Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Central Bank asks planning board to support vacating Company Street for branch expansion; board to forward to city council
Loading...
Summary
Central Bank Princeton asked the planning board April 14 to vacate Company Street to attach a northward addition to its branch. Bank representatives presented a two‑week manual drive‑through count of about 185 cars per day, discussed alternatives and offered alley improvements; the board agreed to pursue a formal vacation plat and refer the matter to city council for final action.
Central Bank Princeton told the local planning board on April 14 that it wants Company Street vacated so the bank can build an addition to its existing downtown branch and consolidate operations now split across Main Street.
Jeff, a representative of Central Bank Princeton, said the bank employs 25 people locally and prefers to expand north rather than build vertically or leave customers to use an elevator. He said a two‑week manual count of drive‑through traffic—conducted by bank staff—showed roughly 185 cars per day in the drive‑through lane, and argued a formal traffic study would largely capture bank traffic and could cost up to $2,500.
Jeff described site constraints: buried utilities in the alley, a narrow drive‑through footprint and the difficulty of moving teller operations to an upper story. He said vacating the alley and consolidating parking could reduce trips across Main Street for employees and customers and that the bank would work with the city on landscaping and alley improvements if the street were vacated.
Property owner Mike Judge, who owns a deteriorated building north of the bank, told the board he supports the proposal and said removal of his building would improve the corner. Other residents and commissioners raised concerns about precedent for street vacations, impacts on church access and safety for employees crossing Main Street. Commissioners discussed possible mitigations—making the north alley one way, improving the alley surface, easements for shared parking—and whether neighbors must be contacted before final action.
Planner Michael said the next formal step is the preparation of a vacation plat and that state law may require a formal traffic count; he said he would investigate that requirement. Commissioners agreed the issue should be moved to city council for final decision rather than decided by the planning board, and no formal street‑vacation vote was taken at this meeting.
The planning board did not set a timetable for council submittal; Michael will follow up on the traffic‑study requirement and the commission expects to forward a vacation plat and recommendation to council if consensus continues.
