| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu, Feb 25 2010, 4:09 pm EST Post subject: 130D Decision reached |
 |
|
http://www.centraljersey.com/articles/2010/02/25/cranbury_press/news/doc4b86db3ca8139473841204.txt
Cranbury to move forward on affordable housing plan
Thursday, February 25, 2010 3:20 PM EST
By Maria Prato-Gaines, Staff Writer
CRANBURY — The Township Committee has crafted a compromise that will allow 32 units of affordable housing to be placed on a 40-acre property on Route 130. It plans to vote on the compromise March 2.
The site, known as Route 130D, originally was to be home to 48 affordable housing units, but complaints from neighbors resulted in the committee reducing the density.
The 130D site is part of the township’s latest plan to meet obligations set by the state Council on Affordable Housing. The township had until March 13 to develop a plan.
Gov. Chris Christie earlier this month issued an executive order to shut COAH and left the third round of housing obligations in limbo. However, a state appellate panel issued an injunction last week and towns must follow COAH rules. Cranbury is responsible for 269 units under the third round.
In addition to the 32 units at Route 130D, the township must find locations for 67 senior housing units and 51 family rentals to fulfill its obligation. Three other sites account for 52 units with the 47-unit balance being made up of credits and bonuses.
A housing subcommittee chaired by Committeeman Win Cody recommended 36 units in four buildings on the 130D site, but neighbors countered with 29. Neighbors had petitioned the committee in 2008 to reduce the density.
”I would urge you to move forward with a slightly lower density,” said resident Dave Mauger. “Once we put something down on paper it’s much more difficult to change.”
Mark Berkowsky, president of the nonprofit Cranbury Housing Associates, said the 130D site was intended to be a high-density project that would allow the township to meet its latest COAH obligation.
Committeemen Jay Taylor and Dave Cook, who signed the residents’ petition before they were candidates for the committee, opposed the higher density. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Feb 25 2010, 4:13 pm EST Post subject: Re: 130D Decision reached |
|
|
| great lets post higher density in somebody else's neighborhood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Feb 25 2010, 4:13 pm EST Post subject: Re: 130D Decision reached |
|
|
| the above is not the full article. click the link to see the full content |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Feb 25 2010, 4:17 pm EST Post subject: Re: 130D Decision reached |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | http://www.centraljersey.com/articles/2010/02/25/cranbury_press/news/doc4b86db3ca8139473841204.txt
Cranbury to move forward on affordable housing plan
Thursday, February 25, 2010 3:20 PM EST
By Maria Prato-Gaines, Staff Writer
CRANBURY — The Township Committee has crafted a compromise that will allow 32 units of affordable housing to be placed on a 40-acre property on Route 130. It plans to vote on the compromise March 2.
The site, known as Route 130D, originally was to be home to 48 affordable housing units, but complaints from neighbors resulted in the committee reducing the density.
The 130D site is part of the township’s latest plan to meet obligations set by the state Council on Affordable Housing. The township had until March 13 to develop a plan.
Gov. Chris Christie earlier this month issued an executive order to shut COAH and left the third round of housing obligations in limbo. However, a state appellate panel issued an injunction last week and towns must follow COAH rules. Cranbury is responsible for 269 units under the third round.
In addition to the 32 units at Route 130D, the township must find locations for 67 senior housing units and 51 family rentals to fulfill its obligation. Three other sites account for 52 units with the 47-unit balance being made up of credits and bonuses.
A housing subcommittee chaired by Committeeman Win Cody recommended 36 units in four buildings on the 130D site, but neighbors countered with 29. Neighbors had petitioned the committee in 2008 to reduce the density.
”I would urge you to move forward with a slightly lower density,” said resident Dave Mauger. “Once we put something down on paper it’s much more difficult to change.”
Mark Berkowsky, president of the nonprofit Cranbury Housing Associates, said the 130D site was intended to be a high-density project that would allow the township to meet its latest COAH obligation.
Committeemen Jay Taylor and Dave Cook, who signed the residents’ petition before they were candidates for the committee, opposed the higher density. |
"40 acre property on route 130". 40 acres? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Feb 25 2010, 4:18 pm EST Post subject: Re: 130D Decision reached |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | great lets post higher density in somebody else's neighborhood. |
The problem with that is there is always someone whose neighborhood it is. If this does not change someone could end up with 51 homes. That will be a huge fight if there is a development near those homes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Feb 25 2010, 4:56 pm EST Post subject: Re: 130D Decision reached |
|
|
| Can't we build these projects out in the warehouse section? Turn the old Aetna building into a huge housing project. It will take care of the coah requirements for years to come. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Feb 25 2010, 5:14 pm EST Post subject: Re: 130D Decision reached |
|
|
We have been around and around this on this board. Cranbury made a decision years ago to build COAH housing up against the village.
Of course Cranbury made a decision not so many years ago to build high density on the 130D site. So who knows? For the past 3 or 4 years the TC has decided to go against years of TC decisions. I think it is dangerous to ignore precident and to continually change decisions that were considered settled. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JD
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Feb 25 2010, 5:25 pm EST Post subject: Re: 130D Decision reached |
|
|
Rest assured concerned citizens, at 32 units on less than 4 acres, 130 D will still be the highest density CHA family development. It will also be the largest by 33% and have the most bedrooms per unit. Also, the original plan called for 30 units at 130 D, so 32 is actually an increase, not a decrease.
JD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Feb 25 2010, 5:41 pm EST Post subject: Re: 130D Decision reached |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | We have been around and around this on this board. Cranbury made a decision years ago to build COAH housing up against the village.
Of course Cranbury made a decision not so many years ago to build high density on the 130D site. So who knows? For the past 3 or 4 years the TC has decided to go against years of TC decisions. I think it is dangerous to ignore precident and to continually change decisions that were considered settled. |
The prior TC could never have imagined this 3rd round and the mandates placed on us. It is closest to the original mandate that a TC of Mr. Wiedner, Mr. Danser and I think Mrs. Scott fought.
Eventually, if you have 269 homes to account for on our current size you end up with no room to build around the village unless you are willing to take 3-4 story apartment buildings.
You also end up in a situation, where there is no right for the COAH homes to have village access anymore than there is a right that Cubberly, Appelgate or Shadow Oaks developers.
Yes, I am aware of the sprawl argument, but I am also concerned about keeping our historic district and views. No one goes out to the Warehouse district and if it means we have land there to develop and HAVE to build these homes, I see no reason not to use it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sure
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Feb 25 2010, 5:55 pm EST Post subject: Re: 130D Decision reached |
|
|
| yea ok, The township couldn't afford to buy the property in the Warehouse district. The housing units will be part of the township, and i'm sure you'll be seeing your new neighbors shopping just like every other normal person around town. Get over it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Feb 25 2010, 6:08 pm EST Post subject: Re: 130D Decision reached |
|
|
| sure wrote: | | yea ok, The township couldn't afford to buy the property in the Warehouse district. The housing units will be part of the township, and i'm sure you'll be seeing your new neighbors shopping just like every other normal person around town. Get over it. |
Who is complaining about the people in COAH? We're talking where could you build 269 homes. What land do you see available in the village district that is not preserved? I see one piece at the end of S. Main St and that won't fit that many homes.
The 130D issue is settled, 32 units. Hopefully, RCA's come back. If they do not, where do you suggest the COAH homes go if not in the warehouse area? Show me the land available around town because I don't see it.
There is no entitlement to build in the village area and especially not if it means 3-4 story buildings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest 2
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Feb 25 2010, 6:50 pm EST Post subject: Re: 130D Decision reached |
|
|
| 269 is never going to happen. Yes we all have to keep fighting it, but face it -- it's never happening. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Feb 25 2010, 6:56 pm EST Post subject: Re: 130D Decision reached |
|
|
| Guest 2 wrote: | | 269 is never going to happen. Yes we all have to keep fighting it, but face it -- it's never happening. |
I agree, but to think we're done at 32 is not likely either. I hope that is it and I hope we don't even need all 32, but I don't think that is likely. I am just saying if we need to build more homes, there is no land in the village area to do it. So if someone has a better idea than the warehouse land fine, but from what I see the village land does not exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Feb 25 2010, 7:56 pm EST Post subject: Re: 130D Decision reached |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | We have been around and around this on this board. Cranbury made a decision years ago to build COAH housing up against the village.
Of course Cranbury made a decision not so many years ago to build high density on the 130D site. So who knows? For the past 3 or 4 years the TC has decided to go against years of TC decisions. I think it is dangerous to ignore precident and to continually change decisions that were considered settled. |
The prior TC could never have imagined this 3rd round and the mandates placed on us. It is closest to the original mandate that a TC of Mr. Wiedner, Mr. Danser and I think Mrs. Scott fought.
Eventually, if you have 269 homes to account for on our current size you end up with no room to build around the village unless you are willing to take 3-4 story apartment buildings.
You also end up in a situation, where there is no right for the COAH homes to have village access anymore than there is a right that Cubberly, Appelgate or Shadow Oaks developers.
Yes, I am aware of the sprawl argument, but I am also concerned about keeping our historic district and views. No one goes out to the Warehouse district and if it means we have land there to develop and HAVE to build these homes, I see no reason not to use it. |
And most of us were quite unhappy that Cubberly, Applegate, and shadow oaks were built in the farming district.
It is not about a right to be in the village, it is about what kind of village you want to have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Feb 25 2010, 8:15 pm EST Post subject: Re: 130D Decision reached |
|
|
well, again...where is this land that can be used? Show me where this land is. I have been here for over 55 years of my 60 some odd years of life. I would have loved to have kept the orchard on Evans Tract, but that didn't happen. So where are we going to put in homes if you don't want them on the other side of 130? Is a 3-4 story apartment building your preference?
I understand not wanting things away from the village, but there is no land. And in my opinion, I'd rather have the shadow oaks and appelgate and to keep the downtown the way it is with the land preserved the way it is on both sides entering town. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Feb 25 2010, 9:16 pm EST Post subject: Re: 130D Decision reached |
|
|
Here is a thought experiment. Pretend all the land on this side of 130 is developed or in farmland preservation. We are hit with a new Mt. Laurel obligation. The only place left to build any housing is the other side of 130.
Why not decline to build the Mt. Laurel housing. The only penalty is builders remedy. They won't be able to sell any Market rate housing sandwiched between warehouses and truck parking lots. A developer would be nuts to develop market rate housing east of 130. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
