Penske Trucking
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [http://cranbury.info] -> News | Events
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
anon-26p3
Guest





PostPosted: Sun, May 12 2019, 8:34 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Penske Trucking Reply with quote

anon-0q7n wrote:
Art must have paid Glenn, Dan, and Jay some kickback to get that passed.


Congrats on winning the ignorant, I am a member of Indivisible because I have no clue how government works post of the year award.
Back to top
anon-8pqp
Guest





PostPosted: Sun, May 12 2019, 10:07 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Penske Trucking Reply with quote

Indivisible taking over Cranbury

2019 Indivisible Candiates
Barbara Rogers and Eman El-Badawi

2018 Indivisible Candidate
Mike Ferrante

2017 Indivisible Candidate
Matt Scott

Cranbury Indivisible
Laura Zurfluh - Leader
Holly Johnson
Jessica Ware
Jessica Irons
Mike Ferrante
Deanna Ferrante
Matt Scott
Heather Keltz Scott
Paul Mullen
Barbara Rogers
Eman El-Badawi
MariCris McDowell
More to be added

The Indivisible Project's mission is to cultivate a grassroots movement of literally thousands of local Indivisible groups to elect progressive leaders, realize bold progressive policies, rebuild our democracy, and defeat the Trump agenda

https://indivisible.org

Next Indivisible Cranbury Metting Thursday May 16 7 PM
https://www.facebook.com/events/2398924863670066/?event_time_id=2398924953670057?ti=icl




anon-26p3 wrote:
anon-0q7n wrote:
Art must have paid Glenn, Dan, and Jay some kickback to get that passed.


Congrats on winning the ignorant, I am a member of Indivisible because I have no clue how government works post of the year award.
Back to top
question-4982
Guest





PostPosted: Mon, May 13 2019, 4:13 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Penske Trucking Reply with quote

a post above mentions that Quik Check was approved.

must have missed that.

when, and where will it be built?
Back to top
anon-26p3
Guest





PostPosted: Mon, May 13 2019, 4:32 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Penske Trucking Reply with quote

It will no longer be built as Quickcheck pulled out. It wa to be on Dey Rd down from Public works on south river Rd.

That is a prime example of why Paul’s letter is just full of inaccuracies. What concerns me reading his defense on Facebook is the lack of personal accountability and understanding after years being on a land use board. I wonder why the town continues to let him serve when he has no clue how land use works, readily admits he does not understand that the expanded uses he was part of creating would allow for this (clearly the PB, planner and attorney saw it as legal as well as the zoning officer), he says he did not raise concern at the initial application because sometimes the application does not proceed— ok, but what if it does, says he had no clue the Zoning Officer said it was a permitted use despite it being his job to understand what is coming before the DRC and doing his homework, not just showing up.

He has no excuse for not alerting residents between the second DRC meeting and the Pb meeting. But is fine yelling fire in a crowded theater after the fact.

He glances over the illegal acts he and Barbara committed in terms of zoning law that caused the EC Rep to recuse himself. Yet, after all is said and done he writes an inflammatory article to push for Barbara to be on the TC with Eman.

Paul is only interested in his self interests and those of his friends. When he could have done something he did not. He chose to use the opportunity for political gain. Don’t fall for it people or our Town will be ruined. He also on FB on you know you’re from Cranbury advocates for 200 housing units knowing it would destroy the school. Which brings me to the library.

This is the same way the library with Marilynn operates. They mislead the public, create noise around the issue and then try to play victim.
Back to top
anon-3527
Guest





PostPosted: Tue, May 14 2019, 10:24 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Penske Trucking Reply with quote

anon-nrq6 wrote:
Glenn Johnson-p3qs wrote:
Paul Mullen recently posted an article on www.centraljersey.com that was critical of the application by Penske Truck Leasing that was recently approved by the Cranbury Planning Board. Many people reading that article would not realize the part Paul Mullen played in the list of permitted uses in the Highway Commercial Zone and the Penske application specifically. Perhaps I can help by fleshing out the record.

Paul was a member of the subcommittee that was formed to revise some of Cranbury’s land use ordinances. We discussed the permitted uses for the Highway Commercial zone for more than a year. He expressed no reservations concerning the final list of permitted uses that was referred to the Planning Board for comment and then to the Township Committee for action. He also did not express any objection to the language allowing “substantially similar” businesses to those on the list of permitted uses.

On January 18, 2018, Penske Truck Leasing appeared before the Development Review Committee for concept review. The company explained that its business included truck leasing and rental, truck repair for its own fleet, a washing facility for its own trucks, and a fuel island for its own trucks. They presented a sketch indicating the location of the building.

On January 24, 2019, Penske appeared before the Development Review Committee for completeness review. The plan they presented was the same as the sketch they presented during concept review.

Paul attended both Development Review meetings. During one meeting he asked whether the plan conformed to the requirements of Cranbury’s Riparian Ordinance, and the applicant’s engineer confirmed that it did. Paul raised no objections, environmental or otherwise. If he perceived an environments problem, these meetings would have been the perfect times to raise a red flag. Paul is responsible for informing the Environmental Commission of matters discussed at the Development Review Committee. No objection from the Environmental Commission was forwarded to the Planning Board following either of Penske’s appearances before the Development Review Committee.

Penske presented its application to the Planning Board on March 7, 2019. They presented fully engineered plans for the site and testimony concerning the operation of the business and the safety features built into the fuel island. It was subsequent to that meeting that the Planning Board received the memo from the Environmental Commission outlining their objections.

And what were the objections? They were primarily jurisdictional. They believed that the application should have been heard by the Zoning Board rather than the Planning Board. The Environmental Commission lacks the expertise to make that determination. They are intended to be an advisory board on environmental issues of importance to our town.

Why did the Environmental Commission wait until nearly 14 months after Penske came to Paul Mullen’s attention before it raised an objection? I’m sure Paul Mullen or Barbara Rogers could explain that.

In Paul’s article he points out that Village Park and an affordable housing complex (under construction) are across the highway from the Penske site. From the context I assume he feels there will be loud noises coming from Penske. I don’t know whether Paul ever drove to the present Penske site on Route 130 in South Brunswick and stood outside listening for noises, but I have. I didn’t hear any. Certainly nothing about the Penske operation could be heard from across Route 130.

But here is the question every resident of Cranbury should ask. If not Penske, then who? Property on Route 130 will not be used as pasture for unicorns. It will be developed. The former property owner had an offer a few years ago from a group of people who wanted to build a house of worship. To put a house of worship that is exempt from paying property taxes on a prime parcel in a Highway Commercial zone would be a loss to our town. He also had an offer from a developer who wanted to build apartments. Fortunately our zoning doesn’t allow that use in that zone.


Mr Johnson Please post a list of the members
on that subcommittee committee that changed
the rules. Also please post who was responsible
for appointing them (TC Member)

Glenn -- why didn’t you respond to this poster?
The reason why the property able to be sold
to Penske was because the definition and rules
for development had changed. They were
changed by a special subcommittee. Who was
on that committee? Please list their names.
Who appointed them to sit on the Township
boards before they became members of the
subcommittee? Was Art on that committee?
Did he talk to you before your vote? And how
did you vote on the rules change after the
subcommittee changed the rule.

You’re up for reelection.
We’ll ask you this question
when the democratic candidates debate.
Back to top
PB Minutes-s955
Guest





PostPosted: Tue, May 14 2019, 11:02 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Penske Trucking Reply with quote

Only takes a few clicks of the mouse to find...

http://www.cranburytownship.org/pb_agendas/2016/PB_minutes102016.pdf
Back to top
anon-6p92
Guest





PostPosted: Tue, May 14 2019, 11:43 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Penske Trucking Reply with quote

If Inrecall correctly the committee that did the expanded uses was the DRC which is legal, planner, engineer and members of the EC, ZB and PB.

From there they present the uses to the PB who approves and then sends to the TC for adoption. Paul as he states on FB was part of that expansion, but I don’t think there was a realistic expectation of a truck company. Even still you can’t ignore that if it was not a truck company it would be 200 apartments. Having nothing was not an option.
Back to top
anon-6p92
Guest





PostPosted: Tue, May 14 2019, 11:58 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Penske Trucking Reply with quote

Also asking who appointed people to the boards is a bit irrelevant. Art was appointed to the ZB first bun David Stout and to Pb by Win Cody. Allan Kerht who chaired it was appointed to the PB by Republican and Dem Mayors. Paul Mullen has served on the EC and been appointed bun Dem and Rep Mayors. Who appoints them is irrelevant.
Back to top
anon-s316
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, May 15 2019, 9:27 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Penske Trucking Reply with quote

Paul Mullen:

Glenn’s response has a few valid points. I was a member of the committee that updated the list of permitted uses within the HC Zone. As a member of the DRC I attended two meetings where the Penske application was discussed. As a member of the Environmental Commission I met directly with Penske to discuss the EC’s concerns about their application. And despite all of this knowledge of Penske, I fumbled the ball. Here’s what I did wrong.
.
First, back in 2016 I had no objection to the term “substantially similar”. Now that I understand the damage it can wreak, Cranbury should do everything in its power to remove this phrase from our Code. Second, I failed to recognize during the DRC meeting on January 24, 2019 that a “permitted use” decision regarding Penske had ALREADY been made at. In fact, it wouldn’t be until March 11 that I would realize that the Zoning Officer made this decision back on June 12, 2018. Because of this, it wasn’t until March 21 (following the EC meeting on March 1Cool that the EC was prepared to distribute our objections to the Penske application to the TC, PB and ZBA.
.
Now, on to Glenn’s misstatements: First, Glenn insinuates that I should have raised an objection about “permitted use” at the two DRC meetings involving Penske. Actually, no one at these meetings mentioned that issue because there is NEVER a discussion at a DRC meeting as to whether a use is permitted or not. That’s something determined solely by the Zoning Officer in conjunction with the Zoning Board. Second, Glenn indicates that the EC was negligent when it decided to “wait until nearly 14 months after Penske came to Paul Mullen’s attention before it raised an objection”. The January 18, 2018 DRC meeting with Penske was a short, Informal discussion. Many meetings such as these never make it to the full application stage. It’s ludicrous for Glenn to suggest that the EC should have raised an alarm to the Township after such a meeting.
.
Finally, Glenn makes a demonstrably false claim, stating that “Paul raised no objections, environmental or otherwise” at the Penske DRC meetings. DRC minutes available online at the Township website state otherwise. At the 2018 DRC meeting, I was deeply concerned about Penske’s awareness of Cranbury’s new Riparian Zone Ordinance. At the 2019 DRC meeting I had so many concerns that it was agreed that Penske should attend the next EC meeting in person to discuss them in detail.
.
Glenn’s response concludes by painting a benign picture of a typical Penske Truck Leasing site. I can only guess that he’s unaware of the 2017 article I posted earlier in this thread which contains 3 Penske sites in a list of “N.J.’s Most Toxic Sites”.
.
In retrospect, though, almost of everything written above is beside the point. All of this is water under the bridge. I just couldn’t let some of Glenn’s statements go unchallenged. So let me end with the following.
.
We’re having this discussion because, in June of 2018, the Zoning Officer made a mistake. He misread the list of permitted uses in the HC Zone and thought that it said “Automobile Rental & Leasing”. But it does NOT say this at all. It says “Passenger Car Rental & Leasing”, a markedly different thing. But based on this error and the fact that (in Cranbury’s Code) the term Automobile also includes trucks, the Zoning Officer concluded that the rental of ALL TRUCKS was also permitted, even 53-foot tractor trailers. This – and this alone – is why the Zoning Officer’s ruling should be appealed. You don’t need a law degree to see this.
.
Because of ratables, the Township government would prefer to have a potentially toxic, 24,000 square foot, 24/7 truck rental facility on the banks of Brainerd Lake rather than a housing complex or a house of worship. If this is in line with Cranbury’s Master Plan, something is fundamentally wrong.
Back to top
anon-4485
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, May 15 2019, 10:12 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Penske Trucking Reply with quote

- The last point is most relevant. It is the typical, I got mine attitude we see all over. He took advantage of Princeton and no longer sees a benefit for the school. So he doesn’t care that building of 200 apartments will cost us Princeton, higher taxes and new schools. He can move away from Cranbury leaving us with the mess to clean up.

Then what about personal accountability:

- he contradicts himself. First saying he did not understand the term similar uses and then proceeds to say the Zoning Officer made the wrong decision. As a DRC member he should know the Zoning Officer follows local Ordinances and state law. He also consults with the Town legal counsel and aplanner before ruling. To believe Paul would mean that all three did not understand the law around the zoning. Which brings us to the fact he starts by admitting he did not understand the similar uses language.

- Even if the Zoning Officer ruled against Penske the Zoning Board would be likely forced to grant a variance given the similar uses in the zone.

- Paul sits on the DRC, but doesn’t do his homework or prepare? If as he states originally the Zoning Officer is making a mistake and knowing the zoning officer’s opinion is key on an application why not find out what the zoning officer decided before his meeting? He excuses his lack of prep essentially by saying the whole DRC is asleep at the wheel. That makes me feel even better.

- If so concerned then Glenn is right that Paul should have told the public before the PB voted not after. Why wait until the residents can’t do anything? The answer is...it is a political letter to get his TC candidates elected.
Back to top
anon-s316
Guest





PostPosted: Thu, May 16 2019, 7:57 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Penske Trucking Reply with quote

Glenn is probably the best TC member ever.
Back to top
anon-40o3
Guest





PostPosted: Thu, May 16 2019, 8:21 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Penske Trucking Reply with quote

While I don’t think Glenn is the best member ever. I am smart enough to realize that 200 apartments would kill my home value and children’s education.

Unfortunately, Indivisible and all their cronies don’t care about Cranbury or the residents they are blinded by self interest and an insular circle. They either don’t have kids affected if Princeton goes away or they have the funds for private school.

Not one person running on the Indivisible ticket has anything besides a social issue and platform. They want higher taxes for nice to have items, more housing and and to change our town to Princeton.
Back to top
anon-572n
Guest





PostPosted: Thu, May 16 2019, 9:15 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Penske Trucking Reply with quote

anon-s316 wrote:
Paul Mullen:


Because of ratables, the Township government would prefer to have a potentially toxic, 24,000 square foot, 24/7 truck rental facility on the banks of Brainerd Lake rather than a housing complex or a house of worship. If this is in line with Cranbury’s Master Plan, something is fundamentally wrong.


I find Paul's entire response to be rather disingenuous but this last part is what bothers me the most. In that zone already there are gas stations, auto repair shops and warehouses, all of which could be "potentially toxic." This is not a nuclear waste disposal site that's being proposed.

But let's please not pretend that the school is not a factor in why Cranbury is considered a desirable place to raise a family. For many of us, the school is a huge priority and there is NOTHING "fundamentally wrong" with wanting to keep it the way it is. Nothing "fundamentally wrong" with prioritizing education and not wanting an apartment complex that would completely ruin the school and our tax bills.
Back to top
anon-40o3
Guest





PostPosted: Thu, May 16 2019, 9:32 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Penske Trucking Reply with quote

Plus one with above.

Unless you live in affordable unit or four seasons your primary influencing factor on your home value is the Blue Ribbon school and Princeton. Look at Monroe, East windsor and Hightstown. Why are our home values higher? If our kids went to Monroe or Hightstown High our values would not be near their current levels.

The other factor on home values are taxes and that includes 4 seasons. The rateables and small student population are the biggest factors in our tax rate compared to other surrounding towns.

If we had to build new schools and staff the new schools our taxes would sky rocket.

I don’t understand anyone advocating for more kids and houses.
Back to top
Guest
Guest





PostPosted: Thu, May 16 2019, 11:46 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Penske Trucking Reply with quote

http://www.cranburytownship.org/pb_agendas/2011/PB_minutes010611.pdf
Back to top
anon-0292
Guest





PostPosted: Fri, May 17 2019, 11:09 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Penske Trucking Reply with quote

[/quote]

Sorry Paul, but this is BS belated outrage on your part. The environmental commission has a rep on the development review board for this very reason (You should know, you’re that guy!). Where was your outrage a year ago?You might think this is going to get your Environmental Commission Chair-friend Barbara get elected, but the reality is, both of you should have known about this and raised the alarm bells when something could have been done about it. Now you want to whine about it after the fact and blame everyone else.[/quote]

Similar style to his wife, Director Mullen at Public Library; a weak and lily-livered approach to decision making, problem solving, and professional responsibility.

Both practice the fine art of of finger-pointing and self aggrandizing. Both dwell in the echo chamber of their porch buddies, and for Director Mullen her staff.

These elite circles will remain in TC Boards & Committees until independent thinkers & doers VOLUNTEER.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [http://cranbury.info] -> News | Events All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4