To the Editor:

Three years ago, Princeton embarked on what the New York Times called “The A.D.U. Experiment” in an article of the same name dated December 10, 2021, which noted, “‘We really are the ‘guinea pig’ in the New York metro area,’ said Mia Sacks, a Princeton councilwoman and an advocate of the new ordinance.”

This experimental ordinance, passed by Princeton Council, allows an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to be added to many properties in town. The ADU could then be rented (or even sold separately). ADUs were promoted to address the “missing middle” as a price point. It allows homeowners to carve out part of their own home to rent or sell, giving them some financial security and allowing others who need lower cost housing to live here. The experiment feels too new to be declared a success or failure, but the referenced New York Times article describes a location in Princeton where a single-family home was apparently demolished and redeveloped for two homes, one declared an ADU. Was this an unintended loophole or part of the plan?

Our Planning Board is about to vote to approve a new Master Plan which will immediately set the stage for far greater density, up to 20 “units” per acre, to address the “missing middle,” now redefined as a housing type. Cities that have upzoned by creating this “missing middle” housing type have allowed developers and investors buy up properties with gorgeous 100-year-old trees, removing the residential tree canopy, lot-after-lot, to build huge multifamily rental buildings. Will this happen to our town? Why are developers so enthused to see Princeton’s new Master Plan approved? Residents need to understand the possible pitfalls of this proposed upzoning, and the Master Plan carefully updated with more detail, before a sea change is set in motion. How do we ensure the results are what’s desired, so loopholes are not created? Will we become open to lawsuits from developers? If a single-family home is destroyed by fire (under ordinance created in compliance with the new Master Plan) can it be rebuilt as single-family, or will a minimum of two homes be required in its place? What is the backout plan for this land use element should one be required?

Perhaps we should finish the ADU experiment and understand its long-term results before starting another experiment, one with far-reaching impact. There is no urgency to vote on the draft Master Plan this week when so many questions are left unanswered. Please plan to participate on the Planning Board Zoom call set for Thursday, November 30 at 7 p.m. and have your voices heard.

Karen O’Connell
Hibben Road