By Kristine Snodgrass, Staff Writer
WEST WINDSOR — Intercap Holdings, seeking approval of more housing on its property along Washington Road in the redevelopment area, has filed a new complaint against the township.
The 29-page document, filed Friday with the state Superior Court, replaces an earlier complaint withdrawn last month. The new complaint alleges among its eight counts that the township has not used smart growth principles, failed to address its affordable housing obligations, and that the redevelopment area zoning is unconstitutional.
The company owns a 25-acre property by the Princeton Junction Train Station that was designated as the transit village portion of the plan, with mixed-use commercial and residential development, including 350 housing units.
On April 21, a judge permitted Intercap Holdings to withdraw its earlier complaint in order to address the redevelopment plan, which was approved by council after the first complaint was filed in December, company CEO Steven Goldin said.
In March, the Township Council adopted the land-use ordinances that enacted the redevelopment plan in order to bring mixed-use development to the train station area, including about 500 housing units.
According to the first count of the complaint filed Friday, the zoning enacted by the plan is unconstitutional.
”In planning and exercising its zoning and land use control, the Township and Planning Board cannot act solely in furtherance of its municipal interests, but must act in furtherance of the general welfare of the people of the region and the state,” the complaint reads.
The complaint also alleges the plan discriminates against families with children, saying that in limiting the amount of housing in the plan the township’s “primary objective was to prohibit the influx of school age children within the township,” according to the document.
In addition, the complaint alleges that too much time elapsed between when the township designated the train station area as in need of redevelopment and the adoption of the plan nearly five years later.
The complaint goes on to allege that official notices of the public hearing on the redevelopment plan did not explain that there was a potential for condemnation of properties within the area, a violation of the redevelopment law, making the plan unlawful.
Township attorney Mike Herbert dismissed this count saying, “There’s no potential of eminent domain.”
He also objected to the complaint’s allegation that the density of housing in the plan is just over one unit per acre in the redevelopment area, pointing out that it did not mention the concentration of this housing on Intercap’s property.
”What they fail to point out is that the zoning allows the plaintiff himself to have 350 of the 487 units on his property,” he said.
And as with the previous complaint, Mr. Herbert said that the court does not have jurisdiction over matters related to the Council on Affordable Housing — only the council itself can decide on these matters.
The company also filed an objection with COAH to the township’s affordable housing plan in February. A second objection, by the Fair Share Housing Center, was filed in March.
COAH has reviewed both objections and deemed them compliant with regulations, and the township must submit responses to both by tomorrow, Wednesday, according to a letter from COAH to the township last month. Mediation will also be scheduled on the matter, according to the letter.
”From our perspective, we’re very pleased with both activities,” Mr. Goldin said.
Per instructions from the township, a response to the complaint will be filed promptly, along with a motion to dismiss it, Mr. Herbert said.
ksnodgrass@centraljersey.com
