Downtown needs help, not South Main/hagerty/Cheney/Sockler/Kushner

[savethedowntown-617n]

With the David Wells buidling for Sale, the Old Odd Fellows/Grubb Building for sale, the old bookworm in a permanent construction stall, the Stults Office Building for Sale and now Claire's Closing, our Downtown is in sore shape, how about focusing on whats left of our Village!

All begs the question: Why we are going to allow 60 new housing units and 30,000 square feet of retail to be built on South Main? Is that so we can ensure the demise our Village, or is that simply to reward those who let their properties fall so far into ruin that we can now justify "redeveloping" them? I would rather see 6-8 new single family homes on that parcel then the urban "creation" being discussed. Do we really need all that retail on Main Street in Cranbury? do we really want 61 condos and townshouses on Main Street? Are we trying to be like Hoboken, or are we interested in preserving what makes Cranbury special, ie, our Village?

Final note, for that "redevelopment" should we not know what the sale price of the land is to the "redeveloper"? HOw about how much our town planner, attorney and engineer get to bill for all this "redevelpment". it appears that he landlowners and the town vendors profit, but the the Village, not so much.

Probably wasting energy with these thoughts, cause in Cranbury once the train starts, it rarely stops...(our ballfield for example...)

[anon-s8r1]

Maybe Main Street should be the redevelopment area.

[anon-9p12]

Was it purposeful that you did not mention that there are two new restaurants coming to downtown and that the bookworm is being redone as a home to help build your case?
The hagerty property is a DEP site. No one is going to put the money into fixing it for a few houses. Of course we all may be chipping in to pay to clean it up when the state forces us to put affordable housing homes there.
This is not a conspiracy. its an opportunity to take an eyesore and correct it. You need people in town to make a town viable. 60 classy homes with stores will make our downtown better. Stop dragging your feet.

[anon-s030]

- didn't the TC just work hard to get grants for the downtown village? New businesses are coming and Claire's is closing because of retirement.


- the properties have been for sale for years and the master plan allows retail and residential. Redevelopment was stated at the meeting as a planning tool and the Planning board process is the same.

- why does it matter what the land sells for? I don't want the town allowing anything based on a sale price. I want the best project.

- the professionals are paid by the development fees not the tax payers so this doesn't matter.

- last point, read the Cranbury Press today Jay Taylor (Mayor) stated we have a letter from a large apartment developer interested in Cranbury and more expected as it pertains to affordable housing. The number is 5 units of market rate to one affordable. I'll take 61 units of market rate high end homes if that is the end number over a few hundred apartments any day of the week as a 10 acre property sits a lot of units and that is a court decision not Cranbury one. However, he also agreed that the density needs to be controlled.

[anon-5sro]

The points for this proposed mega dense development (enviro clean up cost, affordable housing cost etc) seem like scare tactics to me because they are not being quantified. bad decisions are made when alternatives are not vetted. The proposed 61 ~ 3k square foot homes, though maybe "classy" will have the same impact on our school system that the Orchard is having on Monroe- same big homes on sAme lot sized (~.16 acres). Almost all have school children- go look in the am. This developer should be made to post a 10 million dollar bond in case we get 100 new school kids that our school cannot accommodate (look at our first grade- 3 classes were made to accommodate and they'll be there for the next 7 years) and need to build a bigger school. This development gives too many concessions: greater than 2x density, much less set back then houses across main and a mega commercial seen no where else in town. It's wrong and I'm starting to wonder why there is this few that seem blindly supporting no matter what. Something's up here. Btw- the applicant fees don't pay the entire cost of the process.. Only about half, tax payers pay rest.

[anon-8p53]

[anon-n00n]

The amount of restaurants will essentially be the same, there was Hannah & Masons and a Chinese one not that long ago, the Blue Rooster and Molto Bene, now you will have Molto Bene and a new Asian place. Essentially nothing has changed.

The change will come when the new retail is in and the restaurants that come with it. My guess would be your standard italian / pizza, asian, and a deli / bagel shop.

Don't like the redevlopemnt idea but also don't like the current sanford and son look.

[anon-4637]

What alternatives? The properties for our sake need one developer to show uniformity. The town is not the developer, but controls the process. At the meeting they stated density was still in negotiation.

The orchards prices are less expensive than this development in Cranbury and are single family homes. The orchards are under 600k and this is over 600k to start.

I agree we will see kids, but the question is how many.

[savethedowntown-617n]

[savethedowntown-617n]

[anon-617n]

[anon-400n]

That's the change I was referring to. Village businesses will suffer.

[anon-s02q]

[Seen it all-1qp2]

I wonder how many of you who are complaining about the 61 units, or complained about the 61 units Tuesday night, live in a house that is not on Main Street? I'm not real happy about the growth of Cranbury over the last 6 decades, but it couldn't be stopped. It was ironic that most of you who complain live in the new homes that are were built within the last 15 to 20 years or less, and I'm including 4 Seasons who took a lot of Farm land away. Stop complaining and go to meetings and work with the elected officials and boards. Participate in your town! By the way, I am not benefiting from this sale, unfortunately.

[anon-s02q]

"Stop complaining" isn't good data for why this is a good idea. I see only data for why this density is a bad idea and inconsistent with the master plan for this lot as well as all other development that has occurred over those 60 years. Exponentially increasing the density of development isn't a good idea.. Period. I hope the developer realizes we don't need them as badly as they think we do. And you don't have to be profit ting directly from this sale to have a conflict of interest. Let's just say you're looking to make a career out of politics in Nj (say you're running for county freeholder) and one of the property owners is a major political contributor in the state for your party and they've even been convicted of influencing people wrongly on the part, that would be a CLEAR conflict of interest, right? Even if no wrongdoing is happening it might make it harder for you to not be influenced/ persuaded... That opportunity or even possible appearance for impropriety is cAlled conflict of interest.

[Seen it all-1qp2]

I wonder how many of you who are complaining about the 61 units, or complained about the 61 units Tuesday night, live in a house that is not on Main Street? I'm not real happy about the growth of Cranbury over the last 6 decades, but it couldn't be stopped. It was ironic that most of you who complain live in the new homes that are were built within the last 15 to 20 years or less, and I'm including 4 Seasons who took a lot of Farm land away. Stop complaining and go to meetings and work with the elected officials and boards. Participate in your town! By the way, I am not benefiting from this sale, unfortunately.