| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue, Nov 9 2010, 11:44 pm EST Post subject: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
 |
|
| The draft of the new master plan proposes a potentially massive increase of low-rent apartments and retail expansion adjacent to Maplewood and Cranbury Estates. These neighborhoods are already slated to house more than 60% of Cranbury's low income family housing. If approved as drafted, low-rent apartments could easily outnumber single family homes in these adjacent neighborhoods. For the next 8 days, the planners are looking for your feedback and the board members indicated the plan is subject to change. So speak up now if you have concerns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Nov 10 2010, 8:52 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| To whom do we send our feedback? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Nov 10 2010, 11:03 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
There has always been arguement that you need to develop 130. This board gets posts on the development of 130 for retail. At some point we either need to recognize that the PB has been correct that we need to protect the down town and restrict retail or that we need to open 130 for retail and the PB has been wrong. We can't complain that there is no retail allowed on 130 and then complain that the PB is allowing retail on 130.
The proposed apartments are not COAH. They are 1-2 bedroom market rate apartments. Much like we see in other towns with apartments on top and retail below.
I don't really have a hard position one way or the other. I just think the town residents need to decide what it is that they want on 130. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Nov 10 2010, 11:22 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | There has always been arguement that you need to develop 130. This board gets posts on the development of 130 for retail. At some point we either need to recognize that the PB has been correct that we need to protect the down town and restrict retail or that we need to open 130 for retail and the PB has been wrong. We can't complain that there is no retail allowed on 130 and then complain that the PB is allowing retail on 130.
The proposed apartments are not COAH. They are 1-2 bedroom market rate apartments. Much like we see in other towns with apartments on top and retail below.
I don't really have a hard position one way or the other. I just think the town residents need to decide what it is that they want on 130. |
Sounds like you were at the meeting last night. Were you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Nov 10 2010, 11:33 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
Why do you have to tie residential apartments to the retail -- can't we have a master plan and zoning that doesn't permit that?
To the extent we end up being forced by bad laws pushed by greedy developers in collusion with corrupt politicians and judges to over build low income housing, that is what it is. But to encourage other high density residential development that doesn't fulfill an obligation seems crazy.
Most people live in Cranbury either because they like that it is a small town or because of the school, or both. Neither is served by non-essential development of high density housing which adds to the population but inevitably doesn't contribute proportionately to the tax base to support the larger school and services cost created by it.
Unless we are forced to do this it's like shooting ourselves in the foot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Nov 10 2010, 11:46 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | There has always been arguement that you need to develop 130. This board gets posts on the development of 130 for retail. At some point we either need to recognize that the PB has been correct that we need to protect the down town and restrict retail or that we need to open 130 for retail and the PB has been wrong. We can't complain that there is no retail allowed on 130 and then complain that the PB is allowing retail on 130.
The proposed apartments are not COAH. They are 1-2 bedroom market rate apartments. Much like we see in other towns with apartments on top and retail below.
I don't really have a hard position one way or the other. I just think the town residents need to decide what it is that they want on 130. |
Sounds like you were at the meeting last night. Were you? |
Yes, I was there. The majority of residents in attendance wanted to protect the village commercial and did not want to see development of 130 at this point or at least those who spoke. The Master Plan Committee said that there was about 16,000 sq ft of business space if the whole downtown business eligible properties were added together which is why they thought 130 would be developed.
The arguement for the apartments was not that the developer had to do this, but if a property owner wanted to add 1-2 bedroom apartments above the business to get more income that they could. The taxes from the additional space plus the busines would offset any loss. The belief being that 1-2 bedroom apartments were not likely to have families because of space constraints. That they would be "empty nesters." DINCS- Dual Income no Children or Retirees.
The term affordable was used in the context that 1-2 bedroom apartments are not going to be collecting large rents like someone may charge for a home.
I am only repeating what was said and feel one way or the other I suggest they email the PB as was stated by someone in a prior post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Nov 10 2010, 3:00 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| Did they provide any data or reserch to back up this belief that the apartments would mostly be used by non-families and that the income to the Township would more than offset the additional costs created by the housing? Otherwise it seems like a big assumption and risk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Nov 10 2010, 7:14 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: |
The proposed apartments are not COAH. They are 1-2 bedroom market rate apartments. Much like we see in other towns with apartments on top and retail below. |
Precisely. Barring a miracle, these apartments won't qualify as "affordable housing" in the eyes of the state, but when you consider the likely "market-rates" for apartments over retail on Route 130, you're talking about low income housing. This is a double-negative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Nov 10 2010, 8:07 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| It's not just apartments out on Rt. 130, there are new apartments recently proposed for an historic home and barn right in the middle of the downtown historic district. It's hard to believe that the Master Planners are so nimble that they picked right up on this and immediately put it in their document. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Nov 10 2010, 9:00 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | At some point we either need to recognize that the PB has been correct that we need to protect the down town and restrict retail or that we need to open 130 for retail and the PB has been wrong. |
Please consider that these are more than two choices. One of the property owners on Rte 130 made a great point last night. She said there's no reason the plan has to pit retail on 130 against Main St. We could find ways to develop complementary retail on 130.
For example, if we set a minimum size for retail stores on 130 of say, 4,000 square feet and kept the minimum lot size 2 acres, we would attract different types of businesses than Main Street can accommodate. We might get a pharmacy instead of another pizza parlor or a hardware store instead of a hair salon.
Unfortunately, as proposed the new "Community-Commercial" zone on 130 is designed to replicate a Main Street style business district with small retailers, pedestrian walk-ways and high density housing; except with more highway traffic, better parking, newer buildings and less restrictions. I believe the proposed "Community Commercial" zone will increase the challenges for the Main Street business district in the village. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Nov 11 2010, 7:50 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | It's not just apartments out on Rt. 130, there are new apartments recently proposed for an historic home and barn right in the middle of the downtown historic district. It's hard to believe that the Master Planners are so nimble that they picked right up on this and immediately put it in their document. |
What are you talking about apartments and barn in the historic district? Are you talking the property on S. Main St? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Nov 11 2010, 8:07 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | At some point we either need to recognize that the PB has been correct that we need to protect the down town and restrict retail or that we need to open 130 for retail and the PB has been wrong. |
Please consider that these are more than two choices. One of the property owners on Rte 130 made a great point last night. She said there's no reason the plan has to pit retail on 130 against Main St. We could find ways to develop complementary retail on 130.
For example, if we set a minimum size for retail stores on 130 of say, 4,000 square feet and kept the minimum lot size 2 acres, we would attract different types of businesses than Main Street can accommodate. We might get a pharmacy instead of another pizza parlor or a hardware store instead of a hair salon.
Unfortunately, as proposed the new "Community-Commercial" zone on 130 is designed to replicate a Main Street style business district with small retailers, pedestrian walk-ways and high density housing; except with more highway traffic, better parking, newer buildings and less restrictions. I believe the proposed "Community Commercial" zone will increase the challenges for the Main Street business district in the village. |
And what of the existing properties who would not meet that requirement and want to change to retail? Are they out of luck?
It was also mentioned that they do not want to become like E.W. with series of strip malls or big box stores on 130. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Nov 11 2010, 11:13 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | At some point we either need to recognize that the PB has been correct that we need to protect the down town and restrict retail or that we need to open 130 for retail and the PB has been wrong. |
Please consider that these are more than two choices. One of the property owners on Rte 130 made a great point last night. She said there's no reason the plan has to pit retail on 130 against Main St. We could find ways to develop complementary retail on 130.
For example, if we set a minimum size for retail stores on 130 of say, 4,000 square feet and kept the minimum lot size 2 acres, we would attract different types of businesses than Main Street can accommodate. We might get a pharmacy instead of another pizza parlor or a hardware store instead of a hair salon. |
And what of the existing properties who would not meet that requirement and want to change to retail? Are they out of luck?
It was also mentioned that they do not want to become like E.W. with series of strip malls or big box stores on 130. |
Existing properties that would not qualify could file for a variance, as they can now, except one major hurdle would be removed, so the process would be easier.
The current proposal actively promotes the building of strip malls (albeit "nice" strip malls). Setting a minimum floor area (i.e. 4,000 sf) minimizes the likelihood of traditional strip malls that typically offer several units of 1,000-2,000 sf.
Regarding big boxes, they could set a maximum floor area (i.e. 20,000 sf), as well as a minimum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Nov 11 2010, 11:38 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | At some point we either need to recognize that the PB has been correct that we need to protect the down town and restrict retail or that we need to open 130 for retail and the PB has been wrong. |
Please consider that these are more than two choices. One of the property owners on Rte 130 made a great point last night. She said there's no reason the plan has to pit retail on 130 against Main St. We could find ways to develop complementary retail on 130.
For example, if we set a minimum size for retail stores on 130 of say, 4,000 square feet and kept the minimum lot size 2 acres, we would attract different types of businesses than Main Street can accommodate. We might get a pharmacy instead of another pizza parlor or a hardware store instead of a hair salon. |
And what of the existing properties who would not meet that requirement and want to change to retail? Are they out of luck?
It was also mentioned that they do not want to become like E.W. with series of strip malls or big box stores on 130. |
Existing properties that would not qualify could file for a variance, as they can now, except one major hurdle would be removed, so the process would be easier.
The current proposal actively promotes the building of strip malls (albeit "nice" strip malls). Setting a minimum floor area (i.e. 4,000 sf) minimizes the likelihood of traditional strip malls that typically offer several units of 1,000-2,000 sf.
Regarding big boxes, they could set a maximum floor area (i.e. 20,000 sf), as well as a minimum. |
The variance request is why we're in the problem we are today with legal challenges and upset business owners. It is almost impossible to get a variance and the boards are concerned about setting the precedent. Once one property gets an exception it's very hard to defend the legal challenge from another property owner making an identical request.
The zoning board realizing this made the request that this be a specific part of the review to defend the town from such challenges and costs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Nov 11 2010, 12:35 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| I see the creation of a uniquely Cranbury political Party. THE RENT IS TOO DAMN LOW PARTY! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Nov 11 2010, 2:38 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| Isn't rather snobbish to say I don't want someone who is working to be able to afford a home in town in a private apartment? If someone is personally building an apartment and someone who is single or has a wife wants to move in why do we care what the landlord charges for rent? Do you really think a family of 4 will live in a one bedroom apartment? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
