Princeton settlement removed 20% affordable housing set-aside requirement for developments that conform to zoning
A former Princeton Borough requirement that all new housing projects include a set aside of 20 percent of the units for affordable housing was inadvertently left out of an agreement that settled a five-year lawsuit between the municipality and the non-profit advocacy group Fair Share Housing.
In 2015, the municipality joined with some other municipalities in the county in filing a lawsuit challenging their affordable housing obligations. All of the other municipalities except West Windsor quickly reached settlements with Fair Share Housing, but Princeton’s lawsuit dragged on and cost the municipality hundreds of thousands of dollars. A Mercer County judge approved a settlement agreement in the matter a year ago.
Some local officials had been under the impression that the former Princeton Borough requirement for a 20 percent affordable housing set aside had been extended to include the former Princeton Township under the agreement. But officials received a rude awakening during a Princeton Site Plan Review Advisory Board meeting last week when they asked how many apartment units would be affordable as part of a new proposed apartment complex Palmer Square Management wants to build on the Griggs Corner parking lot across from the Princeton Public Library.
Josh Zinder, the architect for Palmer Square, said none of the eight apartment units that would be built would be affordable units. Some officials, including Princeton Councilman David Cohen, were under the impression that the development had to include some affordable units, and that the town’s new regulations extended the 20 percent affordable-unit requirement to the entire municipality.
A lawyer for Palmer Square disagreed and said the town removed the 20 percent affordable housing requirement when the governing body passed the comprehensive affordable housing ordinance. Planning staff members backed the lawyer up, saying the agreement with Fair Share Housing removed the 20 percent set aside the affordable-unit requirement for planning applications that conform with existing zoning.
Zoning Officer Derek Bridger said under the municipality’s agreement with Fair Share Housing, the 20 percent set-aside for affordable housing now only applies to building applications that require use variances and to projects in areas the town declares “areas in need of redevelopment. “It doesn’t cover use of right,” Bridger said. That means if an application conforms with current zoning regulations, a developer does not need to make any units affordable.
The precise wording of the change, from the settlement agreement with Fair Share Housing, from the Dec. 18, 2019 council meeting and the ordinance adopted by the Princeton Council in June of 2020: “Section 17A-202.1, et seq. of the Borough Code requires an affordable housing set-aside on projects located in the lands of the former Borough. As part of this settlement agreement, Princeton agrees to amend, or repeal and replace, the existing ordinance with a new ordinance applicable to the entire consolidated municipality that requires an on-site affordable housing set-aside of 20% for all new multi-family residential developments of five or more additional units that are developed at a density of six or more units per acre, which developments become permissible through: a use variance; a density variance increasing the permissible density at the site; a rezoning permitting multi-family residential housing where not previously permitted; or a new or amended redevelopment plan; or a new or amended rehabilitation plan.” The provisions do not apply to student housing for undergraduates and graduates in the municipality.
Cohen said on Tuesday that the way the ordinance was written did not reflect the current council’s understanding of the intent of the new regulations. “We are working on revising the ordinance,” he said.
In New Jersey, the “time of application” rule applies for project submissions to the planning board. If a new regulation is passed after an application for a project has been filed, the new regulation does not apply to that project. In other words, regardless of whether the council creates a new ordinance mandating that all developments over a certain density include 20 percent affordable units, the Palmer Square project and any other conforming plans submitted since the affordable housing ordinance were passsed are not required to include any affordable units.
Krystal Knapp is the founding editor of Planet Princeton. Follow her on Twitter @krystalknapp. She can be reached via email at editor AT planetprinceton.com. Send all letters to the editor and press releases to that email address.
Dear Councilors – please pass a new ordinance ASAP that reinstates the 20% affordable housing requirement. In fact make it 25 or 30%. Obviously, developers are chomping at the bit to build in Princeton on the very scarce land that becomes available! 20% affordable has not been a deterrent, and I don’t think 25 or 30% would be either. Let market forces guide your actions! Personally, I believe this should be your highest priority. We all want a Town that remains as diverse and affordable as possible.
And why would not the existing ordinance still cover “projects located in the lands of the former Borough,” until the Town passes a new ordinance “applicable to the entire consolidated municipality”…. as long as it does so in a reasonable time period? The Settlement was only last fall.
Shameful!
Quoting from the article, “Cohen said on Tuesday that the way the ordinance was written did not reflect the current council’s understanding of the intent of the new regulations.”
WOW and yet the Ordinance was adopted! And who wrote the Ordinance that didn’t convey the Intent? My guess – the expert hired to do just that…to be sure it conveyed the “intent.”
The town’s planning department knew and Council didn’t know? I’d like to know, since all the meetings leading up to the Settlement were behind closed doors, did Planning ever bring that issue up or share a concern that the 20% set-aside was in jeopardy? And what does this say about Fair Share Housing that they would sign off on fewer affordable units to be built by private developers? It’s shameful.
Did the Administrator know?
This calls for an investigation as to how this could have been unknown by Council who ultimately signed off on the Settlement.
And why would “use of right” developments be treated differently than any other developments? It makes no sense.
Quoting from the article
“Zoning Officer Derek Bridger said under the municipality’s agreement with Fair Share Housing, the 20 percent set-aside for affordable housing now only applies to building applications that require use variances and to projects in areas the town declares “areas in need of redevelopment. “It doesn’t cover use of right,” Bridger said. That means if an application conforms with current zoning regulations, a developer does not need to make any units affordable.”
Hard to find words to express the irony of a building on the Griggs corner site that will have no affordable units. And what a massive structure—I wonder what the visual impact will be on Hinds Plaza and on the smaller buildings on Witherspoon.
The 20% affordable set aside in all new developments of 5 units or more has been a basis for equitable planning in central Princeton for many years. And a source of pride to those involved in the planning community. The revised ordinance should include the entire community, and should be quickly approved.
The incompetence shown here by the Council and former Mayor in allowing the Dec. 2019 resolution to be passed and letting the 20% requirement lapse is just incredible. I am so glad that many of those representatives have been replaced in recent elections. I ask our current officials to do a much better job of carefully reading the text of the ordinances they are passing.
There was an opinion piece in the New York Times yesterday about how government suffers in places where there is one-party rule and there is no real opposition to keep the ruling party accountable. I think we have this in Princeton. Time after time (this, the illegal dumping scandal, the filling station canopy construction/demolition, to name three), Princeton’s government shows that it doesn’t work well. To our elected officials: we need good government! Please be more diligent in the future.
The town leadership knows that the town is not meeting with its affordable housing requirements. This is abhorrent under the same rich man slaveowner law that allows Princeton U to not pay taxes. For example, Copperwood Apartment complex has 153 units and according to them, 12 of the 153 are affordable =7.8 percent and they have empty units because of the pandemic. They all know this that only 7.8 percent of Copperwood is affordable. If one really checked, under the former mayor and our current council, none of the apartment complexes are probably meeting a 20% requirement, and come on people, all our council people and our Mayors and all the lobbyists at Princeton U, don’t they all already know this… It is a little unclear how the settlement went to court before a judge and this still goes on here… though…Hard to believe this is just because all these powerful, wealthy, mainline Democrats do not know this or how to use a lawyer. Is this even legal?
What will happen to Mistral if the parking lot disappears? Will it be facing a brick wall?
This is also not a poor-people-only issue. The push for more and more expensive, often low-quality and often low-aesthetic value housing raises the average property tax on average value to quite high levels and begins to look like fiscal irresponsibility, just expensiveness for the cache of expensiveness… see for example, the issue of average tax in Princeton vs. other places IN NJ .. and that is just NJ… Princeton now has some of the highest property taxes in the state of NJ, which has some of the highest property taxes in the country. Why is this the goal? What really is being accomplished here? Who benefits from this? The tax write-offs for property taxes or say the tax-exempt status of Princeton University also causes inflation and unnecessary spending in the wrong places – more beautiful buildings with alums names on them that no one can use… etc
Superb reporting. Again, the only place that we can find out what’s really going on in Princeton is through your efforts here at Planet Princeton
Don’t blame the Administrator.
Blame the Municipal Attorney and the special outside affordable housing litigation attorney and the then-Mayor and then-Members of Council, especially the three members of Council’s Affordable Housing Subcommittee, one member being quite arrogant at times, in my opinion. Also, blame the excessive use of “need for confidentiality”, which was used over and over again to avoid the eyes of the public.
Is it true that the municipal government allowed The Residence at Palmer Square to dump their affordable housing requirements off in the old part of Palmer Square and therefore there are no affordable units within the 100 or so units within the Residence at Palmer Square development?
Yes, it’s true