| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
guest1
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue, Jun 2 2009, 6:18 am EDT Post subject: New hotel on Route 130? |
 |
|
Art Hasslebach appeared before the Commission to outline his concerns with the application submitted to build a four (4) story hotel, a two (2) story restaurant, a banquet facility and a liquor store on the property currently occupied by Buy-Rite Liquors, which is located adjacent to his property. Mr. Hasslebach gave a brief history of the property, including his agreement to purchase the property a number of years ago until he discovered that extensive wetlands existed on the property and problems that existed with the sewer system on the property in the early 1980s. Mr. Hasslebach opined that the property has greater wetlands than the applicant is claiming and that the proposed septic system for the hotel would be located in wetlands. Mr. Hasslebach is attempting to locate the paperwork that he had prepared for the property. If the application proceeds, Mr. Hasslebach’s property would be negatively impacted by the development. Mr. Hasslebach also advised that there used to be a gas station located on the property. It was pointed out that the Environmental Resource Inventory represents that hydric soil is located on the property.
Does anyone know anything about this? I would not like to see this building on the corner of 130 and Half Acre Road. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Jun 2 2009, 8:33 am EDT Post subject: Re: New hotel on Route 130? |
|
|
| A hotel, lounge and liquor store? Trifecta! It's about time we developed a suitable environment in Cranbury for the world's oldest profession. Maybe we can claim the wetlands as Indian burial grounds. Then we can make it a casino! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Mulligan
Joined: Fri, Sep 19 2008, 5:41 pm EDT
Posts: 172
Location: Old Cranbury Road
|
| Posted: Tue, Jun 2 2009, 9:21 am EDT Post subject: Re: New hotel on Route 130? |
|
|
| The plan mentioned is phase one (1). I believe phase two (2) for the site would also include a drive up bank as well on the property. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Jun 2 2009, 6:29 pm EDT Post subject: Re: New hotel on Route 130? |
|
|
| Didn't we just get rid of a drive-up bank in town? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Press
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jun 3 2009, 8:01 am EDT Post subject: Re: New hotel on Route 130? |
|
|
| I think its great. I'm tired of just seeing trees on Route 130 and then listening to the town complain about money. This highway is a goldmine for big business and should be bringing this town money. Hasslebach should sell his property to some developer and move out of state. What did you think would happen when you live on one of the busiest highways in the state? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jun 3 2009, 9:09 am EDT Post subject: Re: New hotel on Route 130? |
|
|
I'm all for it too. Let's bring in more rateables. Who cares what the highway or warehouse area look like. It won't be that bad looking.
I for one would like Mr. Hasselbach to stay, he is good for our community ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jun 3 2009, 11:27 pm EDT Post subject: Re: New hotel on Route 130? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | I'm all for it too. Let's bring in more rateables. Who cares what the highway or warehouse area look like. It won't be that bad looking. |
Rateables are great if they make sense. However, a cavalier attitude toward development may be ill-advised. Some other NJ towns have backed away from the lure of easy money from certain commercial rateables after examining the true costs.
What are the upfront COAH costs? What is the ongoing impact of adding more kids to the school system? What is the impact on other municipal services, in particular the fire department? Aren't our fire dept. volunteers and police already responding to hundreds of calls from the warehouses, often in the middle of the night? Also, what are the other potential "gotchas" to consider?
The highway may be a gold mine. It may also be fools gold.
In response to the argument "its a highway, what did you expect?", I suggest the answer is "prudence".
Property owners have every right to believe Cranbury will continue to carefully consider the impact of new developments on adjacent properties. This appears to have been a fundamental guiding principle of the town's development over the last 300+ years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Looking to move
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Jun 4 2009, 7:04 am EDT Post subject: Re: New hotel on Route 130? |
|
|
There has been nothing BUT a cavalier attitude for the warehouse boom in Cranbury, what seems good for Cranbury has negatively impacted everyones quality of life outside of Cranbury. I contend with the truck traffic, noise and unsightly warehouse views each and everyday, my friends and family take their lives in their own hands dueling with the RIDICULOUS amount of truck traffic caused by all of the warehouses (AND THEY ARE NOT NEARLY FILLED TO CAPACITY) Sensible residential planning would have been a stellar alternative to all of the warehouse construction over the last 20 years. I have lived in an adjacent community for the last 36 years and tired of the insular attitude of Cranbury "smart development" It hasnt kept property taxes THAT low for you. You pay for a school district and administration for one school???? Please dont forget approx 15 years ago Cranbury was a sending district to Lawrence. "smart development" has been nothing my a reduction in the quality of life for the surrounding communities. Thanks for reading and I pray the warehouses never get fully occupied, because grid lock would be routine.
And yes, before you flame me, I am looking to move away from this area because of the unsightly, and dangerous warehouse OVERdevelopemnt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Jun 4 2009, 7:59 am EDT Post subject: Re: New hotel on Route 130? |
|
|
With all due respect, residential growth is anything but sensible or smart as the impact on the town is such that taxes generated do not compensate for services rendered. So the overall tax base increases see West Windsor, Robbinsville or any other town that expanded residentially. In addition, you then have even more traffic as each home has at least 1 or two cars. The warehouse district was smart for Cranbury as opposed to residential growth or maintaining open space and placing an increased tax burden on the residents.
I do disagree with the hotel only in such that the plan is out of scale for the area. I would not mind a 3 story approach similar to the Courtyard by the turnpike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Jun 4 2009, 8:34 am EDT Post subject: Re: New hotel on Route 130? |
|
|
If you choose to live near Turnpike, you will have to live with the traffic of trucks.
There is a demand for building warehouses along Turnpike and the reason should be obvious.
About demand for hotel services, I am not sure Cranbury is such a popular place to build hotels. But again, hotels will pop up alone major highways.
If you don't like trucks and hotels, well, you should not live near Turnpike and major highways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Jun 4 2009, 9:14 am EDT Post subject: Re: New hotel on Route 130? |
|
|
| Looking to move wrote: | There has been nothing BUT a cavalier attitude for the warehouse boom in Cranbury, what seems good for Cranbury has negatively impacted everyones quality of life outside of Cranbury. I contend with the truck traffic, noise and unsightly warehouse views each and everyday, my friends and family take their lives in their own hands dueling with the RIDICULOUS amount of truck traffic caused by all of the warehouses (AND THEY ARE NOT NEARLY FILLED TO CAPACITY) Sensible residential planning would have been a stellar alternative to all of the warehouse construction over the last 20 years. I have lived in an adjacent community for the last 36 years and tired of the insular attitude of Cranbury "smart development" It hasnt kept property taxes THAT low for you. You pay for a school district and administration for one school???? Please dont forget approx 15 years ago Cranbury was a sending district to Lawrence. "smart development" has been nothing my a reduction in the quality of life for the surrounding communities. Thanks for reading and I pray the warehouses never get fully occupied, because grid lock would be routine.
And yes, before you flame me, I am looking to move away from this area because of the unsightly, and dangerous warehouse OVERdevelopemnt |
The issue of COAH requirements aside, I think the way Cranbury developed its commercial district is great. I'm frequently telling work colleagues in New York about it as a model of smart development. Most townships and cities have commercial development in pockets mixed around residential and retail zones. The fact that Cranbury has a very clear "line-in-the-sand” with virtually all commercial development on one side of (or on) Route 130 and almost all residential development on the other side is great. The net result is a residential side that is clear of the eye sores and heavy vehicle traffic of a commercial zone but still the upside of a zone that contributes half of our tax base. I think this works well for almost everyone except the small minority of homeowners that live in this commercial zone or have houses backing to it.
As for the idea that if Cranbury had not developed this way we would have this idyllic quaint Route 130, that makes no sense. First, I don’t think Cranbury had the right to zone all that land as not developable for commercial activity. And even saying we did, you’d still have all that truck traffic on Route 130 – a HIGHWAY as others have pointed out – getting from one place to another. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Press
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Jun 4 2009, 1:32 pm EDT Post subject: Re: New hotel on Route 130? |
|
|
| This has nothing to do with COAH. Cranbury has given MILLIONS of dollars to other towns in NJ over the last few years to keep affordable housing out of Cranbury. But now are complaining about the costs of having it here! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Jun 4 2009, 4:09 pm EDT Post subject: Re: New hotel on Route 130? |
|
|
| Press wrote: | | This has nothing to do with COAH. Cranbury has given MILLIONS of dollars to other towns in NJ over the last few years to keep affordable housing out of Cranbury. But now are complaining about the costs of having it here! |
Do you even live in Cranbury?
First off, you're wrong in that there is a relationship with COAH. Under the new requirements, any new commercial business increases the COAH requirement based on a whacked-out formula with no basis in reality that assigns an expected (rather than actual) employee count to the new business and corresponds it to additional local affordable housing requirements. A hotel would have a lot of employees and would certainly increase the obligation, especially since the formula has been determined to be 26-times the actual employee count for other businesses.
Second, Cranbury complied with the COAH rules that allowed it to pay other communities for affordable housing they wanted instead of locally for some and not all of the requirement. This was a win-win for both communities. Those communities wanted the housing and Cranbury wanted to continue 300+ years of very controlled growth rather than converting more farmland to high density housing. Cranbury still did some affordable housing locally. Now COAH is trying to retroactively change the rules, not just go forward and, prior to getting slowed down by economic developments statewide, expected Cranbury to literally expand its total housing by almost 50%, so that for every two property tax-paying homeowner, we were funding one new affordable housing unit. This was obviously absurd. And no one expected us to do it. COAH is really just a front for the builders lobby that runs Trenton in this State, which is why we’re already the most overbuilt state in the United States as a point of fact. COAH is a front for the “builders remedy” which then pushes communities to pay for the affordable housing any way they can by making deals with developers to take over the new affordable housing obligation in exchange for building four-times as many market rate houses. So while it took Cranbury 300 years to get to our first 1,000 homes, COAH was aiming to force us to add as many as 2,500 within the next couple of decades if we had gone, like a vast majority, with the builders remedy. All at the expense of farmland, of course.
It is a disgrace and has nothing to do with helping people get affordable housing. If it did, they wouldn’t be changing the rules to prevent the housing from being built where the communities want it. The idea that people have some “right” to live in the same municipality they work in is just dumb. There is no evidence most people want to for one thing. And as applied by this rule, it only applies to those who need assistance. I have to commute 1 hour and 45 minutes each way each day for my job. Yet in theory I am then supposed to pay for ½ of someone’s home so they can live in Cranbury instead of 5 minutes away in East Windsor. Yeah, that makes sense. That’s just a smokescreen for the builders wanting to earn billions developing endless housing that we don’t need anyway and everyone know understands the issue knows it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cranbury liberal
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Jun 4 2009, 4:14 pm EDT Post subject: Re: New hotel on Route 130? |
|
|
| I think its safe to say that "press" is a troll in internet-speak: someone who posts just to provoke and not to reflect a real point of view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Looking to move
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jun 6 2009, 7:56 am EDT Post subject: Re: New hotel on Route 130? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | If you choose to live near Turnpike, you will have to live with the traffic of trucks.
There is a demand for building warehouses along Turnpike and the reason should be obvious.
About demand for hotel services, I am not sure Cranbury is such a popular place to build hotels. But again, hotels will pop up alone major highways.
If you don't like trucks and hotels, well, you should not live near Turnpike and major highways. |
I guess whoever posted this doesnt realize that I have lived in an adjacent community for 36 and there were NO warehouses, so it is not MY CHOICE that Cranbury and chose industrial development over smart residential development. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jun 6 2009, 8:05 am EDT Post subject: Re: New hotel on Route 130? |
|
|
| Quote: | | Please dont forget approx 15 years ago Cranbury was a sending district to Lawrence. |
Cranbury sent only high school students to Lawrence; now they go to Princeton. There has been a K-8 in Cranbury for at least 35 years, and probably much, much longer. The administrator doubles as a principal, as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
