By Anne Levin

At a meeting of Princeton Council on October 25, Councilmembers voted on whether to adopt an ordinance requested by the Hun School that would have rezoned two lots from an R-2 (residential) district to an E-2 (educational) district. Three Councilmembers voted in favor of the request. One voted against it, and two abstained. That meant they couldn’t come to a final decision.

Municipal Attorney Trishka Cecil asked for another day to research proper procedure in such a situation. She has since reached the conclusion that the ordinance was defeated, as she stated in a memo the day after the meeting.

“The outcome of the vote at the time was unclear: had the motion passed, had the motion been defeated, or had the vote resulted in a tie, making the mayor eligible to vote?” she wrote. “I have since had an opportunity to review the case law and governing statutes, and it is my conclusion that the ordinance was defeated.” 

The proposed change had been reviewed and endorsed by the Planning Board. The rezoning would allow academic support uses of the Mason House, which was formerly the headmaster’s home. The house had been recently used for academic support space to free up space for COVID-19 testing and an expanded infirmary during the pandemic.

Hun plans to build a new visual arts center, which would include studios, classrooms, galleries, and meeting space, as well as a new home for the Office of Institutional Advancement.

But several homeowners who live near the school spoke against the change, citing noise, traffic, and other issues.  Charlotte Friedman of Russell Road said the school’s ultimate aim was to expand. “This is not a case of improving or upgrading facilities. This is about adding a new facility,” she said.

Fellow Russell Road resident Arthur Eisenbach said his house is sandwiched between Hun’s new and old headmaster residences. “We are already dealing with traffic-clogging streets, music blasting from outdoor speakers, games and parties, speeding cars, and new buildings,” he said.

Neighbor Karen Prager said noisy construction projects “ have already consumed four of the 11 years I’ve lived there. My worry is that expansion is becoming unbridled expansion.”

Others accused Hun of seeking spot zoning rather than rezoning.

Attorney Richard Goldman, who represents the school, disagreed, and said the rezoning request was only for educational purposes. But he did not rule out future development on the campus.

Councilmembers Dwaine Williamson, Eve Niedergang, and Michelle Pirone Lambros voted in favor of the ordinance, while David Cohen voted against it. Mia Sacks and Leticia Fraga abstained.

Under the applicable case law, “the abstentions did not create a tie for the mayor to break,” wrote Cecil. “Abstentions are neither affirmative votes nor negative votes — they are not votes at all. Here then, the vote was 3 to 1 in favor of adoption — not a tie.

“Accordingly, the roll call on the ordinance should be recorded as three votes in favor of the motion to adopt, one vote against the motion to adopt, two abstentions, and no vote cast by the mayor. The result is that that ordinance failed to pass because less than a majority of the Councilmembers present voted in favor of adoption.”