Frustration was the theme of the night during discussions August 12 at the Planning Board about a zoning ordinance that has been in the works for over a year that calls for a mixed-use development on the former Maneely site off Old Bear Brook and Bear Brook roads.##M:[more]##
The discussion focused on changes that have been made to the draft since the last public hearing on the ordinance in December, 2008. Residents were frustrated by the feelings of being left in the dark and not understanding the newly drafted changes, while representatives for Maneely were frustrated with what they feel has been a lack of forward motion on the ordinance.
In turn, a comment made by the attorney representing Maneely, in which the attorney implied the Planning Board was making a “political deal,” rather than using sound planning to develop the ordinance, drew ire from Planning Board members who took offense to the issue.
Debate and conflict over the interests of various stakeholders, including groups of residents living near the property, has been the story since the board began discussing the language that would set uses and restrictions on the site last summer. Plans call for a mixed-use development that would include a mix of modest-sized stores, personal and professional services, corporate suites, market rate-residential units and Project Freedom, which provides affordable housing for people with disabilities.
Maneely Princeton LLC, which owns the site, is looking to have the site placed into a new Planned Mixed-Use Neighborhood/Affordable Housing (PMN) District. West Windsor Planning officials have been working on the ordinance that changes the Master Plan to include the zone. The last draft was updated in August, 2006. The zone would set forth requirements for the creation of a village-style center that is pedestrian-friendly with a mixture of uses.
The issue stirred a variety of concerns from residents and Planning Board members last summer, including over issues associated with the impacts to the environment, including stormwater runoff, and the aesthetic effect the project would impose on the homeowners’ properties.
The Maneely site is located on Bear Brook Road and Old Bear Brook Road, adjacent to the Estates at Princeton Junction, and across from Windsor Haven. The concept plans propose that 15 acres of the site be preserved, including the detention areas. A majority of the preserved land corresponds with the greenbelt area, flood plain, and wood line.
Plans originally called for 51 townhouses, 46 apartments, and 60 Project Freedom affordable housing units on the site. The non-residential component of the site was proposed to include 202 hotel suites with a 7,”800 square-foot business center and a 3,”200 square-foot fitness center, as well as 11,”000 square feet of office space and 40,”000 square feet of retail space. However, as part of the township’s third-round state Council on Affordable Housing obligations, 15 additional affordable units were added to the Project Freedom site before the township submitted its plan to COAH in December, 2008. Project Freedom is a non-profit organization that develops barrier-free housing to enable disabled individuals to live independently.
Of the 46.21 acres, Maneely has proposed to provide 10 of the acres for the non-profit municipally-sponsored affordable housing development known as Project Freedom. Both the 10 acres set aside for the project and the 15 acres to be preserved meet township policy guidelines in the land use plan
Planning Board Chairman Marvin Gardner had instructed Maneely representatives and township officials to meet with residents of the Windsor Haven development and other residents along Old Bear Brook Road as they continue working on the draft zoning ordinance.
However, the most recent draft featured more changes, made recently as a result of meetings that were held in November, 2008, with nearby residents along Old Bear Brook and Bear Brook roads, as well as two meetings that occurred with the members of Windsor Haven, which occurred more recently. The changes also reflected input from township professionals and the developer.
Before the discussions began on August 12, Planning Board attorney Gerald Muller highlighted the changes and outstanding issues. He said that the major concerns from residents included the location of the retail uses on site in correlation to the proximity to their homes, as well as the setbacks and the traffic caused by the project.
“They didn’t want the retail across from them,” Muller said, adding that members of the Windsor Haven development also did not want the retail uses located across from them.
The changes that were made included the provision that no retail be allowed on Old Bear Brook Road, with the exception of the corner triangle of the property where Old Bear Brook and Bear Brook meet, where a roundabout would be located as a traffic calming and control measure. The height of the buildings on site was raised from 35 to 38 feet.
With regard to setbacks, professionals changed the language to base the location of the buildings on “build to” lines, instead of setbacks so that the ordinance would be clear in defining where the building lines begin. Along Old Bear Brook Road, those “build to” lines would begin 35 feet from the public right of way, giving the residents a slightly larger setback area. On Bear Brook Road, the “build to” lines would begin 25 feet behind the public right of way, while nonresidential uses would get a build-to line of 35 feet.
“On Old Bear Brook Road, corporate suites, along with residential units, are primary uses,” explained Township Planner John Madden. “There isn’t going to be, with the exception at the entrance of the property, any retail along Old Bear Brook Road.”
“On Bear Brook Road, that’s where most of the retail is going to be, and Bear Brook Road is a much more heavily-traveled road,” he added. “We wanted to keep the retail as close.
In addressing the circulation, the board’s traffic consultant Gary Davies said that officials needed to find a way to control the intersection on Old Bear Brook Road. “It’s not sufficient to just put a T-intersection with a stop sign out there,” and that is for two reasons, he said. The first is that officials must accommodate traffic generated by the project, and the second is that they have to anticipate there will be some pedestrian crossings as a result of the project. “Its only natural there will be pedestrian activity trying to cross Old Bear Brook Road to access the project,” Davies added.
Board officials also needed to consider achieving traffic calming measures, and a traffic signal would not be possible in the area, Davies said. “The alternative is a roundabout,” he said. “It’s been on the plan for a while, and I think it’s an appropriate way to go. There were two possible locations for the roundabout. The first was to the western part of the property, which would be only about 250 to 300 feet from the main driveway for Windsor Haven. Instead, he and other officials say they believe a roundabout would fare better at the curve in Bear Brook Road, where it meets with Old Bear Brook Road.
Later in the meeting, Davies also reported that the project would generate about 350 cars per hour, 100 of which would already be on the street. Under current zoning – office and research – between 350,”000 and 500,”000 square feet of office space would generate between 500 and 750 cars per hour, if those uses were to be developed.
James Knox, the attorney for Maneely, however said he and his client were “very, very surprised at the tenure’ of the meeting, as they had expected the board was just going to be reviewing the changes made to the ordinance to ensure it was in proper form, and that some action would be taken. “This ordinance doesn’t ever seem to move forward,” he said. “I think we are farther back than we were six months ago.”
Implying that the developer would use litigation in the future if need be, Knox said: “We can’t sit on our rights.”
Gardner said the board was doing its best to balance the interests of both the residents and the developer and stressed that it was an important project that needed special attention.
A majority of the 16 residents who were in attendance said they felt surprised by the changes to the draft. “We were left out of the entire process, so what are we supposed to comment on tonight?” asked Bear Brook Road resident Amira Scurato. “We can’t; it’s all changed. It’s really an ordinance by ambush.”
Bear Brook resident Holly Kelemen said that she did not understand why the building height limits had been raised from 35 feet to 38 feet and said she did not understand what a “build to” limit was. Old Bear Brook Road resident Rob Piccioni questioned whether the board even considered light pollution caused by the project. Township landscape architect Dan Dobromilsky said details dealing with light pollution are dealt with when an actual site plan is presented by the developer. Typically for a mixed use plan, however, the township requires the lights to be turned off very late at night. But, there will be somewhat of a glow in the evening, especially in the winter.
Piccioni made suggestions with regard to the setbacks and told the board that “what we’re looking for is, ‘How do we get to an agreement among all of us?’” he said. “Nobody’s saying let’s not develop it.”
Windsor Haven resident Robert Suto, on the other hand, said his biggest concern is traffic. He said people will not walk to go to the retail shops on site. The project “will bring traffic from people who live there, people who stay there, people who shop there, and people who work there.”
Not all of the residents in attendance said they disagreed with the language in the ordinance draft. Windsor Haven’s condo association president Debra Lemeshow said residents were generally accepting of the concepts that were discussed for the site, including the roundabout, which was a “huge hit all around,” since right now, “even with a 35 miles per hour speed limit, it’s become a drag strip.”
Still, the fact that a retail use could be placed at the tip triangle on Old Bear Brook Road had Scurato worried that if something similar to a WaWa was developed there, that “350 cars an hour are going to be shining their lights into my front window.”
Said Madden: “That property is 115 feet from the nearest building in that project. I believe that’s ample setback.”
And Gardner said he was since November, the residents, other than Windsor Haven, have not been involved in any of the discussions. Madden said he felt the only area where there is disagreement is that roundabout and potential retail use across the street from Scurato.
Knox, who expressed frustration through the meeting, pointed out that the township’s own professionals agree with the language and the concepts that went into creating the ordinance. He said the board should follow sound planning instead of making exceptions for individual residents as part of a “political deal.” Gardner called the suggestion “outrageous,” and other board members said they also took exception to the comment, although Knox later apologized.
As board members were deciding how to move forward, Muller said he felt that “there is no way you can respect every interest.” He also said that the meeting reflected input the professionals gathered over the past year, and that “I don’t think we would have wanted a draft process where the public was involved because it would have never been resolved.”
Echoing Muller, Madden said “the whole purpose of this was a workshop – to get the comments.” Gardner also reminded the public that there was no action scheduled for the meeting.
However, he directed the board’s professionals to work on the draft languages and changes and details discussed during the meeting, and bring the ordinance back to the board on Wednesday, September 2 for a possible vote. A copy of the updated ordinance should be available by Monday, August 24, for residents to review before the meeting.
