Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing Â
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
â–ª
Cranbury School
â–ª
Cranbury Township
â–ª
Cranbury Library
â–ª
Cranbury.org
â–ª
Cranburyhistory.org
(Press Ctrl and = keys to increase font size)
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[http://cranbury.info]
->
News | Events
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
[quote="Guest"]"... Reports and Communications --Mayor Mayor Stout congratulated the Shade Tree Commission and Linda Scott, who applied grant funds to develop a Community Forestry Plan for the Township. He noted that recently, the Township submitted a five-year Plan and it has now been approved by the State. Mayor Stout reported on November 14, 2008 the Township had received a letter from the Department of Transportation informing the Township of funding, in the amount of $250,000 for the Fiscal Year 2009. The monies will be used for “Griggs Tract” improvements. Mayor Stout also reported the Township received a letter on November 17, 2008 from the Middlesex County Agriculture Board granting preliminary approval of the easement purchase of the 49 acre Lum Farm on John White Road. This continues the Township’s history of farmland preservation. --Members of Committee Mr. Panconi reported there had been an article in the Star Ledger recently concerning Senator Lesniak and the affordable housing issue. Mr. Panconi referenced Senator Lesniak previously introduced legislation amending some of the affordable housing laws. One of the bills sponsored by Senator Lesniak had been to have developers pay a 2.5% fee for their contribution towards affordable housing and the article stated now Senator Lesniak is stating that 2.5% fee will not be enough. He is now urging the Legislature to find additional financing to invest in affordable housing. ... Reports from Township Staff and Professionals Ms. Smeltzer, Township Administrator, reported the Township presently has an Agreement with Monroe Township Utilities Authority for sewer service. Monroe Township is taking steps to abolish the Authority and make it part of the Township. Ms. Smeltzer indicated she had spoken with the Business Administrator, Mr. Hamilton, and he has assured her that any Agreements which have been in place will still be honored. Note: Award of Quote-Proposal Number A --Integrated Systems, for the amount of $ 8,684.00. Ms. Smeltzer, Township Administrator reported the Police Chief had obtained three (3) quotes for a card access system which presently exists at the new Police Station. The lowest bidder of the three (3) was the current vendor, Integrated Systems. Mayor Stout added the range of the quotes was from $ 8,684.00 to $11,396.00. Ms. Stave asked in what way was the card system more efficient for the police. Ms. Smeltzer responded it is the original card system that was installed when the police building was built and its primary uses is for security. Ms. Waterbury, Esquire, Township Attorney, reported there has been a small adjustment to the timeline for the Township’s Fair Share Housing COAH Plan. She explained due to revisions made by the Planning Board at its November 20, 2008 meeting, the Planning Board will be holding another public meeting on the Plan on December 11, 2008. The revised Plan will be posted on the Township’s web site. The endorsement of the Plan by the Township Committee will be on the agenda at the Committee’s December 22, 2008 meeting instead of December 8, 2008. This is still within the deadline to file the Plan with COAH by December 31, 2008. Ms. Waterbury, also reported in December she will be preparing for introduction and adoption ordinances. She stated the ordinances are “housekeeping ordinances”—an ordinance for the West Property, dedication for the Liedtke Drive parcel from Sharbell Developers to the Township and an ordinance, requested by the C.F.O. to change sewer charges. Reports from Township Boards and Commissions Ms. Kirstie Venanzi, President of the Library Board of Trustees, reported that they are working with the Cranbury School Board to fulfill their “distinct and separate missions” to the Town. She stated the meetings are ongoing; however, since the Library is a shared-facility library in the Cranbury School, the Public Library hours have to be coordinated with the School schedule. Increased public use of the Library requires planning for the future. Ms. Venanzi requested that the Township’s Master Plan reflect this need. She referenced the Township’s Proposed Open Space-Recreation Master Plan, specifically on page 28: “The plans for moving the Library to a standalone building is, however, not projected to occur in the foreseeable future.” Ms. Venanzi requested, on behalf of the Library Board of Trustees, this be amended to read: “The plans for moving the Library to a standalone building are dependant on project feasibility reports including financial projection, Cranbury Public Library Board of Trustees’ findings, and the Township Committee approval” or similar language. Ms. Venanzi reported the meetings with the School are going well. However, the discussions have highlighted the fact that while a good temporary fix will be found, the Public Library needs to look for a long-term solution. Mayor Stout requested a letter be sent to the Planning Board Chairman as the document referenced is controlled by the Planning Board. Public Comment The Mayor opened the meeting to public questions and comments on those items not on the agenda. Mr. Charles Smith, President of the Cranbury Fire Company and member of the First Aid Squad, Derek Moody, President of the First Aid Squad, and Mike Kervan, Training Officer, spoke concerning the lack recently of Cranbury Township employees not answering calls that come in. They requested the Township make it a priority for the employees to answer the calls as both are short members during the day and it does present a problem. Mayor Stout responded the Township would address the issue with them. Mr. Bill Bauder, 57 Petty Road, stated he had originally come before the Township Committee to request assistance regarding compliance with a variance that had been granted for a parcel in Cranbury. Conditions of approval for the variance required restoration of a conservation easement which has not been fulfilled as well as buffering for adjoining properties. The variance had been approved the previous year. Mr. Bauder explained he was unable to get much information as a “tracking system” does not exist to follow up on items being done or not done under the “conditions of approval” as part of the variance. Mr. Bauder reported he had come before the Township Committee in June of this year, after going to the Zoning Board Office and not being able to gather any information. At that time he was assured there would be some sort of a system put in place to monitor Zoning Board conditions of approval. On September 30, 2008 Mr. Bauder came back to the Township after not receiving any feedback and was again unable to find out any information. He was referred to the Township Administrator who requested he put his request in writing and he did so. On October 15, 2008 Mr. Bauder asked for some follow-up to get some feedback. Mr. Bauder requested guidance to get some compliance concerning the variance conditions of approval. Mayor Stout responded the Township Committee is responsible for releasing performance and maintenance bonds in reference to the Planning Board. Mr. Bauder added, that requirement does not exist with the Zoning Board; however, permits have since been issued for work being done on the property. Ms. Waterbury, Township Attorney, explained it is the job of the Township’s Zoning Officer to make sure the conditions of approval for a variance granted are met. She stated she will be happy to look at it and get back to the Township Committee as she does not have the file in front of her. Mr. Bauder stated since May 2, 2007 (the date of the Zoning Board Resolution granting the variance) the conditions of approval still have not been done. Ms. Smeltzer, Township Administrator, recommended she, Mr. Graydon, Zoning Officer and Mr. Bauder meet on the issue. Mr. Bauder reported he had spoken with Mr. Dale Smith, Zoning Chairman, who indicated it was his belief that compliance schedules cannot be placed on conditions of approval and Mr. Bauder asked for clarification. Ms. Waterbury indicated she will check with the Zoning Board Attorney and get a determination from him. Once information is gathered Ms. Smeltzer will get back to Mr. Bauder. Mr. Dave Mauger, 26 Griggs Road, stated when he had attended the Planning Board Meeting on November 20, 2008, they indicated they were seeking guidance on the final version of the Township’s Fair Share Housing COAH Third Round Plan from the Township Committee. Mr. Mauger stated he was speaking on behalf of the residents who had signed the petition in Cranbury Estates, requesting that the Township keep the development of the Route 130-D site consistent with the other affordable housing sites within the Township that Cranbury Housing Associates has built. Mr. Mauger reported the neighbors are “amenable” to 29 units being built at the Route 130-D site. Currently the range the Township has in the Plan is 29-48 units. Mr. Mauger presented a chart indicating what has been built at the other affordable housing sites within the Township. He stated his concern is that there is not enough flexibility being built into the Plan at the bottom of the range. He also reported the issue that had come up at the Planning Board had been that the size of the site would be addressed during the site planning process. Mr. Mauger stated if the site planning process would allow the number to be below 29, the Plan would have to be re-written and re-submitted and would be inefficient. Mr. Mauger recommended the numbers be re-written now rather than have to be re-written later. Mr. Mauger reported the smallest C.H.A. unit has 16 units and the largest 24 units. The Route 130-D site would be 11% larger. Mayor Stout thanked Mr. Mauger for the amount of work he has done on researching the issue and assured him it will not be forgotten and thanked him for producing a lot of work that will be helpful during the site plan process. He explained right now the Township is trying to meet the required deadline of submission of its Fair Share Housing Plan and he is confident that the Township will meet the compliance number of 269 units. He further stated the Township has the range for flexibility which at the same time provides the Township with a mechanism for compliance. Mayor Stout added no one has any idea what will happen after January 1, 2009. Mr. Mark Berkowsky, Cranbury Housing Associates, stated C.H.A. had prepared a plan with the 29-48 range. Because of the COAH rules changing, the Plan has changed drastically with a higher number of units required. Mr. Berkowsky reported the Route 130-D site is a large site and it would be fiscally irresponsible not to maximize the site with the proper number of units. This particular site was the most expensive site for affordable housing, costing the Township a million dollars. Most of the other sites were given to the Township by developers during negotiations. Mr. Berkowsky reported at every site that C.H.A. has developed the neighbors have come out during the planning process and stated the site would be too dense. Since every site has been developed and occupied, there has not been one complaint about density, lighting or traffic. Mr. Berkowsky requested the Township Committee in January look very closely at the actual number of units they will be asking C.H.A. to develop. Mr. Josh Kohut, 19 Ryan Road, stated the issue is important to him as he lives 200 feet from the Route 130-D site and thanked Mr. Mauger for all of the work he has been doing. Mr. Kohut stated his concern with the number of proposed units for the site is that the consistency is kept the same as the other affordable housing sites in the Township. There being no further comments, the Mayor closed the public part of the meeting. ..." http://www.cranburytownship.org/TC_minutes112408.pdf[/quote]
Options
HTML is
ON
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable HTML in this post
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Jump to:
Select a forum
Topics
----------------
News | Events
School | Parenting
Blogs by Cranbury Residents
Shopping | Good Deals | Price Talk
Home Sweet Home
House For Sale
Home Sales Pricing Records
Financial | Stocks | Mutual Funds
Cool Bytes & Bits
Garage Sale | ForSale Ads | Things to Trade
Tech Related (PC, Internet, HDTV, etc.)
Interesing and Fun Stuff to Share
What's Your Favorite?
Interests | Hobbies
Cranbury History
Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink
Amazon Deals
Local Business Info
----------------
Local Business Ads (FREE)
Support
----------------
Daily Sponsored Message & Amazon Ads
About Us | Your Privacy | Suggestion | Sponsored
Test Area (Practice your posting skills here)
Topic review
Author
Message
Jersey Dad
Posted: Fri, Dec 19 2008, 7:30 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The 11/24/08 Township Committee meeting minutes
Check out new jersey by the numbers on the Star-Ledger web site. The land was sold for $525k in 2004. The 2005 COAH plan estimated the cost of acquisition at $600k (and indicated the township would take the land through eminent domain, if necessary). The property was re-assessed in 2007 for just under $650k. The township bought it in the same year as the re-assessment for over $1 million. Either the re-assessment was low by several hundred thousand dollars, or the township paid a premium instead of choosing more affordable options..
That said, the town bought the land and now we have to figure out the right thing to do with it. There is not much use revisiting the past. Any concerns about fiscal responsibility should have been raised before the purchase. Instead, they are being raised now as justification for experimenting with larger, higher-density complexes in the village. In my opinion, the right thing to do is to be consistent with the other small scale, high quality, CHA developments interspersed throughout the village.
Guest
Posted: Fri, Dec 19 2008, 6:21 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The 11/24/08 Township Committee meeting minutes
Just out of curiosity, the town had not gone through the reassement when the land was purchased, so how does one conclude fair market based on the tax roles at the time. Fair market to me at that time would be whatever someone would pay.
Jersey Dad
Posted: Fri, Dec 19 2008, 4:45 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The 11/24/08 Township Committee meeting minutes
Guest,
The available data suggests the purchase price was well above "fair market value". However, it sounds as though you may have some inside information on "fair market value". Care to share?
Guest
Posted: Fri, Dec 19 2008, 4:11 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The 11/24/08 Township Committee meeting minutes
fair market value at the time what was it cost the township for the land, "eminent domain" should only be used in an emergency by the township.
Jersey Dad
Posted: Fri, Dec 19 2008, 4:00 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The 11/24/08 Township Committee meeting minutes
Guest,
You are correct that we are "hoping" to get some undetermined amount of grant money for rental housing. However, we refused to write the flexibility into the plan that would allow us to sell some units if the grants don't materialize, or are insignificant. The fact is, we aren't even willing to consider selling some of the units, despite the potential financial positives. I think it would be fiscally responsible to at least run the numbers.
Also, where was all the concern about fiscal responsibility when we bought the 130 D Site? The Township had other more affordable options. And why did we pay 55 percent more than assesed value for the land when we could have acquired it through eminent domain? Of course that's water under the bridge at this point. However, my point is, to defend this one aspect of the plan on the grounds of fiscal responsibility is ridiculous in the greater context of the decisions that have been made.
My bigger point here is a concern about the process. Rather than give due consideration to points raised in the public comment period, our COAH Consultants seem hell bent on defending every aspect of the plan, despite the logical inconsistencies that arise (of which there are several examples). The concerted and vigorous effort to defend illogical and/or inconsistent positions is very concerning. It suggests that some planners feel the outcome has been predetermined, irregardless of public opinion, and that the opportunities for public comment are in fact a "waste of time" as has been suggested by one of our COAH planners.
I hold out hope that this is not the case.
Guest
Posted: Fri, Dec 19 2008, 11:13 am EST
Post subject: Re: The 11/24/08 Township Committee meeting minutes
Jersey Dad wrote:
Guest wrote:
"Mr. Berkowsky reported the Route 130-D site is a large site and it would be fiscally irresponsible not to maximize the site with the proper number of units. This particular site was the most expensive site for affordable housing, costing the Township a million dollars.
We use the $1 million purchase price as justification for a higher density (even though the purchase was funded by builders). However, we also refuse to even consider selling 10 of the units, which would generate $1 million without reducing bonus credits. Look kids! Big Ben! Parliament!
It's my understanding from the COAH consultant speaking at one of the meetings that we can't get grant money for the homes if they are for sale units. In addition, given the mortgage and credit problems of for sale units it makes it harder to sell. There was an article about the housing problems in the state and the affordable housing as well as habitat was discussed. There are towns with empty houses because they couldn't get people who qualified.
Guest
Posted: Fri, Dec 19 2008, 10:50 am EST
Post subject: Re: The 11/24/08 Township Committee meeting minutes
Quote:
The big problem is that COAH has changed. It is not where it was when the other developments were built and we have a major obligation. It costs money to build homes and it costs money to acquire land.
I still don't understand how this is happening. My understanding is that the original Mt. Laurel was to ensure zoning was not restrictive/discriminatory. How did that evolve into us paying for affordable housing? In Bill Baroni's words, COAH is a bunch of "unelected bureaucrats." I think we need to figure out a way to stop COAH and/or get those on COAH unappointed, not just change the rules.
Jersey Dad
Posted: Wed, Dec 17 2008, 10:31 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The 11/24/08 Township Committee meeting minutes
Guest wrote:
"Mr. Berkowsky reported the Route 130-D site is a large site and it would be fiscally irresponsible not to maximize the site with the proper number of units. This particular site was the most expensive site for affordable housing, costing the Township a million dollars.
We use the $1 million purchase price as justification for a higher density (even though the purchase was funded by builders). However, we also refuse to even consider selling 10 of the units, which would generate $1 million without reducing bonus credits. Look kids! Big Ben! Parliament!
Jersey Dad
Posted: Wed, Dec 17 2008, 10:27 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The 11/24/08 Township Committee meeting minutes
Guest wrote:
"Mr. Berkowsky reported the Route 130-D site is a large site and it would be fiscally irresponsible not to maximize the site with the proper number of units. This particular site was the most expensive site for affordable housing, costing the Township a million dollars.
We use the $1 million purchase price as justification for a higher density (even though the purchase was funded by builders). However, we also refuse to even consider selling 10 of the units, which would generate $1 million without reducing bonus credits. Look kids! Big Ben! Parliament!
Cranbury Conservative
Posted: Fri, Dec 12 2008, 3:59 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The 11/24/08 Township Committee meeting minutes
I belive Greenstein and DeAngelo need to go!
If we elect others from the minority party and they do more of the same then we vote them out in two years as well.
We have had "Change" at the national level and it's now time for change in NJ at the State level as well.
Jay T.
Posted: Fri, Dec 12 2008, 3:49 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The 11/24/08 Township Committee meeting minutes
I would hope that all parties you mentioned (PB, TC, CHA) would adopt that approach. They are all residents and tax payers so they are harmed as much as everyone else by the increase in taxes resulting from the COAH obligation. It is only prudent to plan and do the minimum needed to stay in compliance. Additional building or commencing the projects without firm grasp of where things stand can lead to major adverse.
Despite party beliefs, we do need to change the people in charge in Trenton if we are to have any hope. It is a matter of looking beyond one's party views and voting for the best representation. If we re-elect those to office then as soon as the election is done with we will be back to business as usual.
Cranbury Conservative
Posted: Fri, Dec 12 2008, 3:31 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The 11/24/08 Township Committee meeting minutes
We need to use the rules to our advantage by doing the minimum to stay in compliance without moving forward with unfunded mandates such as the rt 130d site.
Hopefully the planning board, TC and CHA all realize this point.
Let's drag our feet, throw out the party in charge of Trenton in 09 (Greenstein, DeAngelo, and the others) and get new legislation which will help towns like ours.
Jersey Dad
Posted: Fri, Dec 12 2008, 3:29 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The 11/24/08 Township Committee meeting minutes
Attention fiscal conservatives:
The additional tax burden of supporting the residents of the 130 D Site for an extra 2 years will be $580k- $960k (assuming $10k in services per year per unit), based on our current plan. No benefit for building early has been explained to the public.
Jersey Dad
Posted: Fri, Dec 12 2008, 3:24 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The 11/24/08 Township Committee meeting minutes
Attention fiscal conservatives:
The additional tax burden of supporting the residents of the 130 D Site for an extra 2 years will be $580k- $960k (assuming $10k in services per year per unit), based on our current plan. No benefit for building early has been explained to the public.
Jersey Dad
Posted: Thu, Dec 11 2008, 10:58 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The 11/24/08 Township Committee meeting minutes
Great point Jay.
At the planning Board Meeting tonight, I asked "What are the advantages to building at the 130 D Site in 2009, two years before we are required to?"
The Township Planner, Mr. Preiss, "answered" the question. He confirmed that the plan is to build at the 130 D Site in 2009. The only reason he gave was that we need to be ready for the COAH audit. Mr. Preiss also confirmed that the earliest the audit will happen is in 2011 and that it is likely to be 2012 or later.
Some answers are straight, others are circles. "Look Kids! Big Ben, Parliament!"
Jersey Dad
Posted: Thu, Dec 11 2008, 10:55 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The 11/24/08 Township Committee meeting minutes
Great point Jay.
At the planning Board Meeting tonight, I asked "What are the advantages to building at the 130 D Site in 2009, two years before we are required to?"
The Township Planner, Mr. Preiss, "answered" the question. He confirmed that the plan is to build at the 130 D Site in 2009. The only reason he gave was that we need to be ready for the COAH audit. Mr. Preiss also confirmed that the earliest the audit will happen is in 2011 and that it is likely to be 2012 or later.
Some answers are straight, others are circles. "Look Kids! Big Ben, Parliament!"