Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Princeton Planning Board continues review of Toll Brothers's 85-unit Thanet Circle plan amid debate over clustering of affordable homes and environmental risks
Summary
The Planning Board heard detailed engineer and architect testimony on design revisions to Toll NJ1 LLC's 85-unit Thanet Circle project, including added ADA-compliant parking, pedestrian-route changes and a proposed cluster of 17 restricted (affordable) units in two buildings. Neighbors raised asbestos, dust, screening, stormwater and tree-loss concerns; the board asked for revised plans and conditions and carried further action to the next meeting.
The Princeton Planning Board continued its review on May 28 of Toll NJ1 LLC's preliminary and final major site plan for 29 Thanet Circle, an 85-unit mixed community that includes 17 restricted (affordable) units. Applicant witnesses described May revisions intended to address earlier board concerns, while residents urged stronger environmental and construction protections.
Daniel Chanel of Dynamic Engineering told the board the applicants' May 14 submission added a bike rack, clarified parking locations for market and affordable units and revised accessible parking. "So now, not only do we meet the ADA requirement of having two spaces, we exceed it by providing a third and we've also scattered them throughout the site," Chanel said, describing one space near the playground and another adjacent to Building I.
Architect James Desgrrenic described the stacked-townhome product and exterior materials for the 10-building community, saying the project would include brick bases, horizontal siding and cementitious panels. "There are a total of 85 residential units in this community," he said, "17 will be restrictive," and explained that the restricted units are concentrated in two buildings so they could meet UHAC bedroom and accessibility requirements.
That clustering touched off the evening's most contested exchanges. Several board members and residents pressed whether placing all affordable units in two buildings would stigmatize residents or result in lower-quality design. Planner Craig Rancamp testified that UHAC for-sale rules allow clustered restricted units provided they are "integrated throughout the development" and not in an "undesirable location." He argued the courtyard site near the playground constitutes integration rather than segregation. "This is exactly the right place on the site for these units," Rancamp said, emphasizing access to open space and parking benefits for units without garages.
Neighbors, however, focused on environmental and construction impacts. Carlo Nalen of Governor's Lane asked whether existing structures had been tested for asbestos and for safeguards during demolition: "We have not heard whether the current structure is free of asbestos," he said. The applicant confirmed that pre-demolition testing found asbestos in old carpet mastic and that licensed abatement will be performed before demolition.
Residents and the Governor's Lane Condominium Association also asked for updated technical reviews and conditions: a revised stormwater design and outstanding responses to town reviewer Joe Scopian's April memo, an updated fire-flow test (applicant said a November test was completed), confirmation of sewer capacity and a construction-management plan with concrete dust- and erosion-control steps. Matteo DiTomaso, reading the HOA's May 1 letter, requested documented assurances and a public, shared list of conditions before any vote.
The applicant agreed to a set of near-term, documentary actions: posting the corrected unit-distribution table on the plan set, submitting the DP/NJDEP wetland permit application (the pedestrian bridge will be replaced in-kind and made ADA compliant), providing revised responses to town stormwater comments, and producing a construction-management plan with weekly third-party stormwater inspections and dust controls. The team also agreed to meet with the board's landscape subcommittee and to walk the Governor's Lane boundary with HOA representatives to develop a screening solution. Applicant counsel said temporary chain-link fencing with mesh would be installed during demolition, and staff-level landscape work will follow to provide a long-term buffer.
Board members pressed for additional plan refinements including additional bedroom windows on one affordable building, clarification on EV- and e-bike-charging safety in garages, and a firm schedule for permit submittals. Town reviewer Joe Scopian said several technical memo items still required formal responses; the applicant said May 14 replies had been posted online and that any overlooked items would be supplied to Scopian immediately.
The board did not take a final vote on the Toll NJ1 application. Members agreed to continue the matter for focused review of draft conditions and outstanding technical replies; the project will be the primary item on the board's June 4 agenda. The application remains under active review with multiple conditions and outside-agency permits (NJDEP/DP, sewer authority, and water utility) still to be obtained.
What comes next: the applicant will submit updated plan sheets and response materials (stormwater replies, an on-plan unit-distribution table, construction-management program and documentation of wetlands/DP filings). The board will review those materials and a draft conditions list at its next meeting before resuming votes on site-plan approval.
