To the Editor:

As an architect and longtime resident who cares deeply about the quality of life in Princeton, I have questions concerning some of the underlying assumptions of the Master Plan, and I am deeply worried about the consequences of its adoption.

Its base assumption is the town should grow and densify well beyond the current pace of change that is already rapidly altering its fabric. Land Use Goals 2-5 essentially declare that the goals (implicitly our shared goals) for our town is for substantially higher residential density, greater economic development, and that we all agree and want to streamline the review and approval processes to allow the easier implementation of these changes. Are these base assumptions truly shared by most?

I am pro-change and pro-growth, but not comfortable with these assumptions as declared. Some of us choose to live in our neighborhoods partly because they are not so densely developed.

My greatest issue with the Master Plan is where it veers from providing a “vision plan,” to specifying and overlaying fundamentally new regulations governing land use that will change our town in ways we cannot fully predict.

As I think about the economics of this plan in my neighborhood, the realist in me worries it will result in many existing, normal-sized homes being torn down to make way for up to four units being developed and sold for well beyond the $800,000 price tag example cited for the Plan’s targeted “missing middle.”

This Plan creates yet another disincentive to investing in improvements of existing modest homes when owners know they can cash out, no inspection necessary, to speculators. Recognizing the lack of a real grocery or hardware store within a 15-minute walk of my neighborhood means, realistically, each unit will have up to two cars, because we live in central N.J., and delivery services can’t solve everything. Without details, I worry that to create this density, things like scale, daylight and mature trees will be sacrificed, and stormwater issues intensified. The details matter a lot.

A certainty is once this plan is adopted, even in draft form, it will be impossible to retract.

Many of us were expecting the creation of a Master Plan that was a vision document. Instead, with regard to land use, we are presented with a deeply impactful, legal and economic policy document about to be adopted with only a few days to consider its contents and consequences — and no vote or real voice to change it. I know that I am not alone in feeling surprised and deceived. A tragedy of trust.

Given its importance and impact, I urge a pause in its adoption and further community discussion to ensure that its base assumptions are truly shared by the majority of the town, and a deeper and more detailed understanding of its true consequences for land use development can be illustrated, known, and understood by all.

NICHOLAS GARRISON, FAIA
Ober Road