The June 9, 2008 Township Committee agenda has been posted.

[Guest]

The June 9, 2008 Township Committee agenda has been posted.

"
...
b). Resolution # R 06-08-108 – Resolution expressing Township Committee’s opposition to A-500 which concerns Affordable Housing.

c). Resolution # R 06-08-109 - Resolution authorizing salaries, wages, benefits and fees be paid to the various Township Officials and employees of the Township of Cranbury, effective January 1, 2008.

10. Presentation by representatives of New Jersey American Water Company and their consultant, Gannet Fleming on proposed water main project on Plainsboro Road.

11. Reports from Township Staff and Professionals

12. Reports from Township Boards and Commissions

13. Work Session

a. Monthly Report from Police Chief Edward Kahler

Police Chief Edward Kahler will update the Township Committee for the month of May.

14. Public Comment

15. Mayor’s Notes
...

http://www.cranburytownship.org/TC_agenda_060908.html

[Jersey Dad]

Also on the agenda is ordinance 04-08-11 authorizing the first urban style housing project ever in Cranbury. This ordinance establishes dangerous new precedents for density and height and establishing new records for number of rental units, very low income units, and total units. Given the current turmoil with COAH and A-500, I don't see why we are moving forward with any new COAH housing, much less establishing these dangerous new precedents. All cranbury residents should be concerned and voice their concerns at the meeting on Monday.

[Cranbury Conservative]

This is concerning and I will do my best to be there to question the TC as to why they are moving forward with this. Please post any other info you may have regarding this topic.

[Cranbury Conservative]

Actually I just found it on the township website...

http://www.cranburytownship.org/ordinance_04-08-11.pdf

[James]

Okay, I am a consultant and do more finance and strategy so I'm not professing to be an engineer. However, this zoning is a cause for concern as it sets an allowable precedent in the town that I assume would allow a builder to sue for equal zoning rights in other areas. If land is zoned for 5 acre housing and the town has made amendments in other areas for this density housing it sets precedent. According to my reading we could have 22 houses on one acre of property.

I do notice from the 4-28 notes that the ordinance passed by a 5-0 vote, so perhaps this change is the only way to meet the obligation in a cost effective manner.

On a side subject today is June 7 given the number of TC meetings why is the most recent meeting minutes report from April on the town site.

[Guest]

Conservative and James,
Thank you for your comments. You are right to be concerned and I hope to see you Monday.

There is a lot of information and I am happy to share what I've learned. I have also invited neighbors to stop bye with questions on sunday afternoon between 1 PM and 4 PM.

Dave Mauger
26 Griggs Road

Please note, I am not an expert or an official, I am just a concerned citizen. I believe this is a battle between doing affordable housing the "cheap and easy" way, or the right way. In my experience, choosing the "cheap and easy" path usually turns out to be more difficult and have higher costs. My key concerns are...

1. Consider the neighborhood! There are serious and immediate potential consequences for Cranbury Estates, if this ordinance is approved as proposed. Although CHA has done an admirable job, so far, CHA housing has gotten proggressively riskier, from senior housing to low density family ownership to medium density family ownership to medium density family rentals to high density family rentals. The proposed ordinance authorizes a dramatic change that is closer to an urban style housing project than a typical CHA development.

2. Beware of setting new precedents for Township sponsored afforable housing! This issue is NOT limited to Cranbury Estates. Even under the old rules, Cranbury needs more than the 160 units that were estimated in 2005. Cranbury needs to find new sites for affordable housing. Through eminent domain, the Township can aquire and re-zone land to satisfy COAH. For example, Monroe Med Supplies, the Vet's office on 130, a house on Old Trenton or Cranbury Neck Road on an acre or two; basically anywhere the town feels appropriate. So, the question is, do we want "affordable housing developments", like Bergen Drive, or "housing projects" like you see in urban areas?

3. Setting precedents for builders is also a bad idea. To James' point, if the Township is considering the "cheap and easy" way, imagine what a builder might do. This is especially important given that we may drop out of COAH.

4. With new rules, pending legislation and lawsuits, why rush forward? The current plan is outdated and the town is required to submit a new plan by the end of the year. Shouldn't we wait for a clearer picture of our actual obligation, then form a new plan, then start building?

5. Be good for goodness sake! What about being good neighbors? What about pride in our town? If we're going to build affordable housing, shouldn't we build houses that attract/retain the most desirable new neighbors? People don't love Cranbury because it always takes the cheap and easy way out. People love Cranbury because it does things the right way. Isn't that the Cranbury way?

[Cranbury Conservative]

I understand your concerns further now that I have reviewed the original code vs. the new code change.
We really need to push the TC to explain why we are adopting these changes now, when we have till the end of the year to post our COAH plan.

Here is a comparison I have put together of the existing code vs. the new proposed changes...



Additionally here are links to the original code and the new proposed code.

Original:

http://www.e-codes.generalcode.com/codebook_frameset.asp?ep=fs&t=gsr&index=0758_A&request=Chapter%20150%20&fuzzy=&fuzziness=4&stemming=&phonic=&natlang=&maxfiles=999

Proposed:

http://www.cranburytownship.org/ordinance_04-08-11.pdf

I hope to see everyone tomorrow night!

[Guest]

How was the meeting?

[Cranbury Conservative]

I attended last nights Cranbury Township Committee meeting which was held at the town hall at 7:30 PM.

Some of the highlights of the meeting include the following:

There was a larger then usual crowd for the meeting due to the planned second reading of ordinance 04-18-11. The crowd was made up of many residents from Cranbury Estates. I would estimate the crowd size to be at about 30 to 35 people.

There was a COAH update which for the most part rehashed what has already been in the various media outlets as well as listed on Cranbury.info and my blog.

One piece of new information in the COAH update is that Cranbury Township is in the process of having a study completed by consultants which should be ready in 4 to 6 weeks. This study which was termed as 'Most Important' by the Township Administrator will be focused on the actual amount of jobs being generated by the warehouses in Cranbury Township. This is good news since it is the feeling of many of us in Cranbury that the inaccurate numbers which COAH is using for its new third round estimate with regard to the warehouses have created a large part of our potential COAH Affordable Housing Obligation.

The TC then moved to discuss ordinance 04-18-11 and decided to stop moving forward with the ordinance because there were many concerns from the residents in Cranbury Estates regarding the new Affordable Housing density proposed by this ordinance. It was also noted the residents of Cranbury Estates were working with Mark Berkowsky, the President of Cranbury Housing Associates to find a solution to the residents concerns with the development which included the potential unit density, lack of open /recreation space, access to Route 130 and possible access concerns into Cranbury Estates from the new development.

Mayor Stout then said that even though the TC was not moving forward at this time with the ordinance that he wanted to allow the members of the community who came out on such a hot night to be allowed to voice their comments and concerns.

With that said I did take the opportunity to speak out against this new development with my primary concern being the new proposed unit density. To date the existing Affordable Housing sites in Cranbury have been built with lower density as well as lower building heights.

As you can see in the graphic below the new ordinance would have moved the building heights from 2½ stories to 3 stories. Additionally the dwellings per an ace would have been increased from 10 per an acre to 12.



In my opinion this change would bring urban style housing (Housing Projects) to Cranbury. This urban style housing would change the character of our unique community. This ordinance will also set a precedent for new density and height which has not been previously been seen in Cranbury. Additionally as I said at last nights meeting 'We do not want to be Plainsboro' which has large urban style apartment housing developments in the center of its community.

I also went on to speak about COAH and stressed to the TC that many of us in Cranbury want to help and work with the TC to resolve this problem which faces our community.

Then I asked if the Township could get more timely information on its web site concerning COAH such as dates and times of meeting in Trenton where we (the citizens of Cranbury) may want to go to and speak out on our community's behalf.

Finally I requested the Township make use of it e-mail lists to send out e-mail blasts with the same information to the citizens of Cranbury. Mayor Stout noted he liked the idea.

Other items of note included from last night meeting included:

The township passed resolution #R 06-08-108 with expressed Cranbury Townships opposition to A-500 and it's elimination of RCAs.

There was a presentation from New Jersey American Water Company. They discussed their plan to add a second water main running down Plainsboro Road into North Main Street.

More can be found on my blog at:
http://cranburyconservative.blogspot.com/

[Guest]

Thanks Conservative!

The "affordable housing developments" on Bergen Drive are very cleaver. I would feel much better living there than in some cheap-looking apartments.