West Windsor officials have given up on the idea of having a cushion built into a new fair share plan for their state-mandated affordable housing obligations. Instead they are supporting a revised plan that is a far cry from a heavily-criticized preliminary proposal for 1,”190 new market and affordable units.##M:[more]##
In a joint meeting between the Township Council and Planning Board on October 14, both bodies agreed to a plan proposed by Planning Board Attorney Gerald Muller and Township Planner John Madden that could potentially produce up to 130 new affordable housing units to meet West Windsor’s requirements. The township needs to adopt a plan by December 31 that deals with its obligations under the new third-round regulations created by the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH), or risk being sued by developers.
If a plan is not adopted “after the last day of December, we would be subject to Mount Laurel builders’ remedy suits,” said Muller, explaining the consequences. “We would no longer be within COAH’s jurisdiction. Because we would no longer be in COAH’s jurisdiction, COAH would also take affordable housing trust fund money and deposit it into a state fund. Once we file, we establish jurisdiction.”
Under the plan, the township would see 76 affordable units coming from the 380-unit development planned on the Princeton Theological Seminary site off Wheeler Way; 35 affordable units from a development in the area of Princeton-Hightstown and Old Trenton roads; four or five credits from a group home the Eden Institute proposes to develop on Wood Hollow Drive (see story below); and 15 additional affordable units at the Project Freedom site on the Maneely tract off Old Bear Brook Road. Project Freedom is a non-profit organization that develops and operates barrier-free housing to enable individuals with disabilities to live independently.
While there is virtually no cushion under this plan, officials say that if there are deficiencies, they will be given the opportunity to correct and resubmit the plan. But “if we submit a plan that conforms, it conforms,” Muller explained. “It conforms whether we have zero cushion or 100 units.” The township is not required to have a cushion.
The township’s cumulative fair share obligation for the first through third rounds, using COAH projections, is 1,”413 — 899 for the first and second rounds; 491 in the third round; and 23 third round rehabilitation share credits. Officials calculated that with units already accounted for in prior plans, together with rental bonus credits carried over from the second round, 1,”298 of those units have already been satisfied, leaving 115 remaining.
Original proposals. In a series of public meetings last month, the Planning Board contemplated looking at rezoning three sites — two on Princeton-Hightstown Road — that would add 1,”190 new housing units, including 330 affordable, to the township. However, the proposal led to a large turnout by residents, particularly those living in Heatherfield, who voiced concern over the possibility of having a dense residential development with a large number of affordable housing on the Scokim site, which is located across from McCaffrey’s, near their homes. The proposal was later cut back.
The large number of units originally proposed were to provide a cushion, so that in the event that COAH found problems with the plan presented, there would be sufficient alternatives to meet the minimum requirements.
The purpose of the October 14 meeting was for the township staff to get some direction from both the council and board regarding the revised plan as proposed, and some of the features officials wanted to see as the plan evolves. The plan went back to the board on October 22, where officials went over conceptual plans for the Old Trenton Road and Maneely sites in more detail and reviewed a draft of the ordinance for the rezoning of the Old Trenton Road site.
The board will have to adopt the fair share plan as a Master Plan element, with a hearing scheduled for Wednesday, November 5. From there, officials hope it will head to council on Monday, December 8, for approval, as required by COAH.
Seminary Site. The seminary site, which encompasses 68.5 acres, will be developing a total of 652 units, including 272 graduate units, and 380 nongraduate units. Of the 380 units, 304 would be market-rate and 76 would be affordable, a 20 percent set aside.
The existing multi-family graduate students housing project is scheduled by the seminary for redevelopment as part of a joint venture with a private builder. The site currently has 240 graduate student dwelling units, and all 240 would be replaced and 32 additional units would be constructed for graduate housing. The builder will be developing the 380 nongraduate units. Current zoning on the site allows 10 units per acre, and seminary officials can go along with their plans regardless, under current zoning.
Originally on the seminary site, officials contemplated requiring that 25 percent of the units be affordable, but seminary officials have said that such a requirement would render the project economically unfeasible.
Councilman Charles Morgan asked whether it would be unrealistic to expect that requiring a 25 percent set aside for any development, and not just the seminary site, would work. Muller told him it was really a case-by-base basis. Morgan also asked whether, hypothetically, a township could zone for 25 percent set aside, because it is allowed by COAH regulations, knowing that a developer would not be able to economically develop the site, and thus use it as a way to stop development of that particular site while still accounting for affordable housing credits.
Said Muller: “We certainly don’t want to be in a position going into COAH and saying to them, ‘Here’s our plan. We’re proposing 25 percent. Frankly, we don’t think it’s going to work.’ If we really believe that, they’re going to say, ‘Well, then find a site with modified zoning so that it’s going to be realistic.’”
Councilwoman Heidi Kleinman asked whether or not the township could place restrictions on the number of bedrooms for the apartments on the seminary site, since more children moving into those units translates into more school children, and thus, higher taxes.
Muller said that he suspects that a lot of the graduate students do not have children, and if they do, it probably is not many. And, on average, he said he suspects the apartments were two bedrooms. He said, though, that perhaps officials could use that as a negotiating tool when it comes to keeping the set aside for affordable housing at 20 percent. Officials also said they wanted to see documentation seminary officials said they had from the state Department of Environmental Protection clarifying that there were, in fact, only 7 acres of environmentally constrained land.
Route 571/Old Trenton Road. The second site in the RO-1 district was the 74.7-acre site on Princeton-Hightstown and Old Trenton roads, where 43.3 acres are developable and 31.4 are environmentally constrained. Officials proposed 140 total units — down from the originally proposed 400 — with 105 being market-rate and 35 being affordable, or, in this case, a 25 percent set aside, which Muller said would work.
In order to add this site to the plan, a conditional use for a planned village development in the RO-1 district would need to be added or, a new planned village development district would need to be created, Madden said.
During the October 22 meeting, board members reviewed a draft of an ordinance for rezoning the site. The basic requirements include a residential density of 8 dwelling units per acre; a maximum of 25,”000 square feet of neighborhood convenience retail, office, and commercial floor area; a minimum public neighborhood green of 10,”00 square feet; and plans for the affordable units to be located in apartments above retail or office uses. The lot areas would be set at a minimum 2,”400 square feet per unit, and a maximum of 3,”500 square feet.
Board planning consultant John Madden also handed out a sketch for a concept plan of how the property might look when developed. Next to the property is the proposed West Windsor Sports wellness center, and the other side of the property borders East Windsor, where a possible secondary entrance road could be built if allowed by East Windsor. Across the street on Old Trenton Road is the Princeton Arms retail center.
The plan shows the entrance to the development off Old Trenton Road with retail or professional offices along a 300-foot frontage on Old Trenton Road. Heading into the site, there are five condominium buildings, each with 10 unit maximums and one-car rear access garages. There are also 55 townhouse units heading further into the site, each with one-car garages. To the eastern portion of the site, on the border with East Windsor, there is a two-story, 30,”000-square foot office building depicted. Madden told the board it could remove the retail from the site if it wanted, and that the office could be replaced with a recreational use.
Board members voiced concern that the affordable housing was separated and not integrated with the rest of the housing on site, contrary to township policy, and instead depicted solely above the retail uses. Gardner also said he did not think the office building was appropriate for the site.
Board member Marty Rosen said he liked the retail option, because residents of the development could walk there instead of driving off site. Gardner said the retail would also benefit residents of the Elements, an active adult community adjacent to the property, because they could also walk to the site without having to cross a county route.
Archie Reed, an attorney for Thompson Land Company, the developer of the property, told the board that it would make the project more economically feasible if as much retail was left in the ordinance as possible, since it would help offset the costs of providing the 25 percent set aside for affordable housing. He said a purchaser has approached his client with interest in the site, but that he would bring the concept plan back to the purchaser and his client to get their ideas on the concept plan.
Board members pointed out that developers of the site would not be required to design the property exactly as shown in the concept plan, but would rather use it as an idea of what could be done on the property under the proposed ordinance. Gardner also said that the township does not necessarily have to pass an ordinance by December 31. Rather, it can submit its COAH plan and a draft ordinance. “We would, however, have to pass an ordinance within 45 days of substantive certification by COAH.
DiMeglio. The DiMeglio site, a 14.29-acre tract on Clarksville Road, while not discussed in depth during the meeting, will produce 114 total units, 91 of which are market-rate and 23 of which are affordable.
Maneely Site. The fourth and final piece to the new plan is the Maneely site, which drew the most discussion both the October 14 and 22 meetings. The site, located on Alexander and Bear Brook roads encompasses 50 acres, 37 of which are developable. The site is adjacent to the Estates at Princeton Junction, and across from Windsor Haven.
Developers of the site brought a concept plan before the board in June. The original concept plans proposed 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 also 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. The plans also showed a main street area, with on-street parking, bikeways, and large sidewalk area with street trees to encourage alternate travel modes. The plan also included a roundabout at the intersection of Bear Brook and Old Bear Brook roads that would serve as the main entrance to the site.
When the plans were originally presented over the summer, Planning Board Chairman Marvin Gardner insisted the developer meet with the residents of the surrounding community, who expressed many concerns during the meeting and that the “developer at least attempt to resolve or work out as many of these issues as possible.” He also asked some of the township staff to be present during the meetings, which took place this month. Those meetings have been taking place this month.
Township Division of Land Use Manager Sam Surtees said that as a result of meetings that were held between the Maneely owners, township staff, and residents along Old Bear Brook Road, a new concept plan was sketched. That plan shows the executive suites to the east, Project Freedom to the southeast, and the townhouse development to the west. In addition, the roundabout was eliminated, and a dead-end was proposed at the end of Old Bear Brook Road where it meets Alexander Road. The retail component was shifted to the far west of the site, adjoining the open space that makes up part of the Estates at Princeton Junction, which border the property, Surtees said.
Between that area and the new location for the townhouses, the plan proposes the executive suites. The townhouses are proposed right off Old Bear Brook Road, directly across the street from the existing single family homes, and the Project Freedom is in nearly the same area of the site where it was originally proposed. The only difference is that the number of units has been increased to 75 units, instead of the 60 units under the original plan, Surtees said.
Surtees told the board that there was discussion on setbacks and what the buildings would look like. He said the planner for the Maneelys has indicated that the executive suites would be in similar appearance and height to what is constructed at the Windsor Haven development, although Kleinman said she disagreed with that assessment, judging from the drawings.
Residents have also requested that any development for retail and executive suites also maintain a 75-foot setback from the road and that a buffer be provided along Old Bear Brook Road where the townhouses are proposed, perhaps in the form of a 50-foot landscaping easement along Old Bear Brook Road, although both Madden and Kleinman said they did not find the setbacks and the excessive birming necessary.
Maneely officials have said they would respect the existing tree line that is on site and supplement it with additional buffering.
However, the topic that drew the most attention was a change in the COAH rules that affects the 20 percent set aside in the townhouse units. Under the original understanding between Maneely and the township in the 2005 fair share plan, the growth share of nonresidential portion would be satisfied by the dedication of the 60 units from Project Freedom. In addition, the township was seeking was a set aside of 20 percent beyond the Project Freedom units.
There were, however, changes in the COAH rules and in particularly the Roberts Bill — state legislation that establishes a 2.5 percent commercial development fee, which relieves commercial developers of their housing obligation — which prevents municipalities from having a set aside on nonresidential space, but rather that all that can be done is a mandatory imposition of a 2.5 percent development fee. In addition, municipalities cannot treat the dedication as satisfying the growth share for nonresidential development, and the developer would still have to pay the 2.5 percent development fee, Muller said.
Realizing this, Muller said he tried to re-craft the program in the days before the meeting to try to achieve the same goals. He said his idea was to have the township acquire outright the Project Freedom 10 acres and fund that acquisition through the 2.5 percent development fee and a payment in lieu of construction of some of the affordable units.
Muller said the township can give the developers the option of making contributions in lieu of providing affordable units. In the township’s region, that contribution would be $152,”227 per unit. To see if this worked, Muller asked the township tax assessor for the value of the 10-acre tract. He estimated that the value would be $350,”000 an acre or $3.5 million, Muller said. Then, Muller said he tried to establish a program that would still result in acquisition, allowing the municipality to, in turn, have Project Freedom.
He suggested taking the projected 2.5 percent fee, which is $800,”000 in this case, and making up the remaining $2.7 million from contributions from the developer in lieu of 18 affordable units, which works out to be $3.5 million. He said that while the township would be formally acquiring the site, there really would not be an exchange of money. Rather, the township would take the credit of the 2.5 percent contribution in lieu of payment for the 18 units. With the 20 percent set aside on the residential component, that would be 5 affordable units provided on site.
Muller told the board that he had discussions with Maneely officials, who have to sign off on this program, and that they would be in a position to do so that night during the meeting.
However, Gardner said he only became aware of this whole issue around 5 p.m. that night, and that some board members did not know about it at all before the meeting.
“I need to determine the validity of some of the points raised in the possible agreement,” Gardner said. “We need to substantiate the value of these acres and determine if the computations are accurate. Most importantly, we need to see if, in fact, it serves the best interests of the township in entering into this type of agreement. Until such time as we had an opportunity to digest the material submitted to us and evaluate its efficacy, we will not approve it.”
He said the board will determine whether or not it should be discussed in open or closed session, since it involves negotiations, and then pick a date to discuss it.
Also with respect to the Maneely site, during the October 14 meeting, Councilwoman Linda Geevers asked whether the township could create an ordinance barring children from living in the corporate suites, and Madden said it could not. It is understood that some might stay at the corporate suites for a a whole year, for example, as they work on projects in the area for their companies.
Some people said they worried those people would bring their families, which could burden the school district. Madden said that there are occasions in which a family would use these units, like if they are waiting for their houses to be built, or there is some kind of moving delay, but that rent for the suites will be over $2,”000 a month could minimize this possibility.
Additional Issues. Officials on the board and council discussed the impacts of the Roberts Bill. Under current zoning, projections are that 2.3 million square feet of office space could potentially be built in the redevelopment area, said Madden. Hypothetically, if all of that office space were built in 10 years, and its assessed value is over $500 million, “the 2.5 percent today would generate about $13 million.” However, it would generate the need for 403 new affordable housing units, and the $13 million would only cover the development of 85 of those units, Madden said.
That would cause the township to have to make up “over $48 million to make up the unfunded growth share obligation for nonresidential uses,” he said. “They don’t balance the affordable housing component. Every time we build nonresidential in this town, we’re going to get a 2.5 percent fee, and that’s just not going to cover the affordable housing.”
Officials also discussed the decision to use the number for projected growth that COAH provided when coming up with the plan, Muller said. Morgan asked whether the township would be penalized if other commercial developments occur — such as the development of the Acme Center on Route 571, which is under contract by the Dreher Group — after the plan is created.
Muller said that if it turns out that over the next 10 years, actual growth exceeds projected growth, officials will be able to make adjustments to the plan.
Madden said that COAH is projecting 7,”000 new jobs for West Windsor over the next 10 years. In Branchburg, another town for which he is a consultant, the state projected 3,”000 new jobs. However, “the reality is last year, the whole state only generated 3,”000 new jobs, so it’s anybody’s guess as to what the economy’s climate is going to be,” Madden said.
