An ordinance that would lead to the redevelopment of a 15-acre parcel on Thanet Road for a mix of affordable and market rate rental apartments has been introduced by the Princeton Council.
The Princeton Council introduced the ordinance at a special meeting on Jan. 30 by a 5-1 vote. A public hearing and final action on the ordinance is set for the council’s regular meeting Feb. 10.
The meeting on Feb. 10 will start at 7 p.m. and will be held at the Witherspoon Hall Municipal Building.
Five of the six Princeton Council members voted to introduce the ordinance, but some of the council members expressed mixed feelings about it. The sixth member abstained from voting.
Princeton Council members Leticia Fraga, Michelle Pirone Lambros, Mia Sacks, Dwaine Williamson and Council President David Cohen voted “yes.” Council member Eve Niedergang abstained.
The redevelopment of the Thanet Road property, off Terhune Road, is part of the town’s settlement agreement with the Fair Share Housing Center. The nonprofit group sued the town over its alleged failure to provide affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households.
The property contains two mostly vacant office buildings. AvalonBay Communities Inc. plans to build a 221-unit rental development that will include 11 units set aside for low- and moderate-income households.
Developer PIRHL, which specializes in building affordable housing, has proposed constructing 80 units of age-restricted housing on part of the 15-acre parcel. All of the rental apartments would be set aside for low- and moderate-income households.
The Thanet Road property was deemed an area in need of redevelopment by the Princeton Council at its Dec. 18, 2019 meeting. It directed consultant Burgis Associates, Inc., to prepare a redevelopment plan.
John Szabo Jr. of Burgis Associates, Inc., told the Princeton Council that the two office buildings on the property were built in the early to mid 1980’s. They have been mostly vacant for the past 10 years because of a weak office market.
The obsolescence of the property led to its designation as an area in need of redevelopment, Szabo said. This opens the door to a variety of alternative uses, but the one that seems most appropriate is residential use, he said.
“It becomes very viable” as a residential alternative, Szabo said. He cited the property’s proximity to the Princeton Shopping Center, bus lines, schools and recreational facilities. All are within walking distance of the Thanet Road site.
There will not be much traffic generated by the development, Szabo said. Senior citizens mostly have one car, and the residents who will live in the apartments earmarked for special needs persons will travel by van. The development also will attract people who want to use buses to get to work or to go shopping, he said.
Szabo acknowledged that the proposal is “very conceptual,” and promised that a detailed plan would be presented subsequently.
Princeton Planning Director Michael LaPlace said it is an exciting concept. It an example of smart growth, because the residents will be able to walk to work and shopping, he said. The site offers good “connectivity” for the pedestrian and bicycle paths that the town wants to build, he said.
“There are lots of reasons why the planning staff is excited about it,” LaPlace said.
Turning to finances, Princeton Administrator Marc Dashield said the AvalonBay development would generate $759,000 in payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT) to the town. Combined, the two developments would generate $809,000 in PILOT funds.
PIRHL’s age-restricted development will cost about $17 million to build. The developer will seek funding from two sources, including the New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency, for the project. But if it falls short, the municipality will make up the difference of up to $8 million by issuing bonds, Dashield said.
The New Jersey Local Redevelopment and Housing Law allows for a town to issue bonds for a redevelopment project. If the Municipality of Princeton issues a bond, it would apply the money generated by the PILOT payments to cover debt service costs.
Dashield said it is likely that after paying the debt service for the bond, the town would likely have money left over that would go into its operating budget. The debt service is estimated at $515,000, and the PILOT is expected to generate $809,000.
When the meeting was opened for public comment, Drew Dyson, the executive director of the Princeton Senior Resource Center, praised PIRHL’s proposed development. One of the fastest-growing demographics is that of 65-year-olds and up, and this will allow Princeton residents to age in place, he said.
Ginny Bryant, who lives in Princeton and whose daughter has special needs, said there is need for affordable housing. While the plan may not be perfect, it is a step in the right direction, she said. These are people with real lives and real needs, she said.
Molly Jones, the executive director of Sustainable Princeton, praised the proposal for incorporating elements of sustainable design. She applauded officials for “making great steps in the right direction” and in alignment with the town’s recently adopted Climate Action Plan.
In voting to approve the ordinance, Princeton Council member Mia Sacks said she was not voting “yes” as a blanket endorsement of the plan, but rather “as a means to introduce a period of public engagement in which you, the community, make sure we get this right.”
“What we have now are only the broad outlines of a plan and, as always, the devil is in the details. That’s where we need your help. Significant financial, environmental and equity questions remain,” Sacks said as she encouraged residents to provide feedback.
Princeton Council member Dwaine Williamson said he had reservations about the plan, but would vote to introduce the ordinance. The redevelopment plan as introduced “is certainly not all I would have wanted,” but it is the result of much dialogue between town officials, the Fair Share Housing Center and others.
“We have much needed new affordable housing units being erected. There is more housing for families, seniors and the disabled. Considering all the forces at work, it is an acceptable plan,” Williamson said.
Niedergang, who abstained from voting, said she had “some serious reservations” about it. She questioned the disparity in amenities between the proposed AvalonBay development and the PIRLH development, such as a swimming pool.
“I am still uncomfortable enough with this ordinance that I am choosing to abstain (from voting),” Niedergang said, acknowledging that it is the best plan that officials could achieve “at this time.”
