I'd like to call the meeting to order. Would you please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance? >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Statement of adequate notice under the sunshine law. Adequate notice in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act was provided on January 5th, 2026 of this meeting's date, time, and location.
The agenda was mailed to the Cranberry Press and Home News Tribune, posted on the Township Bulletin board, mailed to those requesting personal notice, and filed with the municipal clerk. Roll call, please. Miss Anderson, here. Miss Albadawi, >> here. >> Mr. Giddings, >> here.
>> Miss Conram here. >> Mr. Mildenberg, >> here. >> Mr. Mucili >> here. >> Mr. Pulk >> here. >> Mr. Stewart >> here. >> And Mr. Whitman >> here. >> Okay. Thank you. We have a quorum. F >> first. Before we get started, I want to thank all the board members for coming
tonight. This is an important meeting and there is a lot of things going on. Um, as we as you may notice, um, we got that very late today. The Kursner application's been pulled. So, I guess we'll carry that till the May >> they um sent a letter requesting an
extension to June 4th without further public notice. So, you can grant that. You're announcing it here that it'll be carried to June 4th. So, >> yeah, I think this will be our last extension. >> Okay. >> Personally. Okay. >> So, if they cancel again, they're going to have to reapply. Okay. >> Because it's been four times since
they've canled on us. So, >> okay. >> Noted. With that, um, I'd like to have an approval or a motion to approve the minutes of February 5th. Any corrections or comments on those?
>> All right. Can I have a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. Um, roll call for the February 5th minutes. Miss Albadawi, >> yes. >> Mr. Giddings, >> yes.
>> Mr. Mucelli. >> Yes. >> Mr. Pulk, >> yes. >> Mr. Stewart, >> yes. >> And Mr. Whitman, >> yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Motion passed. >> Okay. Public comments for items not on the agenda. Hearing no public comments for items not
on the agenda. I'm going to close that portion of the meeting and I'm going to go into a number of different items that are all public hearings tonight. But first, we're going to have to swear in our witnesses tonight, our professionals. >> Okay. So, you're opening the public
hearing for um the fourth round housing element fair share plan. Yes. >> Um I don't know if um Liz is going to testify, but you could >> just raise your right hand. We have Mary Beth Wteran from Clarkton Hints. She's developed this plan with affordable housing council. So, we swear that the
testimony that you're about to give before this board's truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth. So, help me God. Okay. All right. Uh Mary Beth can make the presentation uh and and go through what's changed in the uh fair share plan since you last adopted it in June.
>> Right. >> With the um township committee is going to be filing a um an amendment um to it. Uh they would what what the procedure would be tonight for this is to there's two things um for the planning board to do. Uh, one would be to adopt a
resolution um adopting the fourth round amendment and then that is going to be uh that would have to be signed tonight and then it would go down to the township committee. Um, they would endorse the plan uh and file it. Um and then the uh other thing that kind of
goes with that, there's an ordinance on the agenda for a consistency review and it's basically um the omnibus uh ordinance that will be implementing the whole fair share plan. So it's being changed for the fourth round and I will
let Mary Beth go through that. U I believe she's going to go through show you the changes and where they are. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> And thank you for coming tonight, Mary Beth. Appreciate it. >> You just hit your button on the right till it goes. >> There you go.
>> Thank you. Give me two seconds. Good good evening um Mr. Chairman and planning board members. Um, what a difference a year makes or almost a year makes. So, um, I'm Mary Beth Lteran. I'm a licensed professional planner in New
Jersey. Um, I've been with working with Cranberry Township, I think since 2005 now. And, um, as as noted, I will be, uh, presenting um, the plan amendment before you
tonight. Um and as you know the uh housing element and fair share plan. So, it's um the board adopted the fourth round housing element and fair share plan back in June of 2025 and as noted um by your planning board
attorney that the township has made um amendments and those amendments are really guided um through the various settlement agreements that the township has entered into with a number of parties including Fairshare Housing
Center um uh Cranberry Housing Associates and and so forth. Um there were four total parties that had challenged the township's uh 2025 fourth round housing element fair share plan
and uh the various settlement agreements um entered into um I'm just going to briefly summarize some of the the terms of the agreement and really leading into this this plan amendment before you tonight.
Um so the the the main um issue before us in in the amendment is the elimination of the Henry Farm site um and replacing that site with the uh site that we're and I'm going to be referring to as the 1260 South River Road site
1260. Um also as part of the um memorandum of understanding as well as some settlement terms with CHA uh the township will be um funding the
provision of two group homes um from um to be developed by Cranberry Housing Associates um CHA as you all know and also we have formalized you may remember that as part of the um June I'll call it the 2025 housing plan,
we had put in a a future extension of controls with CHA, some of their earlier units, and that's been more formalized, and there will be funding from the township to help CHA renovate and um extend the controls on those units.
Uh in addition to really implementing the settlement agreements, the um housing plan amendment also takes into consideration the um state regulations
that were enacted in December of 2025 and they include the Department of Community Affairs has had implemented new regulations uh mainly to do with uh spending plans, trust funds, development fees, things
like that. And the New Jersey Housing Mortgage Mortgage Finance Agency um they enacted updates to the Uniform Housing Affordability Controls, UHACK. Um so it was important that and the the draft
ordinances are in as uh attachments as part of the plan amendment and they will be acted on I believe by the governing body next Monday. Next Monday. Um, so just really briefly, you'll
remember that the uh township's uh present need or rehabilitation share for the fourth round was zero. So the township um does not have to uh imple implement a local rehab program, although CHA does a really good job of
getting county funds to help renovate uh their units o over time as well. The plan amendment makes no changes to how the township addresses the prior round uh which is first and second rounds or the third round. It's really
just um implementing the changes to the fourth round plan which includes uh as I said replacing the Henry Farm site with the 1260 South River Road site. Um, so the, uh, exhibit here, um, I'll just
briefly again just, um, tell you a little bit about the 1260 South River Road site. It's fully discussed in in the plan amendment. Uh, the site, as you can see, it's a little less than 12 acres. Um,
>> I'm just saying because it's on the record testimony, so it's referencing in exhibit. >> Oh, right. Okay. >> Okay. Because it's Sure. >> It's in the plan. >> It's in the plan. U But Okay. Um, we'll mark that as exhibit A and it's the uh >> Do you want me to >> site plan? Yeah. Or content. I
>> need to find a pen. Oops. What's the exhibit number? >> It's going to be a and this. >> Sure. South River Road. Okay. And then we have
exhibit uh >> That's right. >> It says amended affordable housing sites. >> All right. So, you have You know what? I'm going to just modify that. So, how many exhibits do you have? Just these two >> two. All right. A1 for 1260 and then amended affordable housing sites will be A2
and basically they're just blowups of what you have in the plan. So >> okay. Um, so you all I'm sure recall that the township had has entered into an agreement with um an affordable housing an experienced affordable housing
provider named Walters Group. U and the Walters Group will be um still working on the affordable family rental complex that's proposed for the 1260 South River Road site. Um it's anticipated that a
total of 100 approximately 130 units will be built on the site for your fourth round plan uh and built in two two different phases and um Walters will be um providing um a community building
which is customary active and passive recreation um as well as um uh other amenities um on the site. The township anticipates acquiring the
site through uh voluntary negotiations. Um but as a backup as uh the township has done on other 100% affordable housing sites uh the township will adopt I believe also or take action on Monday
night uh hopefully to adopt an ordinance that allows kind of a friendly um condemnation um or acquisition to eminent domain. This um ordinance is important to prove
the realistic opportunity for this site um and allows the township to remain eligible for uh the very important four uh 66 fourth round bonuses. um as really spelled out in the plan. I
I believe the site is available. Um and I think later tonight or at another meeting there will be um an area in need of uh redevelopment designation for the site and and potentially going through
the redevelopment process. And if for some reason the redevelopment process doesn't move forward, the site would be reszoned for by rightight zoning for for uh for the development. The site is um surrounded by existing
businesses and as you know to the east is um a supply warehouse um occupied uh currently by WB Mason. Um, and the you can see the tractor parking and that is
separated from the 1260 site by about a 75 ft wooded buffer to the um I I wanted to say that um one of the big issues that the township had was to
ensure that this site was available for affordable housing and could address HMFA again, Housing Works Finance Agency's uh tax credit. It's um so HMFA provides pretty much the only uh main or it's the
main uh affordable housing subsidy money through low-income housing tax credits. It's a federal program and HMFA had implemented a regulation that the facade of an affordable housing building had to
be about two had to be 250 ft away from um warehouse uh activity line and and that is the uh the tractor parking lot and and so a uh the Walters group will design the site um honoring and and
addressing that that requirement. to the south of the site is is a distribution warehouse that it's so far away. It's um over 330 feet um just below Cedarbrook, which is just off the
site to the south. And there's that um wooded area there is is 330 feet away from that tractor parking area. To the west across uh Route One uh sorry, South River Road uh you see some
of the parking area of an office complex. Um and to the north is uh the secondary parking of the WBM Mason site. Um
and also that site has a approximately 75 foot existing wooded buffer. As part of the Walters Group design of the site, um they will be uh ensuring
that this community of uh 100% affordable um rental housing units that uh whether the site, you know, some parts of the
site need um sound attenuation. Um they will be um implementing uh heavier BMS on vegetative BMS on on the site. Uh retaining walls or fencing
or uh sound attenuation with uh through windows and doors that will um exceed the building code requirements in in the state of New Jersey. Um, as noted, it's uh this site will be
going after the competitive uh low-income housing tax credits. Um, and this site scores very well for uh that program. Um partly because uh the site is in a sewer
service area and um has public water availability is in um the state plans planning area 2 um which is the preferred u planning area for uh affordable housing development.
And lastly I I do well I I do find that the site is suitable as well. Um the site is approximately three um has as you can see on the a little bit better potentially on this map the site is
about uh 3/4 of a mile or sorry there's existing sidewalks serving this site um coming down south on South River Road for about 3/4 of a mile and then um the hope is that the township can work with
DOT for a safe pedestrian crossing of Route 130. uh to allow um access to Maplewood A, which is a just um shy of a of a mile from the site, the southern portion of the 1260 South
River Road site, uh south of the purple, uh craggy line there, um is constrained by the flood hazard area associated with the S Cedarbrook which is is just off off the site. Um it's important to note
that DP had issued a flood hazard permit for a prior um non-residential site plan approval. Um and as uh included in the planned amendment is a letter from the D
commissioner um ensuring that uh this site um al albeit with a regulated flood hazard area can still be developed um for affordable housing purposes. And really their point was it can be
developed um really for any use and also affordable housing purposes. Uh based on this uh brief summary um I do find that the 1260 South River Road site is suitable available developable
uh for affordable housing. Just really briefly, I'm going to um just provide brief update on other parts of the plan amendment uh regarding the CHA Cranberry Commons site. Uh that
proposed smaller 24 unit family rental affordable housing development. The township has entered into, as I noted earlier, a 2026U memorandum of understanding with CHA, which includes additional township funding.
um or I should say financial support. Um you know that as part of the 2025 plan, the township committed to acquiring the land and uh the township as part of thisou will also provide um $100,000 to
help CHA um with their design with their site plan engineering and um uh funding uh funding application submissions. I noted also that the as part of theou
actually this was part of the settlement terms with CHA that the township will be financially assisting u CHA with their extensions of controls program and um that's the township will provide up to
$25,000 per unit again to upgrade any major systems um or replace major systems Um, these are units that are uh uh 30 years old or older. Um, and so I'm sure they could use potentially, you know,
repaired roofs, heating and ventilation and cooling systems and windows and and so forth. group homes. Again, the township will be providing subsidies to CHA to uh develop two group homes of four bedrooms each,
which um provides the township with eight uh special needs credits for towards its fourth round. >> This board, can you just clarify? Is that in addition to what they were already tasked with what they had started out with these two additional homes? Are they in addition to or are
they including >> uh there? So, so CHA had previously in the third round um proposed two group homes and that was 19 and 23 Old Cranberry Road. Uh yes, Old Cranberry
Road. Old Cranberry Road. Yes, thank you. >> Um and one is built and one I know has a site plan. I think just got a site plan approval. So that's so these two are in addition to those two. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. And there's no specific
locations for these new new ones yet. Um on the this is actually I should have started with with this the good news on uh the 1274 South River Road senior site
um that the HMFA um provided the full tax credit funding for the the site and that's really really okay. I should have started with with with that point, but um that that's you know very valuable. >> Yeah, I'm glad you brought that. I did
have it as a note here. Yeah. To tell the board that that is significant and >> thanks to everyone's hard work in getting in in the application that we were able to get it in in time before what was it? >> September.
>> September. Yeah. And I know it was a herculean effort last year but it paid off. We did get the funding. >> Yeah. And that was just just approved. >> Just approved >> last week. >> Last week. Yeah. >> Yeah. That that was significant for us. >> It it it truly is.
>> Um um also be uh as part of the amendment uh there have been um revisions to your spending plan. You've heard me talk about some of the newer commitments. So the new the commitment for you know
replacing uh the Henry farm site with 1260 South River Road with the new group homes with extensions of controls uh program. So that amendment um and also the amended spending plan addresses DCA Department of Community Affairs new
spending plan regulations. You also have the draft ordinances um as part of the the the housing plan and again and I might as well um if it's okay really should I do the consistent
I'll just >> yeah we'll take two separate votes but but you can explain is part >> it it is part of it so again the um oh actually no we just have one ordinance right just one ordinance Thank
you. >> Yeah. So it's it's >> Yeah, it's the 2607. >> Yeah, hefty one. >> Yes, it is a hefty one. So it it includes um really repeal and
replacement of your again your third round regulation of it. It's general affordable housing regulations and also your development fee regulation, excuse me, to implement the new state regulations. And um so these are based sorry these
are based on a model ordinance that's been issued by um the uh planning administrators. >> Um actually uh so part of the group that worked on this. So >> statewide is what I'm saying. It's a statewide group of rags. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So it's the group is called
affordable housing professionals of New Jersey and I was part of a group of you know five six of us that developed this model and we'll be developing other models for for other affordable housing uh model documents. So this is basically a template.
>> It's a blueprint. >> It's essentially a blueprint of it's a a copy that goes to all the towns and they pretty much you know >> I can't think of the right word. It's >> implement it. Well, everybody's uh following the same plan. Yeah.
>> Same model ordinance for implementation. how you market your units, um how long your uh deed restrictions are, >> your charges, your fees, and everything. >> How people will uh be able to qualify for affordable housing. Um you know, all
it's just the basically Yeah. >> boilerplate. That's the word. That's the word I was looking for. >> Yeah. There's all the definitions are the same, you know, throughout the state with respect to >> um uh you know, >> everything. So we're not some outlier
just sitting out here. >> Everybody actually is, you know, adopting the same type of ordinance to implement their affordable housing plans. >> Yeah. And the um this template, if you will, that's been um modified for
Cranberry's purposes um comes many of the terms come right out of the amended Fair Housing Act because it implemented, as Sharon was starting to say, the the new um uh restrictions, uh deed restrictions require 40 years instead
instead of previously 30 years and things like that. So, >> is there a difference between whether or not they're a rental unit and an owner unit, though? Yeah, there are. Okay. >> So, the for sale units u the deed restrictions still stay at 30 for the fourth round, but the you're right,
rentals um were increased to 40 years and uh the tax credit program um provides in essence extra scoring if they um
provide a 45ear deed restriction. So you'll you'll you'll see 45 years on on on the 1260 and the 1274 South River Road sites. Um there uh the governing body will be um
taking action on an updated affirmative marketing plan um that has uh there's a few new preferences. Uh there's still the regional preference for those that live or work in your region. Uh you can't do a municipal preference. Um but
also there's kind of a subpreference for uh state. The state of New Jersey has a preference. No. And and a few others. >> And also veterans. Is that new? >> Veterans. But um yeah, that that has to be through an agreement. Um but yes,
that that's been that's been around for a couple years. >> Okay. Yeah. And uh last but not least is uh something really important um is that the township received um you
um the new program. It's no longer COA council on affordable housing. It's now affordable housing dispute resolution program. So I'm going to refer to it as the program. So, um, when the township's plan, uh, 2025 plan was challenged, we
went before Judge Jacobson, who is retired on recall program judge. She issued she helped with the mediation. Um, and she issued a recommendation um, that I'd like to just again just
summarize some of the important parts of her recommendation. And also, not only did she issue a recommendation on the township's plan and settlement agreements and so forth, the judge in the matter, the Middle Sex County judge,
Judge McCloskkey, and he issued an order accepting these recommendations. So, if I may just I'm going to >> and it wasn't it also their planner too, the uh B Mr. Banish, he also endorsed this plan. So it's been vetted basically
through at least three different you know parties at this point >> which is really important. Yeah. Um it it it should make um ultimately getting um knock on wood getting a fourth round uh judgment of compliance reimposed just
a much smoother process uh to get that important approval as well as and then continued immunity from exclusionary zoning lawsuits for the next uh for the balance of the fourth round. So the pre program
recommendations included um approving the settlement agreement uh with fair share housing housing center approving theou with CHA approving the settlement terms that's those separate settlement terms with CHA
importantly approving the replacement of the Henry farm site with the 1260 South River Road site. uh finding that the settlements were fair, reasonable and ade adequately protect the interest of low and moderate income households. The
settlements are constitutionally compliant. Um they provide a reasonable opportunity for the township to meet its um obligations under the amended fair housing act um under the uh Mount Laurel doctrine. >> And and the final one was the settlement
with the Onyx property to discharge their their Yes, mismissed by the judge was next on my list here. >> Okay, I'm I'm joking. I'm joking. >> Um but yeah, no, that that was also very important that um that both the program
recommendation and the court order um uh agreed with the dismissal, the township's request to dismiss the Actria Onyx litigation. Can I just digress for one second here and I'll I'll I'll defer
to you. Um, obviously this that was an very important part of this case because it could have jeopardized our whole afford our whole farmland preservation effort in the town. So, does this in your opinion maybe negate future things
along this line? Um, >> not negate them. I mean, anybody can file litigation, but it's going to give you um the protection, the immunity from these kinds of lawsuits that they have, and I'm blanking on, they have almost an
enhanced standard that they have to prove to pierce your immunity. Um, yeah, I'm sure I didn't exactly use the legal terms, but yeah. No, that's that's a very um >> you basically can cite that case as
precedent if a further litigation is brought on the same property or in another property that has similar parameters around it or constraints around it. >> That's exactly right. Uh just just a little bit more with um the
uh the program encouraged the program uh recommendation encouraged the court to grant the township as I said continued immunity um throughout the fourth round and really the township's
um com uh the township a the township's actions are conditioned upon acting in good faith, you know, implementing the the totality of of your uh fourth round plan um and acting in good faith throughout
the the fourth round to implement um the the plan, the court orders, and um again, uh I'm not going to list all the things, but Judge McClosk's order um specifically
um upheld and approved the program's recommendation and and really found uh because the township team had basically through the settlements and through submissions to the program judge had really provided quite a bit of the um
plan amendment to to show the suitability of of 1260 South River Road and so forth. And so the judge McClosky's order really um found all of the points in terms of the plan
amendment and the and the settlement uh agreements to be uh fair and equitable and and they were approved. Uh so this is you really kind of um you've got a step forward with with your affordable
housing planning documents. >> Mary Beth. >> Yes. Just a quick question, but with that order came the deadline of an impending deadline of coming up of March 16th. Can you explain to everybody what that means and what we have to have gotten accomplished by that time?
>> Sure. Certainly. And uh the the March and I appreciate mayor how you said March 16th because in the in the law it talks about a March 15th deadline and Judge McCloske said well that's a Sunday so I'm going to give you technically
until March 16th but um but uh more importantly it's the fi it's really the final fourth round deadline that that's set in the amended fair housing act and you But just to remind you, you've h you've met
like three or four of these deadlines. Like last January, you agreed to the DCA fourth round number. Um you filed a fourth round uh declaratory judgment action in later on in January. That was
approved by the court. You then met the June 30th deadline and that was so important. uh you know and then I'm sure there's other oh we had the February 15th deadline for monitoring and then this March 15th deadline. so important
that it it literally towns will lose immunity on March 16th if they don't um take these kinds of actions um you know adopting the the the housing elements and fair share plans in in this
case you know a plan amendment um uh adopting the implementing ordinances um and you have many ordinances like I really just was handling the um or my firm prepared the general affordable
housing ordinance, but you have other ordinances on the docket for Monday night for you know, you heard me talk about the ordinance to potentially uh condemn the for eminent domain for for
site acquisition. that is an important um proof of site control and and that is a a needed request that there's a series of resolutions um
on the on the agenda for Monday night. Um hopefully the board will adopt the the plan amendment and then the governing body will be looking to endorse it um by resolution um by resolution adopting affirmative
marketing plan update. I'm sure there's something else that I'm um blanking on right now, but the the bottom line is this is a crucial uh document for
Cranberry Township to adopt this plan amendment because it's really like you heard me say that the program judge and the uh superior court judge um are looking at this as the needed document.
for the board to adopt to implement the settlement settlement agreements and so forth to keep the the act onx litigation. You know, it's it's like it's one thing for the judge to say I'm
dismissing that challenge, but it's because you have a solid fourth round housing element of fair share plan. And I think >> when we talk about immunity, just so everybody understands that that's our exclusionary zoning, right? That we we
would be losing the immunity to that, which commonly we've referred to throughout this process is we would then be allowing builder's remedy to come in because we've we've lost control of our plan at that point. >> Yes. >> Just so that we're defining the word immunity correctly for anybody at home
or >> Yes. >> our guest listening. >> Yes. Yeah. and and um so in it I wear a different hat where I serve the courts as um a special adjudicator and I'm involved in about 50 of those matters
and those towns some of those towns have been sued and you know still into the fourth round there are killeder remedy lawsuits and I I mean I will say that um I think it's about 450 towns
um are participating in this program process, but you you know there's another what 200 and something towns that are not. So there are still towns vulnerable to a builder's remedy lawsuit. But um you know taking action
on the on the plan amendment tonight and for the governing body on um on Monday night. Those those are very important um actions. And I am going to uh just conclude by
saying um I do believe that the plan amendment before you tonight um does address the amended fair housing act. It it it addresses the Mount Laurel doctrine. Um, it I believe implements
the fourth round settlements that now have been court approved, uh, program approved and I do believe that the plan amendment will achieve your master plan goals and I uh, did I do the consistency? I think I
did do. Yes, thank you. Um, and I do find that the plan amendment is um in the public interest and for the uh will address the general welfare. And with that um I conclude my testimony and I'm
happy to answer any other questions or public comment as well. So, I'm going to >> open it up to the board for any questions and then I guess open it up to the public for any questions and then I'll close that and then
>> someone can make a motion. >> Do we do we vote on >> the first thing that we there is a draft resolution. We I we usually don't have them planned ahead, but because we had a deadline, it's here, >> right? >> So, uh you can someone can move the resolution and um then you take a vote
on it. >> Okay. All right. >> All right. So, I'm going to open it up to the board for any questions with Mary Beth. I think she did well. She's done a herculean effort to guide us through this
principle. I think um she outlined the steps and I think the the critical thing here is that um each milestone we were able to come together and and and put forth a plan to
move us to the next step. And each one of those steps has worked to the best of our skills and our planner skills and all of our professionals to get us to a point where
I believe we'll have some nice community a nice community built and where we were able to receive that so needed grant money for our senior project. And I'm very optimistic that we'll receive grant
money for this project, too. So, I think um we really have, you know, moved this ball along to this point. And the judge um these these judges looking at this, this is not this is not a game to them. This
is deadly deadly serious to them. So they to to have them approve these things for us um is a kind of a big deal especially in light of the slight publicity that our town received over
the last year. So um but with that um I don't know if anybody from the board has any questions on >> Can I ask you >> two questions? Go ahead. Um, Mary Beth, I appreciate everything that you've done for us and I know this this just started with uh I believe Matt and I maybe what
two years ago now, right when we first uh started to work towards satisfying this obligation. Um, I think for just for for the skeptics that are out there, I really just want to ask you number one, Cranary didn't choose to have to do
this. This is what was required by the state for us to do. >> That's exactly right. >> Right. to meet this obligation >> and to have your zoning protected. >> Yes. >> Through immunity. >> And today we are talking about amending our plan from Henry Realy LLC to 1260
South River Road. 1260 South River Road was not an option as long as the 250 foot industrial buffer was still undefined and restricting us from being able to select it as a site. Am I correct? >> That's correct. It would have made It it
was just impossible to plan because we didn't know where the 250 foot was it going to completely obliterate the site for development. >> Correct. And it would and it would completely shrink the building uh you know capability of that um of that property. And so this site really only
became viable after the 250 foot buffer was not only defined but then we were we received relief from is it HMFA? >> That's right. >> Right. And so that's why we are looking at this site now and and that's why our journey has been a little bit tumultuous and a little bit long, but we are
grateful for this site. >> You're exactly right. >> Thank you. >> Good summary on that. How we got to where we are, >> right? Can >> go ahead. >> Okay, good. All right. So, when did that uh 250 foot buffer become more defined
and what is the definition so that we have a better >> Yeah. So the definition I want to say it was October November >> no November >> and it's specifically um so you may remember my testimony was
that uh the really three sides of the site could have been impacted by two a 250 foot uh buffer which would have made it a postit stand but because uh I'm going to start with to the south
the 250 ft from the warehouse operations, >> right, >> is still on the southern site. >> Okay. And um if I may stand up, I'm just going to um really quickly. >> So, >> so what what was the original possible
interpretation that it would be from the property line >> from the property line a warehouse >> 250 >> all three sides and it would have been a narrow. So, uh, this is this is 330, you
know. So, literally the microphone. >> Yeah, if you there's a switch on the bottom just so we capture this testimony. >> Sorry, I need my glasses to see that. Yeah, it's it's >> it's the line it's it's the active line of of activity for this site.
>> The way they the way they specifically describe it is anything that's critical to the operation of a warehouse. >> Take it off if you want. So, >> so that they describe it specifically as anything that's crucial to operating a warehouse. Whereas a dormant parking
lot, um a a storage for non-active trailers, uh water retention, those are not critical to the operation of a a warehouse is how they defined it. And that's how they define the activity line versus the property line.
>> Exactly. is the language change that we had requested that >> well that certainly makes sense but um is there any chance that somebody challenges the activity line is that's not a thing >> they ruled and adopted it
>> no what I'm saying is we we don't think they use that >> you know we don't think that's active what what defines active oh >> so so let me let me then start to be here. Um, it's a state regulation.
>> Okay. >> So, this site and and and this isn't just us wondering. This is uh the affordable housing developer Walters Group um knowing the uh the regulation and implementing it and getting you know
we as a township team and the Walters Group um ensured that HMFA really changed their regulation. So it wasn't just from the the property line um and the 250 ft for instance is
measured from here. So it's So it's >> Oh, right. Yeah, that one's easy. >> Yeah, that one's easy for this site. It is from this edge of the parking the tractor parking lot. So it does come in to about here. >> Okay. >> But it's only going to impact where the
affordable housing facade the buildings are located. >> We could still put parking there. >> Exactly. So, I noticed in the um in in the draft plan from Walters Group that there's a community uh building in the bottom for the top right hand corner on that plan.
>> That that may change that that >> Okay. But that that is actually that's subject to that 250. Okay. I was say nobody lives in that building. >> It's sorry. So, it's uh 250 ft from the uh multifamily residential, right? building
>> the residence >> plus up here this employee parking is not considered part of the warehouse operations. So even though this is part of this um there's no 250 foot
measurement coming from the north. So it's really just coming from the east. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Um and now moving on to uh site control. uh you even though if if you go through
the uh the plan amendment it indicates that the Cranberry group or Cranberry Real Estate Trust approached a township over the property. >> So it makes it sound like they are actively discussing the sale of the property. It's still important for us to
go and pass amendment for eminent domain to show that we will pursue the property if those negotiations were to fail. >> Exactly. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Yeah, you're welcome. >> You mentioned earlier that they had not
selected the two locations um for the additional group housing uh for Cranberry Housing Associates. Just so I understand, does that mean in the future that we would have to come back and do some sort of amendment or something to memorialize those when they were
selected or not? not an amendment to the housing plan because it's uh common for group home providers to, you know, find us a ranch home that's going to come up for sale. Um but it will come first actually. Um
it's spelled out in the settlement terms that the township has to approve. And um I'm happy to look at the settlement terms to tell you the exact language, but it it >> I don't think you need to do that, but the the gist is there'll have to be some
future subsequent review either at the township level or at the planning board level to approve the >> township governing body level. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that was my understanding that that CJ would have to come to the township and just and let them know
where this is going to be. >> The township is um uh compensating them, right? They're paying them for um for or for Yeah. And then what do you take a an easement normally >> they'll be doing a deed restriction,
right? And that used to has to be approved by ordinance. That's what we usually do. But do you folks do that here? >> No. >> Okay. I And some other towns we accept it by deed by an ordinance. So you see I preview. >> Okay.
But it will come through the town. >> One additional question. You also testified that hopefully the state will create a crossing between South River and Maplewood. Is that based on knowledge that they're already
considering it that there's an affirmative plan for us to advocate for it? Just what's the mechanism by which that hopefully occurs? >> Um the latter, the affirmative the uh township will pursue um
working will will work with DOT and probably this well you're right DOT for the crossing of the state highway um and and that that is that's part of the plan for the township to work with DOT
>> and that's memorialized that that there's a goal to do that or is that just something we say we're hopefully going to do? It's set forth in the housing plan. >> Great. Thanks. >> How the DOT approach it, you know, grants us that is it,
>> right? No, the town is going to because this ties in with the senior housing, the sidewalk almost comes right to the senior housing project. So, um, any other questions or comments from the board?
Um, at this point in time, I'd like to open it up to the public for any questions or comments. Hearing no questions or comments from the public, I'll close that portion of the meeting or the uh the session. Um I
guess do we just need a a simple, you know, we want to move this then? Okay. So craft this the right way. Um,
so in order to codify our amended uh housing plan, I would like to have a motion to approve our housing element and fair share plan for our fourth round fourth round plan amendment for the township of Cranberry.
>> Can I have a second, please? >> Second. >> All right. Roll call for the amended >> housing element and fair share plan. Miss Anderson, >> yes. >> Miss Elvadawi, >> yes. >> Mr. Giddings,
>> yes. >> Miss Conram, >> yes. >> Mr. Mildenberg, >> yes. >> Mr. Mucelli, >> yes. >> Mr. Pulk, >> yes. >> Mr. Stewart, >> yes. >> And Mr. Whitman, >> yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Motion pass. I want to
thank the board for this because this is a an important another part in the step in the process. This now goes over to the township committee. Correct. Or or >> right. So so but the resol the next part
does go over to the >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Committee is going to endorse the plan next on Right. >> Yes. So to be clear, sorry. So the planning
may remember that there's this quick turn around. So this plan amendment plus resolution has to be filed within 48 hours, >> right? >> So that's one action. >> Can you can you put your microphone? >> Oh, sorry. >> Sorry. >> I'll start again. Um
you may remember from the June plan that this this adopt this >> amended uh plan amendment must be submitted with the planning board resolution of adoption within 48 hours
of adoption. it's f you know right submitted to the superior court via e courts and so um the township attorney Kevin Vanheis's office well which I know is Sharon's office but we we'll take care of that
but as separate and apart from then actions on Monday night those ordinances and resolutions separately have to be filed within 48 hours of those actions okay >> so they want to do the next res. Do you
want to read it or >> sorry, could we memorialize this planning? >> Have you taken a vote on? >> Yeah, we just did. >> Oh, sorry. >> It's all done. >> All done. >> So, the next thing the next thing that has to happen is we have an ordinance in front of us that we've been asked to
review for consistency with what we just adopted. So, that is the omnibus ordinance uh 22607. Um it recites the um whereases with the the procedure that just happened with
the filing and adopting the fair share plan and all the court orders that we went through and then it's deleting or your current affordable housing ordinance um that you've got uh the general ordinance and setting forth all the regulations for the fourth round in
here. And Mary Beth kind of went through it but do you need me to go through it again? Essentially, it's the temp it's the template she described that's every town is going to be going through the same pretty much the same thing. >> But but what this what this resolution is um specifically finding that this res
this ordinance is consistent with your master plan. >> Correct. >> And spec and your um amended housing element and fair share plan as as amended tonight. >> So um our practice has been to just do a vote on this and a motion. budget as we
do with most ordinances and then Gina will do a summary back to the township committee saying that the planning board you know how we voted whether we did or did not consistent with the fourth round housing element. >> Okay. >> So can I have a motion?
>> Um this is a committee I mean a board vote. So, >> can I have a motion to approve um 02-2607 the ordinance of Terry in Middle Sex County repelling chapter 44 and
inserting all the new chapter 44 >> and it repeals chapter 76 and >> article two the affordable housing development fees in its entirety and establishes a new chapter 76 article two for affordable housing development fees.
Yes. >> So, can I have a motion to approve that? >> She already moved it. We just need a second. >> Do we need Do we have a second? Please. >> Second. >> Please call the roll. >> Okay. Roll call for the consistency review. Miss Anderson, >> yes. >> Miss Albui, >> yes.
>> Mr. Giddings, >> yes. >> Miss Conram, >> yes. >> Mr. Mildenberg, >> yes. >> Mr. Mucelli, >> yes. >> Mr. Pulk, >> yes. >> Mr. Stewart, >> yes. >> And Mr. Whitman. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Motion passed.
>> Thank you very much. I think that's it. >> Excuse Mary Beth and she could run out of here quickly. Does anybody need to take a quick break? No, we're good. All right.
Yeah. If you leave those with Gina, that'll be good. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Thanks, Mary Beth. I'm sure you can. You don't have anything. I wouldn't be able to just do it from here. >> Why don't you speak loudly?
>> Why don't you speak loudly? >> Okay. Okay. So, now you have another public hearing to open and uh >> we'll swear. >> Sorry, Liz. Do you swear that the testimony that you're about to give before this board's the truth, whole truth, nothing with the truth. So, I help you guys. >> I do.
>> Okay. Uh Okay. So, you should have received in your packets um the area in need of redevelopment investigation uh for block five, lot 18. This is 1260 South River Road. um to determine if the
site qualifies as a condemnation area in need of redevelopment pursuant to the New New Jersey local redevelopment and housing law which is NJSA4A12A. Um the last planning board meeting the board authorized my office to conduct
this study. Um, and it, you know, it had been requested that the board do this study by the the township committee. Um, and as you know, or probably some of you know who have been here a long time, the redevelopment law
has eight criteria. A site only needs to meet one of the criteria to qualify. Um, and I'll go into in a moment that this study area actually met more than one criteria. Um but the job of the planning board tonight is to recommend to the TC
that either the site meets the criteria or doesn't meet the criteria. Um based on this report and my testimony um and the TC will take that recommendation and either designate it or not designate it um depending on the
board's recommendation which I'm going to present. So, you know, Mary Beth went into great great detail in helpful detail about the 1260 South River Road site. Um, and help you know, it's great. It's up here. You can see it in the
exhibit. Um, and that is in the amended housing plan that you just adopted to produce 130 affordable rental family units. And obviously it's part of the township settlement agreement which has been uh recommended by the program to
the Mount Laurel judge and has been um approved by the Mount Laurel judge. And so obviously to be perfectly candid and Mary Beth alluded to this or even just outright said it. I think that we were asked to do this study um in part
because it could help with the financing of the affordable housing site. That said, tonight we cannot base our recommendation on anything to do with what could be there, what's planned to
be there. It it has to really, you know, your determination and recommendation to the TC has to sort of rise and fall on what the existing conditions are there currently and if they meet the criteria. And so the we can't just say, well, we want to use it for affordable housing,
so it meets it. we have to actually look at the criteria as they exist in the law and come to the conclusion it either meets the criteria or it doesn't. So that's why um I'm going to go through it a little bit, you know, maybe more than
than you care to. I'm going to try to be quick, but I uh want to get it at least all on the record. >> You take all the time you need to >> I will I will try to hit the highlights. So, um, page two of the, uh, plan
obviously shows the location in Cranberry, um, which you are already well aware of. It's block five, lot 18, 1260 South River Road, eastern side of South River Road, across from the intersection with D at Die Road. Uh,
Cedarbrook Corporate Center is right across the street. Um nearby land uses are industrial, the Hampton Inn, and some small uh commercial establishments. It's approximately, it's just under 12 acres. It's 11.9 acres. Uh if you go
page three, it's you can see it's currently improved with three structures located in the southern section of the site. It's there's a for a former twostory sort of farmhouse that was converted to office so long ago and Gina can back me up on
this that the the at least since the 80s. Nobody knows when exactly it happened but it had was used as an office or was converted to office use sometime in the early 80s or no by the early 80s we know it was being used for
office. Um there's also a uh two-story barn. It's really a barn with like a loft. Um and then there's a one-story warehouse which has warehouse but then it also has a loft space for office. Um the
former uh farmhouse is vacant as is the barn. The one-story warehouse has until recently or is in the process. There was an HVAC company that was using it, but they are in the process of moving to a new
location. Um there's one driveway off South River Road uh which lead to some paved parking areas which you can see on the site plan. Um and the northern portion of the site is cultivated farmland. So if you see on page four um and it's
actually again it you see it on on this map that Mary Beth left there is the southern portion of the site um is kind of characterized by flood planes so there are portions in the hundredyear there are portions since the 500y year
um and there's also some wetlands in the area and I think if you go on to page five of the slides it shows it's in the currently in the I light industrial which permits um you know light industrial uses offices labs commercial
recreation agriculture etc. So I had on page six and seven rather than reproduce all eight of the criteria I just reproduce the ones that we are going to or we used in our report. Um and so you'll see there's
criteria A. Um the generality buildings are substandard, unsafe, unsanitary, dilapitated, obsolescent, etc., etc. Uh criteria B. I mean, everybody can read for themselves, but there's criteria A, B, and D.
Additionally, um they have in the R LRHL, the local redevelopment and housing law, something called section three. And that sort of says that let's say there's a portion of a site or even a building, which is not the case here, that doesn't necessarily meet the
criteria, you can include it as part of your designation because it will help to affect the entire redevelopment area. Like you couldn't redevelop the whole site without including this one portion that it could be that's called a section three, you know, adding a portion of the
site um you know, if it doesn't necessarily need it. So page 8 and nine has some photos of the former farmhouse. Um it's just under 3500 square ft. As I said, it was
converted to office use. Um it was really hit hard by uh hurricanes Enri and Ida which were in August and September of 2021. The ground floor was completely flooded out and you can see in the photos that the there was a ton
of flood damage particularly the ground floor became completely uninhabitable. There's structural damage. There's damaged ceilings and walls, exposed wiring. Um, and you know, we found the building met criteria A for exhibiting
significantly dilapidated and substandard conditions, unh wholesome and unsanitary living and working conditions. It is also structurally obsolete as an office building. It It's not ADA compatible. The bathrooms are not ADA compatible. There there are um
if it were to be reused, well, I'll get to that in a second. Hold on a sec. But that we found met crit criteria A. We also found the building met criteria B. um which is it's a converted, you know, former office building um that's been
vacant for at least 2 years because it's been untenanted since 2021. Um and has fallen into so great a state of disrepair that it's untenant untenantable. Um, and we also found it met criteria D
that the the severe flood damage. The building is sort of functionally obsolete. Um, due to, you know, some of the ADA um considerations or or ADA requirements, it no longer meets. It has a a wonky layout because it was a house
that was then converted to office, but sort of, you know, kind of labyrinth rooms and and floor plan. There was a loading dock. There is a loading dock in uh to the east in the rear of the house that was used for specific marketing
business, but once it it it's not anything that could be really easily adapted to another use. Um and it doesn't really meet the demands of a modern office use. Um so given that sort
of the lack of you know mark sort of the lack of appeal in the marketplace um as a as an office building the long-term vacancy and the years of sort of unrepaired damage and dilapidation. The renovation, modernization or
reconstruction would be extremely expensive if not cost prohibitive. Hold on. And so and as a result sort of detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community.
Um the next and this would be on page 10 of what you had is pictures of the barn. It's a detached barn. It's 665 square ft. This is the facades are sort of unmaintained. It's got some boarded up front and side windows, sort of stained
exterior walls. Um the interior wooden framing is dilapidated. You can see the sky through um portions of it. You know, it's got exposure to outdoor elements. So, chipped and eroded walls and ceilings.
And we found it it meant criteria A, B, and D for basically many of the same reasons as as the house. Um it's structurally and functionally obsolete. It was accessory to a residential use that hasn't been used as a residence for for a long time. It sits right in the
heart of the 100red-year flood plane. It's been vacant for over two years and severely damaged by flooding. Um, and you know, it just sort of is obsolete and outdated for what's on this site. The final structure,
which so if you turn on to I guess page 11, it's a warehouse structure. It's the newest structure on the site. It's about 6,400 square feet. It is um as I said, it it's essentially a warehouse that has some loft office space. And so the HVAC
company used the bulk of it for their m you know, whatever their equipment, the warehousing equipment that they would then put in their trucks and and and service um their customers with some ancillary office use. And we found this
met criteria D. It's relatively in you know sound structural condition but it lack again lacked sort of ADA compliant access. It's sort of fit a certain type of business but it's essentially a warehouse that distributes to trucks to
deliver but it has sort of faulty arrangement and all you know obsolete and outdated forms of development. So the remainder of the site and this is where the section three comes in is that the this is on slide 12. It's you know
paved parking areas are showing some deterioration dilapidation. You have the farmland which is essentially been a second dairy use for just additional income for the property owner. Uh it doesn't serve or support largecale agriculture. Um there's also a storm
water basin and we thought you know rather than just say well the site meets the criteria because of the buildings we wanted to say well yes no acknowledge there are these other sections of the site that don't let's say necessarily meet the criteria but that they're important to any effective redevelopment
of the site. Um so we included them as section three. Um, and just in conclusion, you know, the owner has repeatedly tried to redevelop the site for other uses and has been before at least the zoning board for use varants
uh for, you know, back in 2010, I think it was for a drive-th through bank and some other sort of mixed uses. They were then came back before this this board, no, it must have been it must have been the zoning board for a quick check and
and that's sort of fell through. um and they just couldn't secure tenants and they even I think most recently came to the DRC in 2021 with maybe a warehouse scheme and and that then they had all the flooding and that wasn't working out. So that they've kind of been
looking to upgrade and revitalize the site. Nothing's really worked. Um so in that sense in a sort of in summation we think that the site as a whole and including all its independent portions
would meet the criteria. >> I know this is backwards but uh we'll call this exhibit A. It's a 13page handout. Okay. And it everything in there is in the report. So,
>> can I just before I open it up to the board, um, >> were you involved with the Cranberry Commons redevelopment effort >> to the extent I I didn't do the study. I wasn't involved
in the study. No, I I was involved in some of the plan. Yeah. >> Right. Because this is, if anybody remembers back to the um it would be the Hagerty Cheney property that was put
into the redevelopment plan um for what you now see as Cranberry Commons. And a lot of the things that are on this property were on those properties, abandoned buildings. Um,
you know, a warehouse that who knows I don't even know when that one that one building was built. The the the building that's now being occupied by the HVAC >> people. Does anybody have >> We That was another one. I I thought it
was more recent. Again, it existed in the 80s. So, that's way older than that. So, you have >> converted buildings that probably shouldn't even be those buildings. >> Um, and it's very similar to the Cheney. Um, there was a warehouse on the Cheney
property where it was a warehouse and it was actually an animal rendering facility at one time, believe it or not, back in the day. Um, yeah, you didn't know that one, did you? So, and then there was a number of houses on the property that were
abandoned. So, this isn't inconsistent to what we have already done in town here already. Am I correct in that assumption? >> Yes. No, absolutely. There another area
need uh is where Willows and um Birch is it birchwood is is that was I guess still part of Paul's auto body. Was that a portion of Paul's auto body which obviously it's a different context but it was also the result of redevelopment.
>> Right. So we're not we're not um plowing new ground so to speak here with with looking at this as classifying it as a redevelopment area. Mhm. >> Um the other thing is now for whatever
reason >> if the town in its infinite wisdom um didn't go through and get this property >> but we classify it as a redevelopment area, does that die? >> No. >> No, it doesn't die.
>> Let's just say the affordable housing law disappeared overnight, you know, and all of a sudden we've declared this area. we the property owner and let's say the property owner you know the township never acquires the property the town the owner has the potential to come
to the board um with a redevelopment scheme um that could then be the subject of a redevelopment plan which you know for whatever some mutually agreed upon um uses. So, no, it it it doesn't
this way. It's it's confusing and we're doing all of this on the same night, so it is even more muddled, right? >> But it really it's not about what could be here. It's what is there now. >> Okay, that's right. You did clarify that.
>> Yeah. So, um, when it comes to identifying this as an area in need of redevelopment, >> it was an area, let me read this again, an area in need of redevelopment uh, a year and a half ago as well.
>> Yeah. >> Two years ago, it just was not identified or studied at that point. >> Yeah. because the process begins with the governing body adopting resolution directing the planning board to study it, >> right? >> Um this isn't probably the only site in
the town that would meet the criteria, >> but it's just the one that this board has been directed to study and so um and that's why you have it, >> right? Okay. uh for um you know when we talk about structures that exist and we talk about
that flood plane I I'm trying to put myself in the um in the shoes of someone who is looking at this property now and saying oh but it's a flooded out property how will you build affordable housing there >> well that's a good question and one thing that we talk about this in our
report is that there are because a lot of these structures are have been there for so long they're not built with any Um we I forget what we call them in the report like uh flood proof flood proof
um you know the for example you know where you might lift something up and up a stoop or something and it's not so that they're susceptible to the flooding where um anything that is coming along now is going to have to comply with some
pretty steep regulations you know promulgated by the state >> for in inland and flood protection. >> And note that the buildings are built in the 100redyear uh flood hazard area. You know, if not that we're talking about
the other thing that might be built there, but their plan clearly shows that nothing is built in the 100redyear >> Yeah. >> flood hazard area. That's how you >> We're not talking about the future. >> We're not talking about that. >> No, but but yeah, right.
>> And this has happened throughout the whole state. I mean, there's areas throughout the whole state >> that would never get built on today. >> Man, I mean, there's >> Bbrook. I mean, there's there's areas where past excuse me, past development was
done and now it's like you you you can't do that anymore because of >> yeah, >> the things happening. So, >> you also have updates to regulations. So rules that were in uh applicable as close as last year have now changed and
been updated. So you're now re-evaluating plans based on new regulations and rules coming from D. >> Yeah. There it's stricter. Yeah. >> Yeah. And but partly actually D I mean this is neither here nor there but D put
those rules in place as a result of Hurricane Ida. Yeah. I have just an off-handed question and this is nothing to do with this property. If there are properties within the township, abandoned houses or things
like that in a residential area, could the planning board recommend to the township an area of need for a specific property or does it have to be for some specific use? Well,
it's complic. >> Yeah, it's a hypothetical. It's complicated by property ownership, private property ownership, right? And so, um, certainly condemnation can be used, but typically probably best practices is to have some sort of
cooperation with the property owner. >> Okay. Um, so you don't necessarily want to um that doesn't mean that the planning board can't identify and do some due diligence and sort of ask some
questions, but it but in terms of going out and asking the TC to can we do a study that gets a little more complicated. >> My my understanding, my limited experience with it is is that usually it's kicked off by the property owner.
Hey, I'm thinking about doing this. Would you consider calling it a redevelopment? >> Yeah, >> that allows you to open up the rules a little bit more than if you were to just try to develop it in the regular zoning, right? >> 100%. I mean that is as I said and I
think Mary Beth said it it it puts um in terms of getting financing for a future use that that's you know that there may be um it'll be higher you know whatever it is graded higher graded more um what is it
called >> qualified >> better qualified you know points in order to get funding and you want 100 points you might some of these projects need to be 100% they need create all to to qualify for all HMFA's criteria, you
know, that they require for for affordable, housing credits and funding. >> But typically, like and this is the first town. Um, no, maybe it isn't, but I was going to say where I've done it and again, let's this is future whatever with where it would be 100% affordable.
Typically, it's not. It's some mixeduse project. And the thing that is attractive to a lot of towns is that it's legal spot zoning. And you can be very very specific like you need to use this type of material, you need to, you know, it has to be this style of
architecture, blah blah blah. And and and that's permitted under the law. And um so it can be very attractive to towns because they have like very close control over what is going to happen on a site. So, so Liz, you actually went to these
sites. >> Yes. Oh, I should have said that. That's correct. We did. We toured around um my colleague and I taking photos and and and um went into the buildings. >> So, thank you for subjecting yourself to this. I mean, some of these pictures are quite um are quite difficult to to see
and that the fact that the house is still or the structure is still standing is quite impressive. Um and so, what is our ask tonight? like >> um so the planning board's task would be to uh adopt a resolution recommending
that this property um be identified as a area in need and then also a condemnation area in need. You have to def um distinguish whether it's an you're recommending that it's a non-deamination area or a condemnation area. So, um this this uh recommends
that it also be not only be designated as an area need for redevelopment but then a condemnation area um in e and then after that the um you know you send your resolution copy to the municipality and then they would then designate it
with adopt a resolution designating it as new. >> So then the township committee then codifies our recommendation then. >> Yeah. Or is it a recommendation or is it more like >> we're actually making a recommendation they actually will do the designation >> as a practical matter that means later
when they are coming with a specific plan for some future development to be determined >> that rather than being done the normal sort of waiver and variance and so forth they're coming in the context of a redevelopment. >> Yeah, this isn't over yet. um even
though the township committee designates it, they have to then adopt an actual plan by ordinance and that and they could do it as an overlay or like they did with Cranberry Commons area, they did it as the the zoning and that's you
know the only way it can um develop property. So um it's this is you know not done yet but it's the first step. >> This isn't I'm sorry this isn't part of the March 15 deadline though. This is this is extra or additional to or does
it have to be done by the >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So this >> so this has to be done also before March >> the designation >> but the actual redevelopment
>> but our our voting on this and making a recommendation >> has to this action tonight >> it goes to us uh goes to the township uh committee on Monday and then we have 48 hours from there to file that. I was just making sure this was also short
turnaround. >> Time, >> right? And again, this does not approve any kind of a final plan for the site. No, >> that still has to come back into this board for approval. So just because we approved this is not giving a cart blanch
to the to whoever is going to who did the Walters group approval that >> whoever's going to >> whoever is going to whoever is going to develop the site >> have review >> you know that's back to us for review and approval. I just because it is a matter of public record with the court and through the program um we're
mentioning the word condemnation here uh which is probably making everybody a little bit nervous and having some PTSD happening here but the property owner is you heard under earlier testimony this is friendly condemnation and that is a
thing whereas the property at the property owner's request they're asking for condemnation on the property >> and there's benefits to that that that the property owner um can can reap. But I just want to make sure that when we're talking about this, it gives us the
authority in case that falls apart to go through >> I wouldn't call it a non-friendly condemnation, but it puts us in sight control that we could continue those negotiations toward friendly condemnation. I just wanted to make that clear.
>> Mayor, correct me if I'm wrong that we did that with 12742. We were under friendly condemnation with that. Did we do that or >> we did not do under 1274? We didn't do friendly condemnation. They didn't opt into that. They could have if they wanted to, but that was a straight
negotiation of land acquisition. This is under that. I just felt it was an important distinction based on history. >> So to open up, we'll public. >> Yes. Any other comments or questions from the board? and then you can open it up to the public for comments,
questions. >> I just want to clarify this the resolution here with the question marks. >> Oh, because >> that's what we're talking about now. >> Yes, that's the one. >> Okay. But this doesn't this >> because we don't have a number. We're just going to delete that section about the question marks.
>> Oh, no. That's okay. I I just wanted to make sure that that I was This doesn't mention combination. >> Oh, yeah, it does. It's um in the second whereas and then um >> and then and the number two under the recommendation now therefore be it
resolved board accepts and adopts a recommendation in the investigation report >> from the nation. Okay. >> There yeah it's >> looking for it search >> search. Yes. >> Thank you. loaded into chat GPT.
>> Yeah, should have had my computer do. >> There it is. >> Any more questions from the board? Okay, at this point in time, I'll open this up for comment from the public. Hearing no comment from the public, I'll
close that portion of the meeting. And what I would like to do is move this forward. So there is no resolution number here. So >> which I I just prepared this. I don't know if Gina was going to put a number on it, but we're not. But I think she
hasn't. >> So we putting a number on it. What do you want to put on it? >> No, we don't have one. >> Okay. Put a number on. Okay. >> Okay. All right. So I'm going to read this. I would like to have a a motion for the resolution memorializing recommendation that certain real estate property
located at 1260 River Road identified as block 5, lot 18 on the official tax of the township of Cranberry be designated as a condemnation area need of redevelopment pursuant to the local redevelopment and housing law HJSA4
A- or 12-1q period. Can I have a motion to approve? >> So move. >> Can I have a second, please? >> I'll second. >> Okay.
>> Want me to read again? >> No. All right. >> Okay. Um, roll call for the AI and RN resolution. Miss Anderson, >> yes. >> Miss Elbidawi, >> yes. >> Mr. Giddings, >> yes. >> Miss Conro, >> yes. >> Mr. Mildenberg, >> yes.
>> Mr. Yes. >> Mr. Pulk, >> yes. >> Mr. Stewart, >> yes. >> And Mr. Whitman? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Motion pass. >> Where's my agenda? I lost my agenda. >> Right here. If you need it. >> Yeah.
>> Since Kursner is not here. >> Yeah. already. >> Do we have any old or new business from the zoning? >> I was going to pluck like a chicken, but I'm not going to do it because I support my colleague Liz, but we are going to um
uh Liz is working on the ordinance for the agriculture update. We had made the recommendation to the township committee that we got back um on that and that we would make that change. So >> yeah, I that that will be the change that it will be a little bit more
relaxed, you know, front than what it was consistent what we think was probably the intent >> the new chicken ordinance. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, this is 2019, right? >> 2010. >> 2010. >> Yeah. Going back. So, um, right. >> The things we do here. I just
>> it is it's important that we follow up and there are residents out there with a vested interest in us. Are we doing the one for with Princeton that are we copying the Princeton one or uh >> we have that is a little bit more complicated I think going forward. There are two things right. One is to sort of
permit it in in um the the zones the the village HR the VHR and um uh anyway and that's one thing and then the other thing is to sort of put maybe some restrictions on it which is a larger conversation. >> Yeah. And you had asked if we're going
to do it then we should be doing it for the entire you know municipality versus just in the No, meaning if we're going to look at it that we looked at it for the entire township was the request that not we don't just look at it within the historic district that there are parts
of this um ordinance that would apply in general to the totality of the town. >> Correct. >> Have that accurately. >> Yes. But it wouldn't apply to anything that's assessed farmland,
>> right? >> It will still we may disagree. >> Okay, >> that's okay. That's what that's what it's all about. >> Um, any other updates on that? >> No. >> Anything for the good of the cause? We
have no close session items. May I have a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Wait, we needed a second. Oh, we need a second. >> Somebody second. There we go. >> I
als I the eyes carry it. Meeting adjourned. Thank you.