By Philip Sean Curran, Staff Writer
Princeton will use the power of municipal zoning to respond to the public’s concerns that homes are being torn down and the replacement residences are so big as to be out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood.
In the wake of community meetings and working with a consultant, the town decided to add new regulations amid fears that the character of Princeton was changing. The municipality crafted new rules to address those concerns, even though one official said it seemed the town was trying to legislate “taste.”
The first step occurred Monday when the Council voted to create new standards for one and two-family homes, despite some confusion by town officials about what they were considering doing. In an ordinance Council adopted 5-1, the town will count cathedral ceilings toward the total amount of space, known as the floor area, that builders are permitted to construct to.
Councilwoman Jo S. Butler said, in a phone interview Wednesday, that builders had been able to enlarge the footprint of homes at very little cost by installing such ceiling types. But that was not the only step the Council took.
In the older neighborhoods of Princeton, much or most of the housing stock was built before zoning regulations were put in place. So when builders come in, they have to meet front yard set-back rules that did not apply to the existing housing stock on the street where they intend to construct new residences. In the former township sections of the Witherspoon-Jackson neighborhood, this was most evident; new homes are built farther back from the sidewalk compared to neighboring residences–creating a visual oddity that the public complained about.
To fix that, the town borrowed a standard that had been in place in the former borough. Builders now will have the option of using a “mean prevailing setback,” so that front setbacks of new homes can be like the older ones around them, allowing for a few feet of deviation, without residents needing to go through the cost and time of seeking a variance.
New regulations also will encourage homebuilders to install porches, but the council held off a new mandate on where garages are allowed to be built. Concerned about the aesthetics of garages being too prominent, the town was going to require that they be built flush to the front facade or setback of a home. But officials agreed to take another look at that idea starting in January, even as they said Monday’s actions are just part one of what officials intend to do to address the problems residents complain of.
“This is the beginning,” said town planning director Lee O. Solow at the meeting.
In a presentation to the governing body, he showed how homes across the country have grown, from an average of 1,600 square feet in 1973 to an average of little more than 2,600 square feet in 2014. But residents have been concerned about the tear down phenomenon locally, in which a home is bought, razed and a larger one is built in its place.
In the span from 2005 to 2015, there were around 215 demolitions in town, mostly concentrated in neighborhoods with lots sizes of half an acre or smaller, Mr. Solow showed.
Mayor Liz Lempert said Wednesday that on one hand, Princeton has a “fairly robust” affordable housing program. But she raised concerns for the overall diversity of the town when a developer buys a home worth $500,000 to $700,000, demolishes it and then builds a new home for more than $1 million.
That tear down phenomena contributes to what Mayor Lempert called the “missing middle” in the housing market – the in between of affordable and high end housing. She said the town wants to understand the incentives behind why developers do that and the impacts that has on the overall housing market.
Residents at Monday’s meeting backed the new ordinance, although local architect Josh Zinder faulted Council for taking a “short-sighted” approach and using a one-size-fits-all remedy rather than going neighborhood by neighborhood.
“I’m afraid that we are trying to legislate taste, which is impossible,” said Ms. Butler, who joined the rest of council, except for Councilman Bernard P. Miller in voting for the ordinance.
