Princeton urgently needs an updated master plan in order to successfully respond to climate change and the housing crisis, and to ensure that our planning goals are equitable, sustainable and compliant with current state statutes.
This forces most workers to live somewhere more affordable and commute to work, generally by car, thus increasing traffic and demand for parking. In New Jersey, a home is generally considered to be affordable to a buyer if housing costs, including principal and interest payments, property taxes, and property insurance, consume 28% or less of an individual’s gross annual wages. (The lower percentage than rent is to account for additional home maintenance costs that renters do not incur.) Based on these statistics, there is no employment sector in Princeton in which an individual worker earns enough at the average salary to afford to purchase a home at the 2020 median home value in Princeton of $872,400. (It should be noted that the 2021 median home price in Princeton rose to $893,600.) In all but one of the 14 primary employment sectors, two such salaries are insufficient to afford a home at the median home value.
The plan is a policy document, not a legislative one. It does not change zoning; only Princeton’s governing body can do that via the ordinance process. That said, zoning ordinances should be “substantially consistent” with a municipality’s master plan, so the Planning Board anticipates that zoning amendments will be crafted for Council’s consideration.
What the Master Plan says:
The Master Plan as written, focusing on higher residential density, will require the new zoning approved by the Council to reflect the higher density outlined in the plan throughout the ‘Borough, Riverside, Institute and the central areas of Princeton. The FAQ is relying on semantics to claim that it does not impact zoning.
The plan recommends that Princeton allow – not require, but allow – existing homes that are located relatively near to downtown and transit to be converted or retrofitted, to create multiple smaller units. These could be used as rentals to offset costs to “empty nesters” or could be used to house relatives in a way that promotes multigenerational living, which carries positive impacts. The point is to add options for housing diversity – if and only if homeowners want to utilize those options, or if they sell to a new owner that wishes to do so. Specifically, the recommendation (p. 45) reads “Study permitting the conversion of large single-family homes into attached dwelling residential buildings, particularly in neighborhoods near transit stops or with existing off-street parking.” “Study” means just that: proceeding with care, detailed analysis, and input from those who would be most affected.
What the Master Plan says:
While encouraging strategic increases in residential density in appropriate areas throughout the Municipality. Allowing neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown and the Shopping Center to add “gentle infill” will bring more households of small and medium size within walking distance of mixed-use nodes and their myriad amenities, significantly reducing the need for individual car trips and the resulting traffic congestion. The increases in residential density recommended in this Plan Element bring with them several benefits to taxpayers, including, significantly, a lower cost per household to deliver various services, from street and road maintenance to garbage collection to utility costs.
The setbacks, you know, to neighboring properties on the side yards, the front yard, the rear yard setbacks. None of those are actually being proposed to be changed in any aspect of the I don't want to see any aspect (changed). I think one of the commenters mentioned that there are some talk about getting rid of the minimum open space requirement per dwelling unit. And that is a recommendation that's in the document. So I don't want to deny that. But many, many of these controls on how density impacts a neighborhood are not recommended to be changed.
When we suggest having more dwelling units be allowed on an individual piece of property, we're not talking about more square footage. We're just saying instead of one great big house, like that resident was complaining about, went up next to her, that it might be a nice seeming house that would actually have four dwelling units in it, or six, you know, depending on what neighborhood it's in, in a way that's appropriate to the neighborhood. So I really wanted to emphasize that that we're not talking about increasing amount of building when we're talking about increasing the number of dwelling units. And by the way, in answer to one of the other commenters, that's how you guarantee that developers will build smaller units that will be more affordable.”
What the Master Plan says:
What does “missing middle” housing really mean? Is it a price point, or a type of housing? Ideally, it is both. In planning parlance, however, it is more a type of housing than a price point. Nothing in a municipal master plan can control real estate market pricing. Princeton is a highly desirable location, for many excellent reasons. The town’s housing stock comprises mostly large, detached, single family homes that are very expensive. Many people who rent apartments in town would like to own a home but cannot afford to buy in Princeton. Adding more housing choices of a smaller scale would begin to address housing needs in Princeton and is one tool to stabilize prices. Locating those new homes in proximity to jobs, shopping, parks, leisure and transit enables a more affordable, sustainable and, to many people, a very appealing lifestyle.
The market will determine housing prices; Princeton’s housing prices and values probably will remain high relative to many other municipalities. There is an unmet demand in Princeton for smaller-sized homes to buy. Adding more modest-sized dwellings in walkable areas, as many in the community say they want and need, may well stabilize housing prices and provide a new price point.
The proposed master plan recommends providing additional options as alternatives to tearing down an existing home to build a much larger one. Recommendations include eliminating complex barriers that prevent the creation of duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes even where those building types are currently a permitted use, or adjusting the standards for accessory dwelling units to make it feasible to keep the existing house and build a small accessory dwelling unit in the rear of the lot. The proposed land use map does not propose allowing significant increases in the number of dwelling units per property.
What the Master Plan says:
Allowing greater density by easing certain zoning restrictions will help provide new Missing Middle housing. Princeton residents are generally interested in permitting more housing within and around the downtown, increasing flexibility to create ADUs, allowing single-family homes on small or undersized lots, allowing “tiny homes,” and permitting the conversion of single family homes into attached residential dwelling buildings.
Princeton’s elected leaders are not bound by law to act on every recommendation in the Master Plan. The Land Use Element of the plan, however, is required to be the basis for any zoning ordinance, and is the basis for many land use decisions, including decisions made by the municipality’s land use boards: the planning board and the zoning board of adjustment. Assuming the final draft of the plan is adopted, crafting zoning changes that add the Housing types/choices that are envisioned, in ways that speak clearly to form and fit, and anticipate the law of unintended consequences -- that is, getting it right -- will be painstaking (and interesting!) work that likely will unfold over years.
