Update on Affordable Housing Obligation

[fyi]

Update on Affordable Housing Obligation

On May 23rd during the regularly-scheduled Township Committee Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, an update will be given for Cranbury’s Affordable Housing obligation and its impact financially as well as the impact to Cranbury School. Residents are encouraged to attend.

http://www.cranburytownship.org/notices/housing-052316.html

[Thank you-sn2q]

Thank you to the Township Committee and all who were involved in the process to get us through the next round of affordable housing obligations. The plan presented last night is well thought out and will have a minimal an impact on town resources, and protect us from future builders remedy lawsuits. Thank you for your hard work and dedication.

[anon-po3n]

Did many people attend this meeting? Just curious...

[anon-8pr6]

The TC meeting last night was very informative and also entertaining.

It was like watching HBO. We had financial news, conflict, illegal activity, and comedy.

Financial news
The TC reported that our affordable housing obligation is 8.6 million dollars and in worst case scenario a 5 cent a year tax increase over the next 20 or 30 years.

Then the Mayor and professionals lawyers, CHA and Coah consultant gave an update on the progress to date. The good news is between se housing and special needs we may not have a large school impact.

The Mayor also spoke of the Protinick farm. It was apparently nearing preservation when this family pulled out and chose to sell to Toll Brothers. Thus per the Mayor and Mr Taylor they essentially took the money, tossed the town aside and left the community with 175 age restricted homes.

The Mayor then referenced they have a farm stand on Dey Rd for what it is worth. I think it was an implied boycott. So we have conflict what do residents do?

Intrigue
A resident presented a petition asking for an ordinance change allowing residents to build berms in their back yard. It appears he was cited for an ordinance violation as he built a berm and instead of going through a zoning variance decided to present a petition.

The Mayor asked if he was presenting a petition knowing he had done something illegal. The answer initially was essentially yes. The Mayor was then upset that he decided not to go through the normal variance process, but to get a petition together to try a zoning change.

It then became a shouting match between the resident and Mayor.

Comedy

The resident stated after getting a violation he spoke with the Planning Board Chair Allan Kehrt a neighbor of his.

The Mayor asked Mr. Kehrt to speak. Mr. Kehrt it appears involved township professionals to get input without TC approval. Mayor Mulligan held him accountable and another shouting match ensued. It seems Mr. Kehrt was defensive and Mayor Mulligan felt it was not the PB chairs role to get involved.

Further, Mr. Kehrt was supportive of the change and the Mayor asked if that was because he lived in the affected area. More yelling between the two occurred.

Mr. Johnson then entered the fray and explained why this ordinance is important and is not an easy solution. That adding soil and a berm does not work alone and there are issues.

More shouting occurred and the illegal action was raised up again when a zoning board member Mike Dulin started making the point that the TC has a zoning ordinance subcommittee and which should be used. However, as this line went on he started yelling at the TC.

Mr. Taylor asked ithe Mayor if he could say something and ask a question.

However, he was interrupted a few times as he started by Mr. Dulin. Being polite Mr Taylor after being interrupted the first time asked if he could say something. That was the weong thing to say asr Taylor then exploded.

He commented that it was clearly established this was an illegal action. That there was a zoning ordinance subcommittee to handle a change to the ordinance and that is where it belonged. Funny--Mr. Dulin was making the same point and had he been quiet he would have seen Mr. Taylor supporting his point.

When he was then yelled at by the applicant and Mr Kehrt he shouted back that there was a legal action going on between our zoning officer that the PB chair should have said I can't speak on this. Then if concerned brought it to the subcommittee. That this action was illegal.

As he was yelled at Ms Goetz then tried to calm things down.

Whether they listened or just tired, the discussion ended.

Overall, a bag of popcorn, large soda and reclining chair and I could have been set all night.

[anon-001s]

So did they have to get rid of the berm? What was the final outcome?

[anon-88r5]

[anon-0592]

I don't see what the big deal about the berm is. It's on rt. 130, and obvious the homeowner wants to block the noise and view of the warehouse across the street. As far as the Protinick farm goes something doesn't seem right to me. If they were near preservation and pulled out obviously the town was up to no good. I'm still going to purchase from them, and I might even go more. Nothing is more childish than telling residents not to go somewhere because they are not happy with the owners!

[anon-51o9]

The big deal is there is a zoning ordinance and to build a berm it requires importing soil which could be contaminated. I got a great berm sorry I poisoned my neighbor's yard.

The issue is that there was a process. All the resident had to do was file a variance show the soil certification. People file variances all the time. They got cited and instead went to a petition, then asked the PB chair who spent tax payer money and wanted the TC to circumvent the zoning board and process. Plus there was legal action occurring at the time.

As Mr Taylor said there is a subcommittee to consider whether there should be a change to current ordinances. The PB chair sits on this. Why spend money? Why didn't the chair just take it to the subcommittee?

Why is the town up to no good? Maybe the farmer saw more money and decided he'd rather have the additional money. Don't fault him personally. But land preservation takes time so the TC had gotten them funding. Now after a preservation deal is in place the farmer uses it to get money from a developer and leave the town with an increased housing obligation and 175 homes. Plus considering how the land preservation in Cranbury depends on others it may harm future preservation efforts.

As a resident I don't fault the business decision, but I can be annoyed that the town was harmed and my taxes impacted. They win, I lose scenario.

We had a person in town Gordie Stults donate land to preservation solely for a tax benefit and took no additional money from the town years ago.

[anon-54r5]

Good article on the topic on tapinto:

Cranbury Township Committee: Voices Raised In Dust-Up Over Noise, Dirt

https://www.tapinto.net/towns/south-brunswick-cranbury/articles/cranbury-township-committee-voices-raised-in-dus

For Mayor Mulligan, the problem wasn't so much what Liu was trying to do as the way he was going about it.

“My frustration point right now is how these two are handling this,” he said. “I'm very frustrated. Mr. Liu broke the law, didn't like the way the law was written, and decided to get everyone to sign a petition and then shows up here saying, 'We've got to change the law.' Then Mr. Kehrt, who heads our land use board, gets involved with the planner, which, I'm not even sure why you're doing that. That's inappropriate and you're making policy and saying how simple this is without even asking anybody.”


At one point, Committeeman Jay Taylor, who had begun to speak several times before being cut off each time by a member of the audience, asked the man if he could speak, to which he replied, “Maybe.”

“I have an issue with the way that this process has worked to date,” Taylor said. “What I would have expected – and Allan I apologize – is the minute he heard that Jeff had cited him (Liu), to shut down the conversation at that point. Not talk to the professionals, not spend taxpayer dollars, but to just shut down that conversation and say, 'We have a Zoning subcommittee, I'll raise it there and if the people at the Zoning subcommittee decide that it's worthwhile, we'll bring it forward to Township Committee.'”

[anon-s434]

Now we're frustrated with the PB chair thinking he knows what's best for the whole town? This is how several major decisions have been made or heavily influenced historically. Funny that the 2 other TC members who've been in on those processes recently didn't seem too bothered by this. He needs to be removed from post no question.

[anon-sp0n]

[anon-6n5r]

So the PB chair obviously violated public trust per the TC. What's the consequence? Will he be removed? Will be interesting to see if his Development subcommittee buddies (both on TC) continue to protect the practice of a few folks making key decisions outside of (or protected by window dressing) process or if he is removed.

[anon-9077]

I was getting ice cream at gil and berts today, and across the street noticed there was a shed up in back yard of the blue house across the street.. Now we are talking about someone having to take down a berm. But this person right in town can put up a shed and build a driveway with no permits? And yes I checked, there are no permits for shed or driveway. How is this fair?? Please explain how some people in town can do things and others cannot???

[anon-001s]

[anon-s6p5]

There is a difference between a shed that can be taken down without impact and a berm.

A berm:

- Requires soil which may be contaminated and there is no control without a zoning review.

- Contaminated soil not only affects immediate neighbors, but the neighborhood.

- May create rainwater run-off that affects the neighbors' yards.

- There are county easements and right of ways. Without a zoning review the homeowner could create a liability for themselves and the town.

This person did something illegal and got caught. No issue if he would have sought a zoning review even after being cited. It happens to people. There was a shed review just last year for example at the zoning board.

Instead, he involved the Planning Board chair who took it upon himself to get involved without asking anyone and spend tax money in so doing. Further, as the issue was cited it meant that a legal action was occurring. Akin to a TC member talking to the people in authority about a resident's speeding ticket and how to avoid it. Neither action do you take.

The resident then instead of going through the proper process got a petition together to try and win support from his neighbors for his action. Perhaps he is still trying for public support.

Meanwhile, I as a tax payer who is not affected by this person (who admittedly is selling their home, who on his own chose to live in a house backing 130, and perhaps got a discount in property value when bought) am left footing the bill from him and the PB chair. Why should my tax dollars be used because someone wants to circumvent the ordinances and process? Clearly, legal counsel, zoning, planning and prior TC's felt this ordinance was important or it would not have been enacted years ago.

All this and it is important to note that the TC did agree to let the appropriate body review this ordinance.

[shedding-617n]

so with that logic, anybody should be permitted to build anything they want where they want, as long as they can take it down. Doesn't sound like how the law is written.

then again, at least with this shed (more like a garage), its apparently how the law is applied.