AvalonBay at SPRAB: Unprepared and Inadequate

by Daniel A. Harris

The site plan review process has been subverted by AvalonBay’s bullying insistence on a dangerously shortened time line for review by municipal staff and the Site Plan Review Advisory Board (SPRAB).

The SPRAB meeting on AvalonBay (6/12/13) was a distress. Despite a request, AvalonBay bucked Princeton’s long-term practice and chose not to make a formal presentation. Nor did AvalonBay’s casual display of materials show any improvement over the fiasco of the first hearings (October 2012): here again, SPRAB was shown only two-dimensional renderings, not the 3D models that are an industry-standard for projects of this magnitude. None of the renderings included the surrounding neighborhood---AvalonBay again (as in 2012) snuffed out questions concerning the project’s hugeness in relation to private-home neighborhood scale. This tactic did not work in 2012, and neither SPRAB nor the Planning Board should let it work in 2013.

SPRAB members had to tease out important information from AvalonBay representatives: much information was simply missing. SPRAB chair Bill Wolfe said that, unless information is provided shortly, the Board will have to "report a lot of blanks." Several times he called the presentation "incomplete." Among problematic items: adequate renderings of the three-story bridge that connects Buildings 1 and 2, actual samples of materials to be used (whether for facings or retaining walls), floor plans for townhouse lofts, incomplete or absent labels, location of air-conditioning units, clear indications of elevation gains for the building facing Witherspoon Street. AvalonBay could not provide information about garage access (requested on 6/5/13 for the 6/12/13 meeting). SPRAB fished for answers to questions that AvalonBay seemed not to have. Was the applicant unprepared to submit the application? Will the applicant be capable of making a formal presentation to the Planning Board on 6/27/13?

AvalonBay’s juggernaut schedule, set by their attorney, Robert Kasuba (doubtless acting on corporate instruction), meant that the session unfolded before SPRAB had reviewed any reports by municipal staff—not yet complete despite their enormous effort. Such reports normally outline deficiencies and areas for improvement, but this work was left to SPRAB members to achieve on an ad hoc basis. This is the very first time, I understand, that SPRAB has been forced to make judgements without having previously considered such reports (SPRAB should receive some reports by 6/19/13).

AvalonBay, I learned, may not honor its commitment to Energy Star certification (version 3) for the development if Governor Christie withdraws sustainability incentives. Also: 2BR market-rate units will have two bathrooms, whereas 2BR affordable-income units will have only one bathroom—this information was revealed only because SPRAB members questioned carefully. Does COAH permit such palpable marks of inequality?

This SPRAB meeting must not be permitted to become a precedent. The damage to intelligent urban planning would be immense. If the Planning Board does not receive complete information from AvalonBay, it should reject the application on those grounds alone. AvalonBay’s disrespect for Princeton’s professionals who volunteer their time should be censured. Princeton officials must push back against intimidation.