‘Misinformation’ on Hillier housing

Wendy Ludlum of Princeton
    The documents and recent public hearings on the Hillier proposal to develop 170 condo units on the fragile Princeton Ridge are rife with contradictions and misinformation. Below are only four of the many obscurities in the presentations of the plans for the Ridge:
   1) Acreage to be destroyed by buildings or impervious cover: The amended ordinance confuses the number of acres under review. There are 17.75 acres on the north side of Bunn Drive and 3.13 on the south side of Bunn, a total of 20.88 acres. The 17.75 acre parcel is considered both with or without the 3.13 acres on the south side of Bunn Drive—here the math gets tricky. Under various scenarios in the ordinance’s provisions, Mr. Hillier would be able to erect buildings on 4.6 acres, or 0 -3 acres (i.e., less than zero acres?), or 4.98 acres, or .38 acres. Mr. Hillier himself said on November 12 that his buildings would cover 30 percent of the northern tract; on November 26, 26 percent and on December 3, 9.6 percent.
   2) Cost of the market-rate units: The newspapers have reported the market-rate units will cost about $400,000. Karen Flicker pointed out in a recent letter that the units must cost between $575,000 and $650,000. These condos will be extremely costly to build—-the site requires much work to break through the ridge’s geology. To describe this project as “elderly housing” is nonsense; these condos will be far out of reach for some seniors whose middle class pocketbooks require “affordable housing”.
   3) Market-value of Mr. Hillier’s design services: On December 3, 2007, within the space of two hours, the value of Mr. Hillier’s services was publicly stated to be both $150,000 and $225,000 for the affordable housing units on the south side of Bunn Drive. The public has a stake in knowing the fiscal health of the Township; the Township Committee must delineate a true and accurate figure.
   4) Tree height in relation to buildings: At Mr. Hillier’s initial presentation on November 12, 2007, he showed a conceptual drawing with maximum building height of 54 feet as the exact equivalent of the average of surrounding trees. On November 26, 2007, the height of surrounding trees had grown to 150 feet and by December 3, when questioned by Professor Lincoln Hollister of Princeton University, the building height was down to 120 feet. With such a range of figures, constantly changing, how can Princeton citizens really know what to believe?
   Despite the scientific evidence of the ridge’s fragile environment and the rejection of an admonition from the township’s environmental advisory committee regarding the poor suitability of this site for any development, intelligence and knowledge and science are ignored by the Township Committee.
   Clarity and precision are critical lest the rtownship be exposed to a lawsuit. Will Princeton Township’s governing body come clean?
Wendy Ludlum
South Harrison Street
Princeton