing, specifically regarding affordable housing. In a statement, PCSN said, “We strongly urge Princeton Council and the Planning Board to fight the AvalonBay lawsuit against the town. We are considering all of our legal options.”

AvalonBay’s appeal asserts that the Planning Board was biased in its decision to reject the proposal for 280 rental units at the old hospital site on Witherspoon Street. “When the Planning Board voted to deny AvalonBay’s site plan application, it was clear that AvalonBay was an unwelcome corporate outsider,” the appeal reads. The developer was fully willing to comply with site plan and zoning ordinance requirements, it continues. “Unfortunately, AvalonBay’s compliance with the law was insufficient to obtain site plan approval from the Planning Board.”

The suit also contends that the Board’s decision violated the Mount Laurel Doctrine on affordable housing, and was not supported by evidence presented in several public hearings. The developer asks the court to reverse the decision and approve the project. They urge the Court to make a decision by May 1, at which time AvalonBay says it will have to back out of its contract with Princeton HealthCare System because of time and money constraints. The contract has a June 30, 2013 deadline, which the lawsuit says cannot be extended. The company also wants the court to award legal fees and other costs, which they expect to reach more than $2 million by the June date.

The hospital issued a statement last Thursday saying, “We are not a party to the lawsuit filed by AvalonBay and therefore are not in a position to comment on it.” AvalonBay also declined comment on the appeal.

Planning Board attorney Gerald Muller said Monday that he was surprised by the manner in which the suit was filed. “It’s an order to show cause, which we don’t think is appropriate here,” he said. Once the court sets up a briefing schedule, Mr. Muller added, the Board’s decision will be proven to be legal. “We think we have valid legal ground. And in our opinion, a number of standards in the ordinance have been violated.”

Mayor Liz Lempert said Monday a decision has not yet been reached on whether the task force which has been meeting regularly to discuss possible rezoning of the hospital site will be continued.

February 13, 2013

At its meeting on February 7, Princeton’s Planning Board officially memorialized its December 19, 2012 rejection of developer AvalonBay’s proposal for an apartment building at the former location of the University Medical Center at Princeton. That clears the way for the developer to determine whether it will appeal the decision, something that has yet to be announced. AvalonBay has until March 24 to announce its intention.

In the meantime, the task force assigned last month to evaluate the site’s mixed use zoning has been meeting regularly. Discussions among members of the task force have focused on the possibility of increasing open space requirements, allowing separate structures instead of one large building, and decreasing the allowed housing density.

AvalonBay’s attorney Anne Studholme has attended the task force’s meetings, taking notes but rarely offering comment. She aired her opinions in a letter to the Planning Board’s attorney Gerald Muller dated February 7, complaining that the resolution describing the Board’s decision to deny AvalonBay’s plan, because it failed to meet Princeton’s design standards, “incorporates none of the record purposefully created by the board members and set forth with clarity and detail as the basis for each member’s vote on December 19, 2012.”

Ms. Studholme said that the Board “cherry-picks a few of the design standards and asserts that the application fails to ‘meet’ them. Given the repeated acknowledgment by yourself, and by Lee Solow, Princeton’s Director of Planning, that the design standards are inherently self-contradictory, and that they also contradict the zoning standards, we cannot tell, from studying the proposed resolution, let alone the transcript of the record, how it was the board came to find certain design standards requisite to be met, and not others.”

The Board said in its decision that AvalonBay’s proposal for 280 apartments, in a building ranging from three to five stories, did not allow for sufficient connections to the surrounding neighborhood. Rather, it calls for a “fortress-like” development with only one archway, “providing public access through a 60-foot-long passage to a dead end court. It excludes the public and turns its back to the broader neighborhood.”

Ms. Studholme said that the resolution quotes members of the public who object to the plan while not quoting remarks by Board members. “We are disappointed that the proposed resolution strays so far from the established record — in fact, that it ignores the established record,” the letter reads.

Meetings of the hospital site task force are open to the public. For the dates of upcoming meetings, visit Princeton’s website: www.princetonnj.gov.

January 30, 2013

Would it be preferable to reduce the number of units allowed in the redevelopment of the former hospital site on Witherspoon Street? This was the topic of debate last week at the third meeting of the special task force charged with refining the zoning of the 5.6-acre property, the future of which is still to be determined.

The task force will next meet on Thursday, January 31 to further discuss the zoning, which was created several years before the hospital moved last May. Under the current ordinance, 280 units, with 54 designated for affordable housing, are allowed. At the January 24 meeting, some members of the task force said that lowering the number of units, perhaps to 220, would be preferable.

But municipal attorney Ed Schmierer told the group that as density falls, it will be more difficult to keep the requirement for 20 percent affordable units because a developer will have trouble subsidizing them. “There is a consequence to reducing the density,” he said.

The developer AvalonBay was under contract to develop the site with a complex of rental apartments, but the Regional Planning Board voted not to approve the plan last month. The planners have yet to formally memorialize the action. Once they do, AvalonBay has 45 days to file a court appeal of the decision. The developer’s attorney Anne Studholme attended the January 24 meeting but did not comment on whether AvalonBay would appeal.

A plea to keep the density high came from resident David Keddie, who said there are not enough affordable rentals in Princeton. “It’s an opportunity, not a threat,” he said. “There is tremendous demand for it.”

Mr. Keddie added that people who work or study at Princeton University want to live where they can walk to the campus. “If I lived where the current hospital site is, I’d walk instead of driving,” he said. “My wife would walk to the Dinky instead of driving to the Hamilton train station so she could find parking. This is good from an environmental perspective, and many singles and childless couples prefer the lifestyle at an apartment complex. A large population would make the area lively.”

Mr. Keddie’s comments drew an endorsement from Sheldon Sturges of the organization Princeton Future. “Most of us sitting here have gray hair,” he said. “We bought in when it was a lot cheaper in Princeton. We need housing for potters, jazz musicians, and artists. We need to work a lot harder at keeping the unit count up in the area. We ought to have a plan, not just for this zone.”

Resident Hendricks Davis commented that he is concerned about the loss of affordable housing that could result from density reduction. “The task force needs to be very careful and thoughtful in its rationale for changing the density for this site,” he said.

“I listened to the comments at planning board meetings and the proposal by the current developer. I think that a more sensitive developer could achieve the 56 affordable units along with a sensitive, thoughtful, creative residential development of this site, and commercial or small business, as well as open space. I would encourage the task force and planning board to be very thoughtful about changing the density so radically.”

Former Township Mayor Marvin Reed, who is on the Planning Board, was among the task force members who spoke in favor of reducing the density. “It took me 12 years to get Palmer Square to cover up the ugly garages they had built and suspend any further construction,” he said. “I’m not going to be around for 12 more years to try and convince the hospital to tear down this building. So I think we have to recognize we have a special interest in convincing them that they should not leave the hospital they have left, and that something needs to take its place.”

Representatives from the hospital said at previous meetings that the 20 percent affordable housing requirement scared away most of the developers who had expressed interest in the site. But task force members said they won’t alter that requirement. At the January 24 meeting, hospital attorney Mark Solomon said he has major concerns about the progress of the zoning talks.

“At the first meeting, I said to please be sure that [the plan] works,” he said. “I have serious doubts that it works when you put together the open space changes, the setbacks, and everything else. When it’s all done, what do you have? We spent years discussing the density that belongs here. This is a 100-or-200-year opportunity you have here and you are squandering the opportunity.”

The meeting also focused on the question of whether retail stores are appropriate for the site, and possible amendments to the maximum allowable height of the buildings. AvalonBay had proposed a four-to-five story building approximately 48 feet high. The current zoning says the height should not exceed five stories, or 67.5 feet.

Open space allowances were also discussed. Task force member Bill Wolfe said publicly accessible open space should make up 30 percent of the land area. Mr. Sturges suggested that open space should be surrounded by retail, as in the Princeton Public Library’s Hinds Plaza. “There are a lot of open spaces in this town that are deader than a doornail,” he commented.

Once the task force presents its recommended zoning changes to the Princeton Council, that body will review them and then pass them on to the Planning Board. The changes would then be sent back to the Council for official approval.

The task force will meet at the Municipal Building Thursday, January 31 at 5 p.m. Further meetings are scheduled for February 5 at noon at the former Borough Hall, and February 11 at noon back at the Municipal Building. The meetings are open to the public.

December 26, 2012

After a five-hour meeting that began December 19 and ended in the wee hours of December 20, Princeton’s Regional Planning Board voted against developer AvalonBay’s plan for a rental community on the former site of the University Medical Center of Princeton. The vote was 7-3, with those who voted in favor saying they did so because they feared the legal repercussions of rejecting the plan. Residents in the audience who were against the proposed development rose to their feet to give the Board a standing ovation when the vote was finally cast.

The developer’s proposal for 280 apartments, 56 of which would be affordable housing, has drawn criticism from residents of the neighborhood about a design they repeatedly called “monolithic,” and concerns about environmental issues. The group Citizens for Sustainable Neighborhoods was represented by two lawyers during the process. The December 19 meeting of the Planning Board was the sixth devoted to the proposal.

While one member of the public expressed support for the complex because of its percentage of affordable housing units, the comments at the meeting were overwhelmingly negative. “It’s completely out of scale with the adjacent neighborhoods,” said Joseph Weiss during a power point presentation, calling the design “a fortress.”

Princeton Borough resident Helmut Schwab said he had spoken to many people in town, most of whom were against the plan. “I plead with you. Do what is good for the citizens and vote against it or recuse yourself,” he said to the Board. Julie Roth, the rabbi for Princeton University, said there have been inconsistencies in AvalonBay’s plan. “The question is whether we have a good faith partner in AvalonBay,” she said.

Zoning for the hospital site was approved several years ago. The original developer for the site, Lubert Adler, had planned to turn the existing hospital building into condominiums with retail underneath. But the company withdrew during the 2008 recession. Planning Board member Marvin Reed, who was in the negotiations from the beginning, said the Board owed it to the neighborhood residents to reject AvalonBay’s plan because of their concerns about the design for a newly constructed complex, among other issues.

Weighing in before the vote, Planning Board member Peter Madison, a lawyer, explained his decision to vote in favor of the plan. “I have a serious concern that the applicant is in a very strong legal position,” he said. “I believe if they appeal, the case will be overturned.”

Board member Bernie Miller commented, “The question isn’t really whether there could be something better on the site, but whether we want what is proposed on the site. I have heard a lot that troubles me. It leaves me with a kind of queasy feeling of having been taken advantage of with a bait and switch here.”

During the process that began more than a year ago, AvalonBay senior vice president Ron Ladell met with an ad hoc committee to try and work out problems that neighborhood residents had with the plan. But those meetings were not successful, according to Jenny Crumiller, a member of the Planning Board who served on the committee. “It was their intent to do things the AvalonBay way, not the Princeton way,” she said. “They tweaked a bit, but they did not change it much. They are refusing to stray from their brand and realize Princeton’s uniqueness. We have standards to protect our old-fashioned neighborhoods. The overriding theme was that AvalonBay is a brand, and that’s what you get.”

The proposal called for one, two, and three bedroom apartments in a building that would reach 48 feet at its highest point. Mr. Ladell said he was offended by suggestions that he was hiding something. In his closing speech to the Board before the vote, he said that planning and zoning staff agree that the project met all local zoning requirements. “If you don’t believe me, believe your staff,” he said.

Mr. Ladell left the meeting without commenting. Efforts to reach his attorney, Anne Studholme, in the days following the meeting were unsuccessful. The University Medical Center of Princeton issued a general statement: “Princeton HealthCare System has been watching the site plan process closely. We have always advocated that the process should be allowed to occur. This part of the process is now finished. AvalonBay will need to make a decision on how it intends to proceed. We have confidence that in the end, the process will result in an appropriate outcome for the community.”


November 21, 2012

At its Monday evening meeting, Township Committee unanimously supported a proposal to hire an outside environmental consultant to review documents associated with AvalonBay’s plans to develop the former site of the Medical Center at Princeton. In a split vote last week, Borough Council did not approve the plan (see related article).

Township Committee’s vote authorizes the payment of not more than $2,999 to Sovereign Consulting, a New Jersey-based environmental consulting and remediation firm. Although not finalized, it was agreed to proceed under the assumption that Sovereign’s fee would come out of AvalonBay’s escrow account. AvalonBay attorney Anne Studholme had suggested that the fee be borne by the municipality.

Township Committee member Bernie Miller, who is also a member of the Planning Board, noted that there was “considerable concern” about environmental issues at the site, and suggested that it was important to proceed. Township Engineer Bob Kiser thought that the review could be done “fairly quickly” and would be “consistent with the current schedule.”

Mr. Kiser spoke about the importance of removing or “properly decommissioning” abandoned tanks at the site, noting that there are at least four that “will probably need to be removed,” although current AvalonBay plans do not provide for their removal. The site straddles both the Township and Borough, and there are abandoned tanks in each; Mr. Kiser suggested that they are so “intertwined,” it would be difficult to separate a response to them.

“I feel pretty strongly that this is something that we should do,” added Deputy Mayor Liz Lempert, who chaired the meeting in Mayor Chad Goerner’s absence. “We want to make sure that we are doing our due diligence.”

In other business Monday evening the Township approved a proposal to expand First Aid and Rescue Squad headquarters at 237 Harrison Street. Expansion costs will be paid by the Squad, which already serves both the Township and the Borough.

Other agenda items included the reading of a proclamation declaring Saturday, November 24 as “Small Business Saturday.” Small businesses, the proclamation said, “create jobs, boost economy,” and “preserve neighborhoods.”

Chief Financial Officer Kathy Monzo explained a resolution extending the due date of real estate taxes to November 21 because of Hurricane Sandy. She said that the Borough would be passing a similar resolution with the same date.


A special convening of the Princeton Regional Planning Board on November 12 had members of Borough Council, in their meeting the following evening, questioning whether proper protocol was followed because of an item added to the agenda.

The Board voted November 12 to recommend that the Council hire a private environmental consultant to evaluate documentation of the former site of the University Medical Center at Princeton, where developer AvalonBay is contracted to build an apartment complex. But in a split decision, members of Council voted not to hire the Trenton firm, Sovereign Consulting.

They cited the fact that AvalonBay was not informed of the meeting, and questioned whether the consultation was necessary. “What other applicant have we required this of?” asked Councilman Kevin Wilkes. “None.”

Sovereign Consulting was recommended at a cost of $2,990, which would be paid for through AvalonBay’s Borough escrow account. A separate, lesser amount would be paid by the Township, where a smaller portion of the site is located.

“What obligations do we have to enforce remediation strategies on the applicant?” asked Wilkes. “A whole state protocol is in place for these issues. Why do we need to create our own review process when the state statute covers this?” Questioning the timing of the addition of the item to the Planning Board’s agenda, he suggested “shady behavior.” “I don’t support it,” he said. “I don’t think it was properly noticed.”

The Planning Board made their recommendation after suggestions by the Princeton Environmental Commission that a consultant be hired. In addition, the Princeton Regional Health Commission had referred the issue to the Planning Board.

Before voting on the recommendation last Tuesday, the Council allowed for public comment. “The environmental impact studies had very serious errors,” said Dodds Lane resident Jane Buttars, who is part of the group Princeton Citizens for Sustainable Neighborhoods. “They need to be looked at by an independent consultant.” She added, “There are public health issues at stake. No one here has had experience in decommissioning a hospital, and guidance would be helpful.”

In a memo sent to Borough Council after the meeting, Matt Wasserman, chair of the Princeton Environmental Commission (PEC), requested that the Council reconsider its decision. He said that the PEC would make a financial contribution if the cost of hiring the consulting firm is at issue.

“We were very dismayed to learn that the Borough Council did not authorize an independent environmental consultant to review the voluminous amount of environmental documents associated with this application, and to consider whether additional sampling would be required, as requested by the Planning Board and the PEC. This review should include all documents submitted to the record of this application,” the memo reads. “The potential impact of this property is so important that to make a less than fully informed decision could risk the health and welfare of the future residents of this development and the surrounding community. We believe this review is vital to making a responsible decision on the application.”

Discussions of the AvalonBay proposal continued at the November 15 Planning Board meeting (see related story).

Mr. Wilkes was also critical, at the November 13 Council meeting, of a request to increase the budget for legal work by Hill Wallack, its regular law firm, and Stephen Barcan, a special attorney hired primarily to handle issues related to the issue of moving the Dinky terminus. “How did we exceed our legal budget with Hill Wallack by 40 percent this year?” Mr. Wilkes asked, referring to the request to raise the cap on the firm’s contract from $175,000 for 2012 to $245,000.

Council members were not clear as to whether the requests had to do with previous legal work, on issues related to the transition to consolidation, or were for work that has yet to be covered. Ultimately, the Council decided to put off acting on the two separate resolutions until the return of Borough Administrator Bob Bruschi, who was not present at the meeting.


Testimony on the rental community that developer AvalonBay is contracted to build at the former site of the University Medical Center continued on November 15 at a meeting of the Regional Planning Board. Postponements caused by Superstorm Sandy and a glitch in the recording equipment at the previous meeting, requiring some rehashing of testimony, slowed down the proceedings.

And time is of the essence. The Board has until December 15 to rule on the application, a deadline that AvalonBay senior vice president Ron Ladell has said will not be extended. Meetings on December 6, 10, and 13 will be devoted to further discussion of the proposed development, the Board decided at the packed gathering last week.

Many residents have expressed concerns about the environmental impact and design standards of the 280-unit development [see related stories on this page]. As described by Mr. Ladell and architect Jonathan Metz of the firm Perkins Eastman, the four-to-five story building is designed to have two courtyards, one of which is open to the public and the other which would be closed off for security reasons.

“We looked at the building as sitting in a garden,” said Mr. Metz. “One of our aims was to restore green space, to make the building interact with green space.”

Critics of the plan have said that it creates a gated community. At the previous meeting, Planner Marvin Reed said that original discussions about the site with the hospital administration provided for at least two parks to be part of the development. Mr. Ladell cited safety issues with the pool that is part of the design as a reason for making the second park private. “This is the only area the public isn’t allowed into,” he said.

Mr. Reed reiterated his point. “We had a lot of discussion about open space, where residents and neighbors would intermingle,” he said. After asking the architect to show the dimensions of the public courtyard — 96 by 110 feet — he said, “There seems to be a discrepancy between my imagination and the ordinance. I thought there would be more open space. Somehow what we thought was going to happen didn’t get codified.”

Asked by Planning Board vice-chair Gail Ullman how this development differs from others that AvalonBay has built across the country, Mr. Ladell said none have courtyards and this much open space. He added that the company has not previously had an opportunity to purchase a site with an existing parking garage, which this one has.

Mr. Metz described the apartment building as 48 feet at its highest point on one side, and 32.5 feet high on the other. “In every category of the bulk zone regulations, it exceeds or complies,” he said.

Princeton Citizens for Sustainable Neighborhoods (PCSN), which has its own attorney and environmental consultant, has many questions and concerns about the project and AvalonBay’s resistance to hiring an independent environmental consultant.

“AvalonBay has not followed its own consultant’s recommendation for a subsurface investigation of sewer discharges, including those from the old septic system, and PCSN strongly believes that this testing should be done,” said PCSN member Alexi Assmus in an email this week. “The only soil and groundwater testing that Avalon has performed is adjacent to the five underground tanks.”


August 1, 2012

To the Editor:

Why does AvalonBay oppose LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) for Princeton? LEED is a far more thorough certification program than Energy Star. It differentiates between better and poorer degrees of sustainability achieved by any project; Energy Star does not distinguish degrees. Further, the Energy Star program has been found deficient by the inspector general of the EPA and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Environment.

Ron Ladell, AvalonBay’s chief promoter at Borough Council and the Planning Board stated, “We don’t do LEED on stick-buildings.” Why such a blunt push-back on “stick-buildings” when AvalonBay’s corporate headquarters is certified LEED-Silver and its webpage devotes 13 pages to sustainability? One of the AvalonBay attorneys, Jeremy Lang, took a tough stand at the Planning Board (4/19/12) and stated, “We have successfully litigated against efforts to impose LEED certification standards.” At the same meeting, former Princeton Township mayor Bernie Miller asked Mr. Ladell “Is there anything to stop a developer from volunteering to seek LEED-certification?” The non response speaks volumes. Why such opposition to the environmental health of our community? Why such belligerence on a matter concerning the public good?

Princeton should not be stonewalled—especially on what will surely be the most massive building in town if constructed. New Jersey municipal land use law is 30 years out of date on environmental matters such as LEED and frowns on anything that is “cost-generative” for the developer with no consideration for the future health costs to be incurred by an entire population in consequence of unsustainable building practices. AvalonBay may hide behind outdated state law, but when they refuse to do better, they don’t look good. It is evident that their intentions are out of sync with Princeton, a state-certified Sustainable Municipality. Our public policy may be beyond Avalon Bay’s desire to comply.

AvalonBay’s intentions are outdated, counterproductive, and dangerous to Princeton’s municipal and environmental health. Any development must have an energy performance that is a minimum of 30 percent better than ASHRAE 90.1-2007 (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers) or be equivalent to IECC 2009 (International Energy Conservation Code) improved performance. We don’t need another development that is not LEED certified, another hotspot in our downtown, another massive development with flat roofs and no solar panels.

The Planning Board must do what it can to impose conditions and/or entice this reluctantly green, presently grey developer to do a better job. If Avalon Bay wants to build here, they must learn something about Princeton community values. The market-rate and affordable rental units Princeton needs should not be built by a developer who has little to no respect for Princeton values.

Benjamin R. Warren

Jefferson Road

July 25, 2012

To the Editor:

The Princeton Medical Center and developer AvalonBay (AB) can still salvage a deal that will damage the Princeton community.

It is doubtful that hospital leadership (or its president and CEO, Barry Rabner) directed AB’s attention to the 2006 Master Plan, which lays out an exciting vision for the civic rejuvenation of the site. The lapse is disturbing because Mr. Rabner himself, in countless meetings with the Borough’s Task Force, negotiated a housing density of 280 units to boost the property’s value — in exchange for which Mr. Rabner agreed to public open spaces and walkways crossing the site, a public plaza, LEED “to the extent practical,” and retail stores for the neighborhood’s economic health.

None of this appears in the site plan submitted by AB. A draft version was sharply criticized by the Site Plan Review Advisory Board for manifold violations of Borough code. Revisions show only perfunctory changes, one of which simply agrees to comply with fire code. AB stubbornly disallows public walkways crossing the site. The AB plan still proposes two conjoined monolithic squares: a gated community that wrecks the vision of a newly diversified community. The opening of the smaller block into a dead-end space for “quiet meditation” is a mockery of the code. The economic fallout for the Princeton community is unknown; if the Lawrenceville AB development is a model, renters will be slapped with a $500 annual maintenance fee in addition to rent. Other communities — no wonder — have rejected AB: Scripps Ranch in California, Greater Huntington (Long Island), and Highland Park, N.J.

Hospital leadership and AB should collaborate to do better. AB’s architectural firm, PerkinsEastman, has recently merged with EE&K, a creative group of architects who deliberately design “green” and generate solutions to foster healthy neighborhoods (see www.eekarchitects.com). Fully one-third of their staff are LEED-accredited architects; three of their recent buildings qualified for LEED-Gold certification; and The Aventiene (Gaithersburg, Md.), certified LEED for New Development, won a National AIA Design Excellence Award.

EE&K’s website states: “Our approach starts with an acute awareness of how residential buildings can both contribute to and benefit from the public realm.” This is exactly what is missing in the AB site-plan and in Mr. Ladell’s dismissive approach to Princeton communal needs. It is what Mr. Rabner supported while he negotiated for the hospital’s economic benefit — and now seems to have forgotten.

Why should Princeton settle for anything less than excellent design that does not violate Borough code?

The botch-up of the Princeton Master Plan and Borough code embodied in AB’s site plan application can be rectified by turning to EE&K now instead of courting conflict later. The hospital has a profound obligation to press its contract-purchaser to heed the dictates of that plan and code. Princeton residents are tired of hearing Mr. Ladell say what he won’t do — for example, “zero” LEED; we do not want affordable housing at the any price. Mr. Ladell should try not to smash the potential for neighborhood revitalization. The Master Plan lays out public policy: both parties should work, now, for the public good.

Daniel A. Harris

Dodds Lane

To the Editor:

Thank you for keeping residents up to date on major site planning now underway in the Princeton area. After hearing the recent presentation of AvalonBay at Princeton Borough Council, I would say that the developer is prepared to do a competent, responsible job of constructing 280 housing units on the Princeton Hospital site. It appears, however, that future residents will be comfortable — but contained.

What invites them to explore the Community Park School neighborhood nearby? To enjoy our wonderful new pool and excellent recreation program? To eat in the growing number of local restaurants there and share in programs at our outstanding Public Library — all within walking distance? This is a vibrant community. Why turn inward? At the same time, I have to ask myself, what would invite me into the proposed AvalonBay project? The touted wide-arch doorway on Witherspoon becomes narrow and leads to a distant cluster of benches, nothing more. I would feel that I was an intruder in a private space, which is clearly how residents under the current plan would view me. Why the expense of a private pool, with a first-class pool just a few blocks away? It doesn’t have to be this way.

We know how to design economically for livable space. I’ve seen urban buildings with a completely open network of wide sidewalks interspersed with playground equipment and benches for parents and passersby. Parents can keep an eye on the children from their apartments, yet both adults and children have a wonderful sense of freedom of movement, and of belonging. AvalonBay must of course have to pay attention to the lay of the land and project costs, as its architects have done. But planning also has to encompass a deeper feel for the surrounding community and the interactive possibilities. AvalonBay is being pushed by Princeton’s residents to put more effort — and more imagination — into its planning for the hospital site. The results could be AvalonBay’s finest — a real step-up for this builder. AvalonBay gains, and Princeton continues to be the kind of diverse and welcoming community that we know is possible.

Nancy Strong

Maple Street

To the Editor:

Other communities have rejected AvalonBay developments including Highland Park, New Jersey, and Huntington, Long Island. Princeton should do the same unless it can be assured that AvalonBay will be an asset to the community and not just an opportunistic developer that muscles its way in using affordable housing as its battering ram while building undesirable, huge structures that are not sustainable over the long haul. Their interests are relatively short term while Princeton will be left with the problem of poor site use for generations. Of particular interest are several recent letters to the editor of the Town Topics: “AvalonBay’s Closed Compound Impedes Connectivity between Our Neighborhoods” (6/6/12 ); “AvalonBay’s Revisions to Plans Still Do Not Comply with Borough Code (6/20/12); and “AvalonBay Should Build to LEED Standards” (6/25/12).

Why should Princeton settle for a less than desirable, sustainable development in a premier location once occupied by the hospital? Aside from its financial profits, AvalonBay will gain a lot from having the Princeton connection and will likely use the connection to attract other communities that may reason “If AvalonBay’s cookie-cutter design is good for Princeton, it must be good for us,” making assumptions that are inaccurate.

Princeton can do better and should. The Planning Board will have a heavy burden to justify approving this proposed development and it will need an astute planning staff to address the many issues raised over the past several months by the public for the benefit of the community. The Board must exhibit the mettle necessary to ensure the best design possible, one that adheres to the Princeton Master Plan and the promised compromise reached between the Hospital and the community that resulted in the MRRO zone. Our community cannot afford to be intimidated by the tenor of the June 11, 2012, letter written by AvalonBay’s local attorney Anne Studholme to Borough Attorney Chow and Planning Board Attorney Porter and included as part of AvalonBay’s Site Plan submission of June 8, 2012.

Diane Perna

Carnahan Place

May 2, 2012

At its public meeting tomorrow evening, May 3, Princeton Regional Planning Board will once again consider developer AvalonBay’s proposal to build a rental community at the Princeton Hospital site. A zoning ordinance put before Borough Council last week, which included concessions by the developer in response to concerns of neighborhood residents, has been sent back to the Planning Board. The ordinance is expected to come back before the Council for final approval on May 8.

At the Council’s meeting last Tuesday, AvalonBay senior vice president Ron Ladell withdrew the company’s request to increase the density of the complex by 44 units. But while some Council members expressed an interest in voting to approve the zoning that night, they took the advice of Assistant Borough Attorney Henry Chou and decided instead to reintroduce a revised zoning ordinance, which necessitates another look by the Planning Board. In addition to eliminating the density increase, the revised ordinance includes changes involving signage and a leasing office on site. By reintroducing, Mr. Chou said, the Borough avoids any potential legal challenges.

Mr. Ladell was hoping for approval that night. “This process has become way too complicated and it’s really not,” he said, adding that no one had issues with four of the seven items in question on the ordinance. “We are fully proposing to be in compliance. We will have 20 percent affordable units, including very low income, low income, and moderate income, and that is unprecedented in the state of New Jersey.”

Adding that AvalonBay would be happy to meet with a subcommittee about open space and any other issues in question, Mr. Ladell said time was of the essence. “We have to move quickly. The hospital is moving in less than a month,” he said. “It is asbestos-ridden and it is going to take some time to clean that up. To go back is a delay that is very, very difficult for us when we don’t even know that we can have a leasing office in this community.”

The University Medical Center at Princeton is moving May 22 to its new headquarters on Route 1 in Plainsboro. AvalonBay is under contract to purchase the site on Witherspoon Street. The company plans to demolish the existing building to make room for a newly constructed rental community of 280 units ranging from studios to three bedrooms.

AvalonBay originally wanted to add 44 units, which would add nine to the affordable housing component of the project while making it more profitable. The company’s concession to withdraw that request was not enough to placate those opposed to the developer’s plans. Environmental concerns over the company’s intention to use Energy Star rather than LEED green standards still figured in remarks by some members of the public at last week’s meeting.

Mr. Chou told Council that developers building affordable housing qualifying as COAH (Council on Affordable Housing) can not be forced to follow such standards.

Among those voicing support for much of AvalonBay’s plans was Kevin Walsh, an attorney with Fair Share Housing, which represents lower income New Jersey residents. “The 20 percent affordable is a good thing,” he said. “I regret that the developer has withdrawn the request for extra units. It would have resulted in more affordable housing in the community. But where do we go from here? I spend a lot of time fighting developers, but not here. This is a development that has gone above and beyond. For folks who want LEED, take your argument to Trenton.”

Resident Joe Barzilowski told Council he has concerns about trust. “They said they needed the extra units to make the project work, and now all of a sudden it is alright to go for 280 units,” he said. “Why didn’t they do that to begin with? I think we have been given clues about how much we should or shouldn’t trust the greedy corporation that wants to move into our town. I think we should learn from this experience and strengthen any ordinance that’s passed or proposed, even, so there’s little room for a developer’s interpretation. Because we want what we want, not what the developer wants and what they can benefit from.”

Also attending the meeting were several construction workers from the SEIU 32BJ union. Lisa McAllister, their spokesperson, told Council that AvalonBay contractors and subcontractors have violated OSHA safety standards on projects in Massachusetts and elsewhere. “AvalonBay is not the right developer for this project,” she said. In response, Mayor Yina Moore reminded Ms. McAllister that Borough Council’s purpose was not to select a developer, but to entertain a zoning change.

The Planning Board’s meeting will be held at the Township Municipal Complex tomorrow night, May 3, at 7:30 p.m.


April 25, 2012

Princeton Regional Planning Board concluded last week that developer AvalonBay’s request for increased density in the rental complex they hope to build at the site of the University Medical Center at Princeton conflicts with the master plan. Their 9-1 decision not to endorse the proposal was sent to Borough Council, which was to consider the zoning ordinance at its meeting last night, after press time.

The Planning Board’s vote came at the end of a four-hour meeting April 19, packed with residents of the neighborhood surrounding the hospital site. Most were opposed to AvalonBay’s request. While some welcomed developer Ron Ladell’s announcement, midway through the meeting, that the company was withdrawing its request for fewer affordable housing units in exchange for higher density, they still registered concerns.

“I am proud to announce that the request to reduce the affordable percentage from 20 to 17.3 percent is being withdrawn,” said Mr. Ladell, who is AvalonBay Communities’ senior vice president. “We are happy to provide 20 percent at the increased density of 324 units that will result in 65 affordable on-site units. This has never been done in Princeton. It would set a precedent both in Princeton and throughout the state.”

AvalonBay is under contract to buy the hospital site. They plan to demolish the seven-story building and build rental apartments. Market rate units, including studios to three-bedroom apartments, would have rents from $1,600 to $3,200 per month.

Resident Joe McGeady told the Board that the master plan’s provisions for retail, a playground, and other public areas should be retained and the zoning should not be changed. “A great opportunity is slipping through our hands,” he said. “The plan has minimum open space on Witherspoon. The town deserves better. I would hate to see us miss this chance and settle for the ordinary because an ordinance that is inconsistent with the master plan was allowed to pass through the planning board.”

Borough resident Alexi Assmus said the original number of 280 maximum units for the 5.6-acre hospital site, arrived at after numerous public meetings, was “a big compromise on the part of the neighborhood. The compromise was made in order to allow the hospital to sell the site for a higher price than if the rezoning had required a much smaller number of units. A smaller number of units would have been in keeping with the neighborhood character of single family houses.”

Raising the number of units after a contract has been signed “is bad business and is unfair to the community and to the numerous other potential buyers who are eager to redevelop the property,” Ms. Assmus added (see letter on page 10).

Some in the packed meeting room spoke in favor of the request. Borough Council President Barbara Trelstad said the extra density proposal was smart growth, serving working people who could otherwise not afford to live in Princeton. “The average home in Princeton costs $453,000. A down payment of $90,000 is significantly out of reach for most working class folks,” she said. Ms. Trelstad added that AvalonBay’s plan for usable front porches “puts eyes on the street.”

Also in favor was Sandra Persichetti, executive director of Princeton Community Housing. “Over 500 families are waiting for an affordable apartment,” she said, urging the Planning Board to take action. “We hope people learn from the past that endless conversation is not in anyone’s interest,” she said. “We do not want to see abandoned buildings and blight at the site. The project is acceptable to us as long as it is built in a timely fashion …. I urge you to think about those living in substandard conditions who don’t have a home to go to tonight.”

Grace Sinden, a founding member of Sustainable Princeton, said Princeton Borough should require or promote the idea that the developer adhere to the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design [LEED] standards rather than Energy Star, which AvalonBay prefers for this development. “Energy Star applies to household appliances and light bulbs,” she said. “Municipalities do not value it as highly as LEED.”

Representing the Site Plan Review Advisory Board [SPRAB], member Bill Wolfe cited concerns about the scope, style, and design standards for the complex. “SPRAB would prefer an open development, more in keeping with the neighborhood,” he said, adding that a possible compromise would be to make open space at the rental complex more accessible to the public. The “monolithic floor plans” could be broken down to vary story heights and lessen the mass, he said. “SPRAB believes LEED is applicable and should be recommended,” he said, adding that the Board is “emphatically opposed to the density bonus.”

Board member Bernie Miller said he had concerns about the lack of retail in AvalonBay’s plan. “It makes the development less inclusive,” he said. Mr. Miller also said that the figure of 280 was arrived at after careful negotiations with neighbors. “I have difficulty supporting a higher number even with the offer of providing a 20 percent affordable set-aside,” he said. “If we can’t invoke LEED standards, but perhaps if the developer stood up and said he would volunteer …. I wonder why he is not stepping forward and saying he will volunteer.”

The only member of the Board to vote in favor of the request was former Princeton Borough Mayor Mildred Trotman, who lives in the neighborhood of the proposed development. She said she had no problem with the increased density idea, and added that AvalonBay is exceeding open space standards as well as other issues. “The more I look at this, the more I think the impact on the community will be minimized compared to what is there now,” she said.

At the meeting, the Board did endorse some of the developer’s requested zoning changes including installing signs, adding a leasing office, allowing some loft apartments, and adjusting an internal lot line.

 

April 18, 2012

Controversial zoning changes proposed for AvalonBay, the developer of the apartment complex planned for the 5.6-acre site being vacated by the University Medical Center at Princeton, are on the agenda of tomorrow night’s public meeting of the Regional Planning Board. Following the Planning Board’s review, the zoning amendment will be sent back to Borough Council, which is expected to vote on it at a public hearing on April 24.

Currently under contract to purchase the hospital site on Witherspoon Street, AvalonBay wants zoning amended to allow for increased density of apartments to 324 units, up from the approved number of 280. But the developer does not want to increase the number of affordable housing units beyond the 56 that are already required. AvalonBay is not seeking to increase the allowable size of the complex, and is conforming to the height and setbacks originally established for the 280 units.

Weighing in on the issue this week, Councilman Kevin Wilkes, who is a candidate in the June 5 primary for the Democratic nomination for mayor, said he thinks AvalonBay should be allowed to add more units, but only if they include a 20 percent affordable housing threshold in their plans.

“The hospital is moving out in five weeks and we’ve discussed this eventuality for eight years,” Mr. Wilkes said in a printed statement. “Now the Princeton community is faced with the consequences of this departure. The first purchaser of the hospital main campus walked away from the deal they negotiated as local residential sales prices plummeted. When a new developer emerged, AvalonBay, they indicated they wanted to build new rental housing at the site and remove all but one of the existing institutional buildings on the site. They have put forth a proposal that is mostly in conformance with the zoning standards that we passed in 2006 for the redevelopment of the site except for two significant changes,” he said, referring to the request for more units and a reduction in affordable housing units.

Ronald S. Ladell, Senior Vice President of Development for AvalonBay, said this week that the company wants to build 324 units and 17.3 percent COAH -[Council on Affordable Housing] eligible units. “We’ve also offered nine additional workforce housing units, so they’re not COAH-eligible. And that’s what the ordinance says,” he said.

For the past several weeks, residents of the neighborhood surrounding the hospital have protested the increased density request as well as other aspects of AvalonBay’s proposal for the site. Many of them voiced their views at the April 10 meeting of Borough Council. More than 100 have signed an online petition opposing the plans.

Mr. Ladell said many of their claims are unfounded. Regarding comments about a lack of access to open space, he said the complex will have a park fronting it on Witherspoon Street. “We exceed the requirement for depth of open space into the site by over 100 percent.”

He also addressed complaints about the proposed complex’s “monolithic” appearance and uninspired architectural design. “Monolithic? Eyes of the beholder,” he said. “The entire streetscape is stoops and patios. The setbacks far exceed the requirements. There are three types of facade treatments. There are architectural elements. We’re eager to get to the point of talking about design standards, but we’re still at the ordinance point right now.”

To concerns that the rental complex will not adhere to the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design [LEED] rating system, using the system known as Energy Star instead, Mr. Ladell responded, “We’ve had great success with LEED in high-rises built in a non-combustible manner. But in New Jersey, nearly all of our communities are wood or stick-built, and Energy Star has been a tremendous success in sustainability and reducing the carbon footprint. We plan on using an environmentally sustainable program and our preference would be to use Energy Star.”

Mr. Ladell said assertions by neighborhood residents that the rental complex will house 1,000 people are “completely inaccurate.” He added that AvalonBay has submitted reports of a traffic study, concluding that the difference between having 280 and 324 units is one additional vehicle every three minutes during peak time. “That’s what we see the impact to be, which we view as not significant,” he said. “The increased density is very beneficial to the community in many ways, without any detriments.”

Touching on the issue of traffic volume in his statement, Mr. Wilkes said, “As long as the traffic studies indicate that the additional units will result in a negligible increase in traffic, we should support the variance for additional units but we should hold firm on our requirement for the 20 percent set aside of COAH marketable rental apartments.”

If AvalonBay were to conform to the 20 percent affordable housing standard, 65 new affordable rental apartments would be included in the complex. “Princeton can then elect to apply those 65 affordable apartments to its earlier affordable housing obligation under the state’s COAH, for which Princeton could potentially receive double bonus credits for a total of up to 130 credits,” Mr. Wilkes said. “Or, the town could apply those new units to COAH’s Third Round ‘growth share’ obligation, which would meet a very large percentage of that obligation.” Both scenarios represent “significant gains for our community and would be in line with Princeton’s longstanding tradition of progressive affordable housing policies.”

“Princeton has a long tradition of hospitality to the needs of those who rent and we should be accessible to those who are not sufficiently wealthy to be able to purchase in town,” he continued. “This community provided affordable housing to its residents long before other municipalities were talking about it. In addition, supporting our position requiring a 20 percent affordable share will embolden us to hold firm with future developers who come before us seeking to redevelop significant portions of our existing residential fabric with new replacement housing.”

Mr. Ladell said that no private developer has ever built 20 percent affordable housing, “or even 15 percent. Some have been as low as two percent affordable set aside.” His response to the 20 percent suggestion is that rental communities are only required to do 15 percent. “Our proposal is to exceed the 15 percent by nine units, then exceed it again by nine more for workforce housing, which is deed-restricted and income-limited for 30 years,” he said. “Some members of Borough Council are supportive of workforce housing. Five years ago when the ordinance was adopted, the governing bodies and staff wanted to write an option for workforce housing.”

The Planning Board meeting Thursday, April 19, will be held at the Municipal Building starting at 7:30 p.m.


April 4, 2012

To the Editor:

I was dismayed to see the draft site plans that AvalonBay has submitted for its proposed development on the present hospital site. The coldly forbidding four or five story façade in the architect’s plan includes no break or setback. It is one thing for a hospital whose first buildings were erected in 1919 to have grown to its present size, but another for a contemporary builder to introduce such unrelieved massiveness by design.

The Borough’s Zoning Code specifically states in Sec.17A-193B.a.6,8 (“Design Standards”): “Buildings should be designed to avoid a monolithic appearance”; “New construction should be concentrated in the central portion of the site and building setback should increase as building height increases.” Sec.17A-193.c.1,3: “Building façades should relate well in composition and scale to development in the area.” “Careful consideration should be given to the mass and bulk of any buildings to ensure they are harmonious with their surroundings …” The code stipulates that the “visual appearance” must “not be that of a continuous row of tall buildings … architectural design techniques should be incorporated which break up and mitigate the larger scale” of the building, with the aim of “minimizing the length of a single plane of a façade.”

AvalonBay has asked for a density bonus of 44 units beyond the 280 rental units permitted under current zoning (17A-358.a.4). If these 44 units were subtracted from the developer’s plan, which now reflects their inclusion, I can imagine a frontage of three stories, slightly set back, rising to four stories at the central part of the block or zone, in a way that would mitigate, as specified in the Borough’s Zoning Code, the negative effects of mass and height.

Few people question the need for additional rental space in Princeton, at both market-rate and affordable-housing rates; but providing this space should not come at the cost of uninspired architectural design and inconsistency with existing neighborhoods. Borough Council and the Planning Board should reject the bonus density that has led to poorly designed plans for the purpose of amassing many people within a single area. The developer should be advised by Borough Council (next meeting on April 10), the Site Plan Review Advisory Board, and the Planning Board (where a hearing on the enabling ordinance is scheduled for April 19) to revise its plans in accordance with the Borough code.

Suzanne Nash
Governors Lane

To the Editor:

For the current hospital site, any building permitted by Borough Ordinance 2012-05, as introduced, will result in a megablock. Such a monolith is specifically disapproved by Borough Code Sec. 17A-193B.a.6.

The draft ordinance should be withdrawn now — either that, or the Planning Board must vote against it to prevent folly: the ruin of the hospital neighborhood, the historic character of Princeton, and the diversity of our newly consolidated community.

I have read the proposed ordinance in light of the Borough Code, and have examined plans proposed by AvalonBay. Did Borough Council members really write this ordinance, or did they take dictation from AvalonBay?

When Borough Code was rewritten some years ago, in contemplation of the hospital’s eventual (now imminent) move, virtually all phrasing aimed to get any new construction back down into scale with the neighborhood (one- and two-story houses — rarely three, as incorrectly stated in Sec. 17A-193B.c.1). The text allows for “up to” 280 housing units but also wants those units to blend with the neighborhood. Some of many samples: residential “uses” (plural) means a variety of building types, not an Avalon monolith (Sec. 17A-193B.a.2. New construction should “help soften” its own presence (17A-193B.a.4). People should be able to walk through the site (17A-193B.d.1). Site plans must show “how the public and residents will circulate in and through the site” (17A-193B.e.3) — currently impossible according to AvalonBay’s design.

The Council ordinance disregards all these stipulations and their specific intent. If a code is not written to be honored, then what is its use?

With the increased density bonus it would permit, it allows for a completely closed, gated community (AvalonBay’s standard format). A closed “community” should be anathema to Princetonians, and to our officials who have vaunted so highly the values of diversity. Where will the contradictions and “inconsistencies” of judgment stop?

And what of signage for this gated community? The ordinance permits AvalonBay to turn Witherspoon Street into our local Route One: a facade sign can be ten feet square (the writers of the ordinance did not think in three dimensions); a free-standing sign (also ten feet square) “shall” (not even “may”!) jut out into open space within five feet of the sidewalk.

I do not want my Princeton to look like this. I also want our hospital, which has achieved such outstanding regional excellence, to take some responsibility for its choice of buyers, even in this tricky market.

Borough Council members should have the good sense to withdraw the draft ordinance. Additions to residential housing stock can be gotten without selling out Princeton downstream.

Joe McGeady
John Street

March 28, 2012

To the Editor,

Borough Council (BC) recently voted to introduce an ordinance that would give a density bonus to “any developer” who builds on the almost “old” Princeton Hospital site. AvalonBay (AB), a national builder of residential complexes (the likely developer), has requested a density bonus of 44 rental units that are NOT fully subject to the standard 20 percent set-aside for affordable housing. The ordinance, if passed, would allow AB to bypass affordable housing in the bonus units (44, in addition to the 280 units allowed under current zoning) by making a per-unit payment to Princeton Borough’s Affordable Housing Trust.

The ordinance tramples historical commitments to diversity of opportunity in the Princeton housing market, which are here diluted by substitute provisions for “workforce housing.” While most Council members voted for the ordinance to “get the ball rolling,” AB has seemingly won the first round against a full commitment to affordable housing. What has Borough Council gotten in exchange for this variance-by-means-of-ordinance? Nothing. Why has BC initiated rezoning without getting a quid-pro-quo?

AB has submitted a preliminary/final site plan (unexpectedly bypassing the “concept plan” phase) that is incompatible with neighborhood needs and concerns: a four- or five-story monolith fronting residential streets that have one- or two-story houses — without any setbacks. Residents are upset and disturbed. Environmentally, the plan shrugs off Princeton’s push towards sustainability; we are proud of our Bronze certification from Sustainable Jersey. For example, the roof could have solar panels or gardens — the plan shows neither. Nothing indicates high-performance measures for energy-conservation.

AB has apparently agreed (in writing?) to comply with Energy Star standards (less stringent than LEED). But why should a company that vaunts its LEED-Silver headquarters on its website (for 13 pages under the “Sustainability” link: go look!) be permitted to do anything less than LEED-Silver in Princeton? The Princeton Regional Master Plan in its most recent revisions gives high priority to the following: diversity in Princeton, maintaining the integrity of neighborhoods, “continuing to provide Princeton’s ‘fair share of affordable housing,’” satisfaction of LEED requirements (strongly recommended by the Princeton Environmental Commission) — all of these issues are at stake in Ordinance 2012-05. Borough Council should honor the master plan, now.

And Borough Council and the Planning Board should insist that AB seek LEED-certification at the Silver level. They must reject Ordinance 2012-05 as written and restore full commitment to 20 percent affordable housing, along with major provisions for sustainable building. If “any developer” disappears because it can’t get everything for nothing, so be it. Consolidated Princeton is not a town impoverished in resources, networking, or reputation. Another builder will appear, and in short order. Princeton Hospital, which owns the land, will soon find another buyer; it has no stake in paying taxes on land it will not use after May 2012.

Jane Buttars
Dodds Lane

March 7, 2012

Princeton Borough Council last week voted to approve a request by AvalonBay, the developer of the University Medical Center at Princeton’s soon-to-be-vacated site, for rezoning. With Jenny Crumiller casting the only dissenting vote, the Council weighed in 5-1 to recommend the proposal to the Planning Board.

Numerous residents of the hospital’s neighborhood were on hand to express their concerns about the rezoning, which would allow AvalonBay to have higher density and fewer affordable housing units in the rental community it is under contract to build on the site. The existing hospital building would be demolished as part of the plan. AvalonBay is set to take over the property after the UMCP moves to its new complex on Route 1 in Plainsboro May 22.

“Adding 44 units arbitrarily, just so the developer can make more money, seems like a breach with the community,” said Ms. Crumiller, who was applauded by residents in the audience. “We are ready for the developer, we want the developer to come in. We should stick to the 280 units. All they have to do is the site plan.”

Leighton Newlin, chairman of the Housing Authority of the Borough of Princeton (HABOP), also criticized the proposal. “We should not allow more units, 280 was what we agreed upon,” he said. “What are we losing? We are losing the opportunity to have low, low income housing so that we can preserve the cultural diversity of our community.”

An online petition opposing the zoning, at change.org, had 92 signatures as of Tuesday afternoon. Residents are concerned that the high density of the AvalonBay plan will change the character of the neighborhood and cause traffic congestion. The developer wants to put in 32 to 40 units per acre. Joe Bardzilowski, who organized the petition, said during the meeting that this density is higher than other AvalonBay rental communities.

Resident Peter Marks argued against giving AvalonBay bonus density, urging the Council to consider affordable single family housing as an alternative to the apartment complex. “This is probably the most valuable [land] in Mercer County,” he said. “Understand, please, that this is not the only alternative on the table.”

If passed by the Planning Board and then given final approval after being returned to Council, the plan would allow greater density without proportionally increasing the number of affordable housing units in the apartment complex. Current zoning allows 280 units, with 20 percent designated as affordable.

But AvalonBay wants to build 324 units, while lowering the percentage of affordable apartments from 20 to 17 percent. This would require rezoning. The Borough usually requires 20 percent affordable units in new complexes. AvalonBay has argued that the development would still have more affordable units than the industry standard of 15 percent.

The developer would build nine units as “workforce” housing, which could rent to households, possibly set aside for Princeton residents, with incomes between about $40,000 and $98,000. These rents would be less than the market rate units, which would range from $1,600 to $3,200 a month. Council members suggested including emergency and fire workers in this group.

Bret Rubin, a representative of AvalonBay, said the company will soon submit a full concept plan, including results of traffic studies and environmental impacts. The five members of Council who voted to recommend the company’s plan said they did so as a way to move the project forward and to consider the additional data AvalonBay submits to the Planning Board.