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

[anon-s01s]

"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.

[Glenn Johnson-p03s]

[anon; 04q3s-58q6]

The thing that really stinks about this is that Glenn Johnson has been the quiet little instigator of many of the behind the scenes deals that have been made in Executive Session that that public has had no say in. The deals are made in Execuitive Session and regardless of public comment the die is cast on these decisions. The public has been shut out for years and the present leadership has no intention of giving the public a say in how their money is spent. For example ---The powers that be will dredge the lake and have their cozy professionals get paid and then find out that the soils that are upstream are continuing to refill the lake. We will then get to remploy the same cronies to suck money from us to repeat a job that should not have been done in the first place. Another example is the tech expert on the committee that spends our money like water on locking down town hall with alarms and locks and upgrades the police department but he isn't even a taxpayer himself! When will we get a committee without alternative motives.

[anon-ors2]

[anon; 0qs5-58q6]

I think that the truth is hard to accept for some people. Especially for those who have been drinking the Cool Aid too long!

[anon-0493]

[Sean Deverin-5sro]

Dear Glenn Johnson,

I discussed this project and the complex M-C district issues with many Cranbury residents who have expressed concern since learning your perspective and the developer’s plans last week. As you are aware, I am a member of the Zoning Board and Development Review Committee. As you are also aware, this application will not be presented to Zoning as a result of the Town Council’s designation of it. Myself and many other residents are disappointed that this application will not have those additional layers of oversight. We believe a project of this magnitude and with this large of a potential impact should have more oversight and eyes of approval, not less.

Recently, I discussed the growing public concern with Mayor Jay Taylor and Township Committee member Dan Mulligan with the intention to bring the fruits of those private discussions to the public. Concerns about the direction and formation of the special committee were only a small portion of those conversations. By way of these discussions, some confusion arose as to your current election endeavors. Please accept sincere apologies from myself and other individuals on this side of this issue for that confusion. It was not intentional. However, it is also not relevant to the core issue nor was it one of our main discussion points. It was merely a caveat to the core issue. So let’s not get too hung up on that.

Instead, let’s focus on what is truly best for all of Cranbury. This critical project is a great opportunity to work with a quality developer and owners that share an interest to continue Cranbury’s tradition of smart development, strategic inclusion of required affordable housing, and management of appropriate density and scale for the area. However, as with any great opportunity, it can be capitalized on to create a great success or fumbled to create failure.

I do appreciate your offer to discuss this issue with you directly. However, I prefer open, public discussion over private; especially on issues of public concern. I believe that open discussions provide a wider range of perspectives and ultimately produce more solid results. This issue will have a major impact on every resident of Cranbury. Therefore, I believe it is only fair to discuss it in a setting visible to every resident of Cranbury. This thread may have some misinformation to be clarified along the way as most public discussions do. However, it will ultimately serve as an additional outlet of public information; a valuable tool.

I believe public concern is now well-documented. A large portion of the Cranbury population is not satisfied with the way this application is being handled. What can we do, Glenn, to alleviate these concerns?

I look forward to getting back to the informative discussions that were taking place here and I look forward to more public involvement on this issue. Despite the fact that this application will not be going in front of
Zoning, I will remain involved as a citizen of the township as I have on issues of the residential development of Maplewood Avenue, the development of the PNC lot and Commercial parking.

For those interested in learning more, below is a link for the master plan. This M-C district design and intent is covered on page 4-11 through page 4-15, page 9-6, page 9-7, page 14-5, page 14-13, and page
14-14 of the first document (2010) and in our Planner’s letter from March 2015:
http://www.cranburytownship.org/master_plan.html

Sincerely,
Sean Deverin

[anon-32pr]

Here's an idea: Why not handle this similarly to the way we handle Farmland Preservation? One of the intents of Farmland Preservation is to reduce development/density in our town, which reduces the load on Cranbury School, and in turn keeps our taxes down.

When we preserve farmland, the town buys the development rights to a property (albeit with financial assistance from the State), and the deed is changed so that no development can ever occur on the property. We can do something similar with these properties, but instead of completely disallowing development, specify that only low-density residential development be allowed, along with the commercial and COAH elements. The developers will get their desired profit, the town will get their desired low-density residential development, and everyone is happy. Yes this will cost money in the short term, but will save money in the long term because of the reduced load on the school and other infrastructure costs.

[anon-np42]

[anon-2527]

That same goal can be accomplished without the township having to get involved in ownership of the property. It can be accomplished by the powers in control refusing to approve anything more than low-density single-family home development.

I believe that lot is 10 or 14 acres. We can get what we want as a community by only approving what we want. There's no reason why that lot can't be divided into 28 1/2 acre lots for 28 single-family homes. We could have another Liedtke drive type development if we stick to our guns. If we get bulled over by the developer, we will end up with a condo complex on main street.

Based on what I'm seeing, it appears as though this developer is going to take our panel to school and get what they want instead of what should be put there.

[anon-r40p]

The property owners want to sell the property for as much as they can - they will sell to the highest bidder. A developer isn't going to pay very much for a property where they can only put in 28 homes.

[anon-0n4p]

""""What "application"? There is no application to develop this site yet. There is only a request for a study to see if it's an area in need of re-development. That's about 2-3 steps removed from an application. And about 3-5 different public hearings and chances for the Planning Board and the Township Committee to accept, reject or request changes. All in-public. What exactly is happening in secret allegedly?""""

I am not one of you who is well versed in all of this, but this seems like semantics to me. If the request to deem it in need of re-development is approved, then the application which will undoubtedly follow doesn't have to go through zoning and some other normal paces, right? It gets streamlined in certain ways, right?

If I am correct, then it would seem to me that, by your lingo, its not technically an application yet. However, strategically,and in reality , it is actually the first step in the applicant getting their application process to go the way they want it to and through who they want it to. So whether you call it an application or the developer strategically setting up their application process, makes no real difference to us from a practical standpoint.

As to the "secrets", people here wouldn't know. Thats why it would be called a secret. I think everyone is trying to make sure it is on the up and up and there are no secrets by fleshing it out. An effort that should not be thwarted or mocked.

[anon-0n4p]

[anon-r40p]

Current zoning allows 4 dwelling units per acre. That's worth a lot more than 28 units.

[anon-2527]

Two FYI's

One. The above post was wrong. It was deemed in need of redevelopment back in March. That is a done deal and a huge victory for the developer. The attitude that there is no official application yet is just an indication of the fact that we don't even realize the game started while the developer is dunking on the other end of the court.

Two. At $150,000 per lot, which is a reasonable price, someone could pay $6 million for those acres. That is likely more than what they are being offered now. We are all buying into the fact that this developer and his 61 condos are only option. That could not be further from true.

[anon-2527]

The above math is based on two lots per acre. At 4 per acre, there would undoubtedly be interest from a developer who wants to put up single-family homes. However, our committee is treating this developer as though they are only option. Among other things, that is just a horrible negotiating strategy. Ultimately, this is a negotiation between the developer and the township boards and committees. Who in their right mind sits down and negotiating table and tells the other person that they are there only option? That is a recipe for losing. And that is exactly what happened at the most recent meeting when Glenn told the developer and the public hat he is our only option. I don't believe that to be true.