The Draft Third Round COAH Plan has been posted.

[Guest]

The Draft Third Round COAH Plan has been posted.

http://www.cranburytownship.org/COAH-draft-third-round-plan-11-6-08.pdf

http://www.cranburytownship.org/COAH-Information.html

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

The pdf file is password protected to prevent people from copying the text. I don't know why they want to do that, since the info is supposed to be public, not restricted.

[Guest]

It's a 127 page document. Here is the "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY" page generated by my OCR software:
------------------------
Draft Housing Element and Fair Share Plan
Cranbury Township

Clarke Caton Hintz

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This amended third round housing element and fair share plan has been prepared for
Cranbury Township, Middlesex County in accordance with the revised rules of the New
Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (hereinafter “COAH") at NJAC5:96 et seq. and
NJAC5:97 et seq. This plan is an amendment to the prior third round plan adopted by
the Planning Board and endorsed by the Township Committee in November 2005. This
Plan will serve as the foundation for the Township’s re-petition to COAH for substantive
certification pursuant to NJAC5:96 et seq. by December 31, 2008.

There are three components to a municipality’s affordable housing obligation: the
rehabilitation share, the prior round obligation and the third round obligation.
As assigned by COAH, the Township’s affordable housing obligations are as follows:

¤ Rehabilitation Share: 6 units
¤ Prior Round Obligation: 217 units
¤ Third Round Obligation: 269 units

The Township fully satisfied the prior round obligation through COAH-approved and
Township-funded regional contribution agreements with the City of Perth Amboy and
the Borough of Carteret, a mix of sale and rental units at the 100% affordable housing
developments on Bergen Drive and Danser Drive, affordable senior rental units at Park
Place West, affordable family rentals at Parkside at Bennett Place (a 100% affordable
development), and substantial compliance bonuses. In addition, an existing group home
(1997) will be added to the Township’s prior round affordable housing compliance
methods.

The third round obligation will be satisfied with affordable housing units from family
rentals at the Old Cranbury Road site, the Route 130 D site, an existing group home, a
future new 100% affordable family rental site and a future new 100% affordable senior
rental site.

DRAFT Page 1 of 56

[Guest]

Anyone has trouble opening the document?

[Guest]

No, I was able to open it. It's a pdf file, if that makes a difference to you.

[Guest]

[Cranbury Conservative]

2011 is not that far off. That is concering....

"Construction Schedule – CHA has developed a construction schedule for developing the Route 130 D site and anticipates that the site will begin construction in 2011. See Appendix F for the CHA Route 130 D Construction Schedules. The Construction Schedule notes each step in the development process including preparation of a site plan, granting of municipal approvals, applications for State and Federal permits, and beginning construction. CHA will be responsible for monitoring the construction and overall development activity."

[Cranbury Conservative]

Bonding means our money?

I hope we take full advantage of the States Affordable Housing Trust fund which was created through the new Affordable Housing legislation this year. We should be looking to get anything and everything paid if possible from that fund.


"Township currently has approximately $230,000 in the housing trust fund and anticipates an additional $6,024,000 in revenues before the expiration of substantive certification, for a total of $6,254,000. The municipality will dedicate a maximum of $21,945,450 [(150 future third round units x $145,903) + $60,000 for the rehabilitation program] towards the Township’s rehabilitation and 100% affordable housing program.
Any shortfall of funds will be offset by revenue or bonding".

[Jersey Dad]

Change the "range" of potential units at the Route 130 D Site

Why should we change the range?
* In the 2005 Plan, the range for Rt. 130 D was 29-48 units.
* 48 is 12 units per acre, an unprecedented density for CHA.
* 29 was the minimum required without buying more property, according to the old rules.
* The rules have changed. We must buy more property, anyway.
Therefore, we have the opportunity to change the range at the Rt. 130 "D" Site to be consistent with other CHA developments.

What should the range be? Why?
The range for the Rt. 130 “D” Site should be “up to 29 units” because…
1. Consistent with other CHA Developments
2. Meets the needs of the Township
3. Amenable to the neighbors

Consistent with Other CHA Developments
* CHA developments range from 16-24 units
* The average CHA development is 19 units
* The largest is 24 units (Bergen Drive, 3.6 acres)
* The average CHA density is 7 units per acre
* The Rt. 130 "D" Site is 4 acres (28 units at average density)
* A range consistent with other CHA developments is 16 – 28 units

Meets the needs of the Township
* The Township is currently required to build some number of units prior to 2011 or 2012, to show progress to COAH
* The current estimated requirement is roughly 23 units
* “Up to 29 Units” allows Cranbury the flexibility to show progress to COAH

Amenable to the Neighbors
* 75% of households in Cranbury Estates signed a petition stating they are "amenable to up to 29 units"
* The petition is posted on this site and at http://www.petitiononline.com/rt130d/petition.html
* The petition is reasonable and consistent with positions taken by the Township

The Planning Board has the authority and the opportunity to recommend a range that is consistent with the other CHA developments, meets the needs of the Township and honors the petition supported by the neighbors in Cranbury Estates.

On November 20th, please ask the Planning Board to change the range "up to 29 units!"

[Guest]

"* In the 2005 Plan, the range for Rt. 130 D was 29-48 units. "

What was the reasoning for the 29-48 range when the plan was written?

[Jersey Dad]

At the last PB meeting, our planner and consultant confirmed that 29 was chosen because that was the minimum number required to satisfy the obligation without buying more property, under the old rules.

I don't know why 48 was chosen. None of the other CHA developments is even permitted to build at a density of 12 units per acre. The average density for CHA developments is 7 units per acre (which would be 28 units).

[Guest]

[Guest]

The range is a concern, but I wonder if it was simply to satisfy the planning requirement.

[Jersey Dad]

The original ordinance, which was eventually protested by neighbors (and other residents), and which the TC allowed to die, would have permitted 12 units per acre in buildings up to 40 feet tall. Based on the 2008 plan, it looks like these specifications may still be under consideration.

It is my understanding that these recommendations came from our COAH consultants and not from CHA. In fact, I think CHA expressed similar concerns to those expressed by the neighbors. I would imagine if the decision were left up the CHA, their preference would be to build a development that is consistent with the scale, density and quality of their other developments.