By Anne Levin

Members of the Princeton Coalition for Responsible Development (PCRD) have filed a lawsuit in Mercer County Superior Court challenging the Princeton Planning Board’s recent approval of the Community Master Plan. The PCRD filed the lawsuit, identifying the municipality, Planning Board, and Mayor Mark Freda as defendants, on January 16.

Started by residents of the neighborhood bordering Princeton Theological Seminary when buildings on the campus were demolished and a multi-family development was proposed, the PCRD is described on its website as “a nonprofit organization that was formed to advocate for and enable a more effective and collaborative approach to land use development and redevelopment in Princeton.”

The group has been especially vocal about the Seminary development, and most recently about the new Master Plan, which was approved on November 30, 2023. Required by law, a Master Plan establishes a kind of road map to guide a municipality’s future growth and development. The Princeton Master Plan was last reviewed in 2018.

The PCRD is represented by land use attorney Robert F. Simon. The lawsuit says that “the assumptions and resulting principles and policies, having insufficient technical basis, fail to guide the use of lands in a manner that protects the public health and safety and promotes general welfare, and fails to include all required components, contrary to the requirements of the MLUL (New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law).”

Further, the 32-page complaint “challenges the specific recommendations set forth in the 2023 Master Plan and Reexamination Report related to certain properties within the AINR (Area in Need of Redevelopment) Study Area, as well as surrounding properties, as there is no technical basis in support of the departure from the recommendations set forth in prior Master Plan documents, which departure improvidently paves the way for the possible adoption of a redevelopment plan for the AINR Study Area that will be markedly out of character with its surrounding area.”

Referring to the transparency of the process, the suit charges that the Planning Board intended to pass the Master

Plan “regardless of any public comments or objections received at the November 9 public hearing. The ‘public input’ prior to the release of the draft 2023 Master Plan and Reexamination Report is laughable given the general nature of the surveys released, the ‘listening sessions’ that took place after the draft was mostly complete but not yet released to the public, and the short time period for public digestion of the 270+ page draft.”

The suit says that after nearly three dozen members of the public commented on the draft Master Plan, “Board members appeared to be disengaged, tired, or otherwise distracted throughout the course of the meeting, including one Board member who appeared to be texting for most of the meeting.”

Further, the suit alleges that insufficient notice was given to the public about meetings of the Master Plan Steering Committee, and the minutes of those meetings were not published. The plaintiffs also challenge the Planning Board’s predetermination of a date to adopt the Master Plan without enough public input, saying it goes against the law.

Members of the Planning Board could not be reached for comment. Justin Lesko, the town’s planning director, said he could not comment at this time.

Jo Butler, a former member of Council and a member of the PCRD, said, “Litigation is always a last resort, so we regret this is where we find ourselves. We think the complaint speaks for itself. All of this could possibly have been avoided if a vote on the Master Plan was deferred pending necessary revisions to ensure that established and historic neighborhoods were adequately protected from otherwise inevitable adverse impacts.”