By Anne Levin

Princeton Planning Board’s unanimous vote last week to approve the municipal Master Plan came after more than five hours of public testimony, mostly from residents who urged the board to delay voting until more research and public discussion.

But the board, which presented the plan after more than a year and a half of work including open house events, surveys, interviews, and special listening sessions, opted to proceed. More than 225 people attended the Zoom meeting, which was the second of two public hearings on the issue. The November 30 hearing was scheduled because time ran out before all of those signed up at the first one on November 9 had a chance to comment.

The meeting began with a presentation by the town’s planning director Justin Lesko, outlining some tweaks based on meetings with Historic Preservation Commission and historian Clifford Zink. Lesko also said he had met with residents from Battle Road, Ober Road, and Newlin Road to address concerns about proposed density.

“We’re not calling for a major change in density,” he said. “I think we caused some of the confusion by labelling for lot rather than for acre. We’re not advocating for an increase in units on each lot. The plan does not advocate upzoning.”

That being said, he continued, there are places throughout the country that are doing that. “So this does happen in places, but in this plan it does not. It does recommend up front that growth is happening in Princeton as we speak. We are growing and need to coordinate that growth intelligently.”

Among those expressing doubts about the plan was Bank Street resident Chip Crider, who also spoke about it at the most recent Princeton Council meeting. “I’m concerned about what’s not been considered in the plan,” he said, referring specifically to service zones. He suggested the document limit the type of uses in the service zones, “so we actually get service.”

Nicholas Garrison, an architect who lives on Ober Road, said the public was not given enough time to review and comment on the plan. “My biggest concern is about land use, specifically about accelerating growth,” he said. “We already have

the developments at the shopping center and Princeton University on the books, and they will have huge impacts…. I’m sincerely asking you to explain the vision better. Help me understand how my modest home and others like it will not become more endangered and disappear.”

Dale Meade of Oakland Street said that his neighborhood, where he has lived for 51 years, is targeted for infill. Princeton Council’s 2020 decision to allow accessory dwelling units (ADU) on local properties “has not generated the desired lower income housing or place for retirees to get some extra income,” he said. “Instead, it has encouraged the destruction of low-to-medium housing costs in this area. Across the street from me, a huge three-story house was built with a 1,700-square-foot ADU. My concern is in the plans being put forward — the unintended consequences of these changes you have made. I’m worried it’s going to be gangbusters for the developers.”

In between the two public hearings last month, a petition signed by nearly 1,000 residents asked the board to hold off on the plan. A FAQ explaining points of the plan written by Planning Board Chairwoman Louise Wilson, an open letter from the Princeton Board of Education saying leaders of the School District were not given enough opportunity to provide input on the plan, and a letter from Wilson in response were part of the back-and-forth in recent weeks.

Resident Chris Sturm voiced support for the plan, citing the development of Hinds Plaza as an example of “how much people were freaked out about it,” she said. “But it has turned into a center that everyone loves.”

After the last member of the public commented at the November 30 hearing, members of the Planning Board issued comments of their own. David Cohen, who is also a member of Council, said change is inevitable, “and if we don’t plan for the change we want, we get the change we don’t want. “I’ve seen exactly this happening and lamented over the 36 years I have lived in Princeton.”

The demolition of modest homes on properties where pricey McMansions are built in their place has caused skyrocketing housing prices “and an inexorable trend towards becoming a golden ghetto, already unaffordable to all but the top five percent and the lucky few who qualify for subsidized affordable housing,” he said.

Cohen added that his support for the plan is from “a deeply conservative place.” When he first moved to Princeton, he appreciated the diversity in generations and income. He misses the days when members of the police force, teachers, and others who served the town could afford to live here. He is not surprised to have encountered resistance to the plan.

“Princeton is not alone in facing the challenges we face, and we are not reinventing the wheel with the proposed changes to the Master Plan,” he said. “The recommendations reflect tested and true development patterns already common in some of the nicest neighborhoods, and they fall squarely within the bounds of best practices espoused by the vast majority in the planning profession, and being adopted by similar communities across the country.”

Board member Phillip Chao said he was in favor of the plan because of the focus on the environment. Earlier in the meeting, board member Zenon Tech-Czarny read a letter from the Princeton Environmental Commission supporting the plan.

Board member and Council President Mia Sacks commented that the plan does not affect neighborhoods where some residents have expressed concerns — specifically the Western Section, the Riverside neighborhood, and the neighborhood near the Institute for Advanced Study. “I served on the land use committee, and my understanding of the plan and what we decided in that committee was that there was no impact of this plan whatsoever to the neighborhoods,” she said. “And when this plan passes, it will make no difference.”

Sacks said the plan emphasizes “sustainability, equity, economic vitality, and environmental responsibility, which are what I believe to be the core values of this town’s residents, and of this Planning Board and governing body.”