Penske Trucking

[anon-0421]

http://www.centraljersey.com/penske-trucking-facility-to-be-built-on-the-banks-of/article_d65ee142-6ebb-11e9-a454-5cb9017b7710.html?fbclid=IwAR3jNlc7WNPPAvX6i8CPlFrqT6JW2oa8Ln7cFEuf35p5nOpTOQ5gojj9m_I

[anon-549q]

The Art of the Deal by Hasselbach and Mulligan with Taylor in supporting role

[anon-0q2s]

Cranbury is not SimCity, where you can start again from scratch after you messed it up. More warehouses, more developments, a truck rental. When will it end? How many more acres are there to develop? How many more warehouses are needed to pay for the affordable housing? This is ridiculous.

Were these rules changed while Art was on the planning board? Was he instrumental to change the rules to get a bigger buck for his property? The long-serving members of the TC should have the answers to that. Maybe that is why Dan is bailing out this year.

[JoJo-7n38]

Keep voting for democratic’s and this is what happens

[anon-4os8]

[anon-2737]

[anon-0972]

[anon-q2r7]

This is ridiculous, first Amazon and Wayfair, now this. The trucks cause damage to the township every week. Now a massive truck rental. Regardless of where it’s going to be located, just like Amazon and Wayfair they are not welcome.

[anon-0972]

[anon-7666]

None of you understand planning including Paul. The TC cannot stop development they have no say in what is allowed in that is the PB and Zoning Board. In fact I don't think Jay has ever served on the PB as a TC member.

The Zoning Board and Planning Board are judicial bodies and they have equal powers. So if the Zoning officer denied it the application would not stop it and Paul's making it seem that way is purely political to support the EC chair who is running for TC.

The applicant would go to Zoning. Zoning has very strict guidelines to follow so they would find it hard to deny and if they did the town would be sued. They have a number of similar businesses including George's Garage and Jilco Trailers right there. So Zoning could not have stopped this.

Second, the Planning Board has the same rights as zoning has to manage the application. But they also have to follow the law. They can't say we simply want farmland.

So all of you complaining, you have the choices of Residential, Light Industrial (warehouse), and Commercial. Those are your options. Residential is the worst because it is a liability and we lose Princeton. The Wayfairs and Amazon support our taxes and allow us the funds to preserve farmland. We can't force preservation, we need the land owner to work with us.

Do you really want to be Monroe with our kids in Trailers at school? Or West Windsor and Robbinsville with new HS and Middle Schools? What happens to your taxes and home value?

Paul's letter is a joke and quite frankly a bit concerning. He and Barbara Rogers the EC Chair created a liability for the Township with this memo. The PB member who had to recuse himself was the EC rep because the EC issued a memo that was not their right and showed the EC had already ruled on an application before the hearing.

The TC had to hire an attorney to attend an EC meeting and explain their role which cost the tax payers money.

So, Barbara as chair who wrote the memo and Paul who seems to be behind it cost the Town a material PB a member who may have been important on the plan for the environmental concerns, it cost the town legal costs and if denied risked the town facing a major lawsuit. That he wrote this letter is concerning because it shows he and the EC and Paul still do not understand the law or their role.

[anon-7666]

[anon-43s4]

I went to you know your from Cranbury on FB. All of the Indivisible people are fawning over themselves feigning outrage on Paul’s post.

I heard today that a developer was interested in building 200 apartments there and it was fairly well known to those on the DRC and PB that there was this risk. So Paul being on the DRC not raising any issues before when he could do something and now raising them that Barbara Rogers the EC Chair is running for TC is very convenient. Plus ignoring the fact that it is illegal for the TC to step in on zoning.

200 apartments means 300 kids in the school and little taxes to support their cost. It amazes me that Barabara Rogers and her running mate Eman for TC would want to add homes instead of revenue.

[anon-nrq6]

It all started back in 2016 when a committee was formed to update Chapter 150-20 of the Cranbury code, otherwise known as the Highway Commercial (HC) Zoning Ordinance. The belief at that time was that acceptable businesses for this zone were being rejected by the Zoning Officer because these businesses weren’t specifically listed as “permitted uses” by the ordinance. To remedy this, the list of permitted uses was expanded. Any business that was “substantially similar” to a business on the list would also be permitted. This means that a store devoted to the sale of comic books, for example, would be allowed because it is substantially similar to “Bookstores, news dealers and newsstands”, a permitted use. It seemed pretty straightforward at the time.

Can we find out who was on this committee

[anon-43s4]

Paul Mullen who wrote the letter was on the subcommittee that expanded the use so it is hypocritical now to complain. But even still, there are two points missing:

1) As before the zoning officer saying it was not permitted did not stop the application. All it meant was that the applicant went before the Zoning board.

2) This land had two options Residnetial and Penske. The TC could not prohibit either sale or step into the process. That it did not end up an apartment complex which per Paul’s letter noting the affordable housing across the street is a big win for us. Penske is not great, but it is better than 200 apartments (for most people).

3) As we saw with prior zoning officer decisions, the ZB never said no to the variance and business. That is because it is very hard to say no legally unless you have a very strong case and because developers have money and town’s don’t want damages assessed a settlement is usually reached where the build is allowed.

[anon-572n]

[anon-4479]

I don’t disagree that the open tactics are better. But can anyone seriously think that 200 residential units is a better alternative than Penske? How can anyone justify the impact of losing Princeton High? I don’t want to be Monroe or robbinsville with my kids attending class in trailers. Our home values are based in part on princeton. If we vote for these individuals then we’re saying like Monroe did years ago that we want residnetial and will have all the bad that comes with it.