Nearly 100 people packed the West Windsor Council meeting on Monday, September 19, for what was being called “an historic vote” on InterCap Holdings’ proposal to replace its 1970s era offfice park at 14 Washington Road with a transit village consisting of 800 townhomes and condominiums and 100,000 square feet of retail.
Of the 45 residents who spoke during public comments only four were opposed to the proposal. The final vote, 4-1, paves the way for the first concrete evidence of redevelopment in the area surrounding the Princeton Junction train station. The redevelopment process got another boost at the same meeting, when West Windsor officials released plans for more than 600 new parking spaces on the site of the old composting center on Alexander Road (see page 11).
In an E-mailed statement released minutes after the vote, InterCap CEO Steve Goldin said he hoped to bring a site plan review to the planning board in 2012 and to break ground in 2013.
On Tuesday the ordinances went in front of Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg to effectively settle Intercap Holdings’ lawsuit against the town. By late afternoon her decision was confirmed. Barring any further legal challenges the agreement will go into effect the first week of November (45 days from Wednesday, September 21).
The surprise vote came from Linda Geevers, who previously had voiced several concerns including the 12.2 percent minimum allocation of affordable housing and the possibility that it could go higher in the future. On Monday she said Judge Feinberg confirmed 12.2 percent and that helped convince her to vote in favor of the ordinances and the transit village.
Councilman George Borek said the project is inherently beneficial to the community and to residents. Before casting his vote in favor of the ordinances, Borek made a statement of the potential traffic and environmental effect the transit village would have.
“A key component is trying to limit the number of cars we have coming to and from that site. I know what was originally proposed (1.5 spaces per unit) but certainly I would venture more to lessen the amount of parking so we have people utilizing trains versus utilizing cars, creating less traffic back and forth,” he said.
Councilman Charles Morgan was the lone no vote. He gave his reasoning ahead of the final tally.
“The mayor kept saying that the InterCap project will be tax-positive. I support that, but we do not have a fiscal analysis from the township establishing that. We have had to grapple with that, and there was also a planning board request for one that has not been done,” he said.
Morgan referred to the fiscal impact study presented earlier this month by TischlerBise, a Maryland-based planning firm, as “the fox in the henhouse” because InterCap paid for it. He also brought up resolutions the council passed in 2009 to make a general point on needed infrastructure improvements near the InterCap site.
“This train station is one of the heaviest traveled stations along the Northeast Corridor line and it sits in our backyard. It appears that we are being asked to shoulder the lion’s share of the financial burden for regional solutions,” he said.
Councilman Morgan explained the dilemma this vote brought for him. “I see my job not as a cheerleader for everything we do but as the checks and balances at the government and be picking at the details. I voted no to the redevelopment plan not because I was opposed to it, but because I did not think we finished our homework,” Morgan said.
In opposition to the project, Hemi Nae raised the issue of the proposed cost of the transit village apartment units at $450,000 apiece, as outlined in TischlerBise’s report. “Why does everybody want to leave their house and move to this development by Goldin? For example, will those who live at Canal Pointe leave a $200,000 apartment and purchase a $450,000 apartment? It’s not going to happen,” he said.
Nae echoed Morgan’s call for an independent fiscal analysis before stating that the ordinance should have included a guarantee from the developer that the transit village will be tax positive or they will take responsibility for any monies that are owed. “The way it’s structured today the West Windsor residents will have to pay for any mistake,” he said.
The pro-transit village crowd, out in full force, may have been motivated by an E-mail Goldin sent on Sunday to 400 community members. In the message Goldin urged residents to speak out. “Change the perception that nothing ever gets done in West Windsor. Change the impression that people have when they come into our town and see, to collective embarrassment, what now passes for our downtown. Change the need for all of us to ‘apologize’ to those who visit and ask how a town with such great homes, schools, and the Carnegie Center can still have a downtown that looks like it belongs in a bad movie,” Goldin’s message read.
Ana Lomba of 2 Hereford Drive began her remarks by making light of the issue of children coming into the schools, saying “I’m a mom and I’m not really scared of more kids in town.”
Lomba then shared her perspective on the transit village and a new downtown. “My husband I have lived here for 12 years and every single year we’ve been talking about how embarrassing it is not to have a town center in an affluent town like this one. Every weekend we go to Princeton, Hightstown, New Hope — what about having those people come here and spend money in our town?” she said.
Joan (pronounced Jo-Ann) Bharacha has lived at 4 Lakeshore Drive since 1972. Now, as a widow with adult children, she said she wants to stay in West Windsor, but she doesn’t want to stay in “the boondocks.”
“I want to be near the train station and I think there are a lot of senior citizens who, like myself, are retired and they don’t have kids in the school system anymore, but we want to stay here. When we leave more kids will come in as families buy houses,” she said.
Bharacha added a punchline: “I hear a lot about the noise of trains and why would anybody want to be near the train. For seniors, we do! We don’t hear very well.”
Paola Blelloch, who has lived at 281 Clarksville Road for 42 years, urged a yes vote on the ordinance: “I have so many reasons I cannot count them all. But most important are the consequences of voting no like the ongoing expense of litigation, the decline in neighborhood, and the increase in unsold houses.”
Rustom Bhopti of 5 Park Hill Terrace has lived in the township since 1986. He commented on the pride West Windsor should have when comparing itself to other municipalities. From the school district to trash collection he wants West Windsor to be the envy of other towns in the area.
“Let’s pick up the initiative, concentrate on redevelopment, vote yes, and move on,” he said, adding “you vote yes, I vote yes for your re-election. You vote no, I vote no for your re-election.”
Two candidates for town council, Kristina Samonte and Lindsay Diehl, called for a yes vote and referred to Toll Brothers as a scenario the town could not repeat. Diehl also said she is frustrated to see how towns such as Robbinsville and Plainsboro have grown in the 22 years she has lived here with town centers contributing to their success.
Charles Morgan affirmed that he was never opposed to redevelopment. In years past Morgan brought the council pictures of the town center in Reston, VA, and insisted that it was the best model for West Windsor to follow, even though its buildings were eight stories tall.
The second ordinance approved Monday night, also by a 4-1 vote, amended the town code and formally creates a mixed-use Princeton Junction train station district.
