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="Jersey Dad"]With the support of Neighbors, Bloggers and local experts, the Township Committee allowed Ordinance 04-08-11 to die, and I applaud the decision. This Ordinance would have set new standards for the density, height and total unit size for affordable housing developments in Cranbury. However, the discussion regarding how we move forward continues. Can we afford to continue building affordable housing to the standard of excellence set by previous CHA Developments given the increasing COAH obligation and a scarcity of viable development sites? Can we afford not to? I believe lowering the standards will ultimately have higher costs.[/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
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="100%" class="forumline"> <tr> <th class="thCornerL" width="22%" height="26">Author</th> <th class="thCornerR">Message</th> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Wed, Jul 16 2008, 12:35 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The June 9, 2008 Township Committee minutes have been posted</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody"></span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Quote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">"The three-judge panel found that New Jersey's statewide Megan's Law should be the only law governing how sex offenders are treated. <br /> <br />The ruling upholds findings by lower court judges who invalidated ordinances in Cherry Hill and Galloway Township. Cherry Hill, for instance, banned sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of any school, park, church or other place "where children might congregate."</td> </tr></table><span class="postbody"> <br /> <br />I want to offer a different kind of view. <br /> <br />The places where children might congregate usually have more watchful eyes (parents, school staff, police, etc.) around. If the ordinances push the sex offenders to the other places, those children living there are unfairly treated by the ordinances.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Wed, Jul 16 2008, 12:11 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The June 9, 2008 Township Committee minutes have been posted</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">Yes, that point for me was a long time ago. Another example of rabid special interests advancing a narrow agenda without any concern for the broader consequences.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Wed, Jul 16 2008, 10:50 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The June 9, 2008 Township Committee minutes have been posted</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">The Absolutely Clueless Liberals United (ACLU), is probably one of the worst organizations in our society and has done more damage to our society. They put fear in our local governments at Christmas time (no town trees, no town recognition) they support the rights of sex offenders. At one point do people stop recognizing them and viewing them as some fringe group of nut cases which they are.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Wed, Jul 16 2008, 10:37 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The June 9, 2008 Township Committee minutes have been posted</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">This makes my stomach turn: "Meanwhile, officials at the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said they were pleased with the ruling." <br /> <br />I cannot agree more with J.D. - where is our society's priorities when we are more concerned about the "rights" of known sex offenders that may choose to live near places where children congregate than the protection of children? Truly a sad statement. As I understand it, the ordinances being overturned primarily restrict sex offenders from living within a certain distance of schools, etc.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Jersey Dad</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Wed, Jul 16 2008, 8:20 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The June 9, 2008 Township Committee minutes have been posted</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">It seems that laws restricting sex offenders will be reviewed by the supreme court. It may be most practical to await the outcome of their decision before considering an approach. <br /> <br />As a parent, it makes me sick that our state system protects the rights of sex offenders over the rights of children, despite the acknowledgement by the same system that many of these sex offenders are considered likely to repeat. <br /> <br />In the mean time, there may be other ways to achieve a similar outcome. For example, it may be possible to make it illegal for property owners to rent to violent criminals.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Jersey Dad</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Tue, Jul 15 2008, 7:41 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The June 9, 2008 Township Committee minutes have been posted</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">The article mentions 100 towns with similar laws. In my opinion, there should be 101. <br /> <br />There are many ways to approach these issues. Some of them are bound to be legal, others not. We can learn from other towns what is most likely to stick. I just think it is worth trying to limit the possibility of sex offenders having contact with our kids.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Tue, Jul 15 2008, 2:05 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Court rejects sex-offender laws in two N.J. towns</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody"></span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Guest wrote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">The June 9, 2008 Township Committee minutes have been posted. <br />Mr. Mauger stated under the Fair Housing Act, registered sex offenders are not considered to be a protected class and recommended the Township put a provision in place, without opening the Township up to possible litigation, to prevent registered sex offenders, particularly Level 2 and 3 offenders from living in any of the affordable housing units. <br />..." <br /><a href="http://www.cranburytownship.org/TC_minutes060908.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cranburytownship.org/TC_minutes060908.pdf</a></td> </tr></table><span class="postbody"> <br /> <br />Court rejects sex-offender laws in two N.J. towns <br />by The Star Ledger Continuous News Desk <br />Tuesday July 15, 2008, 11:13 AM <br /> <br />An appeals today rejected laws in two New Jersey towns that placed tight restrictions on where sex offenders could live. <br /> <br /><a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/07/local_restrictions_on_sex_offe.html" target="_blank">http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/07/local_restrictions_on_sex_offe.html</a> <br /> <br />The three-judge panel found that New Jersey's statewide Megan's Law should be the only law governing how sex offenders are treated. <br /> <br />The ruling upholds findings by lower court judges who invalidated ordinances in Cherry Hill and Galloway Township. Cherry Hill, for instance, banned sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of any school, park, church or other place "where children might congregate." <br /> <br />Dozens of similar laws have been enacted in other towns. Those would also be at risk if the latest ruling stands. <br /> <br />A lawyer for the American Center for Law and Justice, which represented Galloway, said they will appeal to the state's highest court within a week. Towns have the right to protect the health, safety and welfare of residents, said Vincent McCarthy. <br /> <br />"It is important that towns be able to control where these ... convicted sexual offenders live and (that they) not be allowed to live near places where children congregate. That is the perogative of the town," he said. <br /> <br />There is no conflict between these ordinances, which have been passed in over 100 towns, and Megan's law, he said. <br /> <br />Meanwhile, officials at the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said they were pleased with the ruling. <br /> <br />"We agree with the court's ruling; Megan's Law is already accepted as constitutional and as the state's comprehensive approach to sex offenders. The residency requirements do not contribute to rehabilitation and may in fact undermine it," said executive director Deborah Jacobs.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Jersey Dad</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Thu, Jun 26 2008, 11:00 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The June 9, 2008 Township Committee minutes have been posted</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">Based on some preliminary research, it seems that we could make it illegal to rent to a registered level 2 or level 3 sex offender. There are property laws that complicate the issues banning homeowners who are sex offenders. <br /> <br />This would be a good start.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>ed k</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Thu, Jun 26 2008, 8:36 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The June 9, 2008 Township Committee minutes have been posted</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">A Cranbury Station Rd Resident was found guilt of a sex offence today. The points made by another resident about just this potential scenario at the TC meeting on 9th about COAH screening is even more urgent given this recent revelation. <br /> <br /> <br /><a href="http://www.nj.com/news/times/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-13/121445318661620.xml&coll=5" target="_blank" class="postlink">http://www.nj.com/news/times/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-13/121445318661620.xml&coll=5</a> <br /> <br /></span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Quote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">Cranbury man guilty of child sex assault <br /> <br />Thursday, June 26, 2008 <br /> <br />A Cranbury resident was found guilty in a Doylestown, Pa., court yesterday on charges he sexually assaulted two young girls in Lower Makefield, Pa., police from that township said in a news release. <br /> <br />In announcing his conviction, Lower Makefield police asked that anyone with information about similar assaults committed by Frederick Kelmer contact them. <br /> <br />Following a three-day trial, Kelmer, 50, of the 200 block of Cranbury Station Road, Cranbury, was found guilty of six counts of indecent assault and two counts of corruption of minors, police said. <br /> <br />Police said Kelmer and the mother of one of his victims lived in Lower Makefield from 1998 through 2004 in the Makefield Glen Development. <br /> <br />When Kelmer was arrested in October 2007, police alleged he had molested the woman's daughter from when she was 5 until she was 11 years old. <br /> <br />The second victim, a friend of the first, was molested when she visited the home during 2000 or 2001, police said. <br /> <br />"Investigators believe that there may be additional victims, both in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, that were sexually abused by this male who are afraid to come forward," police said in their release. <br /> <br />Anyone with information about Kelmer is urged to call Lower Makefield detectives Glenn De Tample or Brian Omlor at (267) 274-1160.</td> </tr></table><span class="postbody"></span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Jersey Dad</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Tue, Jun 24 2008, 10:38 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: The June 9, 2008 Township Committee minutes have been posted</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">With the support of Neighbors, Bloggers and local experts, the Township Committee allowed Ordinance 04-08-11 to die, and I applaud the decision. This Ordinance would have set new standards for the density, height and total unit size for affordable housing developments in Cranbury. <br /> <br />However, the discussion regarding how we move forward continues. Can we afford to continue building affordable housing to the standard of excellence set by previous CHA Developments given the increasing COAH obligation and a scarcity of viable development sites? Can we afford not to? I believe lowering the standards will ultimately have higher costs.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Tue, Jun 24 2008, 11:23 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: The June 9, 2008 Township Committee minutes have been posted</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">The June 9, 2008 Township Committee minutes have been posted. <br /> <br />"... <br />Reports and Communications <br />--Mayor <br />Mayor Stout urged the public to be mindful of their neighbors and children during hot weather and to keep themselves hydrated. Mayor Stout thanked all Cranbury residents who had e-mailed their representatives in Trenton concerning the recent COAH proposed Third Round Rules. Mayor Stout reported he had attended “Volunteer Day” on Saturday, June 7, 2008 and commended the Fire Company, First Aid Squad and Lions Club for putting on a very informative and active event. Mayor Stout reported he would be part of a panel on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 with Lucy Voorhoeve, Executive Director of COAH, at the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties. <br /> <br />--Members of Committee <br />... <br />Ms. Stave reported the Board of Health is considering an ordinance requiring the licensing of cats in the Township due to a concern of cats contracting rabies (the incidence is seven (7) times greater than that of a raccoon). The Board of Health reported they are looking into acquiring a defibrillator for Town Hall. <br />... <br />--Subcommittees <br />Ms. Smeltzer reported one of the most important items the Township is presently working on in reference to COAH is the jobs generated with the warehouses located throughout the Township. Clarke Caton & Hintz, the Township’s COAH Consultants, are presently conducting a survey which should be ready in about four (4) to six (6) weeks. Upon its completion, it will be presented to the Township Committee for approval and then submitted to COAH. COAH will then let the Township know its analysis of the report. Ms. Smeltzer reported her, Ms. Stave and Township residents, John Ritter, Dietrich Wahlers, Karen Finigan and Nicholas Kafasis had attended an Assembly Appropriations Committee to lobby against Assembly Bill 500 by Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts. Ms. Smeltzer commended the residents on the eloquent remarks made before the Committee and stated Cranbury could be proud. She indicated the Committee was now aware of municipalities such as Cranbury and the impact such legislation would have. Ms. Smeltzer reported eight (<img src="images/smiles/icon_cool.gif" alt="Cool" border="0" /> members of the Assembly Committee had voted to release the Bill with amendments and the full Assembly would most likely be voting on the Bill on June 16th. Ms. Smeltzer added the Township’s web site will be updated with new information concerning the most recent COAH news no later than Wednesday. <br />... <br />A motion to enter an Ordinance entitled, “Cranbury Township Ordinance 04-08-11, AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CRANBURY, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, AMENDING CHAPTER 150 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CRANBURY AND TO ADD A NEW R-ML-III-RESIDENTIAL MT. LAUREL III ZONE”, was presented for second reading and final adoption. The Ordinance was published in the Cranbury Press, posted on the Township Bulletin Board and copies were available to the public. Ms. Smeltzer recommended to the Mayor that the ordinance be allowed to die, since Mr. Berkowsky, Cranbury Housing Associates, had indicated the plan has changed for the affordable housing site in question. The Mayor, however, indicated he would allow the public to comment on the ordinance as a large group was present. Following are remarks made by several residents concerning the ordinance: <br /> <br />Dave Mauger, 26 Griggs Road, stated he agreed with the Mayor’s recent letter sent to Ms. Lucy Voorhoeve, Executive Director of COAH stating, “Cranbury would be facing a crisis of devastating proportions”. Mr. Mauger added “way of life in a small town is too important to lose”. Mr. Mauger stated there seemed to be a disparity with the type of affordable housing development that is allowed to be built inside of a development and the type that is allowed to be built outside of a development and a potential weakness in the strategy used in addressing the Township’s affordable housing obligations. Mr. Mauger applauded Cranbury Housing Associates for the job they have done thus far with the affordable housing units and urged the Township to continue to have affordable houses that reflect the values of a small town. Mr. Wittman asked Mr. Mauger if Mr. Berkowsky had met with the residents in his neighborhood concerning the proposed Route 130-D site and if he had participated in any of the discussions. Mr. Mauger indicated he had attended the meetings. Mr. Wittman stated the Township has always made an effort to do the best thing and the most tasteful thing in building the affordable housing. Mr. Mauger stated his concern with the affordable housing proposed at the Route 130-D site is that the units would all be rentals and the building would be over 40 feet high. In addition, the concern of the residents in the neighborhood has been the possibility that in the future, Ryan Road would be opened up to traffic off of Route 130. Mr. Mauger stated the proposed specifications that were in the original site plan called for the highest density units (12 to 1, with the possible exception being the senior housing), the tallest building (40 feet high) and the largest development (44 units). Mr. Mauger stated the proposed units were not consistent with what had been done in the past for affordable housing units. Mr. Wittman explained the Township is a long way off from putting a shovel in the ground and Mr. Berkowsky has always worked over the years with the neighbors. In addition, the present ordinance has been pulled and will be revised. Mr. Mauger stated he and his neighbors just want to make sure that the Township gets done what needs to be done and everything is done the right way. Mayor Stout asked Mr. Berkowsky for clarification that the Township’s affordable housing has now become all rentals in order to maximize the Township’s COAH credits. Mr. Berkowsky confirmed that it has. <br /> <br />Mr. Brian Schilling, 2 Holmes Road, stated he is concerned with the way the COAH calculation is being done. He stated it is reassuring to know the Township is doing everything it can to get it changed. Mr. Schilling added he felt it is contradictory for Cranbury Township to be facing the obligations which have been mandated by the proposed Third Round Rules, let alone losing the prospect of losing Regional Contribution Agreements (RCAs), as Cranbury has been a model municipality regarding Affordable Housing. Mr. Schilling recommended waiting to see what the Township’s full obligation will be before advancing with any new construction for affordable housing. Mr. Schilling stated he is concerned also with making Ryan Road an open access road and if the State may have the authority to mandate such. Mr. Schilling also made a recommendation the Township considers submitting an application for a Planning Incentive Grant for open space. He indicated there is now a lot of grant money available through the State. <br /> <br />Mr. Francis Staples, 3 Griggs Road, thanked the Township Committee and Mr. Berkowsky for “keeping the dialogue open”. Mr. Staples stated he was recently impressed with the Township’s fiscal conservativeness on not purchasing the former PNC bank building. Mr. Staples requested when the ordinance comes up again, the Route 130-D site not be the location to put the affordable rental units (40+ families)--there is not enough land available at the site to have a park for the children. Mayor Stout responded it was not the intent of the Township to try to “squeeze” a lot of families at one site. <br /> <br />Mr. John Ritter, Plainsboro Road, suggested working with the State to allow a U-turn at Dey Road or to find a spot where people could make a U-turn before Dey Road. Ms. Marcelli responded the State does not encourage U-turns and that Dey Road had been dramatically improved about five (5) years ago by a private developer at no cost to the Township. Unfortunately, there is not enough land to have a turn-around at Dey Road. Ms. Marcelli offered to start a dialogue with the State D.O.T. to see what could be done. <br /> <br />Mr. Dan Mulligan, 32 Old Cranbury Road, stated he was pleased the Ordinance was put to rest and recommended the Township wait until COAH makes its final decision before taking any action. He raised his concern with the density issue. He also asked that the Township put more COAH updates on the Township’s web site. Mayor Stout indicated the Township would put a hot link on the Township’s web site so residents can be better informed. Mr. Panconi added that every day there are ongoing articles in both the Star Ledger and Home News regarding COAH legislation and issues. <br />Mayor Stout asked for a motion to adopt the Ordinance. Ms. Stave made a motion and no one seconded. For lack of a second, the Ordinance died. <br />... <br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Township Committee of Cranbury Township adamantly opposes adoption of S-1137 which impinges on local management prerogatives, would potentially result in protracted costly negotiations and advances encroachments by public unions; <br /> <br />BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution is hereby forwarded to Governor Jon Corzine, Senator Bill Baroni, Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein and Assemblyman Wayne DeAngelo and the New Jersey League of Municipalities. <br />... <br />WHEREAS, the new formulas established by the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) Third Round Rules, which became effective on June 2, 2008, have created major issues for <br />Cranbury Township by the likelihood of having to add hundreds of additional affordable housing units; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, it is the goal of the Township Committee of Cranbury Township to continue to provide affordable housing without bankrupting its taxpayers; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, certain sections of Assembly Bill A-500, sponsored by Speaker Joseph Roberts, would create an onerous burden for Cranbury Township’s taxpayers and cause havoc to what has been a workable plan for Cranbury Township in creating affordable housing opportunities locally as well as regionally; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the elimination of Regional Contribution Agreements and the proposed funding of 2.5%, replacing the payments-in-lieu are Cranbury Township’s major problems with A-500 as amended; and <br />WHEREAS, Cranbury needs the ability to contribute to RCAs to stay in compliance with COAH rules; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the elimination of the payments-in-lieu fees from non-residential development would be a funding catastrophe, since this is a major source of funding available to Cranbury Township, and the payment-in-lieu will continue to be needed to help finance the jobs/units created; <br /> <br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Township Committee of the Township of Cranbury that it hereby opposes the proposed legislation as amended made by the Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee to Assembly Bill A-500; and <br /> <br />BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, certified copies of this resolution be sent to the following: <br />Governor Jon Corzine <br />Senate President Richard Cody and all members of the New Jersey Senate <br />Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts and all members of the New Jersey General Assembly <br />... <br />Reports from Township Staff and Professionals <br /> <br />Ms. Marcelli, Township Engineer, reported she had held an informational meeting with the residents on Wynnewood and Woodview Drives to let them know that the roads will be resurfaced sometime in the Late Summer/Early Fall. The monies were obtained through a grant from the New Jersey Department of Transportation to fund the project. <br /> <br />Ms. Marcelli also reported she had met on May 30th with Joe DiDinato of the Middlesex County Engineer’s Office and their consultant, Birdsall Engineering, regarding Old Trenton Road. The <br />purpose of the meeting was to reconfirm that they have the re-alignment of the Millstone Park driveway on their plan and also to discuss the drainage improvements at the intersection of Old Cranbury and Old Trenton Roads. Ms. Marcelli reported the plan the County had was not the best approach to providing drainage and she indicated her Office is working with them to develop a better plan. <br /> <br />Ms. Marcelli reported she had been contacted by the consultant for the Liberty Way Bridge Project. The consultant was under the impression (from the County) the Township was holding up progress of the Bridge Project. She told the consultant that was not the case and will be meeting with them to go over what items are needed from the Township. <br /> <br />Ms. Marcelli reported at the last meeting she had been asked to bring back to the Township Committee information as to where the Township was with the “Sidewalk Project” to date. She explained, in 2004, her Office had gone out and evaluated sidewalks throughout the Township and then determined which sidewalks were in need of repair. All of the sidewalks had been rated and all residents within the area had been contacted and asked if they wanted to repair their sidewalk or otherwise the Township was going out to bid to have it done. Certain properties opted into the Program and others opted to do their own. To date a lot of those homeowners have never had them repaired. Mayor Stout indicated the Township Committee next year may want to revisit the project (to determine what had and had not been done) and then implement the Program again. Mayor Stout suggested passing out literature on Cranbury Day. <br /> <br />Mr. Panconi brought up the issue of the homeowners from Shadow Oaks and Old Trenton Road who have refused to trim bushes that are hanging over the sidewalk and making it virtually impossible to either ride a bike or walk on the sidewalk. He added numerous letters had been sent in the past from the Township to the homeowners. Some of the homeowners, but not all, had responded. In addition, the bushes have not been kept trimmed on a regular basis. Ms. Smeltzer offered to look into the issue and determine if additional letters are needed. <br />... <br />Mr. Dave Mauger, 26 Griggs Road, asked the threshold for the number of students Cranbury presently sends to Princeton High School. Mr. Mauger stated whatever the threshold number is could have a serious impact on Cranbury’s affordable housing issues. Mr. Stannard responded the School Board would know the actual threshold number. Mr. Mauger stated the Township may want to look at other sites for affordable housing in addition to the Route 130-D site and also recommended the COAH subcommittee adopt town-wide maximums for density for its affordable housing. Mr. Mauger stated under the Fair Housing Act, registered sex offenders are not considered to be a protected class and recommended the Township put a provision in place, without opening the Township up to possible litigation, to prevent registered sex offenders, particularly Level 2 and 3 offenders from living in any of the affordable housing units. There being no further comments, the Mayor closed the public part of the meeting. <br />..." <br /><a href="http://www.cranburytownship.org/TC_minutes060908.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cranburytownship.org/TC_minutes060908.pdf</a></span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> </table>
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in