More housing, and more affordable housing, is headed for West Windsor — with or without redevelopment. But residents may be relieved to know that for now, the Planning Board is looking at taking a much less “ambitious” route than originally proposed in coming up with a plan by the end of the year to provide for West Windsor’s state-mandated share of affordable housing.##M:[more]##
Originally, the Planning Board was 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 of the Heatherfield residential development, on September 17, who voiced concern over the possibility of having a dense residential development with a large number of affordable housing on the Scokim site, across from McCaffrey’s, located near their homes.
The three new sites included the property of the Princeton Theological Seminary, where the school is rebuilding its graduate student housing; a tract on Princeton-Hightstown Road and Old Trenton Road; and the 24.4-acre Scokim site encompassing Princeton-Hightstown and Southfield roads and McGetrick Lane, where preliminary discussions proposed 232 new affordable housing units and 694 market-rate units. Development of the DeMeglio and Maneely sites, as previously proposed in 2005, would add 98 affordable and 166 market-rate units to that mix.
However, before the fair share plan could be discussed further at a continuation on September 24 — where more than 100 residents crammed into the meeting room —Planning Board Chairman reiterated that the discussions had only been designed to promote dialogue for helping the board create a plan to deal with the new third-round Council on Affordable Housing regulations.
“From what occurred at the last meeting a week ago, it was apparent to me and some other members that the proposals that came forth from the professionals were, perhaps, too ambitious,” Gardner said. “They wanted to protect the township by providing a cushion, which meant in the event that COAH found problems with the plan that we present to them, that there would be sufficient alternatives to meet the minimum requirements that we felt met our fair share of housing units, and that cushion was somewhere in the area of about an additional 115 or so units. I’ve asked them to tear down that number and work with the absolute minimum that, in their professional opinion, we can handle in terms of developments that might be built in our township, and they’ve done this.”
Missing from the list of sites, still, is the redevelopment area, which could potentially provide nearly 300 affordable units.
Under new third-round Council on Affordable Housing regulations, township officials had originally calculated, after carrying over some credits from the first and second rounds and accounting for housing projects already in place, that West Windsor still had to satisfy at least 115 more affordable housing credits.
Municipalities around the state, including West Windsor, are faced with having to design their affordable housing plans in accordance with COAH’s new third round rules by December 31, or risk becoming subject to builder’s remedy lawsuits — in which the builders can sue the municipality and usually end up with a significant increase in housing density in the area they are interested in building.
Board attorney Gerald Muller had said 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 been satisfied, leaving 115 remaining.
Township officials had said they needed to search for other sites to meet their obligations because they were still uncertain whether the township will be able to carry over rental bonus credits from the second round, and it is uncertain how planning and development of the Maneely site will play out. Therefore, they wanted to plan for more than 115 units, to ensure they have a cushion in the number of affordable housing units they need to provide if the projection is not accurate.
In addition, the redevelopment area, which was included in the township’s original third-round fair share plan, is not accounted for in the new plan because of uncertainty over whether redevelopment will actually go through. In the township’s draft third round housing plan, it was assumed that the Wyeth tract and the redevelopment area would have taken care of the township’s entire growth share obligation for the third round, planning consultant John Madden said.
That is because the redevelopment area could potentially produce 292 affordable units, as proposed in the InterCap Holdings — which owns 25 acres on Washington Road in the redevelopment area — plan. The InterCap site itself would supply 144 affordable housing units, and account for 152 more throughout the rest of the project. But “we have not included the redevelopment, nor have we included Wyeth in the affordable housing plan for site consideration,” Madden said. “The redevelopment plan is ongoing, and we decided not to consider it because it’s not a plan that’s been adopted. It’s not a plan we are certain will be adopted by the end of the year, and it’s not a plan we are certain will be adopted at all.”
So officials began looking at other ways to satisfy the town’s obligation that would meet COAH criteria and at the same time, would be located near retail services. Muller said that the township needs to plan for the affordable housing regulations in compliance with COAH’s new regulations or else it risks “tremendous exposure.” Once the builder shows a town is not compliant with its constitutional obligation in providing fair share, zoning power is taken away from the municipality and given to the court, and the courts will generally give builders what they want. He said he does not know of any cases involving a builder’s remedy suit against a town that had COAH approval.
West Windsor already has been subject to and lost two such suits — one in 1984, and another in 1993 from Toll Brothers — and because of this, developers will be watching the township closely, officials said. “If we don’t formulate our own plan, I can guarantee that builders will sue West Windsor,” Muller said. “If we don’t have a plan, they’ll throw it out, and we’ll have to wind up with a court order putting together a plan, and the builder that wins that has interest in a site in town, will get a builder’s remedy. The court will basically decide after input from the builder, but not much input from the town, what the zoning will be. There’s really no advantage in not having a plan if we know we’re going to be sued.”
Still, planning officials drastically scaled down the number of units originally proposed and decided to go with a bare minimum approach.
Seminary Site. The 65.2-acre Princeton Theological Seminary site is located on Wheeler Way, located off of Canal Pointe Boulevard, in between Farber Road and Emmons Drive. Madden said township officials learned that the existing graduate student housing project was being scheduled for redevelopment, in which the seminary is working with a private developer to demolish the current 240 graduate units and rebuild them with an additional 32 units — all of which is permitted under current zoning. The builder will also develop an additional 380 units, which would require new affordable housing units.
The total would be 652 units on site. The 240 graduate units are exempt from COAH regulations, but of the 380 total non-graduate student housing, 285 could be market units, and 95 could be affordable units, Madden had said, pointing out that the township could capture 25 percent affordable housing density in this way, with 10 units allowed per acre. In addition, at the corner of Wheeler Way and Meadow Road, there is a 3.25 acre tract also owned by the seminary that is suitable for retail, Madden said. “That, too, could be developed with a combination of affordable housing,” with some, perhaps, on the second or third floor above the retail, Madden said.
However, officials at the seminary were opposed to the proposal. At the September 17 meeting, John Gilmore, the senior vice president and chief operating officer of the Princeton Theological Seminary, read a statement to the board opposing the proposal to require an affordable housing density of 25 percent.
“As we understand it, the current proposal is not to reduce or increase the density, but rather to increase the COAH housing obligation from 20 percent to 25 percent,” he said. “The seminary is supportive of affordable housing, and has worked on its behalf for many years. Our economic plan for development assumes a 20 percent, or one in five apartments COAH obligation, which we had planned on and are pleased to meet. The 25 percent requirement would not enable us to replace our old apartments with new facilities. Assuming a 20 percent COAH obligation, our land development would provide the township with 76 new affordable housing units, which we see as a healthy contribution for one site.”
If the 25 percent obligation is mandated, Gilmore said, it “might well destroy the economics of the program and result in loss of these 76 units.”
However, at the September 24 meeting, Muller said officials had considered the concerns and are looking, right now, to only require a 20 percent affordable housing obligation, meaning no zoning change would be required at all, and the seminary could, under current zoning, do the project.
Route 571/Old Trenton Road. The site at Princeton-Hightstown Road and Old Trenton Road contains almost 75 acres of farmland, with about 44 acres of the land is developable. Madden predicted that the site would be suitable for a planned village development. The site could have featured a total 400 units, with 300 market rate and 100 affordable and 20,”000 square feet of retail services. For this site, the gross density would have been about 8 to 10 dwelling units per acre, and there would be ample room to provide open space recreational opportunities. In order to zone this piece of land, the board would either need to add a conditional use for a planned village development in the RO-1 district, its current zoning, or create a new planned village development district, Madden said.
However, during the September 24 meeting, Muller said the staff proposed that the 400-unit project be reduced to 140 units, a two-third reduction. “That’s the most appropriate site to have a reduced-scale development because the site is so large, that we have tremendous flexibility in terms of where it is located, and we could put it closer to Route 571,” Muller said.
Route 571/Southfield Road/McGetrick Lane. The property owner of what is referred to as the Scokim site at the corner of Route 571, Southfield Road, and McGetrick Lane has already requested rezoning to allow for a new mixed-used planned village development zone with retail and office uses near the Southfield and Princeton-Hightstown intersection. At a meeting last year, the board told Scokim Enterprises to revise its retail/office center proposal to include all of the undeveloped P-1 zone properties in a planned mixed-use development, said Madden, as opposed to just the little island surrounded by the three roads. The board told him to account for a variety of housing units with a walkable retail area.
“It would allow sufficient land to have decent transition from retail to housing,” Madden said. In that area, Madden originally said the site could accommodate 146 total units — 109 market and 37 affordable — in the nearly 25-acre space. Township officials are proposing calls for a density of six dwelling units per acre with a 25 percent affordable housing set aside.
This proposal caused the most public outcry, particularly from residents at the Heatherfield development. During the September 17 meeting, Priory Road resident Joe Salerno, who lives in the Heatherfield development, said the proposal for the Scokim site backs into the development’s backyard. “What is important to us, if we’re going to bear the burden of this fair share, is that it’s proportionate to the rest of the community,” he said. “Quite frankly, a builder’s remedy really doesn’t look all that bad to us because it won’t get much worse as it pertains to our community in Heatherfield.”
“Unless we can be convinced that this is absolutely the best solution for West Windsor, I guarantee you that the 100 families in Heatherfield are going to object strongly to this dramatic increase in density,” he added. “You only have to have a glance at that map to see just how different the character of that triangular neighborhood would be to the one right next to it.”
Salerno said at that meeting that he was concerned about the value of having a “cushion” for the number of affordable housing units, even though there is still uncertainty about the requirements set forth by COAH as it pertains to the township’s obligations. “I understand why you would want flexibility,” he said. “I’m sure every resident would agree that we want to minimize the amount of housing in general, certainly affordable housing, given how much the town has done already. If there is not a clearly established threshold, I’d ask you to please consider the value of that flexibility.”
The board is considering doing just that. Muller said during the September 24 meeting that the board had, for now, decided to drop the proposal for that site in the fair share plan all together.
Current Proposal. With the idea to drop the Scokim site, reduce the percentage of affordable housing units to 20 percent on the seminary site, and to reduce the number of units at the site on Old Trenton and Princeton-Hightstown roads to 140, the board began discussing other options during the September 24 meeting.
The two remaining sites already called for in the township’s current fair share plan are the 14-acre DeMeglio parcel on Clarksville Road, which calls for 114 total units — 91 market and 23 affordable — and the 50-acre Maneely site, off Old Bear Brook Road, which would be the location for Project Freedom’s 60 affordable units, a corporate long-term stay hotel with 220 rooms, neighborhood retail, and 75 townhouses — 15 of which would be affordable. But in order to meet COAH requirements, the nonprofit group would have to have control of the site, Muller had said. But during the September 24 meeting, Muller said that by the time the board has its next meeting regarding the fair share plan, the dialogue between residents of the area and Maneely owner will be concluded and board officials could make a suggestion in terms of what could be done with regard to the site.
“We talked to Project Freedom about increasing the number of Project Freedom units from 60 to 75, and because that’s a 100 percent affordable project, that means you don’t get, as you would with these projects that have 20 percent units, more market units,” Muller said.
In making these changes, “we wind up with effectively meeting our fair share obligation, but with a cushion of zero. We would have a 15 unit cushion, but that relates to the complicated arrangement with respect to Maneely,” Muller said. “But it’s unlikely the 15 units would actually happen.”
Gardner suggested that the board direct the developer to meet with the community groups, get a sense of which of the residents’ concerns over the conceptual plans for the Maneely site still remain, which objections they might still have, and attempt to resolve those issues. Until such time, the board will not hear an application until the board is satisfied that residents’ concerns are addressed, he said.
Madden said officials understand that the concern of the community is to keep the numbers down, and while they would prefer to have a greater cushion, “obviously the balance is to reduce the absolute number of units that has to be produced in order to meet this obligation,” he said. “This is the lowest number we can craft.”
Board member Marty Rosen asked whether there is a risk associated with going this route. Muller said that once the plan is filed, “if COAH comes back to us and says they have a problem with X,Y, and Z, we will have an opportunity to address that,” he said. Muller also pointed out that a contingency plan would be created in the meantime, just in case that does happen.
“My feeling was that let’s do the basic minimum because quite frankly, once you submit, you’re committed to that number, and I don’t want to be committed to a much higher number that I’m not responsible for,” Gardner said. He also pointed out that if the board found it necessary, it would request an extension of the time to submit the plan if it felt it could not meet the December 31 deadline. “I can’t guarantee you it will be granted, but we will make that request.”
Residents at the September 24 applauded the board’s efforts. Salerno thanked the board, saying “it’s a great relief for me, and I’m sure for dozens of my neighbors, that you decided, at least for the time being, to take the Scokim site off of this proposal” and rework the plan to include sites that are more suitable for high-density residential use.
There were still concerns from residents, particularly near the Maneely site over what the proposals elsewhere would mean for residents living in those areas. Holly Keleman, of Old Bear Brook Road said she was concerned about increasing the number of affordable units from 60 to 75, and asked whether more units would mean there would be “two-and-a-half more buildings.”
“Are we just pushing more units onto this site without regards to the impacts on the neighborhood?” she asked. “The application was not complete when it was presented,” she said. “There were many questions — they have not been addressed. We’re just very concerned now.” Gardner reiterated that the plans shown were simply concept plans, and that Maneely still has not filed a formal application, and that there are still meetings taking place. Gardner assured her that a township representative would attend the meetings between residents and the Maneely owner.
When Gardner said the back-up contingency plan would not be released publicly, in response to public questioning, some residents were concerned that Heatherfield would be placed back on the list for potential sites without the residents’ knowledge. However, Muller said that if COAH finds issue with the plan as submitted, and new areas are to be considered for rezoning, residents in those areas would be notified and would have a chance to be involved in the planning process.
Mayor Shing-Fu Hsueh, who had attended a meeting in Atlantic City on the new COAH regulations this month and who passed out information to residents about the regulations, called on the board and Township Council to set up an emergency joint meeting to discuss the issue further sometime in the next two weeks. The affordable housing committee should also be included, he said. The meeting date had not been determined by press time.
