Township holds off on senior housing amendments affecting ridge site

By Nick Norlen, Staff Writer
   Princeton Township Committee members seeking further amendments again voted to table an ordinance that could pave the way for a senior housing development on the Princeton Ridge, but not before architect and developer J. Robert Hillier — who proposed the plan — said time could be running out on the project.
   A township resident also announced at the meeting that a group opposed to the plan has retained legal counsel in its effort to block development on the ridge.
   The ordinance amendments were first discussed after an August pitch by Mr. 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 abandoned K. Hovnanian project that still has approval.
   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.
   He said Monday that he has done everything he could to offer concessions for the ordinance to the township.
   ”And you said, ‘Well, maybe there’s a little more to do.’ You want to know something? There isn’t much time left to do it,” he said. “I’m not threatening. I’m just concerned that it’s going to go on and on.”
   Those statements prompted a passionate response from Committeeman Chad Goerner.
   ”Mr. Hillier, I will never — representing the township and the community at large — listen to a developer say that they did everything that they could,” he said. “I think we were moving in the right direction with this ordinance, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to rush it through and vote on it tonight because it’s not the way you want it to be.”
   But delaying the ordinance to tweak it “doesn’t mean that this goes on forever,” he added, “because I do think we owe it to everyone in the community to bring it to a conclusion.”
   The ordinance was previously tabled during the committee’s Nov. 26 meeting after Mr. Goerner suggested changes in the affordable housing and density requirements and Deputy Mayor Bernard Miller urged the inclusion of a preference for township residents.
   Amendments proposed Nov. 26 included the change in the age requirement from 62-and-over to 55-and-over for all residents, the exclusion of affordable-housing units from the permitted density of the site, the reduction of the maximum impervious coverage from 40 percent to 30 percent, an increase in height limits, and a requirement for the developer to make all units handicapped-adaptable and to donate three acres across the street for the development of future affordable housing.
   Additions announced Monday included an increase in the inclusion of moderate-income units from 12 to 24, an increase in the amount of the tract devoted to common open space from 40 percent to 60 percent, and provisions for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards certification and for a preference for township residents.
   Opponents at the meeting Monday reiterated their arguments that the project would have an unacceptable adverse environmental impact and would not truly meet the township’s need for senior housing.
   But advocates said the ridge provides the township’s last chance to fill the long-stated need for senior housing.
   ”The positives and limited alternatives make this a … winning solution for seniors,” said township resident Roz Denard, a former member of the Township Committee.
   However, Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association Executive Director Jim Waltman said his organization is still pursuing private funding to potentially purchase the land for preservation.
   William Lowe, who owns the tract with his wife, Laura Lowe, has said offers would be considered, but that they would have to be comparable to what Mr. Hillier would pay for the site.
   During the meeting, township resident Daniel Harris said he and six other residents have formed the Save Princeton Ridge Campaign and have retained attorney William Potter to help in their effort to block the development.
   Later, Mr. Harris read a memorandum of law from Mr. Potter indicating the group’s stance that the ordinance would constitute “spot zoning.”
   But Township Attorney Ed Schmierer said labeling the amendments as spot zoning is “ludicrous” because the ordinance has been in place since 2001.
   Mr. Harris said Thursday that the court rulings cited in the memorandum could provide the foundation for a lawsuit “were those extreme moves to become necessary.”
   He added, “Of course, everyone hopes we are not going in that direction of confrontation.”
   Although Mr. Hillier agreed to increase the LEED certification to the “silver” level after the public comment session, Mr. Goerner suggested the committee should pursue further revisions.
   ”I think we’re moving in the right direction, but I don’t think we’re there yet,” he said.
   Though Township Committeeman Lance Liverman credited Mr. Hillier with being flexible, he said he was concerned that the ordinance amendments included the proposed contribution of design services for a project — affordable housing on the three-acre tract across the street — that he said might not happen.
   And Deputy Mayor Miller said the provisions for the marketing of the units to Princeton residents should be more narrowly defined.
   However, Township Committeewoman Victoria Bergman said the amendments provided a number of benefits not included in the existing ordinance, and said she is afraid her fellow committee members may be “making the best the enemy of the good.”
   Nevertheless, the committee voted 3-2 to table the introduction of the ordinance, with Mayor Marchand and Ms. Bergman dissenting.
   Although the ordinance introduction won’t be considered until after Jan. 1, committee members indicated the subject would be discussed at their next meeting, Dec. 17.