In an apparent concern for the amount of housing planned for the 653-acre Howard Hughes site, the West Windsor Township Council exchanged legal correspondence with the Howard Hughes Corporation (HHC) as both sides hesitate to make the first commitment.
Council denied the HHC property as a candidate for redevelopment examination “due to a lack of information” in a November 3 letter by township attorney Michael Herbert. Instead, Council is advising HHC to present a concept plan for informal review before the Planning Board. So far the company has not provided any specifics beyond its intention to build a mixed-use development on its property.
In response to Council rejecting its redevelopment request, HHC remains intent on pursuing the redevelopment consideration, proposing a parallel approach in which Council would authorize the Planning Board to determine whether the site is in need of redevelopment while simultaneously reviewing a concept plan from the company.
The letter from Council endorses the Planning Board’s expertise in land use, stating it “is best equipped to review the specifics of your client’s plans for the site.” The same letter also refers to the need for additional escrow deposits if HHC submits an application under municipal land use protocol.
“A concept plan would keep things in the public eye, make sure everything is above board and not discussed behind closed doors,” Herbert explained over the phone.
HHC responded in a strongly worded letter dated November 13 and written by Mark Solomon of Pepper Hamilton LLP, based at 301 Carnegie Center. Expressing surprise at receiving a response by letter from the township, as well as a “disconnect” regarding the Council’s request for more information through a concept plan and the company’s original request for approving an investigation of redevelopment area designation.
The letter states: “The Council’s response appears to be, first tell us what you want to do, then we’ll decide whether to consider your request.”
Before proposing “a two-pronged approach” involving simultaneous concept review and redevelopment area investigation by the Planning Board, HHC’s attorney asked how a non-binding concept process “will legitimately lead to consideration of its original request.”
The letter states that “designating the property an area in need of redevelopment provides a tool box that can help provide an alignment of interests of the township, the school board,” and HHC.
When reached by phone, Howard Hughes project director Chuck McMahon says the Council’s request for an informal review before the Planning Board is within its right, but he reiterated concern regarding how Council’s proposal connects with the company’s redevelopment request.
“The council has not detailed how this proposal will legitimately return to our original request,” McMahon says. When asked how many residential units are under consideration by the company, McMahon says that question will be explored during the planning process after the property has been designated for redevelopment.
West Windsor’s experience with redevelopment — specifically in the area surrounding the Princeton Junction train station — may indicate why the company has so far refrained from publicly outlining specific details. Questions of housing numbers plagued the train station redevelopment area, and the company may be trying to distance itself from the housing discussion. Transit village plans were derailed when preliminary proposals for the number of planned residential units went as high as 2,000 units, prompting an opposition slate to win Council seats in 2007.
That same year redevelopment planning consultant, Princeton architect J. Robert Hillier, presented a treatise that made an economic case for 1,000 residential units, extrapolated from state-mandated affordable housing requirements, and the adopted redevelopment plan for the 350-acre train station area ultimately proposed fewer than 500 units.
So how many housing units can be expected from the much larger 653-acre Howard Hughes property? HHC has specified more than 200 acres of wetlands will be set aside for open space, though that still leaves the developable acreage at roughly 450 acres.
Richard Johnson, senior vice-president at Matrix Development Group in Monroe, says he would be surprised if Hughes is considering 2,000 residential units for its development, a number that was discussed in the train station redevelopment zone nearly 10 years ago.
“If you look at Howard Hughes’ portfolio, they are master plan mixed-used builders,” Johnson says. “I haven’t seen their plan, but I’m sure it’s not going to be anything like single-family homes on one-acre lots. If you have 200-acres for wetlands you have 400-acres left, and by the time you do roads and facilities, one house per acre gives you 300 houses. That wouldn’t make any sense.”
Instead Johnson says the site will more likely be a mixture of residential components including single family homes, attached townhomes, and apartment flats or condominiums in the six to eight-story range, as well as different retail and office developments. Combining uses diversifies the risk for developers, and according to Johnson mixed-use projects near transit usually generate children at a lower rate than single-family developments dependent on cars.
“I think it is a fairly common reaction to ask about residential and school-age children. How are the resources of the community going to be impacted? Is the development in the end a source of benefit to the community?” says Johnson, who lives in nearby Cranbury. “I think the biggest issue in sites this large, the question is who are you dealing with. This is not for the faint of heart: 650-acres of land, as well located as it is, in a strong of a market as it is, there is a lot of risk. The fact that Howard Hughes has been there for 10 years and has the experience to get it done. It doesn’t give the community all the answers they want, but it gives them a comfort level.”
At both the September 22 and October 6 Council meetings HHC emphasized it is the sole owner of the site, while the train station redevelopment area involved dozens of owners. The company has also noted the site would take more than 25 years to be fully built out, and the timing of residential construction does matter when determining the impact of school children enrollment and whether new schools are needed.
Whatever is eventually built will of course impact the entire region, and the property’s unique transportation access has attracted attention from transit oriented professionals. In the company’s presentation before Council in September, HHC representatives discussed a human-scale mixed-use development with traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian connections.
“West Windsor has expressed concerns about overdevelopment. A project like this has the possibility of bringing amenities the community might want,” says Nat Bottigheimer, a Princeton consultant who has worked as a professional transportation planner and real estate economics consultant. “I think what you’ll find is they will try to position it to people who want an active, walkable, bikeable atmosphere, but customized for the suburbs. People tend to think you are building a city in the suburbs but in Europe there are lots of small towns that are bikeable and walkable.”
Bottigheimer notes the property’s transportation access to Route 1, the train station, as well as its proximity to the Mercer County Park and the D&R Canal. He says transit oriented development for the site with continuous walkable and bikeable trails could link residents to the nearby amenities on both sides of Route 1 that would not be dependent on cars.
Martin Robbins, the director emeritus of the Allen M. Voorhees Transportation Center at Rutgers who a decade ago coordinated the lengthy study of the proposed regional Millstone bypass of Route 1 at Washington Road in West Windsor, says the property’s proximity to the northeast corridor rail line could have similar characteristics to the Main Street North Brunswick development, a new train station transit village also on the northeast corridor.
This is a massive piece of property that could use the rail line right of way effectively, “either as a station or to create a connection from the Hughes property to the Princeton Junction train station,” Robbins says. “A station would draw off excess demand from Princeton Junction and greatly benefit the housing development.”
