Â Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing Â :: Topic review - The June 23, 2008 Township Committee minutes have been posted.

Guest

You know you would think that we would get more respect from the Dems at the state level since we had voted a majority of democrats into our own local government - wouldn’t you?

Does Linda or anyone else on the TC have good connections in Trenton? This is the time to start working with your counterparts at the state level. Otherwise I will be switching my mind on NJ government. I too voted for the Dems this past election, but it seams like a no brainier to me to fix this – I don’t understand why fixing this COAH issue is such a party divider in Trenton. Its DEMs .vs. the Mayors of NJ/Taxpayers

Guest

I also agree DeAngelo is way worse than Greenstein, I already decided to vote him out and help the opposition against him in the next election.

Assembly woman Linda Greenstein has showed me no reason to vote her back in either so far. But I will give her a shot for my vote because she did introduce one BILL for Historic Property Reinvestment Act but it doesn’t look like it passed. And when I and the rest of my Cranbury neighbors asked for her to help, she abstained from the vote and watched idle as A500 cruised through the NJ Legislative House and landed on Gov Corzines desk.

At that point she has no power to do anything about it.

I'm not sure how effective she is. One week before the A500 vote and that's all the time and effort she gave Cranbury voters when we asked her for her help.

She even attended our meeting and said she would help every way she could. IS SHE REALLY? I dont see any public evidence YET. Is she showing up to our next 7/28th meeting with details?

And Ritter and Pari are both thanking each other as well as Greenstein, I still see no evidence of what they all did?
Show us your amendments Linda
Show us the planning that Pari and Ritter both are talking about
Publish it somewhere, it maybe helpful to use for the next initiatives with Corzine, etc. I maybe mistaken but the comments and last minute effort is in NO WAY SUPPORTING CRANBURY DIRE CASE .VS. COAH very well at all

What other NJ Legislators did she talk with to support our cause, what public comments did she make on the floor, in the press, in anyones ear that could change things for Cranbury? Did she event talk with DeAngelo about it? I really want to know more and since this effort failed despite all the back patting going around, I know its not easy in politics. You have to be prepared, you have to plan well, you have to gain support by key legislators to make any impact right? What’s the next focused effort you are working on for Cranbury to help fix 3rd round COAH and Corzine for your voters here?

Assembly woman Linda Greenstein blog

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/BIO.asp?Leg=190

HER RECORD
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillsBySponsor.asp

Guest

I think the bottom line is that our elected officials are forgetting that they work for the people, not the party bosses.

It's time for term limits!

Guest

Guest

DeAngelo is way worse than Greenstein, for certain. He has declined or ignored every invitation to speak at or attend a Cranbuyr event, period, and voted in favor of A-500. He is a former union boss and was hand-picked by the party to run. He could care less about his constiuents, his loyalty is to his party bosses. His voting record proves that.

My objection is not so much with Greenstein personally. Her abstaining was weak, but whatever. And at a certain point you have to look on balance at how she always refuses to go against the party line and say that while the theory of her being more effective that way is good that it has never resulted in any practical benefit to us as a town.

But my real objection was why do you go out of your way to publically thank her for that? Wouldn't the proportionate response be to do and say nothing? She abstained. Fine. Maybe there was a good reason behind the scenes or maybe she was being a coward. Either way, is that really worthy of an official public acknowledgement? So my problem is with Mr. Ritter’s comment.

Guest

I understand the sentiment...I really do.

But, as I see it, if Greenstein is completely alienated from the party leadership, she will be less effective in doing anything for our town. On principal, a "no"vote would have been a strong signal that she supported us in (up to this point) a losing cause to keep RCAs. To be clear, I really despise party politics and the 'voting as a bloc' mentality. But unfortunately, without free-thinking legislators with the courage to vote their conscience - which one would hope is in line with the interest of his or her constituents - legislators need to play this game of not making the party leaders too angry.

DeAngelo did not have any dialogue with our town. I, at least, have not gotten any acknowledgment or response to my letters of concern. Personally, that bothers me more than Linda's abstention.

cranbury liberal

I had stated before that I had seen nothing one way or the other to help me evaluate Mr. Ritter as a candidate, whereas Mr. Cody has clearly taken public and sensible positions on local issues and COAH.

Well now I have something to judge Mr. Ritter's qualifications to represent Cranbury. He thinks we should be publically acknowledging a politician who didn't support Cranbury's interests when it counted just because she sends useless, non-binding letters on our behalf. The COAH executives aren't idiots. They know politicians have to send them all kinds of stuff to look good to their constituents. And they know to ignore it. They also know that she didn't vote against the banning of RCA's and therefore that she really stands as a loyal soldier to Roberts. And the know Roberts wants townships like Cranbury to go away entirely. The idea of acknowledging her for that is ludicrous.

I am a registered Democrat but I will vote for Win Cody. I encourage other Democrats to consider the welfare of Cranbury ahead of party politics and do the same.

Guest

Guest

John Ritter is really a concern to me given that comment. I was hoping he'd be a change in party politics, but given an opportunity he offers thanks to Ms. Greenstein who chose not to vote against the amendment. If he wanted to thank the lady from Union who is also a Dem, I would be 100% behind him.

Mr. Panconi was so upset he changed party affiliation. To me that is action and accountability from a personal standpoint.

Now we have a candidate who is offering thanks to a person who accomplished nothing and when given a chance to put support and her action behind her words to us, chose to abstain. Sorry, that is party politics to me with no place in a small town.

Guest

Regarding COAH, Republicans will get my vote. Judging politicians only by their walks not their talks.

Should have voted no

I do not agree with thanking Linda Greenstein. If she really wanted to show her support to Cranbury then she would have voted against the legislation. Anyone whishing to thank her is out of touch with this issue.

Guest

The June 23, 2008 Township Committee minutes have been posted.

"...
Reports and Communications
--Mayor

Ms. Stave reported, in the absence of the Mayor, Assembly Bill A-500/S-1783 had passed
the State Senate by a vote of 21-16 and explained this is the legislation pertaining to the
COAH Affordable Housing Third Round Rules. Ms. Stave thanked Senator Bill Baroni for
all of his help and stated within the next few weeks the Township Attorneys would be
taking a look at the legislation which was enacted and its contents and will then have a
public meeting to inform the residents how the Township will move forward on the issue.
...
Reports from Township Staff and Professionals

Ms. Smeltzer reported the bear, which had been seen on North Main Street on Sunday, had
now moved over to Hightstown.

Mr. Panconi indicated at the last meeting, the Township Attorney was going to check on what
recourse the Township would have regarding the overhanging bushes on Old Trenton Road
which are obstructing the sidewalk. Mr. Paul Adezio, Esquire, Township Attorney, filling in for Ms.
Waterbury, indicated the Township does not have an Ordinance in place which would allow the
Township, in the case of a property owner who does not comply, to go out and remove the
shrubs. Mr. Adezio added, the Township could draft an ordinance, and once it is adopted would
be able to do so. Mr. Panconi explained presently three (3) home owners are not complying. Mr.
Adezio stated the other option would be for the Township to have the Zoning Officer issue a
violation and have the Court handle the matter. Ms. Smeltzer stated she had sent out letters last
week and referenced in the letter there is a requirement of a four feet clearance on the sidewalk
and then recommended sending out certified letters before taking the final step of issuing a
violation.

Mr. Adezio, Township Attorney, indicated he had been informed by Ms. Cunningham, Clerk,
that an issue had come up regarding Cranbury Day and the addition of a “Farmer’s Market” . Ms.
Cunningham had inquired if a “one-day waiver” could be issued as the Township Code (Chapter
113) requires vendors be licensed to sell any fruits, vegetables, etc. The Township Committee
unanimously decided to not require any licensing for any of the vendors for Cranbury Day.

Mayor’s Notes

Ms. Stave stated the Township owes a lot of gratitude to many of its residents who worked very
hard to try to oppose and organize opposition behind the affordable housing bills which were
enacted. First and foremost, Kelly Lehman, who did a lot of the leg work in organizing people to
write letters, John Ritter, who did a lot of the background research and worked closely with Kelly,
Dietrich Wahlers and Karen Finigan, who, along with Kelly, John and many of Cranbury’s
residents, went to Trenton to make public appearances. Ms. Stave thanked everyone else who
helped out with the issue. Ms. Stave added, even though the efforts failed, the fight continues
and the Township will call on the volunteers again to rally.

Public Comment

The Mayor opened the meeting to public questions and comments on those items not on the
agenda:

Bill Bauder, 57 Petty Road, stated he was asking the Township Committee for some guidance
as to how it can improve communication for its residents and explained he had been trying to get
some answers since April 3, 2008 regarding two (2) issues. The first issue is a Zoning Board
variance and completion of the conditions of approval. The second issue is the Petty Road
Bridge repair and the unsatisfactory conditions which now exist. As Mr. Bauder had not received
a response or acknowledgement, he asked the Township Committee if they could improve the
process. Ms. Smeltzer responded to Mr. Bauder, stating she believed the problem was he had emailed
her with some questions regarding the Planning and Zoning Boards and she had reached
out to the Township Engineer to find out what she could about the issues. Ms. Smeltzer added,
she thought part of the problem is Mr. Bauder has a zoning issue with the Zoning Officer and also
there was a large “lag time” due to one of the Township’s Consultants (who reviews landscape

Public Comment (Continued)
Mr. Bauder (cont’d)

plans) not able to be at work for a certain amount of time which had slowed everything down. Ms.
Smeltzer stated she did not realize the issue had not been reviewed or resolved and apologized
to Mr. Bauder. Mr. Bauder indicated he never received an acknowledgment from the Zoning
Officer and indicated he should have at least received a courtesy call. Mr. Bauder reported in
reference to the Petty Road Bridge issue, both he and Mr. Protinick had come to the Township on
April 3, 2008 and after 27 days, Mr. Protinick came back with his father who was very upset (Mr.
Bauder could not come with them) because they had still received no feed back since April. The
Township Engineer had indicated back in April she would provide information to them and no
information had ever been given to them. Mr. Bauder reported the conditions still exist and
previously the Township Engineer had verified, from the photographs, that there is a condition
that exists since the Bridge repair that is not acceptable for the upstream property owners. Ms.
Smeltzer responded she did not believe the Township Engineer agrees there is a problem. She
stated he and Mr. Protinick felt there is a problem that when the Bridge was repaired there exist a
difference in the height of about ten (10 inches), however, the Township Engineer feels if there is
a height difference it is very minimal and not ten (10) inches. Ms. Smeltzer reminded Mr. Bauder
the repair had been an “emergency repair” and now every time there is a heavy rainfall water
flows over the Bridge. Ms. Smeltzer explained the Township’s Public Works Department often
has to work with Plainsboro when logs, etc. get stuck under the bridge and Plainsboro will come
out to remove whatever debris is under the Bridge so it again flows properly. Mr. Bauder stated
the elevation at the present time is considerably higher than it was prior to the collapse of the
Bridge and causes a backup of everything upstream and explained when the dam blew out it
compromised the Bridge, causing it to blow out. Mr. Bauder added no one has addressed the
dam at all, which has led to “nitrification” of the stream with the materials. Mr. Wittman asked
whose dam it was—was it private. Mr. Bauder indicated it was. Ms. Smeltzer stated where all
the material is coming from is not necessarily within the municipality’s control. Mr. Bauder asked
if the two pipes had been cleaned out as the only short-term remedy would be to remove the
debris in the two (2) pipes. Ms. Smeltzer indicated Mr. Thorne, Public Works Manager, had
addressed the issue. Mr. Wittman and Ms. Stave reported this was the first time they were
hearing of the problem. Ms. Stave asked the Township Administrator to speak with the Township
Engineer and get back to the Township Committee. Ms. Smeltzer stated she had spoken with the
Zoning Officer during the day and he should be getting back to Mr. Bauder. She reported the
issue with the landscape plan is “hung up” at this point. Ms. Smeltzer reported she had made a
call into the professional who reviews the landscape plan and had not received an answer yet.
Ms. Smeltzer stated she will get back to Mr. Bauder once she hears back from the consultant. Mr.
Bauder recommended the system for tracking applications and conditions of approval be
“spruced up”. Ms. Smeltzer agreed because if the applicant does not move forward, someone
who is interested in the application would not know the status and indicated she will recommend
to the staff that a chart be maintained to serve the public better. Mr. Wittman asked that Ms.
Marcelli let the Township Committee know the Petty Road Bridge status at the next meeting.

Mr. John Ritter, Plainsboro Road, stated in addition to thanking Senator Bill Baroni for his
efforts on behalf of the Township concerning A-500/S-1793, the Township needs to thank
Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein. Assemblywoman Greenstein had sent a letter to COAH on
Cranbury’s behalf and had made a last-ditch effort a week before the vote to get three (3)
amendments made to the Bill, unfortunately to no avail. Assemblywoman Greenstein indicated
she would like to hear from the Township what she can do to assist in getting the Township’s
COAH numbers reduced to a rationale and reasonable number.

There being no further comments, the Mayor closed the public part of the meeting.
"
http://www.cranburytownship.org/TC_minutes062308.pdf