Princeton Ridge issues delay 55-plus proposal

Proposed ordinance tabled after discussion

By Nick Norlen Staff Writer
   With some members calling for patience and others indicating a sense of urgency, the Princeton Township Committee ultimately decided Monday to table the ordinance that could pave the way for a senior housing development on the Princeton Ridge.
   The ordinance will be discussed again at the committee’s Dec. 3 meeting, but not before amendments are made to address issues — raised by Committeeman Chad Goerner and Deputy Mayor Bernard Miller — including changes in the affordable housing and density requirements and a preference for township residents as tenants.
   Mr. Goerner also urged the committee to wait, although not indefinitely, to see if the site could potentially be preserved through a private purchase — a possibility raised by Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association Executive Director Jim Waltman on Monday.
   According to Regional Planning Director Lee Solow, the ordinance discussed Monday was drafted to “advance three public purposes” — providing senior housing, affordable housing for seniors and families, and amending the ordinance to “provide better environmental protection for the site.”
   The call for such an ordinance came after an August pitch by architect and developer J. Robert Hillier for an approximately 160-unit age-restricted housing project on the Bunn Drive senior overlay zone, which would cover much less land than the K. Hovnanian project that was abandoned in 2005.
   However, Mr. Hillier has said the project would only be economically feasible if the age restriction on the site — known as the Lowe tract, after its owners — was lowered from 62-and-over to 55-and-over.
   Along with the lowering of the age restriction — to 55-and-over for all residents — the ordinance discussed Monday would exclude affordable housing units from the permitted density of the site, which is seven units per acre under the current zoning.
   The developer would be required to incorporate 12 one-bedroom moderate-income affordable housing units into the project, to donate three acres across the street from the main campus to the township for future development of affordable housing — as well as engineering and design services for the development — and to enlarge the detention basin that currently services Princeton Community Village.
   The ordinance, which would retain the requirement for 40 percent of common open space, would also require 8.5 acres of the approximately 20-acre tract to remain in an undisturbed state.
   In addition, the maximum impervious coverage would be reduced from 40 percent to 30 percent.
   The developer would be granted an increase in height limits — from 45 feet to 54 feet — which would allow buildings to be four stories, but would be required to incorporate Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards and to make all units handicapped-adaptable.
   And under the developer’s agreement, a contribution would also be made to the affordable housing trust fund.
   According to Mr. Solow, the proposed project would entail 146 market-rate units and 12 moderate-income units, with the potential for between nine and 13 affordable housing units to be constructed by the township across the street.
   He said the added building heights would be allowed because they would result in less blasting and rock removal at the site.
   But while some residents said the requirements simply weren’t stringent enough, others continued to voice opposition for development of any kind on the ridge.
   Since the project was proposed, opponents — including members of the Princeton Environmental Commission — have cited concerns about the potential environmental impact on the ridge while stating that the project will not truly meet the township’s need for senior housing.
   On Monday, township resident Casey Lambert said the committee should hold off on the ordinance until a study is done to assess the township’s current senior housing needs.
   ”What does senior housing mean in Princeton? What should it look like? Who wants it?” she said. “And, of course, where should it be?”
   She added, “Creating club-like, age-restricted enclaves in isolated places is the last thing we should be talking about.”
   Nevertheless, Mayor Phyllis Marchand said there are “absolutely no market-rate units for seniors,” in Princeton, and noted her belief that the ridge provides “the most appropriate site.”
   Moreover, Mr. Hillier said his project would take into account the environmental concerns.
   ”There are mitigating things that you can do that can make this an even better environment,” he said, stating that the enlargement of the drainage basin will result in less runoff in the area. “We’re trying to balance the environmental against the social needs of affordable housing and senior housing.”
   But Mr. Waltman said that the “fragmentation of the forest habitat” would greatly impact the site, including the number of threatened and endangered species that inhabit the area.
   For that reason, he said the Open Space Institute — an agency that makes low-interest bridge loans to organizations looking to preserve land — has indicated interest in providing such a loan for the preservation of the ridge.
   Along with looking at the environmental values of attractive land and the threat to that land, OSI also reviews the potential for raising funds to secure such properties, he said.
   ”The question is what’s the potential to raise the funds here and what’s the inclination of the owners to sell,” he said.
   Although William Lowe, who owns the tract with his wife, Laura Lowe, said any preservation offer would have to be comparable to what Mr. Hillier would pay for the site, he said “all options are open.”
   During the meeting, Mr. Goerner said the committee should consider that option — but not within “an indefinite time frame.”
   He said opponents of development should keep in mind that the site is already zoned for development, and said that Mr. Hillier’s plan is a “night and day” improvement over the previous Hovnanian plan.
   Committeeman Lance Liverman and Committeewoman Victoria Bergman agreed.
   Nevertheless, Mr. Goerner said the ordinance should be “tweaked.”
   Township Administrator Jim Pascale said the situation is unique because the township is not operating independently.
   ”This is truly negotiations with a developer,” he said.
   Mayor Marchand said township staff will work with representatives of Mr. Hillier to make changes to the ordinance in time for the Dec. 3 meeting — and indicated a sense of urgency to get it on the books.
   Though Mr. Goerner said Tuesday that he doesn’t feel that urgency, he said other members may be concerned that Mr. Hillier will abandon his proposal if too much time passes.
   The Dec. 3 meeting is likely the committee’s last chance to introduce the ordinance with enough time for a necessary Planning Board review before it would come back to the committee for a final vote on Dec. 17.
   If the ordinance is not adopted before Jan. 1, it will have to be re-introduced in the new year.