Council will hold a public hearing Monday, November 23, on an ordinance that will create a mixed-use development that includes retail shopping and the planned Project Freedom on a site adjacent to the Estates at Princeton Junction.
Before the introduction, the council heard hours of testimony — attempting to balance the concerns of the nearby residents with the needs of the property owner to make compromises in the language of the ordinance. Residents in attendance seemed to remain unsatisfied, despite council’s efforts.
Among the major changes was the requirement that buildings be set back a minimum of 50 feet from any existing residential lot with adequate buffering. If not provided, the setback will have to be 75 feet from any existing residential structure.
The rezoning, adopted in September by the Planning Board after three years of studying and re-working the ordinance, affects a 46-acre undeveloped tract, located at the intersection of Old Bear Brook and Bear Brook roads.
Maneely Princeton LLC, owner of the site, sought the rezoning. Concept plans propose a mix of modest-sized stores, personal and professional services, corporate suites, market-rate residential units, and Project Freedom. Project Freedom is a nonprofit organization that develops barrier-free housing to enable disabled individuals to live independently. Maneely has proposed 10 acres for Project Freedom, and 15 acres for preservation, including the detention areas.
Plans originally called for 51 townhouses, 46 apartments, and 60 Project Freedom affordable housing units. The non-residential component 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 latest round of affordable housing obligations, 15 additional affordable units were added to Project Freedom before the township sent its plan to the state in 2008.
The ordinance calls for a traffic-calming roundabout at the corner triangle of the property where Old Bear Brook and Bear Brook intersect. The height of the buildings on site was also increased from 35 to 38 feet before approval.
At the council level, however, the height of the buildings, as well as the setbacks provided to ease the burden on the homes in the surrounding neighborhood, were the subject of continued debate, as they had been during the board hearings.
In the board’s draft, language stated that buildings along Old Bear Brook Road would have setbacks of 35 feet from the neighborhood. On Bear Brook Road, “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.
Before council deliberation, Planning Board Attorney Gerald Muller said that he spoke to the Maneely owners, who said they would agree to change the setbacks to begin 50 feet from the property line. In looking for further relief, planning officials asked whether the property owner would agree to add another 25 feet of setbacks to be 75 feet from a structure, or 50 feet from a lot line.
However, they “were noncommittal to setbacks from the structure as well as 50 feet from the property line,” said Muller. They have agreed, however, that “all buildings in the zone would have a minimum 50 foot setback from any residential lot.” They also agreed to limit the buildings to 2.5 stories — a little higher than an average two-story Colonial home — down from three.
With regard to residents’ concerns that too many trees on the site would be removed, Sam Surtees, the Division of Land Use manager, said that conservation easements could be used and the township’s landscape architect can mark specific trees to stay or for removal.
Resident Amira Scurato, whose home sits at the corner of the two roads and would be most affected by the roundabout, and retail entrance to the property, was also unhappy with the extra provisions put into the language that single out her property for landscaping and berms to ease the detriments to her quality of life.
The ordinance as it was written gave her the power to have the developer perform landscaping on her property. The only options she has, she said, are to have no landscaping improvements or to allow the developer to use her property for the improvements. “In order to accomplish that, you have to take away my front lawn.”
Planning officials determined that there would be room in the public right-of-way as well as partially on the Maneely site to make more landscaping improvements.
Resident Holly Kelemen was also unhappy, saying that nothing has changed with the concessions the property owners had agreed to make. She said the buildings would still be 38 feet high, even though they would be limited to 2.5 stories. “Our professionals are acting like salesmen for this concept plan. We deserve as much protection” as any other property owner.
Muller said that currently, the area is zoned for research, office, and manufacturing, which is more dense than what is being proposed.
Tim Boylan, who owns the property, said that township officials asked him to work with them to create a mixed-use zone for the area, which he did, “in order to bring together their thoughts” to create zoning that was part of “their vision.” He said the process has been four years in the making and that the process has dragged on.
“You never quite get to the finish line,” he said, referring to numerous meetings regarding the site. “Tonight is no different.” He pointed to the October 26 meeting, when the council postponed the ordinance introduction, and the November 9 meeting, when residents and professionals ran through the issues yet again. “We’ve been through all this discussion already multiple, multiple times.”
Morgan said the reason why he recommended that the ordinance introduction be delayed was because he wanted to try to cut down the process. If the council had introduced it on October 26 and held a public hearing on November 9, there may have been substantive changes, and the ordinance would have to subsequently be re-introduced, causing further delay.
Morgan again asked Boylan whether he would be amenable to accepting an amendment to place setbacks at 50 feet from the property lines or 75 feet from a structure. Boylan said he would not be.
However, at the 11th hour, officials were able convince Boylan to agree to the requirement that all buildings be set back a minimum of 50 feet from any existing residential lot with adequate buffering. And, if that adequate buffering is not provided, the setback will, in fact, have to be 75 feet from any existing residential structure.
The changes also included in the final draft before introduction included: requiring landscaping on the applicant’s property and on the right of way (as further protection for Scurato’s home), setting the maximum number of stories to 2.5; eliminating a post office branch as a permitted use on site; and leaving in the language giving Scurato the power to ask the applicant to perform landscaping on her property.
