David Keddie of Princeton
I first started attending Westerly Road Church in 1997 as a freshman at Princeton University. At the church I found a community with whom to share my faith and bridge the gap between town and gown. Today I write to support Westerly’s effort to build a building sufficient to continue meeting the spiritual needs of the Princeton campus and community.
The current church building, prefabricated and brought in by train in 1957, has been grossly inadequate for years. In 2000 I led the junior high boys’ Sunday school class in a broom closet complete with massive wheeled trash can and mops. For more than a decade Westerly has struggled with a desperate shortage of space, not to mention dilapidated and energy-inefficient construction.
Our first effort to build adequate facilities took place over 10 years ago on our current five-acre site between Westerly and Mountain roads. At that time the zoning allowed for significant expansion on the property, but subsequent to our request to build, the zoning was reduced such that any expansion or reconstruction on the current property would be futile. A second effort, this time to relocate to Princeton Pike, was similarly prevented.
We are now in the middle of our third attempt to find adequate facilities within Princeton, and have under contract an eighteen-acre parcel on Bunn Drive, across the street from Goldman Sachs and next door to the Institute for Defense Analysis. The parcel, which was originally farmland, is zoned commercial with sewer access, and allows for the construction of a building adequate to the church’s need. We do not need, nor are we asking for, any variances. We have a letter of interpretation from the Department of Environmental Protection, and have certified that the site is not home to the Cooper’s Hawk. It is also important to note that the site does not affect runoff to Harry’s Brook.
However, we find our effort to relocate opposed by those who claim it lacks environmental sensitivity. The main thrust seems to be that the church ought to build at an even lower density than that already mandated by the zoning. I would respectfully submit that to call for such low-density construction in the name of environmentalism exacerbates the very sprawl it claims to oppose. The essence of environmentally-sensitive smart growth is to allow, not prohibit, the development of mixed-use neighborhoods with sufficient density to be walkable and make mass transit feasible. The borough is a prime example of this, with businesses, churches and schools blended with apartments and single-family homes, creating the beautiful town that we call home.
To seek extraordinary limits on the church’s ability to build on the site, above and beyond the low-density zoning already mandated, would only compel more sprawl.
David Keddie
Princeton
