| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest II
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu, Jul 15 2010, 2:31 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Can Cranbury Apply This Thinking? |
 |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest II wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | A place on 130 to get a cheap cup of coffee convienently will have the rooster crowing for sure |
What you don't enjoy paying $4.00 for a cup of coffee???
Cock A Doodle Doo |
Doesn't Teddy's already offer a cheap, convenient, alternative place to get a cup of coffee? |
I will not eat at Teddy's, it just does not look like a clean place. |
I agree. Teddy's is old and dingy. I've tried their food before. I thought they were a little pricey for what they offered. I've tried their breakfast sandwiches a couple of times and thought they were chintzy on the bacon. I'd rather go to a regular diner then there. Then, you have the issue of parking. Fuggetabout it! |
Parking issue for Teddy's? LOL. Now I know this is a joke post. |
Aaaahhhh, not quite. LOL |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Jul 15 2010, 3:26 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Can Cranbury Apply This Thinking? |
|
|
It is just amazing some people still cling the the delusion that there is a parking problem in Cranbury. Yet every time they are asked to give specific examples they never can. Then others give specific examples of how there isn't a problem and they still persist in their stubborn misconception.
It comes down to what constitutes a problem. If parking is a "problem" when you can't always get a spot directly in front of the door, then yeah we have a parking problem. But name a place that doesn't have this "problem." It's like saying any place where the temperature rises above 30 degrees has a heat problem.
I can't think of a single other place that has less of a parking problem than Cranbury. It's such a pleasure. When I list for out-of-towners the great things about this little community one of them is always how easy parking is. Even on parade, fireworks or Cranbury Day it is easy. No place else can say that about their most crowded days. The other day I had to park a blcok away from where I was going. Shocker. Rare. But still 10x better than anywhere else. Geez, if you actually measure the distance you have to walk from the Mall parking lot to your store, I guarantee you it would be further than the worse case ever in Cranbury. Get some perspective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Jul 15 2010, 4:49 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Can Cranbury Apply This Thinking? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | 7-11 was on a dangerous spot. I support business on 130 and do not support the 7-11 location there. The other denials were against the current Master Plan which means variances needed to be granted. Once that happens you create a precedent that means the town is now open to development we may not want or feel appropriate.
These issues do need to be addressed, but through the course of reviewing the master plan which is occurring right now. |
How is the triangle a dangerous spot? Or is it that you thought your house might be affected by lights on the building? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Jul 15 2010, 6:03 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Can Cranbury Apply This Thinking? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | 7-11 was on a dangerous spot. I support business on 130 and do not support the 7-11 location there. The other denials were against the current Master Plan which means variances needed to be granted. Once that happens you create a precedent that means the town is now open to development we may not want or feel appropriate.
These issues do need to be addressed, but through the course of reviewing the master plan which is occurring right now. |
How is the triangle a dangerous spot? Or is it that you thought your house might be affected by lights on the building? |
I live in Shadow Oaks which is about as far as possible from that spot. And I do support rateables and that includes redeveloping 130. However, I drive by that spot every day to the Turnpike. The planned exit and entrance were onto 130 which also happens to have a light right there making it very difficult and also increasing the likliehood for an accident. There is also a development across the street with kids and no matter how much a parent does I can guarantee we'll have kids running across 4 lanes to get a slurpee. I would have done it as a kid and I am sure kids today are no different.
The spot would have also required a lot of variances to fit the store on the property because of the size they wanted and that also means that precedent is set for other uses on 130 which may be problematic. Further, they also presented at the DRC having wanted to have a police sub station at the store.
It was not a good fit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JD
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Jul 15 2010, 6:04 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Can Cranbury Apply This Thinking? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | 7-11 was on a dangerous spot. I support business on 130 and do not support the 7-11 location there. The other denials were against the current Master Plan which means variances needed to be granted. Once that happens you create a precedent that means the town is now open to development we may not want or feel appropriate.
These issues do need to be addressed, but through the course of reviewing the master plan which is occurring right now. |
How is the triangle a dangerous spot? Or is it that you thought your house might be affected by lights on the building? |
I am not the first poster but I agree with him/her on virtually all points. There are legit safety (and quality of life) concerns with the 7-11 project as it was proposed. I live close to the site and was happy to see that the variances were not granted. I support business and retail development provided the positives outweigh the negatives. I expect the master plan revision will carefully address the issues of retail development off Main St.
JD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
