UPDATED: Planning Board Objects to AvalonBay's Increased Density Request

The Princeton Regional Planning Board on Thursday said AvalonBay’s proposal to add 44 units to a rental development at the hospital site on Witherspoon Street is inconsistent with Princeton’s master plan and does not have the board’s recommendation.

AvalonBay Communities, is under contract to buy the hospital site and hopes to demolish the seven-story, 500,000-square foot building and build rental apartments. The company is requesting several changes to the zoning ordinance that will ultimately be decided by Borough Council on Tuesday.

One item of contention was AvalonBay’s request to build less than 20 percent affordable housing at its development at the 5.6 hospital site. The company withdrew that request on Thursday, saying it now intends to allocate 20 percent of the units as affordable.

"We are happy to provide 20 percent at the increased density of 324. That will result in 65 affordable on site units,” said AvalonBay Senior Vice President Ron Laddell said in front of packed crowd at the Princeton Township Municipal Building. “That’s never been done in Princeton Borough or Princeton Township in either a for sale community or a rental community.”

AvalonBay plans to rent its market rate units- which includes studio to three bedroom apartments- for between $1,600 to $3,200 per month.

Princeton Planning Director Lee Solow told the Planning Board the additional density request is not consistent with Princeton’s master plan.

A representative from the Princeton Environmental Commission said on Thursday the group was not opposed to the increased density, provided that AvalonBay comply with energy-saving certification, preferably LEED standard.

The Site Plan Review Advisory Board's report said the group strongly opposes the request for increased density.

“We are emphatically opposed to the density bonus of 44 units in any form,” said SPRAB representative Bill Wolfe.

Wolf said the committee felt AvalonBay’s development could be a great potential use for the site. But they were also concerned about the style, scope and pattern of the buildings (or “monolithic floor plans”) which “magnify the building size and monotony, like dressing a fat man in a plaid suit.” 

During Thursday’s nearly four-hour meeting, residents spoke for and against Avalon’s requested changes, several of which were endorsed by the Planning Board- putting up signs on the property, adding a leasing office and allowing loft apartments.

Planning Board member and former Borough Mayor Mildred Trotman and Princeton Community Housing Executive Director Sandra Persichetti both spoke in favor of the added density, saying it would allow for more affordable housing which is badly needed in Princeton. Persichetti said there are more than 500 families waiting for affordable housing in Princeton. 

Borough Council President Barbara Trelsdad, speaking as a private citizen, also voiced support for the project. She said the average price of a three bedroom home in Princeton is 453,000, well out of reach for most working class families just starting out. 

"That amount of money is significantly out of reach for most working class families just starting out," Trelsad said. "Rental housing has become their alternative and is a good thing. The AvalonBay proposal would create housing for real working people, housing for electricians, plumbers, assistant professors, accountants and physical therapists..."

If nothing happens with the hospital site, it will become a blight on the community and lower area property values, Trelsdad said. 

Nearly everyone else who spoke opposed the zoning ordinance change request, including Borough resident Alexi Assmus. 

"We spent two years and numerous meetings to come up with a max of 289 units for a 5.6 acre site. This was a big compromise for the neighborhood," Assmus said. "It’s a neighborhood of single family homes. And it was done so the hospital  could sell the site for a higher price and be redeveloped in character with the neighborhood. 

"I don’t see why the town is spending any time discussing why this limit should be raised. That is what is slowing up the process. There should have been an immediate 'No' from the get-go  and we should have moved forward. Either Avalon should have built the 280 untis or they backed out. There are numerous potential buyers who would love to revelope this site. And they bid on it, expecting they were biding on a 280 unit site. That set the price. You are business people, you re setting the price by setting the zoning. It’s not fair to other bidders and other potential buyers to change it now."

Outside Thursday’s hearing members of the Service Employees International Union, SEIU, were handing out flyers titled “Avalon Bay No Way!”

AvalonBay has a “troubling construction safety record,” including a worker dying after falling 48 feet down an elevator shaft at an AvalonBay construction site in Massachusetts, the union claims. Since that incident, the developer has received 20 citations for violating OSHA laws on fall protection and related precautions, the union claims.  

The union also alleges that AvalonBay does not provide affordable health insurance to the employees who build its projects.

Asked about the union's claims against Avalon Bay last week, Ladell emailed the following statement to Patch:

“The SEIU 32BJ has been attempting, without success, to influence our associates for some time. The union’s latest attempt to advance its agenda is to issue this so-called 'report,' which was written by the SEIU itself. The 'report' makes no pretence to objectivity and is designed simply to further the union’s campaign to influence our associates.  

“We respect the right of our associates to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to be represented by a union. We value our direct relationship with our associates, and we strive to provide a positive employee relations environment in all our facilities. We make available to associates a wide spectrum of benefits, so that they can select which benefits package will work best for their individual family needs.”