Residents challenge plan to designate 3641 Lawrence Road for redevelopment; council says designation only starts a process

Township planner Dr. Jones told the Lawrence Township Council on July 21 that a preliminary redevelopment study found the 7-acre property at 3641 Lawrence Road met two statutory criteria that can justify designation as an area in need of redevelopment. The report cited substandard conditions in existing structures and a faulty site arrangement that limit safe access and create public-safety and sanitary concerns.

The finding comes after the townshipentered into settlement agreements linked to its 2025 housing element, Dr. Jones said; the settlement with the property owner referenced an eventual redevelopment plan that contemplates about 110 units on the site. "Designation is a statutory step to allow a redevelopment plan process to proceed; it does not itself rezone the site or approve a project," Dr. Jones said.

Why it matters: designation triggers a separate public process that can lead to rezoning and site-plan review. Residents said they fear the move will be used to enable high-density development next to the Kings Highway Historic District and an adjacent trail. They pressed for transparency and for the council to take the resolution (listed as resolution 259 in the agenda) out of any omnibus package and vote on it alone.

Several residents urged preservation of the Gulick/Hoover House on the property. "This house was built in 1855 and is one of the few remaining examples of Italianate architecture in the area," said Nate Kunkel, who said he helped found the Lawrence Junior Historians. Kunkel asked the council to treat the historic structure as an explicit preservation priority.

Other speakers raised traffic and infrastructure concerns. "When I travel on Province Line Road in rush hour it can take 20 minutes to get from 206 to Princeton Pike," resident Howard Hoffman said, arguing added residential density would worsen congestion and emergency access. Multiple speakers questioned whether 110 units could be accommodated on roughly seven acres without adverse impacts.

Opponents also characterized the proposed approach as spot zoning and said the preliminary investigation overstated blight on the broader site. "The designation appears to target a single ownerand would allow a zone change that should be tested in a use-variance proceeding," Stephanie Weddeking told the council.

Council members and staff repeatedly emphasized process limits and next steps. One council member said, "We will be pulling the resolution out separately so that we can have the debate and you can see the vote." Council lawyers and planning-board members reiterated there is no executed development contract and that any developer must submit planning-board applications, environmental and traffic studies, and face additional public hearings before any construction could begin.

What happened next: the council closed public comment after an extended series of speakers and recessed briefly. They did move several unrelated contract awards and administrative items on the consent/agenda portion of the meeting (rehabilitation contracts and a grant-funded streetscape phase); those votes were recorded separately from the designation discussion.

The council did not adopt a redevelopment plan or rezoning at the meeting. Dr. Jones and council members said if the site is designated the next formal steps would include preparing a redevelopment plan, scheduling public hearings, and then separate planning-board land-use reviews; any application from a developer would be subject to traditional land-use standards and public scrutiny.

The matter remains open. Residents who asked for the resolution to be voted on separately were told the council would accommodate that request and that additional public hearings will follow if the designation proceeds.