By Anne Levin

Following a public hearing Monday evening, Princeton Council voted to adopt a redevelopment plan for properties at Princeton Theological Seminary (PTS) that includes a 238-unit apartment complex on Stockton Street at Hibben Road. The unanimous vote came after comments from numerous residents of the surrounding neighborhood and other areas of Princeton. Most spoke in opposition to the plan, while some others expressed support.

The Council meeting came a few days after the Planning Board reviewed the plan and voted that it was consistent with the town’s Master Plan. Many of the same people who attended the Planning Board meeting turned out at the public hearing to express their concerns, urging Council to delay its decision.

The contract purchaser for the property, Jamie Herring of Herring Properties, would designate 48 of the apartments affordable. Neighbors who are part of the group called the Princeton Coalition for Responsible Development (PCRD) have stressed that they are not opposed to affordable housing. Their concerns, they said, are about density, stormwater, traffic, tree removal, and sensitivity to the historic fabric of the neighborhood — many of which were addressed by members of Council before the vote was taken.

The issue dates back six years, to when PTS first announced plans to build 105 student apartments at the location, known as the Tennent-Roberts-Whiteley Campus. Following meetings with residents, the project was scrapped and PTS entered into a contract with Herring.

Among the speakers at the public hearing was Robert Simon, an attorney with Herold Law in Warren. Simon said he had filed a “protest petition” on behalf of PCRD earlier in the day against Council. Such an action is “very serious,” Simon said, but “in turn, provides an opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue, not just three-minute comments.” [Council allows speakers three minutes at public hearings]. Last January, PCRD filed a suit against the Planning Board, Mayor Mark Freda, and Council for work on the Master Plan. The charges against the mayor and Council were dismissed by Superior Court Judge Robert T. Lougy.

Some of those who spoke complained that they were not included in promised meetings about the project. “We repeatedly asked, and were told it was the wrong time,” said Karen O’Connell. “We can’t help but feel we were intentionally shut out.”

Sean Wilentz said, “Bad faith has been attached to this project from the beginning,” adding that the plan is for “a massive, gargantuan complex based on outdated ideas of planning that will turn 206 into a traffic nightmare. When we’ve raised this, we’re called selfish. Anyone who lived through the destruction of Penn Station [in New York City] knows what’s afoot. It’s about misguided planning and good old-fashioned greed.”

Janet Stern urged consideration of the healthy, mature trees on the site. “Removing healthy trees to accommodate development is alarming and counter to public well-being,” she said. “Given the unbearable temperatures and the cooling we know shade trees provide, how can chopping down at least one healthy tree be smart?”

Members of Council addressed these and other comments. Regarding the removal of some trees to allow for the building, Council President Mia Sacks said, “There will have to be some trees that are taken off the site, more than we would like. But it is a top priority for us to maintain trees in the right of way and as many mature trees as we possibly can. That will be locked into the agreement.”

Councilman David Cohen, who has been involved in the process since its inception, said he was sorry that PTS’ original plan for the site, which called for fewer units, didn’t work out, “because that was really smart growth,” he said. For those concerned that the complex would lead to added traffic, “the opposite is actually the case,” he said, because residents will live close enough to town to walk instead of drive.

“To the extent we can provide housing for people who work in Princeton, we will be reducing traffic, not increasing it. Also, we were very careful to limit traffic on Hibben. We were super conscious of keeping most of the traffic out of your neighborhood. To add another 40 or 50 cars during peak rush hour, which is what we see in a development like this, is not even noticeable,” he said.

Councilwoman Eve Niedergang addressed concerns about stormwater management. “According to new regulations, it must be kept on site,” she said. “Our engineers and building inspectors will make sure that that is indeed done. We will see an improvement in the area. People whose basements are flooding, I think you’ll see an improvement.”

Sacks responded to concerns about design and materials. “This is not a generic project by any stretch of the imagination,” she said, adding that the stormwater standards and plans for underground parking exceed state standards. “The architecture is not cookie-cutter. If this developer makes a penny off this project, he’ll be lucky. This is a very expensive project and you all in this neighborhood are fortunate that you’re getting this and not some of the stuff that was built in other parts of town. I realize that you think it’s too dense, and you don’t like it, but one of the realities is that we don’t deal in the framework of the ideal.”

The next step in the process is a redevelopment agreement with Herring Properties. The plan is subject to further review by the Planning Board and Council. The full plan is available in the agenda packet from the meeting at princetonnj.gov.