Princeton Landing residents were sued by association to force them to move during repairs.
By: Emily Craighead
PLAINSBORO Seven Princeton Landing residents are claiming victory over the homeowners’ association that sued to force them to move out while construction teams remediated mold contamination.
On May 11, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Travis L. Francis denied the Forrestal Village Community Services Association an injunction that would have required the seven residents to vacate their Sayre Drive townhouses during construction.
Meanwhile, the association’s attorney, Richard Kennedy, has filed a motion asking the judge to reconsider his conclusion.
"The judge ruled the association did everything correctly," Mr. Kennedy said. "His conclusion doesn’t seem to be consistent with what his entire decision is."
In his conclusion, Judge Francis agreed the mold remediation was necessary and the association acted in good faith.
Princeton Landing is a 600-unit community on 94 acres of land east of Lake Carnegie in Plainsboro. Parcel 1, constructed between 1978 and 1979, contains 120 units, of which 24 are three- and four-bedroom townhouses and the rest are one- and two-bedroom condominiums.
Problems with the stucco led to water seeping in and causing defects in the stucco, windows and sheathing, and mold infestation. The problems were discovered when the rental apartments were converted into condominiums in 1987.
In 2002, the homeowner’s association reached a $2 million settlement with Landing Associates and Value Asset Management Co., the development’s previous management company, to help pay for the remediation.
According to court documents, engineers projected a total cost of $3.35 million, based on the units being vacant. The estimate excluded the cost of temporary off-site residence for unit owners. Residents were responsible for relocation costs during construction.
Court-appointed expert Michael McGuinness of R.K. Occupational and Environmental Analysis Inc. said the project could have been accomplished by using mini-containment areas, eliminating the need to relocate residents.
However, that is not how the project was originally engineered.
According to Mr. Kennedy, allowing the final seven residents to remain in their homes during remediation could lead to additional costs.
"You’d have to start from scratch," Mr. Kennedy said. "We’re not even sure we could accomplish it that way."
The seven residents targeted in the lawsuit have various reasons for not wanting to move out, said Jonathan Latimer, who is one of the seven and works from his home.
"I would prefer to stay here, because I work at home and I need my computer and my phones," Mr. Latimer said.
Stories he said he heard from other residents, who reportedly returned to blocked toilets, non-functioning electrical outlets and damaged phone lines, were not encouraging.
"We began to talk to people who moved out, and they began to tell us what they came back to, which in many cases was disaster," Mr. Latimer said.
Marjorie Behrens, regional property manager for Executive Property Management, said none of the other 96 residents who already moved back into their homes reported anything out of the ordinary.
"There have been, as with any construction, some scattered complaints," Ms. Behrens said.
Only a small part of the original project remains to be completed. That includes refinishing the exteriors of 15 of the 24 townhouses in Parcel 1.
"The real story to me is the 113 people that have been working through this through a lot of personal hardship," Ms. Behrens said.
Mr. Latimer said a June 15 meeting is scheduled between the seven homeowners who refused to move out and the homeowners’ association’s governing board.
"I hope we will sit down, neighbor to neighbor, and try to settle this," Mr. Latimer said. "We all want to get the project finished."
Mr. Kennedy said he expects a response to his request that the judge reconsider his conclusion by the end of the month.