By Anne Levin

Having listened to comments from some 80 residents — half at a public hearing on November 9, half at a second hearing on Thursday night — the Princeton Planning Board voted unanimously 9-0 to approve the municipal Master Plan that was first presented to the public last month. Last night’s Zoom meeting, which lasted nearly five and a half hours, was attended by more than 230 people.

While many urged the Planning Board to hold off on voting, some members of the public spoke in favor of approving the plan.

The document has been the subject of controversy in recent weeks. In the past few days, there was a petition signed by nearly 1,000 residents asking the board to hold off on a vote, a FAQ explaining points of the plan written by Planning Board Chairwoman Louise Wilson, an open letter from the Princeton Board of Education (BOE) saying leaders of the School District were not given enough opportunity to provide input, and a letter from Wilson in response.

Board of Education President Dafna Kendal read the BOE’s November 28 letter, which was addressed to Princeton Council and the Planning Board, at the meeting. In addition to stating the BOE was not sufficiently consulted in the crafting of the plan, the letter addresses the payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreements with developers of three apartment complexes going up in town. The schools do not receive funds from any of these PILOTs. Wilson read the letter that she wrote in response to these concerns.

After the last member of the public delivered a comment last night, members of the board issued comments of their own. Board member and Princeton Councilman David Cohen said “Change is hard, and people would rather pretend that it is possible to keep Princeton just the way it is. Unfortunately, people are also conflating this plan update with large, new multifamily developments currently going up in town. These developments are part of our court-mandated affordable housing settlement and are completely independent of and unaffected by the Master Plan revisions. They should not influence our deliberations.”

Cohen also pointed out that none of the people who urged the board to delay the vote offered alternative solutions.

Board member Nat Bottigheimer agreed. “It [the plan] seems like such a reasonable, fact-based, problem-based document,” he said. “If you can’t respond to that with suggestions, I mean, I just don’t know what this conversation is about.”

Some members of the Shade Tree Commission expressed concerns about open space in areas that are densely developed.  Planning Board Vice Chair Tim Quinn asked if it would be possible to require developers to contribute to an open space fund in order to provide green space near urban areas. Planning Director Justin Lesko responded that he had asked the town’s attorney, who said it would not be permitted.

Board member Jack Taylor had compliments for those who worked on the plan, calling it “outstanding. It’s really top-notch in every respect and compares with anything that I’ve seen among major companies, not just governments,” he said. “I was impressed that we had effectively assessed with the community thought, which is always challenging. It is very difficult to do, and is mainly the weakness of most master plans.”

Note: An updated story with more comments from the Planning Board and public will be in next week’s Town Topics.