By Nick Norlen, Staff Writer
As promised, the group that opposed the zoning change that could pave the way for a senior housing development on the Princeton Ridge has filed a lawsuit against the Township Committee alleging “spot zoning” and other claims in its effort to preserve the ridge by having the amendments overturned and the zone itself rescinded.
Filed in Mercer County Superior Court on March 17 by the nonprofit group People for Princeton Ridge Inc., the lawsuit stems from the committee’s January decision to amend the Bunn Drive senior housing overlay zone by changing the age restriction from 62-and-over to 55-and-over, among other revisions.
At the time, officials said the change was made to promote the development of senior housing, which they and other advocates said has been an unfilled need in the township for many years.
But during the process, residents opposed to the change said that encouraging development on the ridge — which they repeatedly called “environmentally sensitive” — is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Community Master Plan.
Originally, the process to amend the zoning was initiated after a request to change the age restriction was made in August by architect and developer J. Robert Hillier, who said it was necessary for the senior housing development he proposed for the site.
In the months that followed, the effort to amend the conditions of building in the overlay zone spurred opponents to gather signatures for a petition and to threaten to sue the township if it followed through with the zoning change.
Although the ordinance was drafted, according to Township Committee, to apply to any developer looking to build on the ridge — and not just Mr. Hillier — he said after the decision that he indeed planned to submit a formal application for the project within three months.
In its complaint document, The People for Princeton Ridge, led by township resident Daniel Harris, allege that “the precise terms of the Ordinance are the product of numerous meetings, discussions, and negotiations with and among the elected officials of Princeton Township and staff with J. Robert Hillier and his legal representatives.
”The express purpose and intent of these numerous meetings, discussions and negotiations was to persuade the Township Committee members to devise and agree upon various amendments to the existing RSC zoning ordinance which would be acceptable to the development plans and objectives of Mr. Hillier and his development company,” the document states. “The Mayor and Committee of the Township of Princeton voted to change the threshold age limitation from 62 to 55 at the express ‘lobbying’ request of Mr. Hillier, and to make other zoning changes in negotiations with and at the express request of Mr. Hillier.
”Therefore,” the complaint reads, “the court must determine and declare that the rezoning of the Princeton Ridge is for the private benefit of a developer, is contrary to the Master Plan, and is, therefore, illegal ‘spot zoning.’”
Township Attorney Ed Schmierer said it was the hope that opponents of the zoning change would eventually see it as a “fair balance between senior housing and protecting the development.”
He added, “Obviously we’re disappointed that the lawsuit has been filed It doesn’t raise any new or different issues than those that were debated during the eight public meetings.”
Meanwhile, a developer could move forward with a plan under the current zoning, Mr. Schmierer said.
”Whether or not a potential developer would be interested in doing that, I don’t know,” he said.
Mr. Harris said in an e-mail statement that the group is “prepared to follow the lawsuit to conclusion,” but “nevertheless hopes that a protracted lawsuit can be avoided and that all parties will seek a mutually acceptable resolution.”
The group’s attorney, William Potter, said “the preferred outcome is to protect the ridge.”
”That can happen through judicial pronouncements. It can also happen if there was some appropriate settlement,” he said. “This is the opening statement. We look forward to dialogue with the township. Of course, now, there is a lawsuit that we think has merit.”
