Assemblyman Anthony Verrelli Stands Firm at West Windsor Town Council Meeting

Last night, the West Windsor Town Council met to pass a resolution that they intend to request that Mercer County restrict truck traffic, northbound on Clarksville Road, from the planned warehouse project named Bridge Point 8. It’s just a band-aid, because it was this body that added warehouses to the ordinance, perhaps unaware of the magnitude of dissent from the region that would befall them. Naturally, Clarksville Road homeowners, parents of school children and the community at large want nothing to do with hundreds of tractor trailers per hour desecrating the suburb. West Windsor regularly wins awards for being one of the best places in the country to live. Despite that, the residents in attendance last night were largely opposed to the resolution because that would mean funneling all of the anticipated and deadly traffic through our neighbors’ hometown in Lawrenceville, who will get none of the purported, and overestimated, tax revenues. Learn more here.

Assemblyman Anthony Verelli has been outspoken about his opposition to Bridge Point 8. In an Op-Ed last August, he called the project “A Bridge Too Far.” Residents were revved up that the Assemblyman attended the meeting last night, and he reiterated his sentiments to the Town Council. He said that, “The approval of this project goes against the will of the people, at the end of the day. Ratables are important, economic development is even more important. I built my career, literally, on building things, so I know about projects, good bad or indifferent. The Bridge Point Project will cause irreparable damage, not only to West Windsor and Lawrence Twp, but the entire region, encompassing the 14th legislative district, the 15th legislative district, and the 16th legislative district. It’s not just traffic. We have a serious issue with stormwater runoff here, because of the amount of buildings we are putting up. I built things all my life. There are some projects I supported whole-heartedly, there are some I held my nose when I had to support, but this one I can’t see supporting. Because, what it sounds like is you’re passing it off to somebody else, and like someone said, you’re trying to come in to save the day (referring to the band-aid resolution). The way I look at it realistically, I’m not a lawyer, I can’t speak that language. I can only understand it. It’s like putting 8 miles of traffic in a 2 mile lane. Something’s gotta give. So, I hope you can revisit the Bridge Point 8 project and take it from there. Traffic safety is important, (again referring to the band-aid resolution), but I think we’re looking at this for the wrong reason. Thank you.” …and a grateful crowd goes wild!

The mayor repeated his usual talking points, that there are only two options, housing or warehouses. He cited disinformation, seeking to set the record straight. It is notable in this political climate that the one pointing to disinformation is usually the one spreading it. He kept referring to the “fantasy land” where there are no more than just two options for that parcel, housing or warehouses. Even if it were housing, which he said would be 2,000 homes, and then he said 3,000 homes, many residents feel that the health and safety issues that come with this project are not a remedy to more children moving into town. More children versus becoming a diesel-fumed industrial zone… to many residents, the lesser of evils is obvious. Everyone knows, in the settlement agreement, there are 40 other options, alongside warehouses (listed below), and housing is NOT one of them. No public discussion has been encouraged to entertain those ideas. 

Resident Chun Yu, a Clarksville homeowner, suggested a data center. They would not have to widen Quakerbridge and Clarksville roads to 8 lanes, nor would they have to create a huge, impervious parking lot, as data centers have only a handful of employees. A data center wouldn’t add 200-800 vehicles per hour to local roadways and it would bring substantial tax revenues for the Township while avoiding irreparable harm to our and neighboring towns. Why was this never discussed? I personally chimed in that if jobs are created, the affordable housing obligation may be increased next time around. Sparing West Windsor a housing increase now, besides being unnecessary, having fully satisfied our obligation, is short-sighted and does not look down the road even a few years. An AH obligation is state law and will come around again. Why not plan ahead? Instead of tying BP8 up in court, until the next round is determined, why not plan something that can actually be built? Why not plan something that a town hall can determine is palatable to the region? A town hall, and not just one man saying, "Trust me, I know what I'm doing."

The mayor went on to say that the flooding that happens to Route 1 is "Lawrence Township’s problem!"  Open mouth, insert entire leg! You can't make this stuff up. He was referring to the indication that we are adding stormwater runoff to this mess: 

[Route 1 in September 2021]

Bridge Point 8 is to be located where Lawrenceville, Princeton and West Windsor connect. The road “improvements” would take place over township borders, on parts of their roads, flooding their section of Route 1. So, we should let it be their problem? We should design a 5.5million sq ft warehouse plan, with all of its paving and road widening, using flood maps from 1999, two feet shy of where levels need to be, and let it all flow onto Route 1 ...  Then, tag, you're it Lawrenceville! Not our problem!

These neighbors were not invited to participate in any planning discussion, despite that it will dramatically impact them environmentally, it will impact  the health and safety of their residents, and raise infrastructure costs in perpetuity. It will raise their taxes and endanger their people, but it won't be our problem. 

Residents took turns commenting on how nobody supports this project, other than those who will profit. It was pointed out numerous times that it was this town council that approved the addition of warehouses to the ordinance, and now they are being asked by the community to forget the band-aid resolution that would ask the County to restrict traffic through West Windsor. It’s too little too late. It was brought up many times, including by Assemblyman Verrelli, that they should reconsider the project altogether. 

It has happened before that townships have reversed course. Now that the Inland Flood Rule, requiring current flood maps, and the NJ State Planning Commission Warehouse Siting Guidance are approved, West Windsor can reconsider its mammoth error in judgment and do what’s best for the entire region, utilize those well-conceived resources and insist on best practices. The siting guidance alone would indicate that no warehouse belongs in that location. It simply does not meet criteria. Other local warehouses the mayor mentioned are located near major highways and do not impact locals. They meet NJSPC Siting Guidance criteria. 

Other striking comments by residents and even council member, Andrea Mandel, referred to the need for a complete traffic study, because the applicant never completed one. Shouldn’t that have been done PRIOR to the monstrosity being approved? Why was something so impactful overlooked without a backward glance? When the video is released, this article will be updated. I highly recommend watching it through to the end. It was quite a show.

After public comments,  the council was to vote on the resolution but they were too unsettled to do so. Linda Geevers asked to change the language because it suggests that they support the Planning Board’s approval of Bridge Point 8. So, now they don’t? Michael Stevens also did not want to vote in a way that supports the approval of BP8.  He stated that they should "divorce themselves" from the project, they who took that crucial first step in making it possible.  They want to vote only to ask that the County restrict truck traffic through West Windsor. 

The entire resolution is just for show. The County cannot restrict truck traffic on a county road. It is part of an arterial system that ensures businesses can have access to state and federal highway systems, and Clarksville is part of that system, designated as a truck-route. They cannot break the chain. It is a band-aid resolution and one resident, John Hinsdale, was sure to point out that the council members, who added warehouses to the ordinance, are up for re-election next year and must be voted out. Others echoed his sentiment in a second round of open comments.

Apologies to Lawrenceville and Princeton, and to every other town that touches or is impacted by the Route 1 corridor. If you would like more information, visit https://stopthetrucks.info/ to learn how you can help to right this wrong.

APPROVED LAND USE:    Housing is NOT approved for this parcel!

1) General, corporate, administrative, and professional offices.

2) Research, testing, analytic laboratories.

3) Product development laboratories.

4) Pilot plant facilities.

5) Warehousing and distribution facilities.

6) Finishing and assembly of products.

7) Limited manufacturing.

8) Data processing and computer centers.

9) Business support uses.

10) Banks with or without drive-through lanes.

11) Retail stores and shops.

12) Personal service establishments.

13) Restaurants, including but not limited to establishments offering indoor         dining, outdoor dining, take out, delivery, curbside pickup, and drive                 through lanes.

14) Taverns offering alcoholic beverages for sale and consumption on the              premises.

15) Brew pubs.

16) Fast food restaurants with or without drive- through lanes.

17) Gas stations in conjunction with a convenience store and/or vehicle                   wash

18) Health clubs.

19) Fitness centers.

20) Commercial recreation facilities.

21) Spas.

22) Performing art facilities.

23) Legitimate theaters.

24) Motion-picture theaters.

25) Cultural facility buildings or structures.

26) Hotels with one hundred ( 100) or more guest rooms.      

27) Conference centers.

28) Child care centers.

29) Senior day care centers.

30) Medical offices.

31) Urgent care medical facilities.

32) Outpatient surgical facilities.

33) Breweries.

34) Wineries.

3 5) Distilleries.

36) Veterinary clinics.

37) Pet day care facilities.

38) Mixed use planned developments pursuant to Section 200-209A.( 8),                except for affordable housing.

39) A community landmark sign serving as a gateway to the community and          which may include an electronic sign with changeable type, which                      shall display information regarding municipal, civic, and community                events as well as emergency messaging. It may also display on-                            premises and off premises advertising.

40) Any existing wastewater treatment plant or electrical substation which            existed prior to the date of the adoption of this ordinance.

41) Any kennel which existed prior to the date of the adoption of this                         ordinance.

42) Any combination of the above permitted uses in one or more principal              buildings on a lot.