Princeton’s Regional Planning Board

Planning Board Rejects AvalonBay Plan For Hospital Site

After a five-hour meeting that began December 19 and ended in the wee hours of December 20, Princeton’s Regional Planning Board voted against developer AvalonBay’s plan for a rental community on the former site of the University Medical Center of Princeton. The vote was 7-3, with those who voted in favor saying they did so because they feared the legal repercussions of rejecting the plan. Residents in the audience who were against the proposed development rose to their feet to give the Board a standing ovation when the vote was finally cast.

The developer’s proposal for 280 apartments, 56 of which would be affordable housing, has drawn criticism from residents of the neighborhood about a design they repeatedly called “monolithic,” and concerns about environmental issues. The group Citizens for Sustainable Neighborhoods was represented by two lawyers during the process. The December 19 meeting of the Planning Board was the sixth devoted to the proposal.

While one member of the public expressed support for the complex because of its percentage of affordable housing units, the comments at the meeting were overwhelmingly negative. “It’s completely out of scale with the adjacent neighborhoods,” said Joseph Weiss during a power point presentation, calling the design “a fortress.”

Princeton Borough resident Helmut Schwab said he had spoken to many people in town, most of whom were against the plan. “I plead with you. Do what is good for the citizens and vote against it or recuse yourself,” he said to the Board. Julie Roth, the rabbi for Princeton University, said there have been inconsistencies in AvalonBay’s plan. “The question is whether we have a good faith partner in AvalonBay,” she said.

Zoning for the hospital site was approved several years ago. The original developer for the site, Lubert Adler, had planned to turn the existing hospital building into condominiums with retail underneath. But the company withdrew during the 2008 recession. Planning Board member Marvin Reed, who was in the negotiations from the beginning, said the Board owed it to the neighborhood residents to reject AvalonBay’s plan because of their concerns about the design for a newly constructed complex, among other issues.

Weighing in before the vote, Planning Board member Peter Madison, a lawyer, explained his decision to vote in favor of the plan. “I have a serious concern that the applicant is in a very strong legal position,” he said. “I believe if they appeal, the case will be overturned.”

Board member Bernie Miller commented, “The question isn’t really whether there could be something better on the site, but whether we want what is proposed on the site. I have heard a lot that troubles me. It leaves me with a kind of queasy feeling of having been taken advantage of with a bait and switch here.”

During the process that began more than a year ago, AvalonBay senior vice president Ron Ladell met with an ad hoc committee to try and work out problems that neighborhood residents had with the plan. But those meetings were not successful, according to Jenny Crumiller, a member of the Planning Board who served on the committee. “It was their intent to do things the AvalonBay way, not the Princeton way,” she said. “They tweaked a bit, but they did not change it much. They are refusing to stray from their brand and realize Princeton’s uniqueness. We have standards to protect our old-fashioned neighborhoods. The overriding theme was that AvalonBay is a brand, and that’s what you get.”

The proposal called for one, two, and three bedroom apartments in a building that would reach 48 feet at its highest point. Mr. Ladell said he was offended by suggestions that he was hiding something. In his closing speech to the Board before the vote, he said that planning and zoning staff agree that the project met all local zoning requirements. “If you don’t believe me, believe your staff,” he said.

Mr. Ladell left the meeting without commenting. Efforts to reach his attorney, Anne Studholme, in the days following the meeting were unsuccessful. The University Medical Center of Princeton issued a general statement: “Princeton HealthCare System has been watching the site plan process closely. We have always advocated that the process should be allowed to occur. This part of the process is now finished. AvalonBay will need to make a decision on how it intends to proceed. We have confidence that in the end, the process will result in an appropriate outcome for the community.”

Planning Board Says Ordinance Is Inconsistent With Princeton Master Plan

Princeton’s Regional Planning Board voted last week to recommend to Borough Council that an ordinance to preserve the existing Dinky right-of-way is not consistent with Princeton’s master plan. The 6-3 vote was taken at a discussion during the Planning Board’s meeting last Thursday. Borough Council will consider the ordinance for adoption at a public hearing on May 22.

The ordinance was introduced on April 10 and was immediately questioned by Princeton University officials. The University plans to move the Dinky terminus 460 feet south to make way for its $300 million arts and transit development. Officials have said the ordinance would not be in keeping with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the University and the two Princetons, which preserves an alternate right-of-way on Alexander Street for future transit use such as light rail.

At last week’s meeting, University Vice President Robert Durkee said the the move would place an encumbrance on University lands into the future. “It will be a gap of several hundred feet between the tracks and the new terminus,” he said. “It literally would not connect and could not connect to the new terminus.”

Establishing the existing right of way on the municipal map might not even be possible since Princeton University has already filed plans for the arts neighborhood, some of the board members said.

“I find it to be inconsistent with the master plan. I’m particularly concerned that it is inconsistent in the absence of a concurring ordinance from Princeton Township that would provide a complete right of way,” said Board member Marvin Reed.

His colleague Bernie Miller agreed. “It is completely inconsistent with the master plan and inconsistent with reality,” he said. “The right of way starts in the Borough at the Township line, but there is no companion right of way extending to the Township. Essentially what we’re creating was called in ‘Monopoly’ the short line, a 600-foot right-of-way reserved for future rail uses. It serves no purpose.”

Board member and Councilwoman Jenny Crumiller argued that the ordinance doesn’t place the governing bodies under any obligation. “It just preserves the option,” she said. “I would argue that it is supporting mass transit. The straight path is cheaper and faster. It’s more supportive of mass transit and the right-of-way that’s there.”

Borough Mayor Yina Moore, a member of the Planning Board, said she was surprised that the Board was not more assertive in taking its role to plan for future transit needs.

Several residents offered comments during the discussion, arguing that the easement is in the public domain and should cost the taxpayers nothing if a new operator takes over the train line. NJ Transit sold the land to the University in 1984, and was granted an easement as part of the deal. Under the agreement, the University was allowed to move the station only once, which it has already done, say members of Save the Dinky, which has filed a lawsuit on the issue. NJ Transit does not agree with that interpretation and has said that the University still has the right to move the station.

Resident Alain Kornhauser called it “an incredibly valuable asset owned by we the people.” Virginia Kerr said the right-of-way is consistent with the master plan. “We believe the contract only allowed one move, and that move has been made,” she said. “It would be futile for Borough Council to pass this ordinance …. This right-of-way ordinance is consistent with the master plan. Send it back with a recommendation.”

Peter Marks said he would not object to paying higher taxes in order to hold on to the Dinky. “Those of us who are eager to preserve the Dinky are willing to spend some money to do it,” he said. “I don’t want to steal anything from the University. But the University should not steal the right-of-way that belongs to the public.”