CHA & PB

[Guest]

CHA is on the Planning Board Agenda on Thursday. It looks like they are subdividing land on Old Cranbury Road. Is this for more affordable housing?

[Ida March]

Maybe they are planning to add units to all the existing sites so they don't have to buy more land?

[Bad idea]

If that's the case I think we all need to be prepared for a major uproar. The majority of the COAH homes have been concentrated at the South end of town. Increasing them will be the tipping point for a lot of people. If the TC thought 130D was vocal imagine Cranbury Green, Four Seasons and Shadow Oaks coming at them and CHA. I think we on the South end have been very accomodating to this point. The furthest north the COAH homes are is the Village Park which is more mid-point of town.

[Guest]

I don't live in either part of Town (I live in a rural section) but I think calling the Villege Park more like a "mid point" is a stretch. Of the total residential properties in town, how many are south versus north of that point? I would bet a lot more are south.

[distinction]

Our town is divided North and South by Main St. There are many out lying areas, but historically and for reference our town has always been divided geographically North and South by the lake. The lake being the midpoint of the distinction. I am from Shadow Oaks, so there is no village bias nor is anyone saying mid-point relative to home numbers is the village park. It is just the way the town is set up.

I fully agree more homes are on the south side. There are no COAH homes presently on the outer area north of the lake. So adding further homes and more COAH here is a bad idea.

[Guest]

[Guest]

Or does it stand to reason that the south is over burdened and therefore the North end of that geographic spread should pick up more of the homes? So as to over build one area.

[wcody]

[Guest]

[War Between the States]

I am not a proponent of building more units on old cranbury road nor am I a fan of maxing out the 130 D site. Here's the facts since so many posts seem unclear. Roughly 2/3 of COAH homes are south of the lake. So are roughly 2/3 of the residents. One of the reasons the south has more total residents and more COAH housing is the residential development south of the lake was a key driver of Cranbury's COAH obligations. The south is where the builders had the land they gave to us as part of their COAH obligation. For example, 4 seasons is 100 market rate units, which created an obligation of about 25 COAH units. The developer didn't want to build affordable units in the 4 seasons, so they gave us land and money to build them somewhere else (like old Cranbury Rd.)

The other key driver of COAH obligations are the warehouses, which we all realize tax benefits from, but which only some of us get the extra benefits of truck noise and pollution.

The reality is, the COAH obligation is so big, it can't be fair. This "war between the states" is unproductive. Let's focus on changing the rules before we build ANYWHERE in town.

[Guest]

I agree. However, it's bigger than that. Land preservation efforts were always geared to the North. So it is also a town function. When land on the south came up such as liedtke the town said they had no money. Yet, they did barclay, west property, etc..

I agree not building anywhere, but I also agree that we should be equitable with the COAH housing and disperse it through town. Simply because there are more residents (through no fault of their own) does not mean we should hold them responsible for even more housing.

I am sure residents would have loved to preserve shadow oaks or 4 seasons, but the town never opted to do this.

[Guest]

Sorry, so as not to over burden one area.

[checker]

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]