The August 19, 2010 Planning Board meeting agenda

[Guest]

The August 19, 2010 Planning Board meeting agenda has been posted.

http://www.cranburytownship.org/pb_agendas/2010/Pb_agenda081910.pdf

[Guest]

This is simply for show this has all been approved already.

PB 183-10 Sweetwater Construction (a.k.a. Old PNC Bank)
Block 32, Lot 5, Zone VC & V/HR
32 North Main Street
Major Preliminary and Final Site Plan
Minor Subdivision

[Guest]

Not so fast. The objectors have filed a letter today with the planning board professionals requesting (with supporting evidence) taht the the application should be dismissed or transferred to the zoning board. If this is a "formality" which is exactly what the objectors feared all along, this group is prepared to appeal in court. They have excellent representation. You'll read about it in tomorrow's Cranbury Press as well.

[Guest]

This will be interesting to watch. If Maplewood residents are successful, other groups of residents may follow suit (yes, pun intended).

[Guest]

Prediction. It will be like the Cranbury Inn. Recall that fight. The neighbor's were successful in delaying the project by one or two years and costing the Inn tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills.

In the end the Inn got pretty much what they asked for. The residual was a boatload of hard feelings that exist until today. Their are residents that are not welcome in the Inn.

Let's all watch the fun.

[Guest]

what were the main issues in the Inn scenario. Seems like the Maplewood case has valid legal support. What was the objections in the INN case?

[Guest]

Someone much more knowledgable than I should chime in on this. As I recall they did not provide the parking that was required for an expansion of that size. They were building an out structure right on the property line that required some variances. I don't recall if they needed variances for the main structure.

[Guest]

Are you talking about the Blue Rooster or the Cranbury Inn?

[Guest]

The Inn. The Rooster has no parking.

[Guest]

[Guest]

I just drove passed and there is plenty of parking on the street.

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

The only accepted solution by us will be maintaining the PRIMARY ingress and egress on Main street. If the applicants want a larger house than allows this... too bad. If they do not want this traffic past their house and therefore have a one way with a chain and ballard.. not acceptable.

Solutions to enable this include- smaller house or lot with a legitimate ingress (not that which is currently proposed) AND egress on Main Street. Putting the house on Maplewood is another way to accomplish this if it cannot fit on Main.

The zoning, etc. etc, are just what law we have on our side to defend this. Again, this is not just some whiny demand- we have the law on our side and plenty of resources to pursue. It's pretty simple.

[Guest]

[Guest]

I don't disagree with you. It likely does matter and I may be too emotional about the subjest to adequately represent myself. Luckily, we have hired professionals to do that for us going foreward. I'll just write the checks! And I'm fine with that.