Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing Â
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
â–ª
Cranbury School
â–ª
Cranbury Township
â–ª
Cranbury Library
â–ª
Cranbury.org
â–ª
Cranburyhistory.org
(Press Ctrl and = keys to increase font size)
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[http://cranbury.info]
->
News | Events
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
[quote="Guest"]The February 7, 2008 Planning Board minutes have been posted. http://www.cranburytownship.org/PB_minutes_020708.pdf "... CONCEPTUAL REVIEW PB 098-05 Viridian (a.k.a. Unexcelled) Block 10, Lot 10 Brickyard Road Conceptual Review ... Mr. Stannard indicated that perhaps the Applicant’s traffic consultant should consider whether the bridge was going to be built. The assumption was that a bridge would be there. If that was the case, the current arrangement of 50% coming from Cranbury might be close “to a point of a gun” if we are talking $8 million from Cranbury. For a small town it is a massive sum. He felt the consultant needed to consider both the possibility that the bridge perhaps would not be built anywhere near as soon as anybody wanted. ... The Board and Applicant discussed the present debate of the COAH requirements and the huge impact that this could potentially have for a town like Cranbury. Mr. Preiss said that he had a meeting with the Office of Smart Growth of which a COAH representative was present of which Mr. Preiss raised this same issue on the change of ratio for warehousing. He described the impacts that it had on Cranbury. The COAH representative said that they believed that the ratios proposed were ridiculous and if the ratios that we had on warehouse developments indicated something different the representative requested documentation be sent to him. He felt at this point that the ratios might overstate the number of employees. Aside from other provisions in the COAH regulations that may be challenged he felt this one provision was going to face substantial challenge for many. The question was asked if the applicant would be willing to construct the affordable units instead of an in-lieu growth share payment. Mr. Goldman responded yes, but clarified his position saying that they could not be built on site. He did add, with help from the Township through eminent domain, land could be purchased to build the affordable units at another location within the Township. Mr. Golubieski said that the Applicant had received the necessary feedback from the Board and the public. The Applicant had the option to incorporate those ideas into the plan. He felt everyone agreed that DEP had a significant say on the outcome. DEP’s input would determine the process of this application and how it could proceed. ..."[/quote]
Options
HTML is
ON
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable HTML in this post
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Jump to:
Select a forum
Topics
----------------
News | Events
School | Parenting
Blogs by Cranbury Residents
Shopping | Good Deals | Price Talk
Home Sweet Home
House For Sale
Home Sales Pricing Records
Financial | Stocks | Mutual Funds
Cool Bytes & Bits
Garage Sale | ForSale Ads | Things to Trade
Tech Related (PC, Internet, HDTV, etc.)
Interesing and Fun Stuff to Share
What's Your Favorite?
Interests | Hobbies
Cranbury History
Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink
Amazon Deals
Local Business Info
----------------
Local Business Ads (FREE)
Support
----------------
Daily Sponsored Message & Amazon Ads
About Us | Your Privacy | Suggestion | Sponsored
Test Area (Practice your posting skills here)
Topic review
Author
Message
Guest
Posted: Wed, May 21 2008, 9:10 am EDT
Post subject: The February 7, 2008 Planning Board minutes have been posted.
The February 7, 2008 Planning Board minutes have been posted.
http://www.cranburytownship.org/PB_minutes_020708.pdf
"...
CONCEPTUAL REVIEW
PB 098-05 Viridian (a.k.a. Unexcelled)
Block 10, Lot 10
Brickyard Road
Conceptual Review
...
Mr. Stannard indicated that perhaps the Applicant’s traffic consultant should consider whether the bridge was going to be built. The assumption was that a bridge would be there. If that was the case, the current arrangement of 50% coming from Cranbury might be close “to a point of a gun” if we are talking $8 million from Cranbury. For a small town it is a massive sum. He felt the consultant needed to consider both the possibility that the bridge perhaps would not be built anywhere near as soon as anybody wanted.
...
The Board and Applicant discussed the present debate of the COAH requirements and the huge impact that this could potentially have for a town like Cranbury.
Mr. Preiss said that he had a meeting with the Office of Smart Growth of which a COAH representative was present of which Mr. Preiss raised this same issue on the change of ratio for warehousing. He described the impacts that it had on Cranbury. The COAH representative said that they believed that the ratios proposed were ridiculous and if the ratios that we had on warehouse developments indicated something different the representative requested documentation be sent to him. He felt at this point that the ratios might overstate the number of employees. Aside from other provisions in the COAH regulations that may be challenged he felt this one provision was going to face substantial challenge for many.
The question was asked if the applicant would be willing to construct the affordable units instead of an in-lieu growth share payment. Mr. Goldman responded yes, but clarified his position saying that they could not be built on site. He did add, with help from the Township through eminent domain, land could be purchased to build the affordable units at another location within the Township.
Mr. Golubieski said that the Applicant had received the necessary feedback from the Board and the public. The Applicant had the option to incorporate those ideas into the plan. He felt everyone agreed that DEP had a significant say on the outcome. DEP’s input would determine the process of this application and how it could proceed.
..."