Cranbury nixes PNC Bank discussion

[Cranbury Press]

Friday, May 23, 2008 10:28 AM EDT
By Maria Prato-Gaines, Staff Writer



CRANBURY — The Township Committee decided Monday that it won’t consider buying the PNC Bank building on North Main Street.

The committee took an informal straw poll in which two of the five committee members voted against continuing the discussion.

Mayor David Stout said the vote showed the committee didn’t have a supermajority, four out of five votes, needed to approve a bond for the purchase.

The approximately 8,700-square-foot building at 32 N. Main St. sits on a little more than an acre and has been on the market since early April. It’sappraised at about $1.8 million, although PNC bank has it listed for $1.395 million.

Some residents say the building could be used as a freestanding library. The library shares the same location as the Cranbury School Library. They also say that buying the building would mean preserving the historic nature of the site, and ensuring visitors downtown parking.
*
The Township Committee had an informal agreement with PNC that allowed downtown visitors to use 15 to 20 spaces in the bank’s parking lot. When the property changes hands that agreement dissolves.

About 200 people attended a public meeting to discuss the issue Monday. A raising of hands showed the majority of attendees favored a continued discussion.

Of those who spoke, 12 opposed the continued discussion, and 14 supported it.

Committeemen Wayne Wittman and Thomas Panconi, who opposed the purchase, said that with new affordable housing requirements looming, now was not the time to discuss any major and unnecessary purchases.

”I did come tonight with half an open mind,” Mr. Wittman said following the public comment. “I’m not in favor of spending another nickel to look at it.

”I’m scared to death of what’s going to happen with (the Council on Affordable Housing). I feel we need to move on and spend our resources where we need it,” he said.

Mr. Panconi said that with two separate affordable housing bills still pending, both of which could have repercussions in Cranbury, the township is in no position to purchase the building.

”I’m not in favor of continuing this discussion,” Mr. Panconi said. “If you take COAH off the table, I wouldn’t have a problem. There are some things happening out there that are making me scared.”

Mayor Stout and Committeeman Richard Stannard both voted in favor of continuing the discussion.

”I’m in favor of proceeding with caution,” Mayor Stout said. “I think it’s remiss not to even look at the information.”

Mr. Stannard agreed.

”I think we should study it longer,” he said. “Then we will have given it all of the chance and all of the time it deserves. I don’t think COAH is a reason to put ourselves in paralysis.”

Committeewoman Pari Stave, who didn’t vote because of the two votes against continuing discussion, later in an e-mail that she supports discussion on the purchase.

”Among the things we should have explored further were: 1) how low a price we could negotiate; 2) the sourcing of available reimbursement funds; 3) the township’s right to impose protective easements on properties it owns; 4) possible uses; and, 5) possible subdivision and sale to recoup costs,” she said in an e-mail. “There is no reason we could not have done this while fighting the COAH battle; we’ve been challenged before and we’ve always prevailed. In shutting down the PNC acquisition discussion, we made a decision ‘in ignorance’ of all the facts, and we lost an opportunity. Most significantly, we did not honor the majority sentiment of the public in the room.”

Some residents said buying the building would be a wise decision.
”A decision made in ignorance is an ignorant decision,” said Kevin Fox, Cranbury resident. “It’s an investment in the town, by the town. If we own it we control it. I would say we owe it to ourselves to look into it.”

Nick Kafasis said providing parking to downtown businesses is important to their success.

”I don’t know what it would be used for, but I think it’s important to keep parking for the merchants,” he said. “In all likelihood it should be used for a library. The school has expanded twice since I moved here.”

Others said a library would not only benefit the community but the school by providing space for extra classrooms.

”The fact is, there’s a dedicated library on our Master Plan,” said Frank Marlowe, Cranbury resident. “It is a want, but most of what we do with purchasing resources are things we want, not what we need.

”I want to live in a town that respects literacy and continued education. The cost per family would be few tens of dollars per year. Whatever we pay for it now in a few years will be a bargain.”

Township Historian Betty Wagner said the PNC property was the site of a time capsule and that the original components of the building dated back to 1890. Ms. Wagner said she hoped the committee would purchase the property “to preserve it in historic Cranbury.”

Those who opposed the purchase said the building’s acquisition would increase the burden on tax payers, decrease the amount of traffic for business and that supporters fears of any unwelcome new owner were unwarranted.

”There are things I want to buy now and I can’t buy a thing,” said Florence Kettlekamp, Cranbury resident. “Who’s going to pay for this? I’m having to be more prudent every day and I don’t like it. I would like our board to be more prudent.”

Resident Jason Stewart said the township should be looking into farmland for placement of affordable housing units, rather than buying the building.

”I do believe timing matters,” he said. “The threat of COAH is greatly understated. That’s the time to be anchoring your savings.”

Opponents of the purchase also argued that supporters’ fears of an unwanted business setting up shop on the Main Street or ruining the site’s historical nature were unfounded. They said that there were long established procedures that have been put in place by various boards and committees to avoid that exact scenario.

”I think it’s a very slim chance something will be put in there that we don’t want,” said Art Hasselbach. “Between planning and zoning, we’re going to have control over that building.”

”We have all the control in the world over that property,” Mr. Wittman said in his closing remarks. “If we work with whoever buys this property they will work with us.”

One resident said purchasing the property wouldn’t have a big effect on parking and that it would instead hinder businesses on Main Street if the building were used for municipal purposes.
”Your going to reduce the amount of traffic in downtown Cranbury,” said Bob Dreyling, Cranbury resident. “(Parking) was an issue, I was never shown it was a problem.”

Resident Win Cody, a Republican who is running for Township Committee, asked that the issue be put to voters at a referendum. He said the committee was going about the whole process backwards, looking for a solution and then finding a problem.

”You identify a problem then you find a solution,” said Mr. Cody. “Then once we know what the costs are maybe (have) a referendum?”

In response to calls for a referendum, Ms. Stave she said residents have to give officials notice at least 60 to 74 days before an election and explained that the process would cost the township thousands of dollars.

Residents also said the township should just build its own parking lot, possibly on the Wright property near the Cranbury School, when the economy had improved.
Township Administrator Christine Smeltzer said she doesn’t expect the township to make anymore inquiries on the property’s acquisition.

http://www.packetonline.com/articles/2008/05/23/cranbury_press/news/doc4836cd8cad16d769853623.txt

[Jason Stewart]

To set the record straight, I am misquoted here. I did not say nor do I believe that we should be buying farmland for the purpose of putting affordable housing on it. What I said is that if we should be buying anything right now it should be farmland, which we could get substantially more of for the same price as the PNC site, for the purpose of reducing the land available for development in anticipation of our fight against COAH and developers. This farmland should be rezoned and preserved, not developed for housing.

[Frugality In Cranbury]

Jason,

Since I was at the meeting too , I was confused by the article about your statement - AND know that is not what you had meant. I'm so glad you clarified it.

Also, I don't know where they came up with the count of speakers for and against about spending more money to continue further in figuring it out how much it will cost us. hmm ... I wonder which side my comments ended up on. Probably not on the side I expected.

[Guest]

Not to beat a dead horse - BUT come on Pari.
”Among the things we should have explored further were: 1) how low a price we could negotiate; 2) the sourcing of available reimbursement funds; 3) the township’s right to impose protective easements on properties it owns; 4) possible uses; and, 5) possible subdivision and sale to recoup costs,” she said in an e-mail. “There is no reason we could not have done this while fighting the COAH battle; we’ve been challenged before and we’ve always prevailed. In shutting down the PNC acquisition discussion, we made a decision ‘in ignorance’ of all the facts, and we lost an opportunity. Most significantly, we did not honor the majority sentiment of the public in the room.”

1 - How low of a price? The TC already had an idea. Plus you already had a month to think about it.

2 - FUNDING? Yup. From my understanding the TC already had an idea by getting a loan and then they would figure it out from there. Afterall, the TC feels since we have some people living in Cranbury that makes 6 figures - we have money to burn.

3 - Easement - You don't need to have control on every property in Cranbury. Just make a deal with the future owners. Give them a tax break or have the town lease the parking from the new owners.

4 - POSSIBLE USES? Come on - you already knew that - a Library.

Spending money on a report to figure out what we can do with property that we don't even own. What a waste of time and money. The TC defeated themselves by having no planning and just looks at the immediate opportunities. Let's be clear, not every opportunity is right for Cranbury. Why can't we work on our MASTER PLAN. It includes open space, recreational areas, ball fields, parks, library, etc. It's called strategic Planning.

[??]

"Most significantly, we did not honor the majority sentiment of the public in the room.”

The township asked residents to email them (see below). And, I sent an email of objection to all the TC members. And, that does not count??

" Township Administrator Christine Smeltzer said that presently there is no set agenda for the May 19 meeting, but that there could potentially be a vote on the issue that night. Interested parties who are unable to attend can e-mail their opinions on the purchase to Township Clerk Kathleen Cunningham at twpclerk@cranbury-nj.com. "

[Guest]

[MPG]

Hello, my name is Maria Prato-Gaines I'm the reporter who wrote the article. First of all, I'd like to apologize to you Mr. Stewart. Apparently, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. If you would do me the favor of calling or e-mailing me I would like to write a correction for you.
Secondly, I counted the number of speakers in my notebook several times. These were my results:

For further discussion
1. Nick Kafasis;2. Jack Ziggler;3. Kirstie Venanzi;4. Spencer Warren Perrine;5. Karen Finigan;6. Betty Wagner;7. Kevin Fox;8. David Cook;9.Brian Devlin;10. Frank Marlowe;11. John Ritter;12. Bob Finigan;13. Kelly Lehman;14. William (Knoyder?)

Against further discussion
1. Bob Dreyling;2. (John?) Forheter;3. Jason Stewart;4. Florence Kettlekamp;5. Win Cody;6. Richard Callen;7. Mark Berkowsky;8. Art Hasselbach;9. Linda Cody;10. Dan Mulligan;11. Connie Ballard;12. Nancy (Kitnisky?)

I apologize for any spelling errors but about three speakers into the public comment portion people stopped spelling their names. But if anyone knows of a resident I left out or somehow categorized on the wrong side of the issue please let me know and I will be happy to write a correction.

Please feel free to contact me at the Press at 732-329-9214 or e-mail me at mpratogaines@pacpub.com.

[Jeff M.]

Ms. Stave really comes off bad as a result of her actions and let's remember she was the champion of the million dollar plus ball field.

1) She had the opportunity to speak and chose not to. Yet, she felt that the was such a mistake made that she made these comments afterward in email? Why not make the comment at the meeting. She was vocal during the meeting, so if she was so concerned why not make a statement?

2) If she was in favor of further discussion, then why she, Mr. Stannard or Mr. Stout aks someone in the TWP handouts for projected costs for different purposes? That may have swayed some minds to one side or the other. However, they did nothing in the 4 weeks. They also talked about their debt limit, but not what our bond rating is. That is the key factor in how much it will cost us for the bond.

3) Mayor Stout said that it could be that negotiations would move in a manner that did not allow for a second town meeting. To me that was a concern.

4) If Ms. Stave felt that the opportunity was critical and to use her words the decision was made in ignorance, then why not have a valid purpose and use defined? Seems ignorance is actually not knowing what use the property would have or the cost, yet wanting to make a decision for further spending on an unqualified expense. Making a this, that or the other thing is not valid arguement and not even having a clue as to estimated costs showed a lack of understanding on the TC's part. Would they go into a business meeting to discuss an acquistion or change in approach without knowing the projected costs? That is business 101. My patience is really wearing thing with TC members talking down to the town residents.

5) Afterward I was wondering and found others were as well as to whether the decision was made before hand. Ms. Stave seemed to set the mood upfront for the vote. If that was the case and the TC knew than regardless of what side you are on they should not have called for discussion, but made the vote up front and then allowed discussion if people felt the need.

6) I agree that for the tone of the email Ms. Stave made no mention of emails received and only the crowd. My guess is that there were more emails opposing the move and thus the defined statement about the meeting.

[cranbury liberal]

[Guest]

PNC is dead, let us all focus on fixing COAH - we need all Cranbury resources to muster a valid response or go at it solo. We are wasting energy and beating a dead horse now.

[Cranbury Conservative]

Agreed lets move on, COAH it the #1 issue. As for the TC just remember how they voted on PNC when it's elections time.