Yeah, that's perfect. That's good. [Music] Okay. Uh, good evening everyone. I'd like to call the meeting to order. Will you please stand and join in the pledge of allegiance on the wall for I aliance to the flag of the United
States of America 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 June 11th, 2025 of this meeting's date, time, and location. The agenda was mailed to the Cranberry Press and Home News Tribune, it on the township bulletin board, mailed to those requesting personal notice and filed with the municipal clerk. All
right, roll call, please. Miss Anderson, here. Miss Eladawi. Mr. Giddings, here. Can Mr. here Mr. P and Mr. Stewart are out.
Mr. Whitman here. We chair. Okay. All right. Um again, thank you everybody for coming up tonight. Um we will be discussing our fourth round housing element and fair share plan township of
of cranberry master plan. Um, I have a couple housekeeping items tonight that I want to just throw out to everybody. So, when you come up to make public comment, then you you kind of know um what we're looking for. Um, the first one is we're only going to be addressing the plan at
hand. We're not other plans, talking about other plans, talking about changes to this plan. So, if you have comments, it'll be addressed to this plan. Second item, we're not looking at any of the other properties, substituting properties or anything like that. If you
come up and bring a name of a property, that's fine. I don't care. But we're going to put it on the list and it'll be evaluated for our round five affordable housing plan, which we will have one in the future. Uh one in the future in 2035.
Okay. uh at a point when we when I do open up the meeting for public comment um I'm going to leave it open 50 minutes. Now people still would like to talk. I'm going to do blocks of 15 minutes thereafter and at that point in time if we're all talked out then I'll
close the public portion of the meeting. We're going to record questions as from the presentation that Mary Beth's going to make. So, we're going to try to answer all those questions to the best that we can at the end of her set at the end of her session for the public. At
that point in time, I'm going to open up to the board for any question or comments that they may have. And at that time, I'll close the board question and then we'll proceed uh with a vote. Um, and on a final note, um,
and I say this with all sincerity, I have really would implor everybody to be civil here to me. I have seen too much stuff being floated around in the ethos
stuff and that's not our town and frankly I'm just a little little disgusted about it. There is no call for threats or horrible language against board members or anybody on the township. I can I really implore
everybody to be civil and yourself as a good primary citizen should conduct themselves. Okay, with that in mind, I'm going to open it up for Mary Beth to make her vision. Mary Beth, I'm going to swear you in. Do you want to raise your right hand? Swear that testimony that you're
about to give before the sports. The truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth. So, help God. We can't hear you. My apologies. Uh yes, chair. I I I do swear. Um uh good evening, uh Mr. Chairman,
members of the planning board. My name is Mary Beth Lan. I'm a principal uh partner at Clark Kaitton Hints for an affordable housing planning firm, architecture firm, uh landscape architecture and planning. Um I am a
licensed planners. I've been the township's affordable housing planner since 2005. I have um an affordable housing expertise uh for over 30 years. I began my career in affordable housing working
for the council on affordable housing co-op. I for the last 22 years I've worked at Clark Kate where I am a municipal affordable housing planner similar to um being the township of
cranberry's affordable housing planner. I also serve the superior court as a specialist and that term used to be referred to as courtmaster. I've served in over 50 uh superior court matters across the state. Tonight uh for the
planning board's consideration is your fourth round housing element and fair share plan. As you all know the housing element is a master plan element. What I'd like to do is I'd like to summarize uh the draft fourth round housing
element fair share through a PowerPoint presentation and I'd ask my colleague to please start the PowerPoint and um is that can everyone hear me? Okay. Yes. Great. Thank you.
So let's go to the first slide please. Let's go to the second slide, please. So, um, many of you are aware of the, uh, state and court affordable housing history, uh, in New Jersey. It emanates
from the Mount Laurel doctrine. In 1975, the initial M case was decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court and the court mandated that each developing municipality provide a realistic opportunity through through a land use
regulations for a variet of housing types including housing for low and moderate income households. In 1983, after a series of uh starts and stops and and significant litigation in
uh superior court and as well as the appellet division, uh the Supreme Court issued its second um important case decision in the Mount Laurel doctrine.
And in that 1983 case, now known as the Mount Laurel 2 decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional obligation for towns to provide affordable housing. Um, specifically tying that constitutional obligation to
a municipality's um ability to zone. In addition to the affirmation, the Supreme Court also created as part of this Mount Laurel 2 decision that a
court remedy. And that court remedy I I know many of you are aware. It's called a builder's remedy. I'll provide more details about this remedy in in a moment. More recently, in 2015,
the Supreme Court decided what's now known as the Mount Laurel 4 decision. And as part of that decision, it highlighted a reminder that municipality's power to zone carries the constitutional
obligation for a town to address its fair share affordable housing public. as part of um the earlier 1975 1983 decision of the Mount Laurel
case law. The um legislature enacted um an alternative to the court process and it enacted the Fair Housing Act back in 1985. This was clearly in response to the
significant court cases um in with towns trying to address for being sued for not addressing their affordable housing obligations. The Fair Housing Act um was as established
set up the council on affordable housing COA and COA was for a few decades was the administrative alternative to proceedings before the Superior Court. Next slide, please.
What's important for Cranberry Township and and really all uh municipalities across the state is for this process um as set up in the Fair Housing Act to
protect to uh provide protection from court imposed builder rate lawsuits. Um and specifically the court requires a municipality to adop adopt and endorse a housing element
and fair share plan without immunity has may be sued. Typically a builder's remedy as many of you are aware is a high density residential zoning development proposal um with typically just 15% or 20%
affordable housing. um not 100% afford housing. The builder's remedy threat um may also um permit a judge to order that multiple
sites be utilized to address um a municipality's obligation and multiple sites may be reszoned. the court. There there are a number of examples where the court may also take away review powers from the plan board.
Next slide, please. Cranberry Township's affordable housing history. Um the township has had decades of addressing its fair share ofations. Um in the first round and the first round is really from the 1980s.
Um, this COA Council on affordable housing granted and certified the township's first realm housing element and fair share plan and that COA certification was from 1989.
After that in the 1990s really the second round plan developed by the township that plan was certified by COA in 1996. both rounds uh both the first round and
the second round now we refer to as the prior round obligation and as you can see prior round obligation was 217 prospective need and I'll provide more details in in just a bit the third round obligation
and the third round time period began back in 1999 and it went due 30th 2025 which is less less than a week away. In this in this long extended time period for the third round, there was
significant litigation. Um, and many of you may be aware or were involved in the township trying to address COA's growth share that their initial third round attempt
um at a at a new methodology. the the gross share concept where it was every uh residential or non-residential development would generate an urbal housing obligation that was invalidated by the Supreme Court in this 404
decision. Again, that decision was from 2015. In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that um and found that COA was nonfunctioning. Um and the court the Supreme Court brought affordable housing matters back
to the superior court system. Um early on in back in you after the 2015 decision, the court envisioned that there would be a central um determination of affordable housing
numbers. Uh but that really did not did not occur for for us. And um as part of the third round, the early part of the third round after the 2015 decision, there were significant settlement
agreements to determine a municipality's affordable housing obligation. And in the third round, uh these settlements were typically with Fairshare Housing Center, FH FHC. and Fairchair Housing Center is a a
statewide affordable housing advocacy group. uh about 375 total third round settlement agreements were entered and Cranberry was um one of those municipalities
and initially fair housing center had run a series of or a set of third round fair share obligations and they initially suggested that Cranberry Township's third round fair share there should be
over 1,200 affordable housing units. The township um disagreed, fought that and uh settled with Fair Housing Center at a capped obligation of 260.
You'll hear that this this reference to a capped obligation and this is directly right from the Fair Housing Act which um set up a series of uh requirements and permissions for
municipalities. And in this case, the 20% cap related to Cranberry Township is also known as uh the cap to uh fight against a direct alteration of a community. The township's settlement agreement with
Fairshair Housing Center, third round settlement agreement, was approved by the court and the township received the uh equivalent of COA certification and the court issued a judgment of compliance repos back in
2016. And that that third round judgement of compliance and repose is still provides the township right through uh the end of the third round again which is in one week uh provides the township with immunity from
builder ready lawsuits. Uh next say next slide please. really before uh diving into the the background specifics, it's it's always helpful for um everyone to take a step back and just discuss and and and hear
what is affordable housing. And up on the screen are 2025 income limits. And you'll see that the the household income level of moderate income, that is a u a household that
would that earns no more than 80% of their regional median income. And you can see um we're showing one person households on up to five person households. And you can see that range. Lowincome households are households that
make no more than 50% of the region's median income. And lastly, the very low income um category is for households earning no more than 30% of the region's income. And this very
low income category came about in in an amendment to the Fair Housing Act from 2008. And you can see uh those uh income limits ranging from 32,000 a little over 32,000 for a one person household up to
almost 50,000 for a five person household. the um in in addition to the income limits um it's important to understand that affordable housing in New Jersey is
deemed restricted affordable housing um as part of the amended fair act that I'll go into a little bit more in detail. The uh the new fair act requires affordable rental housing to have uh
controls on affordability for at least 40 years. Affordable housing also must be administered by experienced administrative aids. These experienced professionals u provide affirmative marketing,
affirmative advertising of the affordable units. Uh random selection is required. income qualification is required and the administrative agents really oversee um new tenants coming in.
the uh administrative agent enforces the rate controls. They must also follow the uniform housing affordability controls UAC. That's a series of regulations that are uh implemented by the New Jersey housing mortgage finance agency. And
lastly, the administrative agent assists in providing annual monitoring. Next slide, please. the the new affordable housing law was enacted in March of last year. It uh
amended the fair housing act and implemented the fourth round requirements. Uh just some of the highlights of the the fourth round the new fourth round law the law of bleed the council on
affordable housing co-op the the new law instituted a new court-based program uh it's technically called the affordable housing dispute resolution program and this is a program uh that's um in the
administrative office of the courts and it has um it had issued a an administrative directive and generally speaking the program is set up to address any challenges. Initially, the
program addressed a series of challenges to uh fourth round municipal obligations and will also um review and mediate any challenges to
a municipality's fourth round housing element fair share plan. The new law that's amended um through the Fair Housing Act also set up a series of specific deadlines for various entities including municipalities to
meet. The um other requirements was that the new law required the Department of Affairs DCA to prepare fourth round affordable housing obligations and also required new regulations from state
agencies. Next slide, please. the new deadlines that have uh um uh mo most of them have already um come and gone, but the initial deadline and uh really most towns waited needed to see
what was going to be their fourth round affordable housing number that came out from the DCA, Department of Community Affairs, uh back in uh late October last Last year, uh, PCA provided fourth round numbers
for all towns across the state. the January 31st, 2025 deadline, first important deadline for Cranberry Township to address and it required um the deadline from the Fair Housing Act required that towns adopt binding
resolutions uh to addressing sorry committing to address their fair share fourth round obligations. Also an uh deadline of February 15th was set forth for towns for all towns to
address their monitoring of units all the existing affordable housing units in the town as well as uh existing trust fund collections and expenditures. And lastly, um we are again just away from um an
very very important deadline for towns to adopt and submit their fourth round housing plans. Uh a little twist to this deadline. Um in actuality, town must submit by law its adopted fourth round
plan within 48 hours of adoption to both uh the superior court and to the and to the program. Next slide, please. DCA's Department of Income Affairs uh number four Cranberry Township includes
a two-part fourth round obligation. Includes a knee or rehabilitation share of zero. And we're really not going to spend any additional time on the on the rehab share. most important number
for the township is its perspective need number and the perspective need number um is again capped at 265 but that cap was reduced from the initial obligation set by DCA of 314
again township was um able to take advantage of the uh the cap down to 265 This 265 unit perspective need is based on three average factors and I'm not
going to get into all the details but suffice to say the three factors that set forth clearly in the law is that um DCA was charged with utilizing the three factors. One was
non-residential valuations, one is land capacity, and the last one was income capacity or um uh it it may be easier to uh to think of it as the general wealth of of a
community as part of the region. You should know that uh cranberry is in region three. three had about um well had a total no obligation of a little
over 11,000 affordable housing in it as part of the entire statewide obligation of a little less than 85,000 affordable housing statewide for the fourth round and then Cranberry's share of that is 265 units.
Next slide please. As many of you are aware, Frimberry Township addressed its initial January uh 31st, 2025
deadline by adopting and committing to um address its 265 unit fourth round prospective need. Township also filed its fourth round declaratory judgment action, DJ action,
and that's simply just um an action to bring the township into the superior court process. On March 14th of this year, the superior court approved and fixed the township's
fourth round numbers. um that that court order of approval uh was issued as there were no objections to the township's resolution. And lastly, the township did address its
uh statutory required monitoring. Next slide, please. Uh you're all aware that that the fourth round housing affair share plan is cumulative. It must address uh both the third round, sorry, both the prior round
and the third round as well as the fourth round. And and the last thing just to point out here, and I think I heard someone ask a question a little earlier, the fourth round is a 10-year time period and starts July 1st of this year and goes to June 30th of 2035.
Next, please. the I'd like to spend a little bit of time on the prior round chart just to um put in perspective um and and one thing what you're seeing here is the the means the compliance
measures that the township took first round and the second round combined again into this prior round and the the first thing listed there is RCA it's a regional contribution agreement
uh that specifically was an ability for towns such as Cranberry Township and many many other towns transferred funds as a sending town and sent funds to a receiving town for uh rehabilitation and
construction of affordable housing in the region. the the Fair Housing Act um had previously permitted RCA's although um early in the third round they they were
eliminated but previous to this the township had entered into two RCAs uh one in the first round one in the second round and really RCA's provided the township um tremendous flexibility in in
addressing its fair share obligation Um, as you can see here, there's a number of sites listed that uh Cranberry Associate had developed over the years um and did a really nice job for the
township and on behalf of the township and addressing um many sites not only within uh the village but also on the outskirts of the village to uh to address the township's fair share obligation.
having this RCA which permitted the town to uh address half of it half of its obligation. uh the township had a more manageable fair share obligation with with which to
have CHA provide you can see some of the numbers you know um developments 100 I should say 100% affordable housing developments of us on a smaller scale anywhere from 15 to 20 a few other uh main points on the I
wanted to address from the part around there were two uh group homes. um group homes are credited by the by the bedroom. And also the township was just one of a handful of towns that received what what was called a
substantial compliance reduction. And that was um because the township had specifically and and and almost fully its first round obligation and and
received that 13 uh unit reduction. And lastly, um, on the prior round chart, it's important to, um, remind, uh, the public as as well as new newer board members that the township has always maximized, um,
bonuses. And in this case, in the prior round, the township maximized uh, rental bonuses of 55. and and that was for an an acknowledgement of the township um
hosting affordable rental units. Uh the next few slides are of photos of the program on um affordable housing units, most of which
were developed by CHA uh primary housing associates. And you can see re really view housing along Bergen Drive, Danser Drive. And and one thing that I always um thought highly of what CHA has done
is that oftent times the the units uh just blend right into the and and could be in some cases uh just large single family homes. I mean the appearance of and go ahead and just uh show some of more of the slides please.
And you can see um a more recent development along Old Cranberry Road. And I think there's one more slide and you can see the uh parkside been at play as well as the uh village senior housing
important senior affordable rental housing as well. on the for the third round. Um again the uh township entered into a settlement agreement with Fair Housing Center. Um and the court accepted the capped
perspective need obligation of of 260 and and that cap was initially back in the third round that was based on occupant housing units. it's it's been changed for the fourth round and I'll go over that.
And what what's really highlights or important highlights for the third round is the large surplus from the prior round. Um and this and it it did help um that the township had access to RCAs. Um
you'll see that although uh RCA's um were previously eliminated for the purpose of this crediting um towns are required to name any any source and so the um
some of the surplus RC credits are listed here as well as uh CHA's family for sale affordable housing of 30 units along bergen of dancer in South Maine
in um in addressing part of the third round affordable housing obligation uh see additional uh 100% affordable housing development for both family affordable I'm sorry family uh low and
moderate income households as well as senior individual households And you'll see a few surplus CHA credits for Old Cranberry Road as well as um a new unit um nearby the Chris Miller House
and um a third round site that um is now called Applewood Court and many of you may remember it fondly as the Route 130D site. Um but this site is
um you see with now 32 affordable family rental units, you can see that the CHA sites um got got a bit bigger um in in the third round from the earlier um bit smaller sizes. Uh
with the elimination of RCA as regional contribution agreements, the township had to pivot and um start to work with um tax credit low-income housing tax
credit developers. And and part of the reason for this was and really made it um difficult for many many towns across the state, including just specifically in Middle Sex County, was that the
Middle Sex County Superior Court judge um in charge of the earlier uh settlement agreement with Fair Housing Center was was to limit 100% affordable housing sites to just two um maybe maybe
three, but it was really almost a hard um a hard cap. And so that really forced the township and many many towns AC again across the state to pivot to um
larger 100% affordable housing. in the um the the township needed to address uh 90 affordable housing units and determined to provide those 90 affordable housing
units on one site and and that's the Ingramman site um that's listed here as a portion of it is family uh affordable units the Willows site of 24 and just a portion is credited in the third round
But Birchwood uh was 66 total housing units including uh senior and special needs units. Um this was really the start of the township having to um change from, you
know, smaller uh 15, 20, 30 units with with with the CHA and having to um provide having a limit on just two um uh again
possibly three affordable 100% % of housing sites um really was not going to permit the to work with CHA on three or four or potentially more additional third round sites.
So the township um started the efforts in the third round to work with um an experienced tax credit uh a developer and that developer was Ingramman and again um they sought
funding from uh HMFA housing mortgage agency and and I'll provide a little bit more details on the tax credit program in in just a bit. the township assisted uh both CHA in
purchasing um the third round sites uh at Elwood Court and that was back in 2007 uh and also the township assisted Ingramman in acquiring the um what's
known as the was in Birwood site and that site is along uh Route 130 on on the west side of Route 130. Um and that was the uh former Paul's Auto Garage site. these two sites, the Applewood Court
site along um Route 130 on the west side as well as the Willows and Art and Birchwood site uh in Ingram were two existing or two sites that were reszoned
from highway commercial to uh low or to residential to be able to help the township its fair share obligation. Lastly, you'll see uh a few inclusionary
development and redevelopment sites. Um the seven affordable total affordable units were uh created as part of the Highpoint redevelopment site. Um and specifically as part of the multifamily
development at cranberry commons where six cis 7 are addressing the third round and also the township entered into a government agreement with brothers for a payment in lie of construction at the uh
senior site um and that that is depicted here. Um and and that site was the former uh Portinic um site. You'll see in the next few slides there are photos of the some of these third round sites
including um Cranberry Commons and Applewood Court as well as the Ingramman site uh the Willows and Birchwood. Thanks. Let's go to the next site. So the um
this just is a quick reminder that again the fourth round proceed the 20% cap and um now per the amended fair housing it's 20% of total households uh not occupied not total occupied housing units and as
you can see here the 20 census um uh shows 1,323 households holds in the township, 20% of which that that's where the 265 comes from for the fourth round. And the next
slide, please. Um the new amended fair housing act has various requirements in for towns to address its fourth location. And per the
new law, um the township specific to Cranberry Township, the township can provide a maximum of 59 affordable senior units towards the fourth round prospective need. Township can request a maximum of 66 bonuses
um and does require at least 100 family affordable units. Uh with these parameters in mind, the township um began searching for sites that would pre present a realistic
opportunity um by J, you know, June 2025 for for plan inclusion. And um again, the the realistic opportunity um that is directly from the Mount Laurel doctrine. It's a um it's a requirement
uh for towns spec in specific to Cranberry Township. Township really had to search for sites that would, you know, enable this housing plan uh before
you tonight to have the defense of addressing the realistic opportunity. and and and that is seen in uh with sites currently in the sewer service area um not currently preserved as open
space or farmland and and al smart smart growth areas such as planning area 2 and uh next slide please. There's going to be a series of uh overall maps to really help um everyone
visualize the development constraint facing the township. And in this first map, you can see that uh it's an aerial map of the township and you'll see the the blue depicts um DP, Department of
Environment, Department Wetlands. Um you clearly can see um the the farm uh the the current pattern of the western of the township um with with the brown farms um the central um it's it's
a little difficult to see but um you know the central corridor of the community residential development and and focused on um historic village of of Cranberry.
um east of Route 130. Um the this is this picture truly tells the story here. You see uh the significant warehouse and commercial businesses um east of Route 130. And they're depicted, you can see
the um the rooftops uh the you know white rooftops gray, darker gray um and also some pretty significant wetland areas um in the southeastern portion of of the township. But um you know just
you know truly large warehousing. Um so I will what we're going to uh skip now to the second constraints map and this is um was to just really
highlight um additional uh specific development constraints and the green is um preserved land. uh the vast majority of preserved land in the township is preserved farmland and that's again
that's depicted in green and uh clearly is a large part of the western portion of of the township. um the preserve farmland. Um, as you can see west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west west of the wheelchair
um there's large swats of contiguous farmland you know contiguous preserved farmland really helps to form um what's depicted in uh the the township's 2010 master plan as well as the 2019
re-examination report of the uh goal and objective to create a hard edge uh um along the uh along the village. The purple is shown the sewer service area and um
this is a really important development parameter for the township and and its development capabilities for any development as well as to address its constitutional obligations. Uh next slide.
You can see um just take take a minute to really go back and forth from each of these maps. It's uh you start your eyes, you know, start to look at oh there's, you know, what's this on the west side that's not preserved? Well, you know, um
take your eyes over and up to the north there near south of Brunswick, you can see a lot of that sweat. you know, just significant D um wetland areas and um and then the, you know, just looking at
the uh sanitary sewer service area again, purple, and you know, have your eyes go back and forth and you see from um that the existing developed portion of the
township of the residential development on the corridor there of uh you know with the uh the village residential development north of the village as well as the south of the village um down to the outskirts of uh I
think that's shadow um and you'll see between north main street Main Street and then over to Route 130 and beyond to the east you can see you again just go back and forth and you can see the significant in um develop, you know,
already developed areas of the township um that that are um part part of the sewer service area. And in the souththeast corner of the community, you can see that it appears
that DE like as they have done in many towns, they cut back some of the sewer service area because of uh what wetlands. So the um while we're still on these two on these two maps, I wanted to just now
um bring us back to the the process that the the township and the and its consultants um utilize these kinds of um of maps to try to focus on um how the township
could address its 265 unit fourth round obligation. and the township um and and it's being looked at over fle possible sites again um uh these sites had to present a realistic opportunity.
Um we we checked individual maps um all um you know again the township team you know checked to see was a site in uh in the existing sewer service area was it in PA2 the smart smart growth area that pretty much reflects the sewer service
area um it couldn't be um overly mentally constrained like some of these wetland areas the sites had to be big enough to accommodate um a a small number of 100% affordable
housing sites uh I mean relatively uh small number but um so in this case um the sites include a 24 unit small development
um to be uh developed by CHA with DCA funding, Department of Community Affairs funding as well as a senior site um of 60 units to be developed through tax credit financing and this 100 family
affordable units to be developed also through tax credit financing and and and funding also. It was important as part of the search for those sites was um they had
to the overall program had to be cost effective for for the township. Um sites not in a sewer service area um wouldn't be currently found to be
listic. Um it could easily take D in some instances you know two to three years uh to make a determination on us for an expansion of a sewer service area and ultimately DP may deny such a
request. So it was very important for the township team and for the planning board um to have a defense affordable housing plan. Now uh next slide please. These are the the details of the
township plan to its fourth round prospective need that I'm sure many of you have seen. But I I do want to remind you that the township again does not have a fourth round present need or or rehabilitation share. So the um the
fourth round uh perspective need you'll see that initially there's a third third round surplus details and unlike the prior round plan which had a significant uh surplus from prior round going into
the third round um there's much smaller surplus going from the third round into the fourth round just because of um the uh Well, for a variety of of of
reasons, but um somewhat because of the um elimination of of RCA. So it it required um through 100% development required significant uh township outlay of not only
affordable housing trust funds but also um the township um had significant bonding requirements to to assist the creation of 100% affordable housing sites. You'll see as part of the surplus um
that CHA has housing associates CHA has worked with Eden group home provider to uh provide uh two new group home once in existence and one is uh in um
development stage and the three main 100% affordable developments the um family affordable site at 1234 South River Road. Total of 130 units um could be developed in two phases. One phase of
72 and the second phase of 58 affordable units. The uh CHA at Cranberry Common site that's this is a a site which I'll get into more details in in a moment.
But the CH site again to be um fund uh hopefully fingers crossed funded by the Department of Community Affairs is for 24 totalable units or specifically family affordable rental units. And then last um site at 1274
South River Road um 60 senior and supportive housing. Lastly, this chart shows um the u hoped for and pending um extensions of controls. This uh really the township um
must wait for the revised uh final permanent unit housing affordability controls to understand um the full ability to get extensions of controls. And
lastly, Don just on the the overall um means to address the prospective need. Um again as in every round the township maximizes its bonus capabilities and I'll um request and in this case um for
the clown it's it's no different that the township will maximize fourth round bonuses as I'll discuss in tribute to the uh the 1234 South River road site. Uh next slide please.
This is an aerial uh map of the cranberry cha cranberry trauman site. You can see that this is the the remaining undeveloped portion again of the high
point redevelopment. Um and this is approximately 1 acre. It's adjacent to the Cranberry Commons mixed use that also includes seven affordable uh family rental units. You can see it's at the corner of Old
Trenton Road and South Main Street. Uh there will be 24 affordable family rentals produced here and uh CHA has entered into an option to purchase the site with the with the site owner. uh
CHA's administrative agent is uh Piaza and Associates and they truly are the best in the in the state um at at administrative agent duties. Um the CHA's financial proform
anticipates that development costs total development costs of these 24 affordable units will be a little less than 10 million and again CHA will seek funding from DCA's again the community affairs a
small development program and then specifically set up to address um developments of 25 affordable units or less. And um it's funded through a real
uh transfer tax and it it's uh funded um through the fiscal year of um June 2025 to um sorry July 2025 to June 2026.
This site uh next slide please. the the CHA site um as fully discussed and described in the draft plan. Um I believe that the and find that the CHA
family affordable site does present a realistic opportunity to produce affordable housing the sites in in an existing sewer service and the planning area two of the state plan and um planning area two is the preferred
location um whether planning area one or planning area two they are the preferred location for the production of affordable housing. the um ship will enter into an agreement with CHEA
to develop assist in developing the site and CHA has the ability to acquire this site. Um the site also per um co's regulations and these regulations were specifically upheld by the superior
court I'm sorry by the supreme court um and also reflected specifically in the amended fair housing act um which directs to utilize co's regulations
um and these regulations require sites to be available, approvable. In this case, in this site, the um it would be approvable through an amendment to the existing redevelopment plan. um with the site is developable and
suitable again as um the site is in the sanitary sewer service area and um and also the water service area and both the sewer and water systems throughout the township. There are um there's capacity
in both systems to serve not only this site but but all of the affordable housing mechanisms in the township. Next slide, please. This is the second of the 100 proposed 100% affordable housing site. This is
1274 Self River Road. Again, this is for a total of 60 affordable units, 55 senior units and five supportive housing units. Um you can see that this site is um along the southern edge of South
River Road right um to the north of Route 130 or at the uh intersection of Route 130. And you can see across Route 130 on the west side is uh Applewood Court um 100% affordable housing development.
uh the township um as as far as means um as its availability. In May of this year, the township um done ordinance to acquire the site whether through um or either either
through negotiations or condemnation and if it is via um eminent domain, the township would pay the fair market value for the land. Uh the Walters is the uh
chosen experienced tax credit developer of the two um tax credit 100% affordable housing sites in in the plan. And uh this site will be either reszoned or will be um uh or will address the
redevelopment statute. And this uh site will be um as pre-noted will be zoned from non-residential to multifamily residential. Per co's rules, we investigated a a
shipo um the state uh historic present office's listing of um a a structure on site um as potentially um historic. And although there was a 1992 survey uh
listed um listing a principal building on the site that's potentially eligible uh for historic designation. Uh this building has not been formally designated um by either the sorry by the township or and it's not on the state or
federal historic registers. The financial performer um provided for this site uh shows a total development of um just a shade under $19 million for
the site and this this does not include uh land costs at this time. Walters um again the tax credit developer known as uh the Walters Group uh will seek the competitive 9% tax
credits from the HMFA housing mortgage finance agency and I'd like to just provide a little bit more information on the tax credit program. uh tax credits uh specifically lowincome housing tax credits are a federally funded program
uh for developers. Um they sell the tax credits of often getting um a dollar for every tax credit that they sell. Sometimes a little bit more sometimes um or or um in some instances
it could be a little bit less. But these tax credits are sold um by tax credit syndicators over a 10-year period. And you can see as part the financial perform site that the Walters Group
anticipates receiving over $14 million upfront for development construction purposes. And this 14 million is um will be the the tax credits will be sold over a 10-year period. Um and so but the
developer would would achieve um upfront $14 million because these uh low-inccome housing tax credit funds are so competitive. HMFA
has set up a scoring system and um to to really um be able to see what sites uh score well. And in in this instance um the sites score well as you can imagine
if they are in sew the sewer service area if they're in growth areas in this case um uh planning area two. um tax credit developers um are
uh can easily expend $150,000 to $300,000 to apply for the funding to get site planals. Um and HMFA does as part of the regulations governing tax credits which are called
the qualified election plan QAP. HMFA does limit the um the amount of a developer fee for um a tax credit developer. I I would say over the the last um 15 20
25 years the tax credit program has changed dramatically in the sense of what's required by a municipality. Um whereas 15 20 years ago, towns just had to um work with a developer to help
them find a site, but often the developers could purchase the site um and really wouldn't need any outlay of of funds from a municipally just need a pilot a payment in lie of
tax. Um but over over time the uh again the program has become much more competitive and um ultimately towns I'd say you know 10 to 15 years ago
really had to start to fund the con the purchase of of sites and then for you know since the um um the recession um and Recently,
uh, towns h have had to provide more than just sometimes funding the of land to be able to donate the land so that the developer did not have the land cost as part of their their perform. But more
recently, um, uh, we, we saw, especially with the dramatic in to interest rates and construction costs that towns, um, have had to even just recently provide a multiple millions of dollars to assist
the tax credit developer. But ultimately um the um hearing that just in just this site um the development uh perform of just under $19 million with um hopefully 14
million coming from tax credits as well as um site would be eligible or able to support a small mortgage. Um it's it's important to for Primary Township to assist the developer to score as high as
possibly hopefully a perfect score um or potentially at at potentially um the highest score possible and that includes the purchase of the site. Um next slide please.
So, similar to the CHA site as a Cranberry Commons, um I fully set forth in housing element and fair share plan draft that I believe that the the 1274 South River Road senior site does present a realistic
opportunity. Um that it is again sewer service area in planning area 2. Um there will will be an agreement with the developer with the Walters Group and the ordinance adopted the township last month um in in in May
um does provide the township the I'm sorry the Walters Group with the ability to acquire the site through the donation of the site to to um to the Walters Group and I do find that a site is available
and um approvable through a a reszoning and um again as a found that I find that the site um is suitable and available for affordable housing production.
Going on to the next slide. This site, as many of you are aware, uh it's 1234 South River Road. It's um at the northern end of South River Road uh just south of Monroe Township and um the
site the site um block 2.01 lot one the total sightes up 21 acres. it is farmed. Uh the township's plan is to acquire the southern half of the site about 11.5 acres and specifically not to include
the existing farmhouse and not to include the existing farm um accessory structures. The uh the Walters group anticipates in the township, we anticipate a total of 130 newly affordable housing units built
again in two phases on the site. Um the southern portion um sorry um the the first phase of the two-phase development would be 72 units and again
the second phase would be 58. Um the Walters group will also provide a community building and active and and passive recreation which will will be uh uh detailed and and set forth in and site plan application.
The tax anticipates acquiring the um through negotiation or the paying of fair market value through through eminent domain. Eminent eminent domain is permitted um to be used to acquire the site as 100%
affordable housing is a public purpose. Um as a tip will acquire and donate the site. The township is eligible for the 46 fourth round bonuses. The site will be reszoned from light
industrial to multifamily residential. Um the site as you can see here on the aerial map is surrounded by existing businesses. Um some of the businesses that's worth in the housing plan and as many of you may know include a tile
slier, a warehouse for heating and plumbing equipment, um a cabinet maker, a plumbing service company. the um in addition the site is surrounded uh to the north by the existing by the
existing uh farmland of the of the Henry farm. Um so across South River Road, the site um is
will be across from a um future large development the on the uh Alfair site. Um it's been approved for again for two large warehouses. Um, but this
site is really at the north and corner of the Alfaria property which will according to their approved site plan. Um, this is a location of BMS stormwater basin. Um where the uh the the the front
of the warehouse structure is to the south west of this site approximately um 600 and end of the structures proposed structure will be about 600 ft from the proposed affordable housing
buildings. As part of the design process of this site, uh the Walters group will utilize buffering, landscaping, BMS, fencing, um sound attenuation,
um um and and these types of measures um could include enhanced insulation, um enhanced uh windows, doors above real building code requires. Uh the Valters
group again will seek a 9% low-income housing tax credit financing for this site. Um as as as previously noted as well as for the senior site at 1274 South River
Road. Um but for this site at 1230 for South River Road, uh the financial perform anticipates the site will um cost in total a little over $45 million with uh phase one at 25.6 million um and
the second phase at 19.5 million. And the vast majority um of the of this of these development cost will be um uh tax credit financing from HMFA.
It's important to note this site scores very well for tax credit financing. It has a public transit along South River Road uh through the Middle Sex County Ride Program. And this uh ride service
uh serves the uh from New Brunswick to to uh James and um comes right in front of the site um during a morning and evening rush hour. um and variance um
especially over these last 20 20 or so years um maybe even just even a bit more recently um I've seen many of sites like this that is in a subver
location um and and these types of sites um where the low and moderate income households you know truly will need of cars, although there will be some again some access to um the bus service uh provided
by Middle Sex County that um in order to help the residents of the community um access be part of the the the the township and and access, you know, services and the
shops and be part of the village. Um again there are many um recent experience that uh though in moderate income households do own cars in these situations and
really um for all of the affordable housing existing in township the um uh there's there is no mass transit in um the other areas of Cranberry Township. This is this is really a um um
a mass transit desert u in in Middle Sex County. Um and so often times low and moderate in households to um to try to access jobs um requires really um
households to have um uh private vehicles and and more recently I'm seeing that uh low and moderate income house also rely on uh ride sharing services such as Uber or or Lift and and and so forth.
Um it is really um again it's not just Cranberry facing this issue. Um it is you know many many towns across the state where um low and
moderate income households are seeing jobs really leave the urban center which have are are well served by public transit. And so it's important for low and moderate income households to be
able to um traverse from really suburban to suburban locations that that are not served by mass transit. It it's it's not just a Cranberry Township um circumstance. Um part of the scoring in addition to
the um limited um uh but available um mass transit opportunity or or bus transit opportunities at least on Monday to Friday during um during rush hour both
afternoon rush hour that again the site as well for tax credit financing as the site is in an existing sewer service area. Um and also importantly it scores because Cranberry schools are are really
topnotch and um it the school system not only helps the Skype the site score well but the schools really are an important service to any low and moderate income household that lives anywhere that that
they have access to this important um household requirement for for good schools. It is in um uh main area two uh the smart growth area
and um next slide please. the site um do believe that the site does present a realistic opportunity for the provision of affordable housing. Um the site is an existing source of
service area in PA2. Um the township will come in uh will uh entertain and um uh enter into agreement with the Walters group and through the
uh ordinance adopted last month, the township does have the ability to acquire the site. Uh uh next slide, please. The um the housing element and fair share plan also requires
other statutory um points to be addressed such as the requirements for very low income housing. Um, again, that was a relatively um new requirement and all of
the afford new affordable housing elements in the township will address uh the required very low-inccome housing. the township's uh existing court approved fair share ordinance and development fee ordinance
uh will be amended at such time as the DCA department of community affairs and the UAC regulations are in final um form. township has a court approved affirmative marketing plan. Um,
initially preliminarily updated and will be updated again when the affirmative marketing regulations are for the fourth round. Township has a proposed spending plan and currently the township's affordable
housing trust fund has approximately $2.5 million in it. Um we project the township collecting over the uh fourth round time period again for the ne through the next 10 years you project
another 4.2 million to be collected for a total of 6.7 million. Um the the funds will help acquire the various sites. And at this point, we anticipate that the township will also u
potentially have to bond to wire um the fourth round site as well as um also pay off bonding for some of the um third round sites as well.
With that, that uh concludes the slides show. I would like to um just offer the board um my recommendation and we'll we'll go off the uh the slide PowerPoint. And I I I would recommend to the the
board um that the uh draft housing element and fair share plan be tonight. I do believe that it addresses the amended fair housing act and I believe it addresses the municipal land use law as well as um the law the Mount Laurel
doctrine. The plan allows the ship to continue to achieve um its master plan goals of addressing its constitutional affordable housing obligation. And as summarized um in my testimony to tonight and in the
plan, I I do believe the fourth round plan is in the public interest and uh it promotes general welfare. Uh that concludes my testimony and I'm happy to answer any questions from the board. Thank you, Mary Beth, for your
presentation. What I would like to do before I open it up to the public again, we're going to kind of get everybody's questions and try to answer them at the end of the public session. Mary Beth, you could definitely hang on then, right, for us to probably have some
questions afterwards. So, Oh, definitely. Okay. I want to take a five minute break, okay? Cuz I have to go to the bathroom. [Music] Long long story. Uh I had to had a dental procedure today and I had to take
numerous medications for for a hip replacement surgery. Be right back. Oh my god. [Music] That's why You guys [Music]
I don't want ice. is cranberry. But San California. [Music] Yes. By the way, I couldn't see you walk in.
Everybody, please take your seat belt. All right. We're going to open the public portion of the meeting again. when you come up, please state your name and address for the record and we'll uh record that. And again, we'll try to we'll try to collect
all the questions and then answer everything at the end. So, Mary Beth, you can take notes too on that. Certainly. Yeah. And everybody you have three minutes and then we will move on to the
next person. So, and Dean will be timing that. So, Good. Good. I'm Amanda and I live on South Street. What What's the address again? Street.
What number? 61. Directly across from 24 units. Okay. Um so my name's Amanda. um directly across from the proposed Creary Commons affordable housing site. Um I just start with being clear that I support affordable housing, but I don't
support the way the township committee went about creating the proposed plan out of the township's fair share plan, a 24 unit affordable housing develop is development is proposed on less than one acre of land in Primary Commons. Until
just nine days ago, there was no mention of this in any township updates, any FAQs, or any meetings. Suddenly, we report a 1.68 million purchase for a high density project, potentially housing more than 50 residents without
any visible studies or due diligence on how this will affect traffic, safety, infrastructure, or quality of life in the area. To put this into perspective, the Willows, an affordable housing development from round three, also has 24 units, but it's built on three acres.
What's proposed here is density, and it sets a precedent we need to consider very carefully. I have three concerns about this specific property for over a year. Trash, traffic, noise. The intersection at Old Trenton Road in South Main is dangerous. There's red
light when speeding and legal U-turns that happen daily. I've heard multiple crashes from inside home. Crossing guards witness it every day. And the traffic study that was promised when the gateway town homes were completed was never done. We're inviting a tragedy. We
don't address it now. Beyond traffic, the site has ongoing issues. Oblowing trash, no gated dumpsters, light and noise pollution, and persistent zoning violations. A high density project will only in intensify these issues. This is
the fourth proposed change to this land since I've lived here. During the high development planning process process, which this parcel is a part of, residents showed up, gave gave feedback, and engaged. Input should still matter, but it feels like every time we try to
keep up, decisions are already being made on us. So, I asked why this site, what other properties were considered, and who made the final decision for this site? Yes, the could be a good fit for affordable housing, but not at this
density. This isn't about a box. It's about thoughtful planning, transparency, and respect for the people who live here along with those that we hope to welcome. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Who else would like to come up and say something?
Is there a response to her? We're collecting. We're collecting that. Sorry. I'm Dave Carroll 265 speaking to just a couple things I just wanted to confirm two things questions and I'm surprised by our expert here who didn't thank you
very much for the presentation I would just this pretty big numbers. You would like open and close your presentations maybe with just how much it's going to cost in total, you know, so people can't get to the math quick in their head. So I just want to confirm that. So
someone I don't know if you can answer question now or not. I think it's about $75 million for land purchases, right? So something like that. This is a big number. So I think you know we should talk about we just let people know it's a big number at this point and two to go
uh to Amanda's comment I we've lived there at le heard the same thing the same song and dance sorry um we was you know that site there um was an eye source we had turned
around and redevelop it and the deal was cut in the middle of the night and the land was all of a sudden sold and redeveloped and showed up and the next thing we have a strip mall with ecigarette signs and everything and all the trash like she said and nothing done
and now we're going to turn around and jam I think it's a three-story building right at the corner and people who live in that area will be however far away you are be able to see the top I think just so my questions are just confirm the height of this building right I
showed up but I support um this housing I think it makes sense to live. So I think you have to be sensible about it, especially when you take a step back and say this is hund00 million sign up for it's a big number. Um so how high is the
building going to be? Um and uh is it really $100 million whatever the right number is right and finally do we can we switch instead of the old people on the other side of 130? I mean that's like you know I wouldn't want my grandmother to be over there. on the other side and
you flip the other fl. Yes, we are. Thank you for your your comments. Who else would like to come make comment? Andy Henry 34 South River Road the little property that's been causing so
much excitement lately lately. Um so I don't want to miss any opportunity to speak. Could you just use the mic? So I don't want to miss an opportunity to speak against our property being taken by imminent domain. In that regard, I'd like to read a letter that was sent to the town which I also received a copy
of. I've been given permission to read it from West Haven, Connecticut. Quote, I am writing you to please consider use of imminent domain to seize the Henry family farm in Cranberry. It is wrong to seize private property for other than public use. The construction is not
public use. Public use would be highway, firehouse, school, or the like. Over the years and subsequent to the Kilo Supreme Court decision, the definition of public use has been eroded. So now virtually any of us can be used to take someone's
home. This lady lives in West Haven, Connecticut. In 2015, the city started a process to demolish an entire neighborhood of over 50 homes, small businesses, and a church to make way for a dinner. The neighborhood was not
blighted. a consulting firm a municipal devel development plan which made the case that this taking was legal under Connecticut law. However, in Connecticut, the law is so poorly written that a case can be made
to take property for any reason. Clever word smithing does the trick. Today, in 2025, 10 years later, the reference property of 23 sits desolate and empty. The shopping center was never built and ironically it'll probably revert to
housing someday. In New London, Connecticut, the property which was the subject of the Kilo decision by the Supreme Court also stands empty. The FISA Corporation, one of the original beneficiaries, moved out
after its tax credits expired. Please don't let Cranberry join the ever growing list of municipalities making these illinformed and catastrophic decisions which pervert the intent of the law and wind up doing more harm than
good." And we believe that taking over a farm would just be a catastrophic decision. Putting housing there would essentially create a separate town. I call her Cranberry. Um,
we believe there must be other locations in town with willing sellers outside of this warehouse zone. And we have filed a complaint in Superior Court of New Jersey today about this effort. Thank you.
[Applause] Uh my name is Tim Brennan. Uh 10 Park Place East I think I work with here. Um one thing that was missed out on the Henry farm as far as businesses that surround it which just concerns me as a citizen is that there is a marijuana
dispensary about 200 something yards away. I made a little video about it. I stood many times in the driveway next to the house and you can smell the marijuana. 8 to 10 hours a day by the fenc. I think it's 9:00 to 7:00. Um,
I started reading once I had the day off from school on Friday and I started reading the 500 and some odd pages of this, looking at the pictures, which are great, uninformative. Um, I got to page 57 and my reading comprehension skills uh kind of blocked
me. So, I'm going to ask a couple of things here. Was there a competitive bid process for selecting the Walters Group? Apparently, I'm not saying this is guaranteed, but appears to have a $60 million construction cost regardless of whether tax credits are received.
Additionally, around I'm estimating this, and it's probably a little older than this, but around 8 million 6 million times on every property is listed under a development a developer fee appendix S. I don't know what that means, but that can be
clarified. It'd be great. Um, if the expected tax credits fall through, it's my understanding, and again, it's just my reading comprehension, so take it for what it's worth. I just see fourth grade. The the town could be responsible to pay
millions and millions of dollars for this. Um, if they don't receive a tax credit from the government. Um, so that could be, you know, just uh to verify that would be great. Um that that just leads me the same
question. How much is it all going to cost me? So unfortunately my wife had surgery the other day. I'm going to head home, but I will listen to the rest of the meeting uh from home. So thank you very much. Thank you. [Applause]
I know I'm breaking protocol here. I know I'm breaking protocol here before you go home. Hope hope your wife is okay. Um but um regarding the marijuana facility, they're building a new facility off of Brickyard Road. So they're going to be moving that facility
to the facility on Brickyard Road. It's that big greenhouse monolithic thing on Brickyard Road that they've been working on and we that so they're going to be moving from there over to the other facility. Your other questions will be addressed.
I just wanted to let let everybody know that. All right. Who else would like to please come up? Hello, I'm Brady Smith, 17 new again. I'm also not opposed to affordable housing. I
think it's important and want to state that off off the record or record and uh also uh I'm here on the PTO consulting who's working with the New Jersey Farm Bureau and uh I just had
one question uh as it relates to the 50 sites that were mentioned I believe you said 50 sites for that uh for suitability and I wanted to know if potentially the suitable 9.9 acre site across Henry farm was considered. Um
it's block one, lot 10 and it's owned by a property developer. So I'm curious if that was one of the 50 considered. If it wasn't, why was that not considered? Thank you for your question. Where were you from again? I'm sorry. 17
you will have. I mean your friends. Okay. All right. Thank you. Like I said, I'm here representing. That's fine. Thank you. Would like to come up and ask a question? Am I using this correctly? Can you hear me?
Yes. Thank you. I'm stud homem up in Roseand. I live in town main street. Um and I've worked with Mary Beth years on many counts. She's an excellent very very good plan on this.
Um it's my understanding Mary Beth I don't know if they had told you about being here which just started on June 5th. Did they let you know about that? Go ahead and ask your questions. My friend I'm saying did you know about my involvement since June 5th? I don't want to take it by surprise if this is new
here. Please go ahead. Okay. So not knowing whether the plan or site um and I I have your permission I know to talk about my client site um I was delighted to see the maps um ination that yes correct we are not in farmland
preservation and what knows but you know my analysis of the ement is that it's absolutely up to primary you have an alternative taking your site um we submitted a formal three and a half pages single space I understand your attorney has had a read it. It just came
in just before noon last Friday because I can get all my ducks in the row. Um we proposing whatever the town would like to see. We have 47 acres to work with rather than 21 and 10. If the town felt they were constrained to do just one%
site, we could do that. We have highly highly experienced development team and we are not going to be requiring bonding. The bonding back stop is is a potential mechanism such as bonding potentially include bonding if necessary
under the rules in case a um group like Walters development is going for tech funding doesn't get their funding. It used to be co now it's the program DCA wants to ensure that there's a reasonable possibility that this isn't just some sort of wish fulfillment.
We're confident that we don't require the town to bond that we like or Walters apparently has requested. Um our site is for Plainsboro. It is very conveniently located. It's excellent for live tech
tax credits. We can do it as a 100% project. We could do it as a 50 project depending on what other mechanisms the town still wants to use. You guys know I was here on June 5th because we only got a letter on May 29th
from Mr. Van Heis saying oh we still but unfortunately it has an agricultural reason. Uh it's a very unneutral agriculture. It sells for a dollar. Those rights have not been sold. Um we are adjacent to a sewer property. I
believe we're in a sewer service area. the map I look at said we are um but it's certainly suitable available developable approvable and the owner and my client who would be the developer and we also work with Mr. Bowski we've been
talking to him so in the just couple of weeks that it's been pending we've gotten all the ducks row I have not heard any response from anyone from the town's lawyers from Mr. Van he is an old I have not referred to Mary, so I don't
think she knew about the site. I just want to say we're ready. We're available. My letter discusses the other sites. I don't have to do that from here. Um, but I do wish that we would get someone reaching out either to say no, we're very sorry in case we'll have
to go ahead with the challenge or we'd love to talk to you. Why not? Okay. I don't think I tried to be at the end so that I wasn't taking anybody else's time. And also again I you know we are offering to save the town tens of millions of dollars.
Also to not take the farm that you claim you have to take and you don't want to. I would think that since June 5th someone would have responded to me. So I'm going to give you a brief response. As discussed at the TC meeting last night which you were there respectfully said we just received your letter on
Friday afternoon and we said when we get through this week we'd be happy to get in touch with you and discuss it with you. That's the response you got last night at the town committee meeting. I just want to make sure that that is still in fact based on what the chair said beginning of this week. Given 24
hours later that is still the case. So we'll get through this week and then we'll due on your excellent opportunity to talk to about it as soon as you see fit for me to do so. Thank you very much.
else. Anybody else have any Anybody else have any comments or questions they'd like to pose? Okay, I am going to close the public portion of the meeting and uh have Mary Beth try to answer some of those questions.
Should we read we could read them back if you'd like? Um certainly Laura I'm happy to however you'd like to Mr. Chairman you'd like. One of the first questions that was asked was why was the Cranberry Commons
um site picked as and no other sites considered? Many many um CHA as well as the Walters group and the township team looked at dozens and dozens of sites. Um I I wanted to if if I may um start to answer
other of the questions raised by um uh Ms. Uh that uh to be clear the the Willows and Birchwood site along the old Paul's Auto Garage site along west
side of Route 130. that that is a 3. But that houses 90 total housing units including uh one phase is 24 affordable family rental units and one uh phase is 66 senior and special needs units. So
that that density is 23 units to the acre on the uh Ingram and Birwood site. Um, but to be to go back to the initial question, um, dozens and dozens of sites. I don't know how many specific
sites CHA looked at. And, um, I I know from conversations with Mark Bowski that um, he probably and his team um, at CHA probably looked at 10, 20, 30 sites, potentially even more.
How is it? If there was 10, 20, 30 sites, how is this specific area ch because the township is in litigation here? She's asking, am I allowed to come back up? She's asking how was this site chosen beyond just litigation with the
this owner. I did speak with Mark actually yesterday. Um, and maybe there were other sites for this particular 25 unit. Why are those not shared with the public? Number one. Number two, nobody
had any idea about this particular unit being put up until um what June 13th when the plan came out. You guys talked about 1234 and 1274 and I don't agree with that either taking the farm, but that is what everybody talked about.
There was no talk at all about this particular parcel being taken. I had contact with the township council regarding this particular lot because I directly across the street from it and I had to find out that this was going up
across the street from me by finding the document and flipping 560 pages. Okay. I've been in direct contact with members of this office and I had no idea. We moved here based on a plan and we
attended meetings based on that high gate plan and it changed over and over and over again. Okay. So I again I'm not affordable housing. It's a great actual spot for affordable housing. If you look where I live, there's affordable housing scattered all around my house. That's
not the issue. The issue is good. It's there and it seems like it was chosen because of the litigation of Cranberry Town's owner and Kbury Township. I don't know if this is the way you noted these questions too. Non wanted to know the total cost of the projects and
also the height of the building on the do we have that yet? Yeah. The um let us just start with the height of the building. CJ that's proposing three story building at the corner of Old Trenton Road in South
Maine. Um the total cost is $75 million or actually um at least $75 million just because we know the land cost for two of those sites. But to be clear, the vast majority
um over $70 million is anticipated to be from the low-inccome housing tax credit program through uh HMFA for both the senior site as well as for the um family site
and the CA is from the DCA and for the uh CHA site. Uh at this point the township is um anticipated to cover the cost of land acquisition
um approximately 1 uh so 1.7 or 1 and I apologize 1.7 or 1.8 8 million for the CHA and uh unknown um uh
values for the 1 1234 South River Road and the 12 sub4 South River Road. Um so to be clear that the township anticipates having covered land costs um with
the vast vast majority of this $75 million plus uh financial perform of or all three sites to be covered by uh federal programs, state programs, county programs, um taking back a
mortgage and and so forth. And and the height Mary Beth on the on the CJ property on the corner. I believe it's 45 ft. Correct. Oh, I'm sorry. I don't know the the the actual height of the building. Um it's not even higher than the building that's right
next to it. I'm not certain about the specific story. the agreement. Can you hear me on this way or Okay. That the agreement I believe we have in place that can be confirmed um
is that it cannot be any higher than the existing parity common structure that is in place today. I had what about other question was um grand That's where the sites are right now. What does that mean? Decision that's
where the sites are and what's going to be put there. They're not we're not changing the sites. Okay. How'd you come up with that? A number of things. And let me let me just interject something here while we're still trying to put these
questions that um the planning board was not involved in any of the process here. The township committee and their consultants prepare this plan. Okay. We saw it about
the same time as everybody else has. All right. Consultants. Let me let me let me just be clear. The township committee did not have to involve the planning board by any means or anything like that. And the township committee
adhereed very strictly um to their confidentiality and and when they had properties and everything and not releasing any information. So kudos to them that they did not you know break silence or break any any confidentiality rules and land
you know evaluations. Okay. So all this along with everybody else and the planning board has to you know evaluate based on the plan that we see. There's not going to be any any changing
of this of the sites or switching one thing another okay right now but your public is speaking to you. I know the public is speaking to us, but we hope the plan is, as I said from the beginning, the plan is what you see is
what's going to be evaluated tonight. What's the point of public comment? It's an opportunity for you to make public. And who were the consultants had to do with competitive bidding but not going to be able to answer that with
respect to developers that were chosen? Yeah, I can just like just briefly say the fair housing act allows um a selection of a of a developer. It don't have to be through um literal
bidding. Well, I think so. What happens also just for the record, what happens if we don't get developer doesn't get tax credits bonds for short? So um it in my experience and um
again I have been doing this for you know 25 years just focused on affordable housing. uh the HMFA, Housing Mortgage Finance Agency that operates the uh tax credit for
affordable housing, current um anticipates that anyone who or any development that may not win an award in one round the following round. So, for instance,
um the municipality may be able to assist in um helping that developer um score better on on a tie on the tiebreaker system, may be able to um contribute additional funds or may be
able to assist in other ways for the developer. Um I have seen cases where tax credit developers um get an award um after the second or third attempt. Um you should know that tax credits again
it's a competitive um program and there is one time a year to apply and it's not unheard of for developers to have to apply multiple times. Um, having said that, there is there are other sources
of funds. Uh, the state of New Jersey just recently um utilized funds in concert with another HMFA funding source called the tax exempt bond financing. It's also
known as the percent tax credits as opposed to the more competitive 9%. And uh so the state of New Jersey had uh funds and I understand that u and these funds were called the affordable housing production fund. And I understand that
that uh source of funds may be um uh funded again for in in um in addition to what was already utilized. and the affordable housing production funds was
used by HMFA as well as the 4% tax credits to virtually offer the same type of funding that the 9% program. Um there are other avenues for uh
uh funds and ultimately um the uh yes the township will have to the county body will have to adopt a resolution of its intent to fund through potential through bonding any shortfall.
Um but the hope is through the selection of the Walters Group, a very experienced tax credit developer who um um virtually every year um that I have
researched every year. I researched the um awardees of the tax credit funds um and for years and years the Walters Group um does funding. they're not going to expend, you know, 200 $250,000
$300,000 thinking they won't fund. But specifically, um there are many other uh avenues for funding and um ultimately yes, the township is is the back stop. But
even if only 4% tax bond financing, that could easily fund um a large percentage of the of the known $75 million cost. Um I I do
not know the specific amount that the township may have to uh bond if uh all else fails. Um but the township will continue to um assist all of the developers whether it's CHA or um the
Walters group in um being as comp as uh successful as possible with the funding. There's a question regarding a developer fee and there was a reference to appendix X. Appendix X is a fair share ordinance so I'm not quite sure if they
were just asking S is I'm sorry. Okay. They're looking for the developers uh for the one two three four South Road. Yeah. So, the um as I testified a bit, the low-inccome housing tax credit
program does permit um any developer to um uh re um utilize or or uh factor in a development fee um for for their efforts. Um it's it's a lot of time.
It's a lot of um it's you know 45 year period of controls for this you know so it's a long-term effort of um development uh funding receiving funding
getting site plan approval getting all outside a approvals going ahead and and and construct you know constructing the the units and the long-term administration um so HMFA A has always uh permitted a developer's fee, it is
capped and whatever the um the fee listed in the proform that is the capped amount that any tax credit developer including um Ingramman in the third round. Um I I virtually have um at least
one uh tax credit site in in all of my uh housing plans across the state. So, it's not unusual and it is a um a known amount as per by HMFA. And there was one more question about um
why did the town look at the 9.9 acre farm across from lot 10. I I don't have a specific answer for that, but I'm happy to provide um the board and the resident with with the answer to that. You actually answered it for the
Alfier's property which is in full sight. Yeah, you actually answered it early if you just want to read that site again. Thank you. So that that site was uh approved I'm going to say it came in for amended approval approximately uh 3
years ago for I want to say don't quote me but approximately 2 million square ft of warehousing uh two warehouses. I think previously it was going to be a multiple series of buildings but um the
the approval is amended. So there is full approval on that site. Um that's that's what I'd like to say about that site. Can I speak further? No, I'm not going to open up the public
portion again. Okay. Thank you. Um, at this time if the board has any question Mary Beth that they'd like to ask, please feel free to do so. Um, I have one one question for Mary
Beth. Given given the nature of um all the talents that you're now currently working with and everything, um what are the chances if for what if if this plan didn't get approved tonight? What are the chances that the town would
be sued with a builder's revenue lawsuit? Think it's a 100% chance, okay, that the So, in other words, we're saying that and given given nature of of um
what's going on with with the state. We're looking at doubling basically the size of town here if that happened. And and and thank you for saying it that way. So, and I I meant to cover that that um the purposefully for decades now
has purposefully worked with Cranberry Housing Associates and and other developers for 100% affordable housing sites. Um it it's just you're addressing your obligation with just affordable housing unit for
the most part. Um and you're exactly right, Mr. Chairman. um any uh builder's remedy lawsuit, also known as exclusionary zoning lawsuit. Um those lawsuits will be accompanied by an
inclusionary development where there's mainly market rate units and typically the courts have per um anywhere from 80% market rate to um even 85% market rate units um for rental affordable
inclusionary development. And so you're just getting a small portion the total development as affordable. And and Mr. Chairman, you're right that um we can do the math. Um even I even I can
do the math. Um probably even in my head that you know to address 2 and 65 total affordable units um Township wouldn't have access to you know potentially access to to bonuses and such. Um, but
you know that 265 divided in even by 20% you're you're looking at,300. Um, maybe I can't do some math in my head, but you're looking at clearly 13 to,400 total housing units to produce 20% set
aside just the 265 affordable units. Okay, thank you. I just I again I wanted to clarify that because that's an important part of going to be going to be our decision. And what's the
what's our current housing? About 1300 units. So we will literally double the units in town. And correct me if I'm wrong. You know, you're talking about utilizing a land mass probably 3 400 acres but you
know in size to develop that. Oh no. Um well potentially more. Okay. Um, uh, yeah, it it it really depends, but it it's a it's it would be catastrophic for
the township. Thank you. Excuse me. Could you repeat what your point was? I didn't get if we don't approve this plan tonight. Okay. We will be subject to that. Subject to
that, which will be 100%. And one one more question. As it stands right now, we have a deadline. The township has a deadline to pass this plan by June 30th. We don't have time to amend it to do anything at this point. This is a a plan to protect
the township basically from builder's remedies. And you know, whatever happens after that, fine. But we have to get it filed. Have a deadline. And it's a court imposed deadline. Many municipalities have tried to go before courts to get that deadline extended. Nobody's been successful thus far. And so this is what
we have to work with. We have to, you know, abide by the law and that's what we're doing. I mean, maybe I'm laughing. Um, I just want to reiterate what Wayne said at the beginning. As a planning board, we for obvious reasons, important reasons, we
weren't involved in these. Um and your question the builder's remedy has been my biggest concern throughout this process because we can't have another 1300 houses that'll crush us. Additionally, so if I do my math if we
have 1300 plus 1300 I'm sorry I've lost if I do my math 1300 is 2600 We can't hear you. I'm sorry. Start your math. I was a cheerleader at one point. If I do my math, 1300 plus 1300 is 2600. And 10
years down the road, we're going to be in a situation where we could do another 20%. So, we're going to be adding 500 potentially. Additionally, there won't be an ounce of land left in this town. Nothing. And then my other question is
or point I hope is that whatever ends up approved and goes forward, will the planning board have to have, you know, do our due diligence like we always do for everything from a sign on the turnpike to, you know, to whatever. Just
just praying that we have that opportunity. Yes. And that's a excellent point that just brought up and I was going to actually bring that up um at the end here, but I'll bring you you asked the question. Um board will be
heavily involved with each one of the sites in planning like we have always been um down to you know curving color of the front door everything in between. So um just because it goes if if it does
get passed and if it goes to the next step we will be involved with each one of the sites in the site development process. you know where the where the um drainage system is, the driveways, the runoff, parking lot size, lighting,
birming, soup the nuts just like we do with any any site that comes before us. Okay. So yes, we will have you know 100% input on that and and approval process too. So,
it's not going to be just, oh, you know, you know, you got it and off and walk off to the races. No. Now, caveat on that is a builder's remedy lawsuit. We're going to sit here and twiddle our thumbs because we'll be cut out of the
entire process. We will have no input. This, this town, you know, you'll have a judge or a magistrate being the planning board. Okay? So, that that's that's the caveat here. Does any other board members have any
questions? All right. Um, given that there's no other questions by the board, I'm going to have Sharon read a resolution. This is a resolution approving and adopting a housing element and fair
share plan to satisfy the township's fourth round affordable housing obligation. Whereas on March 20th, 2024, Governor Murphy signed into law PL2 24 chapter 2 establishing a new framework for determining an municipality's
affordable housing obligations under the New Jersey Supreme Court's Mount Laurel doctrine and the New Jersey Fair Housing Act NJSA 507D-301 etc. And whereas pursuant to a site uh amend section F1B, each municipality was
to adopt a binding resolution no later than January 31st, 2025 determining its present and prospective fair share obligation for the fourth round of affordable housing obligations uh fourth round. And whereas the township committee of the township of Cranberry
adopted resolution R1-523 on January 27th, 2025 identifying present and prospective fair share obligations for the fourth round as follows. Present need zero prospective need 265. Whereas inance
with the FHA and administrative directive number 14-24 issued by the administrative office of the courts on December 13th, 2024, the township filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the matter declaratory judgment action
of the township of Cranberry, Middle Sex County pursuit number MIDL57225 on January 28th, 2025. by identifying its present and prospective fair share obligations for the fourth round as said
above and committee to adopting and submitting a fourth round housing element and fair share plan as required by the FHA. And whereas on for March 14th, 2025, the Honorable Thomas Dusky GC issued an
order fixing municipal obligations for present present need and prospective need for the fourth round in accordance with the obligation as set forth above and authorizing the township to proceed with preparation and adoption of proposed housing element fair share plan. And whereas pursuant to the
statute that I already um mentioned before now section F2A directive 1424 each municipality must file an and as part of its DJ action a housing element fair share plan and proposed drafts of appropriate zoning and other ordinances
and resolutions to implement its prep respective obligations no later than June 30th 2025. And whereas Mary Beth Leran, AICP, and Eric Harris, MCP of Clark, Kaitton Hints, prepared a proposed housing element fair share plan
on behalf of the municipality gives you the full title um for the fourth round town Cranberry dated June 13, 2025. And whereas pursuant to NJSA405D-28, Victory Township Planning Board and its capacity as a planning board may prepare
and adopt or the master plan or component parts thereof after a public hearing to guide the use of the lands within the municipality in a manner which promotes the health and safety and pro general welfare. And whereas upon notice duly provided pursuant to
NJSA455D-13, the Cranberry Township Planning Board held a public hearing on the 2025 fourth round housing element fair share plan on June 24th, 2025 during which the fourth round housing element fair share plan was presented to the board and public.
An opportunity for comments and questions were provided. And whereas upon the conclusion of the public hearing and as required to assist the municipality in meeting its constitutional obligations as promated by the New Jersey Supreme Court, the board determined that the proposed
fourth round to housing element fair share plan is designed to achieve the goal of access to affordable housing to meet present and prospective housing needs in accordance with NJSA 52 Poland 27D-310. And whereas during the hearing, Miss
Loner can testify that the paragraph labeled quote approvable quote on pages 58 and 71 of the proposed fourth round housing element fair share plan should state that both sites may be either reszoned or subject to the redevelopment statute.
And whereas by the adoption of this resolution, the board memorialized adoption of the proposed fourth round housing element fair share plan as the hall fair share plan components of the cranberry township master plan in accordance with NJSA 405D-28
the FHA and directive 44. Now therefore be it resolved by the Cranberry Township Planning Board as follows. Number one, the above recital are incorporated and made part hereof as it was set forth at length herein. two, the board hereby approves and adopts the fourth round
housing element and fair share share plan enacted here to as exhibit A the 2025 housing element and fair share plan components of the Cranberry Township master plan with the amendments to pages 58 and 71 to provide that both sites may
be either reszoned or subject to the redevelopment statute as testified to Mrs. Miss Lon and uh number three, the board secretary shall forth with cause notice of the adoption of this resolution and the fourth round housing element share plan to be published in
the official newspapers of the township. The secretary is um authorized and directed to transmit a copy of the adopted fourth round fair share plan and certified copy of this resolution to the township clerk, township committee of the town of Cranberry. Uh the board
recommends that the fourth housing element fair share plan share plan be reviewed and endorsed by the township committee of the township of cranberry for submission to the court in connection with the town DJ action in accordance with the fair housing act and directive 14-24.
Clark Kaitton Hints is hereby authorized and directed to provide a copy of the adopted fourth round housing element fair share plan and a certified copy of this resolution to the county planning boards and New Jersey office of planning advocacy in accordance with requirements NJSA 405D-13
and this resolution shall take effect immediately. All right to approve the resolution as stated. Can I have a second please? Will the secretary please call the role?
All right. Roll call for resolution approving and adopting the fourth round housing element and fair share plan. Miss Anderson, yes. Mr. Dobby, yes. Mr. Giddings, yes. Miss,
yes. Mr. Mucelli, yes. And Mr. W. Yes. Thank you. Motion pass. I want to thank everybody for coming out tonight. I know this has not been easy. No round of affordable housing that this town has had to tackle has been easy.
Not one. I'm hoping that we all work together and put together a good plan as as stated in this plan and make it work for for our community and hope that as you move forward into the process
again people conduct themselves in a civil manner and not resort to threats or violence or any you know derogatory comment toward you know my board or the chip committee. So again, thank you very
much. And as I'd mentioned, when you if and when the state approves our plan, this is the next step. We get to send it in and it's up to them to see what they're going to do. At that point in time, if they do approve it, then we will go ahead and start the planning
process because from my understanding, we have to have a shovel ready project two years. So there's not going to be a lot of time every and everybody will be invited to the you know we'll make full notice of you know when we're going to be discussing plans so people can come
in and you know look at the plans in the comments questions or modifications as we see fit and thank you everybody for coming out tonight. I appreciate your time in this matter. Motion to adjourn the meeting.
Okay. All those in favor? Opposed? Thank you very much. Thank you. Good night everyone. Take your Never see.