The Princeton Council unanimously approved an ordinance to adopt a redevelopment plan for the former Princeton Theological Seminary campus on Stockton Street, clearing the way for its eventual development for 238 apartments.
Members listened for more than an hour at its July 22 meeting as opponents of the proposed redevelopment plan staked out their position against it and proponents made their case for it. Many of the opponents live on Edgehill Street and Hibben Road, which border the property.
The 4.8-acre site was deemed a non-condemnation area in need of redevelopment in 2018, following a study of the property by the Princeton Planning Board at the request of the Princeton Council.
A redevelopment plan prepared by planning consultants Kyle McManus Associates was released on July 1, nearly seven years after the property was designated as a non-condemnation area in need of redevelopment.
In the interim, three buildings on the property – Tennent Hall, Roberts Hall and Whitely Gymnasium – have been demolished. A house at 92 Stockton St., which belongs to the seminary and is included in the redevelopment area, was preserved.
The redevelopment plan sets aside 20% of the 238 apartments for affordable housing. They would be deed-restricted for 30 years. It would be up to the Princeton Council at that point to extend the deed restriction.
Opponents of the proposed development were upset at the perceived lack of input. They were also upset about the density of the development, as well as traffic and stormwater impacts.
Jane MacLennon, who lives on Edgehill Street, said Princeton is well known for its historical significance and the role that it played during the American Revolutionary War, and for Princeton University.
“Princeton survived the Battle of Princeton,” she said. “Now, it feels like we are fighting the battle for Princeton.”
The proposed redevelopment of the seminary property is the most recent attack, she said.
The 56-foot-tall apartment buildings would tower over the homes on Edgehill Street and Hibben Road, MacLennon said. There would be a lack of privacy. Any attempt to “urbanize” the town is poor stewardship by town officials, she said.
Hibben Road resident Patrick McDonnell said that while the neighbors are not opposed to affordable housing per se, they are the ones who are most affected by the proposed development.
“We asked for three years to be part (of the discussion),” he said. “You talked to the developer and his team for three years, and we get three stinking minutes.”
Public comment at the Princeton Council meetings is limited to three minutes per speaker.
Supporters of the redevelopment effort said there is a need for more housing – both market rate apartments and affordable apartments.
Nate Myers, who lives on Prospect Avenue, said that if the Princeton Council does not accept the project in which a local developer worked with the town in good faith, there is a risk that the property would be sold to a bigger developer who might try to build a larger development.
Responding to criticism of the project, Myers said that “we can be better than this. It is our privilege to live in this town and it should not be just ours.”
Fighting against affordable housing is an “accidentally” selfish act, Myers said.
“It is knocking down the ladder behind us. It is keeping all the benefits of our town to ourselves. (Redevelopment) is an opportunity for 200 new people to benefit from aspects of the town that we value so strongly,” he said.
Valley Road resident Jeffrey Oakman said there is a need to offer more housing – as a national matter, a state matter and a local matter. Oakman lives near the Princeton Shopping Center and the new apartment developments constructed by AvalonBay Communities and WinnCompanies.
“We need more housing of all kinds, especially in a place like Princeton (so) people can have access to the quality of life and the amenities that we all enjoy here,” he said. “To our credit, the town is actually building housing.”
As the Princeton Council members prepared to cast their votes after the public hearing, they each said they supported the ordinance and the redevelopment plan.
They also responded to some of the comments made by the residents.
Councilman David Cohen said that the apartments would reduce commuter traffic by providing housing for people who work in town and cannot afford to live in Princeton.
The development would be designed so that most of the vehicles entering and exiting the development would do so on Stockton Street, he said. Steps have been taken to limit the traffic on Hibben Road.
Councilwoman Eve Niedergang said the Princeton Council’s decisions are made in the best interests of the community at large.
“To insinuate that because we disagree with you that we do not have the best interests of the town in mind is really distressing,” she said.
Niedergang cautioned that if the project does not go forward with proposed developer Herring Properties, another developer would step in. There would still be a 20% set-aside for affordable housing, but there could be an increase in the overall number of apartments, she said.
Councilwoman Mia Sacks said the development is not a cookie-cutter design and will be very expensive to build. The development will include underground parking spaces, for instance. Those spaces can cost $40,000 to build, she said.
The neighbors are fortunate that they are getting this project and not some of the others that are being built in other parts of town, Sacks said.
The neighbors may not like the development, but the Princeton Council does not deal in the realm of the ideal, she said. The Council deals within the framework of reality and the choices that are open to it.
