Good evening. I'd like to call to order township committee meeting for Monday, May the 12th, 2025. If you're able and willing, would you please stand for the pledge of allegiance? To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic
for it stands nationy andice for all. It's a little lag out there on it. Okay. So, we're going to move on to the open public meeting statement pursuant to the open public meetings act. Not know that this meeting was sent to the press Trenton Times Home News Tribune on
January 3rd, 2025 posted on the township's website and sent to those who requested a copy of this notice. Move on to roll call. Mr. Christopher here. Mrs. Elbidawi here. Dr. Rogers here. Mr. Scott here. Mayor Coner here. Thank you. Okay. Are there any additions or changes
to our agenda tonight? None. Okay. Can I get a motion to approve the minutes from our last meeting, April 28th, 2025? Motion. Second. Sorry. Thank you. We're going to move on to roll call. Mr. Christopher, yes. Mrs.
Obidawi, yes. Dr. Rogers, yes. Mr. Scott, yes. And Mary Kirum, yes. It's unanimous. Thank you. Okay. Uh we'll move on to reports and communications. So members of the committee
um who wants to go first? I don't mind. I don't have um I don't mind. Uh one of my boards met which is the uh the library board. We had a meeting and um they are working through their strategic not the strategic plan but their their library packet and uh I'm sitting on the subcommittee working
through that with um namely Michael Ferrante and and Kirsty. Uh they had a little bit of an issue last week with the building. Unfortunately, a gutter fell off of the U library and it uh broke a couple of the HVAC systems and it um pushed I think it pushed back a
PSE and GG meter. Um Mr. Bowski, who's sitting with us today, was very instrumental in helping to get the some of that the gutters repaired and I believe they went around the entire building to resecure all the gutters. And um they're going to work through whether it's insurance money or whatever
to try to to remedy the the HVAC systems that are currently not working. Um I did with like so much joy and pride want to share with you all that Liz Beagonis, one of the uh library um staff members uh is a recipient of the NJLA award for equity, diversity, and inclusion. She
will be honored at the conference in Atlantic City. Um so congratulations to her. And the library continues to register people. We now have 56% of the town with library cards. So good job, Cranberry. Any questions for me?
Okay, Robert. Uh none of my boards and commissions met, but I continue to work on uh with solar landscaping on getting the word out about community solar. You can save money by um by enrolling in a community
solar program. Um we removed the outdated information. No longer a third-party billing. You'll get build directly through PSENG. Um and um we're looking at ways to possibly do automatic enrollment programs. um and a way to send out
information in a new code in order to participate in community community um solar and a new landing site. Um and that's it. Any questions for Barbara? Rob. So, well, this is this is usually
my quiet week. Um we did have a uh a school board meeting that I was able to attend. Um generally, it's the end of the school year. Lots of fun concerts and goings on at the school. Um, of course there's the ongoing construction with unbelievably
great fast progress. It feels like putting together giant grown-up Legos, which is really neat to watch. Um, I think the big night this month is the night of celebration on May the 21st. Um, which is at the schoolboard meeting
to celebrate lots of kids and teacher of the year presentation will be happening on that day as well. Um, go to the school's website. Lots again of of fun school year-end activities. Pat,
uh, like my fellow committee members, I didn't have any of my, um, leazison boards meet this week, so I don't have any updates. So, okay. The only thing I had is we had a very quick planning board meeting, which those words don't usually go in the same sentence together, but there were no applications. Uh so it was a really uh
quick meeting um to move through. So that's all I had and we have a chief here tonight to any other updates. Okay. We have our chief of police here this evening to provide our monthly
report. Welcome. Good evening. Officially uh for the month of April. Um I had my administrative assistant send out the uh monthly report. Uh summones are ahead of last
year. Um motor vehicle stops overall are ahead of last year for the month and for the year. Um, crashes unfortunately are starting to creep back up. We had a nice little lull. Um, it was a very mild winter. Um, and I think we had in May alone, I think
two days ago, we had like seven of them in one day. So, unfortunately, nicer weather that tends to happen. Um, calls for service. Again, we didn't report this last year. I just thought it was something important um that we share um over 2,600 calls for service for the
month of April alone. um almost 10,500 for the year. Um overtime is identified under the categories as set forth training, shift coverage and shift extensions. Again, um
to reiterate, training is simply um mandated whether we need it for um departmental um proficiency and or uh state requirements. So it all comes down to that um and the numbers are there.
they are creeping down after a nice couple conversations. So, I'm doing my best to uh mitigate those numbers uh and offsetting what I can. Um tactic bureau again, there's a bunch of stuff that says NA at the end. Um we just didn't
report it. So, it's just uh again something that I'm trying uh trying out and seeing. Uh I am working on a uh ladder as we did speak before. So hopefully within a month or so I'll be able to share something with you all and then um possibly the next month put that
out. Um I'll take any questions. I know you guys got a packed agenda so I was trying to be as brief as I could. I made it to the end of Old Trenton Road. Okay. Before a police officer on a motorcycle pulled up and I got to see what I believe was a couple hundred bicycles.
Yes. Traveling down Route 130. Yes. While it made me incredibly late for an appointment, I was happy to sit there and it was well worth it to see the participation. So, could you just kind of give a recap of that tour is uh to honor those officers um um officers all
over the country ride for, you know, fallen officers that aren't able to have a voice. So, um we did uh lose an officer a couple years ago. um you know medically technically on the job in the line of duty death but not while
working. Um so it's tough. Uh we were advised that his name is going to be engraved and etched in that wall um possibly next year. So we were very proud of that um to celebrate that. So there uh some of our officers are down there uh actively riding uh in it and
it's just mindboggling how many miles they do. Um, so you know, uh, I believe tomorrow is the day they land into Washington. They ride into Washington and they have a big ceremony and then they'll be back. Knock on wood, everybody's safe and sound so far and we're moving forward. Good. Thank you
for that. Are any of the members that are cycling this year new to this u event? Yes. Um, one repeat rider, Sergeant Pace, um, Officer Cybert is new, couple years here. Um and uh and
then there is an assist um support they call him. Um officer Vital is also uh new and then Sergeant Mayor is not new to it. He's he's rode and uh and has done support before as well. Okay. We thank them all. Uh real quick, the um I
know you're still working on the plotter, but what uh um platform were you envisioning that being on? There's so many out there. I I'm not looking to um put put out people's names or uh pedigree information for lack of a
better term, but just to say, hey, these were the serious events that happened and we should be sharing it, right? We shouldn't be hiding anything. Uh Cranberry is a beautiful place to live. Um and people are people. So, you know, trans or otherwise that come through and it's just something uh my goal is is
communication, right, and transparency. So, that's what I'm looking at. I assure you that once that um template is done, I will uh be more than happy to share it if it's just with the mayor uh and then she shares it with everyone or we'll just send it like a do monthly report. So nice. One last question. You
mentioned we talked about bicycles. Are we going to have bike patrols again? We do. We have we have bike patrol. Um training is an issue for me right now. So um the younger ones and the motivated ones, the class is pretty intense. Um so it requires u when I went
it was seven or eight days of eight 10 hour days. So um we are going to have it. We still have some that are certified. I do have four functioning bikes. Um it's just getting the officers on the bike. So but for the big events like uh the parade, Fifth of July fireworks, Halloween. Anywhere where we
can make an impact where a bike cranberry day can really be utilized, we're going to have it. Cool. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you everyone. Thank you. No problem. Okay, we're going to move along
for our first uh reading. No, what am I first? Oh, sorry. Vacancies. I'm happy to report that we had filled one on the environmental commission. So, we currently still have a first alternate on the environmental commission and a second alternate on the
environmental commission. We have the second alternate open on municipal alliance and we have a full membership on shade tree um uh full membership for the trade sheet commission. So being we have a full house tonight if anyone is interested in volunteering those are the
open vacancies that we have to volunteer. So we're going to move on to the first reading of an ordinance that we have on tonight's agenda. Uh, Cranberry Township Ordinance number 05-25-06, an ordinance amending the code
of the township of Cranberry, chapter 72, entitled Construction Codes Uniform. And that second reading will be scheduled for May 27th, 2025. If we could have a motion for the introduction, please. Motion. Thank you.
And a second. Second. And then we're going to move on to roll call. Uh, Mr. Christopher, yes. Mrs. Eladawi, yes. Dr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Sky. Yes. American. Yes. Thank you. That's unanimous. Um, okay. So, before the second reading
of our upcoming ordinance, I want to just take the time to explain a process because everybody took the time to come here and want to make sure that there's plenty of time for public comment. So, I'm going to read a statement that I alone am responsible for. um followed by
our attorney um Kevin who will explain a little bit more in detail about the ordinance itself and the intent of the ordinance and then if there's any of our township committee members that would like to make any sort of statement we'll allow them to do that and then the floor is all yours. Um and I will remind
everybody that public comment is limited to three minutes each. There's a lot of you here. If you run out of time and there's someone that wants to take your statement and carry on it so that you get all the words out, we'll do that. Everybody that's waiting outside, if you could swap out with them so that they
have a chance to come in and that their seat is taken by you, we will try to do our best, which is why all of our upfront municipal business we tried to move through very quickly in approximately 16 minutes so that we could give everybody time here. Okay, so
with that said, um, good evening residents of Cranberry, both in attendance tonight or joining us virtually. As always, regardless of the topic or the temperature, it's good when the community makes their voices heard and raises their concerns. And I look forward to hearing from many, if not all
of you this evening. I'd like to start by addressing the numerous public comments that have been made uh since our last TC meeting in April where ordinance 042505 was first read. I have personally printed, read, and
highlighted over I want to say 400 comments that have been published in on social media. I think people were asking to make sure that those comments and that you wanted to make sure that people were listening and when I want to give you my assurances that I have read them.
After doing so, I pulled what I believe are a couple of top threads that I was hearing continuously um that require more information, clarity, and honestly just some simple factchecking. And I realize that many of these comments, like most things, are
assumptions because either you don't have the facts or they weren't provided to you or more information wasn't provided to you. And if you leave with one thought tonight, it's that affordable housing criteria has changed dramatically roundto round over the last
40 years, making the application of older, outdated methodologies absolutely impossible and illegal. Thus the need for us to change how we identify properties. The first thread is kind of speed to decision making that we're
making rushing we're rushing this process that it's fast and ill-informed decisions fast judgments that were settling or blindly taking the advice of experts as specified in the FAQs that I had distributed. This has not been a fast process. Although if you compare
it, it's break neck speed compared to round three that was dragged on for over 10 years at the state and county level. Round four was announced in March of 2020. One month later, in April of 2024, I'm sorry, March of
2024. One month later, in April of 2024, the township began working with the same affordable housing attorney and consultants it had worked in past rounds. An affordable housing subcommittee was formed as it also was in years past. Property identification
began immediately through the subcommittee and communicated to the entire TC. Closed sessions were held to reviews countless properties and their viability to prepare for the state to reveal our obligation numbers. Hypothesizing our obligation numbers
were going to be greater than round three, we began vetting affordable housing development firms, including the ones used in the one used for round three. October of 2024, the township was notified of our affordable housing
obligation number of 314, which was then adjusted down to the published 265 number. Additionally, CHA was asked to create a property identification plan focused on a 25 unit or below property. So to be clear, this TC, apart from Mr.
Christopher, has been engaged in the round four process for 13 months. I personally don't feel this was a gun to the head process. This brings me to the next common thread of property identification and statemandated criteria. sewer, water, close to mass
transportation, and a 200 foot warehouse distribution buffer zone. The last criteria came only three months ago after we had already reviewed a sign significant number of properties. Knowing criteria could be added at a moment's notice is exactly why we
consult and engage with experts. As I stated in the mayor's update, round four is different than round three, which is different than round two, which is different than round one. Now, in the middle of the original round four, it's different than round four with that new
250 foot buffer zone. So, even within the round we're in, the floor is now moving under our feet. So any statement saying this township is not following the way it has been has for decades is factually true but completely misleading because we cannot follow those same
processes because the criteria has changed. Taking into consideration this new criteria, I hope residents can understand how the funnel of properties began getting smaller and smaller and smaller. Each criteria will take one at a time. Sewer and water. This is the
most restrictive of the requirements for our town in terms of available land. Cranberry as a township has very limited land available west of Route 30 that can meet this criteria. I know because I live in a community without sewer. Due to our open space and protected farmland
already in place, there simply was no way to meet the 265 unit obligation and meet the sewer and water requirement. Mass transit availability. One could argue we're currently not meeting this criteria, but it will be highly
enforced. There is no train or bus route that goes through downtown Main Street, Cranberry. We are a transit desert in my opinion, except for Route 130. We are working closely with Middle Sex County and updated New Jersey Transit proposals
for our area to help satisfy this requirement. The 200 foot warehouse and distribution center buffer. This requirement added late into the process had a profound effect on our land availability. Land that had been identified was now ruled out. When you
combine all of this criteria, the TC was left with a very short list. Our obligation is 265. Our goals have always been more ambitious. Ideally, integration into our town, seamlessly, allowing seniors and
families to feel a part of this special community and access to incredible schools. It became very clear from October to March of 2025 that the criteria and goals were at odds with one another, which brings me to the next thread. Cranberry Village statements
surrounding the township not wanting affordable housing, not wanting more residents, not wanting more cars, traffic, etc. This is unequivocally not true. Approximately 429 units are located in downtown Cranberry, all of
which have access to Main Street. Stating that walking distance to the village was a top criteria is also not true. It was a goal based on land availability at the time. Traffic impact on the downtown was not mentioned in the
FAQs and the mere suggestion that affordable housing is not welcome in downtown or in Cranberry in general is offensive. Let me conclude with the following. I am not a lawyer. I am not an affordable housing consultant. I'm not a lobbyist. I'm not an attorney.
Disrespect. I'm not an affordable housing developer. This also is not the criteria of my job on the township committee. When challenges arise, we work and seek the advice of experts to help us navigate the current situation. We have to work and be compliant with
New Jersey state law and the New Jersey Constitution. The fight to change this is at the state level. Municipalities have been given a disproportionately tighter time frame for compliance than round three. So, so far we are compliant
with the law and will submit our plan to the state as required by June 30th. Bypassing this ordinance, bypassing this ordinance, we are now able to do our due diligence on these properties, negotiate the be to the best of our ability and
avoid builder's remedy. With that, I'll open up to my fellow TC. I'll open it up to Kevin to explain the ordinance further and then to our township committee members if they'd like to make any sort of statement. Thank you for listening. Good. Uh thank you, mayor. Uh and the
one uh comment that I will add to your uh eloquent comments. Um not only has the criteria changed, um what is before you tonight is an ordinance that is a break from past uh tradition that is built on the success of the prior planning efforts. Uh I was here uh
definitely through the third round and at the end of the second round um where it was a very deliberate uh move by the governing bodies uh through the years to effectuate the master plan in order to try to consolidate and and focus and preserve the village by allowing
residential growth and development to occur around the village on this side of Route 130. The success of those efforts is part in part what brings us here tonight because those opportunities of any size or scale that allows the municipality to meet its obligation have
been maxed out. And that is why there is an ordinance before you tonight uh specifically and and for the record and for the hearing it is proposed ordinance 04-25005. Uh, and this is an ordinance that authorizes the acquisition of certain real property located at
1234 South River Road. Uh, officially block 2.01 lot 1 and 1274 South River Road, which is block 5, lot 1601 for affordable housing purposes.
Um, as the mayor had alluded to, um, the first two rounds were relatively, um, stable in that KA, the state agency, was tasked to create obligations for municipalities and municipalities were able to formulate plans to meet those
obligations. Cranberry did so successfully uh and with foresight which really positioned Cranberry um for the mess that occurred with round three when COA changed its methodology uh and ultimately over 10 years of litigation resulted in it going back to the courts
in 2015. uh and Cranberry was again able to actually uh move forward, create a plan and get through the court process um very deliberately and with forethought that actually then initiated the planning that it culminates in
tonight. Um while Cranberry was kind of looking forward and we were working on implementing the round three plan, uh there was some initial uh the homework that was done uh through 2015 and 2016 to do that uh formed the basis that was
able to give over to the committee um which we were able to look at. Since that time, Cranberry also has continued to grow uh which also limited opportunities that were available. In March of last year, the New Jersey legislature and signed by the governor amended the Fair Housing Act that the
mayor alluded to, uh, which changed the landscaping, changed crediting opportunities. Um and then when you pair that with some of the other planning changes that are coming down, for instance, the 200 foot 50 foot buffer uh that will be going around warehouse um unduly affects a municipality like
Cranberry that is dependent upon both a deliberative planning exercise to consolidate residential development and also has a significant amount of warehousing development. Uh those parameters don't necessarily affect other municipalities that do not have those types of demographics. Um that is
what forced uh the committee to start looking at what the options are and the two properties that are set forth in this ordinance again that's 1234 South River Road and 1274 South River Road meet a host of criteria uh that has um
suitable access points suitable utilities um and uh are in a position that would enable the municipality to actually meet its obligation which is very important for preservation of the master plan um in order for the
municipality to control its own growth and development this round going into the future. uh and also um takes into account uh allows the municipality to plan for growth in a manner that
addresses the families that are in need and also reduces some of the other financially crippling aspects that municipalities face trying to meet these affordable housing obligations. um that while the housing becomes available and which is a great thing and it's an important and a constitutional
obligation to do there are real practical real world considerations that go with having to expand transportation networks, roadways, infrastructure and the impacts on schools. Um so these two sites will actually allow the municipality to proceed with a very
wellthoughtout plan um looking at maximizing those opportunities, meeting the obligation. The ordinance itself sets forth the public purpose and this is to meet the municipality's constitutional obligation to provide a realistic opportunity for affordable
housing in this round. Uh and it allows the municipality to take all of those necessary steps. Um so for instance get the appraisals, do any due diligence and officially authorizes negotiations with the property owners um so that we can
actually put together and submit uh a compliant plan at the end of next month which is uh the obligation under the amendments to the fair housing act that occurred last year. So, and and it's also important to mention,
which I did put in the FAQs, when we submit that plan to the state, based on what we know today, we'll release that number to the public, but it'll be made public and we believe at this point that that formal
number will be south of 200. So, the 265 we believe will go down based on everything we know today. So just a little for sight into that but that will become formalized when we submit that plan the end of June mayor and I'll just add on that just so because I know there
were some uh comments and some individuals had reached out there were uh questions about whether or not the governing body in some ways criticism of the governing body for not challenging the number. Uh I just will uh say that challenging the number was examined and and was part of a very deliberative
thought process. Um when the fair housing act was amended, it did task the department of community affairs with essentially um coming up with basic numbers that municipalities were able to then look at and either rely upon or challenge. And we did look at
challenging the number. But as the mayor had alluded to earlier, Cranberry's mathematical calculations are actually 314. Uh that is based on a host of factors within the housing region and it's very technical. Um but essentially that number was 314 by virtue of caps
that the municipality is able to take advantage of. It brings the mathematical calculation from 314 down to 265. So any attempt to challenge the calculated obligation would have been
based upon the 314 number not the 265 number. So any challenge would have had to reduce the obligation significantly in order for the municipality to have any benefit of that. It also ran the risk of u two
things. There are very specific factors. There are three primary factors that go into the calculation of that obligation and any challenge of the obligation ram two um two potential issues. One, if you're going to put your number in play, those factors would be evaluated both
for a a a negative adjustment, meaning it would bring your obligation down, but if through that process they found errors the other way, it also ram the risk that your number could go up. The other thing that a challenge would have done was invited challenges from
developers or advocacy groups that were challenging municipalities central challenges um because of the implications it does both to the regional need and the entire court process that is set up under the fair housing act amendments. So when we
looked at the data sets um it was uh believed in looking at those factors that there was um no real appreciable way that that number was going to get anywhere below the 265 by virtue of the cap that would have made it worthwhile
to actually run the risk of the other uh kind of aspects of a challenge. Thank you Kevin. Any other TC member like to make a comment? I I'm just wondering out loud. I don't know how many people really understand what the builder's remedy is and maybe
if you could just very simply um put that forward as to what that what the risk of that looks like. Thank you. Sure. Um so uh in the original Mount Laurel decision um basically the the original Mount Laurel case stemmed from
a municipality South Jersey Mount Laurel um that attempted to control uh essentially the demographics of the municipality by using the powers of zoning. And so they kind of uh in a plain English kind of way they decided that they wanted large to bring in
certain you know demographics into the town. The Supreme Court struck that down saying that if your municipalities do not have to use the powers of zoning, that is a discretionary power, but if they do so, they have to do it equitably for all
members of society that that could potentially reside in the municipality. Um, Mount Laurel uh thanked the Supreme Court for their opinion, promptly threw it away, did not listen, which resulted in the Mount Laurel 2 case. And that's where the court, the New Jersey Supreme
Court gave teeth to the doctrine and said that if a municipality is not compliant with its constitutional obligation. It will allow developers, property owners, interested parties to actually file a challenge in court um
asserting that the municipality is not compliant with its obligation. And then the burden shifts to the municipality to actually affirmatively demonstrate to the court that it is compliant with its obligations. And if it is unable to do so, then it allow the court will award
what is called a builder's remedy. And that allows a developer to take a piece of property and supersede the zoning and the master plan um and essentially build units on site under the opaces of the court and under the approval of the court. So, it essentially supersedes
your planning boards, your zoning boards, your master plan process. Uh, setting aside a portion of its the development units for affordable housing purposes. Um, that has tremendous repercussions because as I alluded to before, once a developer is entitled to
a builder's remedies, other things can happen. Sewer lines get extended, roads may need to get widened, traffic gets increased. Um there is a significant generally speaking approximately 80% of the units that get constructed are market rate units so that you end up
with a split where they're providing about 20% affordable housing. So if they were able to do a 100 unit development for instance they could put 20 affordable housing units on and use the 80 market rate units to actually financially fund the construction of those 20. For a town like um Cranberry,
which also uh does not have its own high school, there are school district impacts because with that mix of market rate units, family units, the affordable housing units. Um, it also there are some towns that it compelled them to actually look at
expansions of of school facilities, constructing whole new school facilities or for instance in a town like Cranberry, um, it may actually have implications for a the receiving district in this town, you know, for for Princeton. Um, recognizing that the receiving district of Princeton also has
its own affordable housing obligations. And so the school they are actually in the process now of looking at how to accommodate the school children from Princeton's own development. So it could actually have exponential uh impacts for Cranberry and other towns that are situated like Cranberry. So in other
words, if a builder's remedy were to be granted in Cranberry, uh the Can you not hear me? Okay. So, if a if a builder's remedy was granted in Cranberry, how many units at the end of a builder's remedy, how many units would
exist after construction roughly? Um, well, if you're looking at, you know, normally, uh, a 20% set aside, I mean, you, you know, you're going to be looking at, you know, probably just under a thousand units, 800 units that that could be built under builder's
remedies with a 20% set aside. And it also um the 20% is a general rule but as part of the court process the developer um will put its financial proforma or can put its financial proform up to the court if there are impediments. So if they have to run infrastructure, sewer
lines and those types of things that either may need additional densities or the set aside may need to change um in order for the project to be financially feasible. And you saw uh this most recently on scale uh postcoid with supply chain issues and the cost of of
goods going up um that developers that that projects that financially pencled out uh prior to the COVID you know the pandemic actually did not and needed you know governmental subsidies or needed additional densities um or you end up with quality of construction you know
issues where they they'll try to reduce the cost for the development. So there are exponential factors that go into that uh as well. So um and it's also kind of mindful of the changes at the federal level. Um the other side of it is is that there is kind of an impetus to try to get the plan essentially put
together and submitted because you know even at the state level that the the tax credit program that funds a lot of municipal affordable housing uh are federal low-income housing tax credits and certainly with the changes that are going on at the federal level right now and uncertainties on funding. Um it it
makes it all the more uh challenging to put together a plan um that balances all the needs of the municipalities and makes it feasible and to do so in a manner that we can do so and try to get in before the buffers change. Um which will also limit additionally land area
that can be utilized or you'll be acquiring property that will not be suitable for the use of affordable housing. Um and and then the changes at at funding levels, you know, both at the state and federal level. What is the date that Cranberry is at risk for um
this builder's remedy potentially? What what is the date after which the outside date? So the Fair Housing Act amendment specifies that a housing element and fair share plan. That's essentially our affordable housing plan must be submitted to the court within 48 hours of adoption and no later than June 30th
of this year, essentially a month and a half from now. um and that there are almost no extensions that were built into the Fair Housing Act that that did exist in prior rounds. So you could petition COA if you could
explain and and seek an extension. Uh you could do that in the court process. We had court rules that are essentially for good cause shown. A judge had within its discretion to grant uh extensions. The Fair Housing Act essentially curtailed that. And it's you know trai
basically it's an act of god that would enable a municipality um to get an extension. Other than that it is a drop deadad deadline. And what do you mean by act of god? So uh if there were for instance if we had a meeting scheduled and and um most recently uh you know in central Pennsylvania they had uh you
know essentially tornadoes and stuff like that that caused power outages throughout you know the western half of the state. Something like that. Hurricane Sandy, you know, an issue like that that essentially caused municipal operations to cease and essentially to go into emergency mode. Uh that would
probably qualify short of that. Um because there are, you know, additional due diligence, because there are, you know, looking to do sites because of other external, you know, pressures. Uh those are not going to be sufficient reasons under the amendments to the Fair Housing Act, um to get an extension.
Thank you. Just real quick, I know there's some um I'll be I'll be quick. Um as the newest member of this committee, I just want to not speak for all of us, but I want to say this brings us no joy, right? We're we're in this position and
we are not thrilled to be in this position, and I want everybody to understand that. That's number one. Number two, again being the newest member of this committee, I'm thoroughly impressed by the due diligence that has been done prior to me coming on board.
It was for prior to me, it was about 12 to 10 to 12 months of work that went into this. And that's time spent by everyone else up at this table. That's number two. Number three, I think
there's a real concern on Facebook that there are backroom deals being done. Sorry. There's a real concern that there are on Facebook that there are concerns about backroom deals. The five of us
have differences of opinions all the time, but I have faith in my fellow committeemen that that is not the case. And it's it it actually that insinuation really hurt me. I I think it's
unnecessary and I don't think it's true. Um we're here to do the work. We're here to do what's right for the town and we're in a spot that is again not great and we do not take joy in this proceeding. Thanks.
Okay, with that we're going to open it up to public comment. just kind of echoing Rob's comments. What? Louder. Louder. Um, this has been a a 13-month process and I know that uh social media, Facebook, you know, it's
it's really an echo chamber and people people hear things and they don't know the context. They don't know the history. Um, but this has been 13 months. You know, as you heard from Kevin, our attorney, the the stipulation and regulations kept getting narrower and narrower, and we only have a certain number of properties we can look at. I
can tell you that we looked at over 50 properties. Every property owner was contacted or attempted to contact either through phone call or for um um certified letters through the mail or actually in person. Um and you know, one of our primary goals in looking at these properties was to not take away
someone's residence, which I think we we've addressed. Um and you know, as as animals have residences as as Kevin uh brought up. Um you know, we really want to avoid builder's remedy. It's a a zero- sum game for us if we get into
that situation. And you know, as as Rob referenced, you know, this is not where we want to be, but we're trying to do what's best for the town, trying to get ahead of this. And you know, we're we're in a difficult position, but um you know, this is really the the best of um some bad choices that we have to make.
With that being said, I also want to just commend the idea of getting affordable housing. I mean, nationally, there's a housing crisis. Um, and this, I think, is is a way to help alleviate some of that pain for people. Um, and I I know there's a lot of heat and a lot of emotion in the room, but I just want
you to know, you know, we again, we've been doing our due diligence. We're trying very diffic uh in a very difficult and trying situation. We're trying to find the best possible remedy, and I think that this is it. Um, I think I'm echoing uh the township committee members. Um, we do not take
this decision lightly. Um, you can hear that there was a subcommittee. There was a process, an actual process. And um, I always look for the plan. I look in the master plan. I did my own research. I make sure um,
you know, I looked at the farmland preservation process, the county and state. Um, you know, we heard that, you know, every property was, you know, looked at as, you know, best as possible. And I just want you to know as a
resident, I'm a resident. You're all residents. We're all part of this town together. So, when I make a decision, I make it for my family as well. So, um I feel like I'm making the best decision um for our municipality for
Cranberry and um with the criteria, the very very very difficult criteria that we were set up against and the deadlines that we were set up against. So, um you know, this this was created by the affordable housing a state law and a and a constitutional obligation.
So I, you know, I think I think hopefully you're getting a little bit more understanding of of what the process has been and how difficult it is all for all of us. Thank you. Okay, now we're going to open up to public comment. Um, I don't know if you want to kind of do this in order
of row and then moved out to the hallway or you have your own plan. Again, a reminder that we have a three minute limit. If you can't finish in three minutes, designate someone to help finish your thoughts and tag them out. And then once we're finished with
everybody in the room, we'll then move outside and let those people have an opportunity to come in. When you walk up, please sign your name. Just state your name and your address and yeah, just sign the the uh the sheet there. Okay. Thank you. Oh, and turn on
the microphone until it goes red. I think it's whatever button keeps it red. But this is on the ordinance and this public comment is specifically to this ordinance.
We'll have general public comment at the end of our meeting like we normally do. So this public comment is specific to this ordinance. Thank you. Uh Michael Peran, Brainer Drive. Um, I really don't care what numbers they they propose to you guys. Um, I'm here
tonight with deep concern. I'm here tonight with deep concern about the direction our town is being asked to take. This proposal requiring us to build additional housing under state mandate is wrong on many levels. At what point do we say enough is enough? Cranberry has long upheld the obligations of the Mount Laurel
doctrine, often exceeding what was required. We now face impossible demand. We have little suitable land left. Yet, we're being asked by officials in Trenton to build more. Even worse, we're preparing to invoke eminent domain, a tool that, in my view, undermines the very principles of property rights that
we hold dear. Are we really prepared to take a family's farmland that has been in their hands for generations to meet a state requirement? Do we now define the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as conditional unless we need your land for low-income housing? This is not just a question of numbers
or zoning. is about people, about families who built this town, who remember when Cranberry was still open farmland, not warehouses and traffic. Andy's family has farmed this town for longer than most of us have lived here. Ask yourselves, is the farm deteriorating? Is it not more
aesthetically pleasing and environmentally valuable to preserve the open space, the cows, and the animals at the township's edge rather than replace it with dense housing development? We are the garden state and even if this land is not officially preserved, are these homes not historic in their own
respect? I believe this community would support an ordinance to protect and preserve these properties as opposed to building on them. Beyond the moral questions, the proposal would place significant strain on our schools, emergency services, and infrastructure. It is not in the public interest. It undermines public welfare and would be
an economic burden to our town. I understand that you may feel legally obligated to comply, but I urge you to remember this. This decision does not respect the legacy, values, or future of our town. It jeopardizes the very character we have worked so hard to protect. If I were in your seat, I would
vote no. I would rather take my chances in the courts than put my name on something that takes away a family's legacy for an unfunded state mandate. Please consider the long long-term impact of your decision before you vote tonight. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Oh, good evening. My name is Timothy Dugan. Can you sign in there? Sure. Thank you. four. That's great. Thank you. My name is Timothy Dugan. I'm an attorney with Stark and Stark represent here with my
client Andy. Um I'm here on behalf of Henry Realy. If you want to sit and talk directly there. Thank you. Sorry about that. Um, since we have limited time, um, clearly my client objectionist, I think you have
the history of his property. Um, our main objections have to do with your master plan that I believe you've been speaking about and the inconsistencies of this project, the designation of this project and where you put in the affordable housing as it comes to the consistency with both your master plan
and how you've planned your township, which looking at it in history, you actually have done I thought I think a very good job. Um, when I looked at your master plan, I went back and looked at the um, amendment from 2000 in the farmland and the emphasis you put on
trying to preserve your farms and the farmland to try to keep the rural nature of your township, which is hard in these days. I understand that. But you do have an operating farm in an area that up to this point has been consistent with your master plan and the re-examination. And
I've tagged a lot of parts in here, but I think you know what your your master plan says on all the different policies and objectives. Another part of that master plan is the consistency of where you've put your commercial development, your industrial development um sandwiched
between the turnpike and east of 130. And in that area is all industrial. And I believe again it's inconsistent to now flip in a light industrial zone in an area that you've intentionally and and done well got your ratables and now want
to put a residential project in the middle of it sandwiched between the turnpike and route 130. Um I I you know the sore the water the setbacks all those are criteria but the criteria here that I'm looking at is what you have done in your master plan what you've
intended to do what you've accomplished and how inconsistent removing an operating farm there's not a lot of them from your inventory and putting the affordable housing in this part of your township where you've intentionally tried to push your ratables and it is
good to keep them all together but to try to put a inclusionary um project like this in there is just inconsistent with everything including the goals of the affordable housing. I did have one question. I'm not sure if you have it now. Um is the plan going to
be 100% or set aside mixed units or you don't know at this point. Uh we're not in a position to talk about the plan yet obviously because we're in mitigation. So, right. Okay. Um I think that's one of the questions that you know I've been uh peppered with. Um, and
so I guess I'm probably right up against my three minutes, but our main attack challenge is it's just not consistent with your master plan, your goals in the master plan of preserving these farms and it's inconsistent with what you've done in terms of where you've placed your industrial development and now
where you are having this seclusion area. So my time. Okay. Okay. Uh, be in contact. Yeah. Great. Thank you very much. you uh you have three minutes if there's anything that you would like to say or not with with your attorney, but
you additionally have three minutes if you'd like to speak. I'll I'll I'll speak a little later. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Jay Taylor Cranberry, South Main Street, former mayor, former committee member. I was part of the tail end of round two and fully engaged in
round three. Yes, the rules changed in all rounds. This is New Jersey after all. We also never waited for the round three's rules to be set. As Kevin can attest to, we began immediately after round two. So, while I understand 12 months seems like a long period of time,
it was not long enough. We had ample time after round three. But what never changed in all of this was that our town was our town's values and the way we've always handled these obligations with transparency, balance, and respect for our community. Through each round, we've successfully met our affordable housing
obligations without falling into the chaos of a builder's remedy lawsuit. Because we planned ahead and we stayed true to our process. Let's be honest, round five is coming, which means we should be identifying viable land options, not just for today, but for the future in a way that's thoughtful,
legal, and aligned with who we are as a town. And in that process, and by the committee's own comments tonight in the FAQ, there are other options than Andy's farm. I'm not here tonight to oppose affordable housing. I'm here to stand up for integrity of the process, of principle, and of people. One of those
people is Andy, who has stewarded his land and his family's land in our spirit of preservation for over 150 years, not for profit, but from a deeprooted connection to this town and its soil. Its farm, long designated by the governing bodies as a vital
environmental buffer and a light industrial zone, plays a critical role in storm water management and ecological balance. As mayors Cook and Mulligan themselves have attested online, this land was always intended for preservation. And he never asked for a dime, though. He did it out of the
goodness of his heart and for the roots of his family's legacy. Now, we frame this as a site for affordable housing. It strains belief that other with the other people element that we never shied away from, which is inclusivity. We want our children, our seniors, our working families to stay here. But this proposal
doesn't reflect that long-standing commitment. It's been an opaque process and misaligned with our values. Worse, it's been questionable. Andy went to the mail one day to find a letter addressed dear sir or dear madam threatening him with sell your land or we will take it.
We've seen this letter at this point. He was a good citizen of the town and this is how we treated him. There was no upfront discussion. There was no communication or phone call. Andy was wanted to reach out and when he did ask to meet with officials, he came in in good faith. As a resident, as a farmer,
he asked for an informal discussion about the letter. And so he came without counsel, though represented. And despite the town knowing he had legal representation, that meeting under those conditions of coming in while represented present an ethical perception, if not concern, that the
town had their attorney and he did not. Then there's the developer. According to your own FAQs and comments tonight, the Dell developer was involved in the process and appearing to be involved in the site selection. That means a private party in a non-transparent process. Sorry.
Anybody want to read it? Where you at? Right there. Jay, did you sign in? No, I will right now. Okay. Right here. Then there's Before you start, Wendy, just let him sign in and you sign in, please. Thank you. No problem.
I have a timer here that I'm keeping for everyone. Just depends on when you push it. Stop talking. We'll be able to Where did it start? Oh, then there's Thank you. Sure. Wendy Dylan Station Road. Then there's the developer. According to your own FAQs
and comments tonight, the developer was involved in the process and appearing to be selected selected the site. That means that a private party in a non-transparent process had an influence on the decisions that should have been purely public and that the developer potentially stands to profit from it. If
the same developer who is on the letter continues without a formal RFP or competitive process, it raises the spectre of conflict of interest. H that's not even transparency. That's the accountability and it's not what is this
town has ever stood for. And finally, this isn't a designated redevelopment zone. And while affordable housing allows some leeway, um that means that the town has questionable legal authority to bypass bidding, assembly parcels by ene eminent
domain or offer pilots. Yet, you are acting as if you do. Andy deserves better. This community deserves better, and those in future affordable housing deserve better than this process. I urge you, hit pause. Shine light on this process. Rebuild trust with your
residents. We're not against pro progress and this is not political, but we are for doing it the right way and for ensuring our residents and farmland is protected. Thank you. I also want to add, shame on Matt, shame on Robert, shame on Deborah, shame on Lisa, shame
on Iman, shame on Barbara, shame on Denise. You sat here and said, "Please feel bad for us. We worked 12 months on this." When a man has a farm for 150 years and you want to take it and you're just sitting there going, "We worked for 12 months on this. This isn't easy. I
lose sleep. Get right out of here." Thank you. Thank you. No problem. Who's next? Uh, Susan Ryan, N Prospect Street. Can you sign in? We won't start clock straight. Thank you. Just the name.
Yeah. Your address. Yeah, that's fine. Thank you. Okay. Hello. Okay. Uh, you may know me. Um, I am a licensed architect in town and I have
been a historic preserv historic preservation commission member since 2016. Um, I was around when the 2019 master plan re-examination took place.
So, that's what I want to talk about. So, another aspect of the master plan that we've talked a lot about tonight is the historic preservation element. Um, and the Historic Preservation Commission was tasked with considering
designating individual properties outside of our historic districts, we have two, as historic sites worthy of preservation. So, um to that end, this year I wanted to let you know that we have applied for a
certified local government grant um to survey a total of 87 properties um within Cranberry and 65 of those lie outside the village district. So, they
include uh properties such as the two that you are discussing right now. So, um, I just wanted to say that the Historic Preservation Commission looks forward to working with you, the township, to achieve respectful
treatment of properties that are involved in this um, this project of yours. That's it. Thank you. Sorry. I'm prepared.
You are too. I've got a signage. You're not going to start the watch out, are you? Just And also just speak as loudly as you can. Thank you. into the microphone so that they can hear you. Speak as loudly as you can into the microphone so they can hear you
outside. Thank you. Can people hear me? Okay. Okay, I'm starting my clock. Um first off um I um I want to thank you all for the work you've been doing. You're all volunteers
and I appreciate and understand that. And especially I was um favorably impressed with the information that's been passed out to the town especially um the mayor's last newsletter on the second of May and the uh FAQs were very
helpful. Now, I'm going to talk about the um location, which I guess is one of the main issues. You you mayor and um Mr. Vanheis gave a lot of your time to explaining why there were no other
solutions or no other good solutions than to put the affordable some of the affordable housing on the other side of um Route 130. this would be a um serious departure from past practice and I know I think you both explained that things
are different this year and we don't necessarily are able to stick with past values that we had but um the idea of keeping a unified town integrated where people can walk to it or at least drive to it easily to village and keeping them
on this side of Route 130 for safety and other reasons was such a strong principle that it's not easily put aside and I think that's the reason why people are upset about this. Frankly, we don't understand or really know enough to understand all the factors that you've
had to consider. But that one just stands out as something that is objectionable and I would hope on my own behalf that you can find an alternate solution. It doesn't require putting um putting houses on the other side of
Route 130. The other thing that is important tonight is um is the situation of Mr. Henry's property. We understand that the township is considering taking it by eminent domain and I base what I'm
saying on that assumption or that that concept. Is it one of your plans to take it by eminent domain or can you not say the I I can't specify that the ordinance authorizes that. The ordinance authorizes that, but because there is
actually a a process that's set forth in statute and by court rule, even before we can have the negotiations and do the due diligence, we need the authority to do that because we're a public entity. So, the ordinance essentially authorizes all of the due diligence and having the
formal negotiations that we can't do without the ordinance in place. Well, this is a heart-wrenching story. Once again, an imminent domain is involved. It's a case of almost always the little guy getting rolled over by the larger government uh authority and losing his
property, which he didn't want to lose. And um it sits very badly on people's minds just knowing that that's going to happen, including my own. So, I would uh urge you also to find a way to not have to take his
property. Thank you for your time. My name is Caroline Wisnooki. I live at uh 45 North Main Street. So, I don't understand why no one reached out to Mr. Henry before he received the letter asking if he was
even interested. You tell us that you did all this work, but you did not um you have not listened to your CHPS and your HPC folks because I've we've met with them a few times and yet
they've been telling us you're not listening. You're not listening. So, this is not a transparent process in government. And I've been a civil servant for 37 years. We talk about transparency and competitive
bidding. We don't see any of that. If you wanted to be transparent, why is this meeting in this tiny little room? You saw social media. You knew what was being what was being said in town and yet you persisted in
having the meeting here. In addition, you um we would like to see what these other properties are that you say that you looked into and yet you've
rejected. And again, why is there a builder on CCed on this memo or this letter that hasn't been um competitively bid out? I would be fired if I wrote a
letter and I had a vendor on the letter. So I don't understand why that happened. Um so if you really want, you know, you just don't seem to be part understanding how this town works even though you're
on the committee and the pulse of what this town is looking for. No, I don't agree with dropping um the Mount Laurel housing. I think affordable housing is a very important component, but in reality, um, what you're doing for the rest of this town
is not working. You're not being transparent, and you're not, um, you know, we deserve better. Thank you. Good evening. I think you know me. I'll just put my name here.
My name is Robert Dylan. I live at 32 Heightstown Cranberry Station Road. Lived here 53 years. And I would like to say that Oh, I'm sorry. That's all right. Directly in there. Close as you can get. Okay. I would like to say that the area
that you have that ends up being chosen or you're talking about is couldn't be worse area and the reason is you have the turnpike on one side. Screaming trucks, fumes, you name it going down that road. I even have them jump the
fence and knock on my door trying to trying to get in. But now the other road is South River Road. South River Road is about I would say 70% as busy as Route 130. Terrible
traffic. And I can't see putting people out in that area alongside that kind of an environment and say that that that's part of Cranberry. You wouldn't move out there. None of you. But yet you choose
to put somebody else out there. And the what I really don't like is what at the 11th hour we're here. You don't have enough time to change your mind or go future. You can't ask for time. They don't give you time. That's wrong. No
matter how you cut it, that's wrong. The people should have been involved in this a year ago. Tell them ask the people where would you like to have these houses built? Give me some. Give me some inclination. See, let us combine our heads to see what we come up with.
No, nobody was involved with it. And here we are. Bad place to put people and no other place known where we can go and no time to do it in. That's my biggest problem. Okay. And I'm sorry that it turned out this way,
but uh I'm I know the 11th hour. Personally, I think that preserve farmland and then the way it's worded that it has to provide use for the for the public. Has to be a public use. While the state mandated that we have to
do this affordable housing, they told us we got to put the housing here. So, I don't see no reason why it's housing, it's for the public, it's the people, and it's mandated by the state. Why can't they get put a slice of that
to preserve farmland in a situation where we could use it as for this affordable housing like they're members of our community. Okay. And not that I'm saying I'm afraid to open that door because next thing you know our farmland will be
all gone for because of that use. What options do you have? All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody else inside the
room? Okay. Oh. Oh. Okay. Before you start, I think there's a couple of empty chairs. So, anyone that's outside waiting to make a public comment, if you could find a seat in here, that'll start making things a little bit easier. As long as you can
hear out there anything that's being said, be appreciated. And Steve, can you can you sign in? Even good. Signed in. Okay. Okay. Um, so yes, Steve Golasano, Prospect Street. Um, everyone can speak right into this microphone as close as
possible. It's going to be uncomfortable, but that's the way they can hear us on YouTube. Um, so I don't have fully prepared remarks for today. I I just want to thank everyone uh for listening to everyone and taking the time to listen. Um, and for everyone for coming.
Um really I think that one miss that was done with the criteria that was set up with uh this uh decision for this for this farmland is not that you know it seems like it was something that was chosen that residents wouldn't care about because it's off in the in the uh
distance you know separated from it and uh I think that's a that's a big miss every everyone cares about remote properties that are historic and that are open space now It's not preserved farmland technically with the state
county, but it is open space farmland. It's not a designated historic site. Um, but it is an old farmhouse that's on this property. It is a historic building. This HPC had started the process when I was on the commission for uh 5 years ago for this
identifying properties in the uh in outside of the district. the I the some of the criteria that I think was also a miss that was can be considered as you rec if you are able to reconsider this is that uh the sewer expansion and that sewer uh public sewer
areas are locked in exactly where they are currently. I think that you know a strong way to look at this criteria would be to uh look at improving the town in improving land that's already in bad shape or land that could be made
better. not uh building on pristine farmland. And you know, these are just these are decisions that I think they're tough because it takes the foresight to see it. And some of the things that are outside of our control with county or or state roads, you know, that that are
totally understandable, but these are this takes a vision from you guys to to put forward to them. And you could use this as an opportunity to to create a stronger connection to town to fix existing problems to improve the land, the land and the town to uh look at
delinquent or hardship properties that are um that would be willing to sell. I maybe have, but there there may be others that may hear about this and may reach out to you afterward. Um uh we don't want to uh limit CHA's involvement with this uh to only one specific
criteria. They have a wealth of knowledge and I understand that things have changed but they have vast knowledge in this. Uh also working with HPC is important. Um you know they're we don't want to vilify anyone on this township committee. It it may it
may come that way because it's a very passionate topic and uh but we need to correct um these decisions that were made that I think are mis a little misguided. But thank you for hearing me and appreciate it. Thank you.
Tim Brennan, 10 Park Place East. Um, thank you for each one of you for your time and commitment to this situation. Um, and I call it a situation because it's dire. The fact that we are going in as a town or state or whatever the entity is and using eminent domain to
take a farm that's been in the family for 150 years to me I would be embarrassed to make that decision. The way that the letter was sent if that's the truth was also to me not the right way to do it.
Most of you up there are land owners. And I want you to think for a second about how you would feel if you got a letter saying that your farm, your land, your property is being taken. Now add on 150 years worth of your family's history being
there. There has to be another solution. I don't know what it is. I know that other towns, West Windsor being one of them, has ignored for many years. And I'm sure they're being hit with whatever fines or whatever it is. We've lived up to our obligations and done a really nice job, but the farm to me is not the
way to go. Thank you. Thank you. Jeff Grundy uh three Bunker Hill. I'm speaking on behalf of my wife who can't be here tonight and picking up on what was said about living between uh South River Road and the Turnpike. I don't
think that's not my cup of tea and I I I would not place anyone in that particular situation. It strikes me you cannot walk into town from from those places. There is no way. It must be two
miles and it's on a busy road. We our Donna and I reject the reject the motion. Wayne Whitman, 97 South Main Street, Cranberry. First and foremost, I've been in your position, so I know what you're going
through tonight and what you're going to have to go through in the very near future. Uh, as a background, um, I was on the township committee for nine years, the mayor of the community. I dealt with the first three rounds. The mayor is correct. Round four is
different than round three is different than round two and is different than round one. All of the rounds are different. But with my involvement on a township committee, the one thing that I did not see here and it's unfortunate is
that we involved all the different boards and different people, school board, planning board, zoning board in our meetings, closed door to get their opinions, to get their observations, to get their knowledge. To the best of my knowledge,
nobody and this is just an an observation. To the best of my knowledge, nobody from the planning board was even asked to participate in this process, which is unfortunate because you didn't have to do this alone. You're taking all this on yourself and you
didn't have to do that. There was a lot of people, CHA, Mark Bowski, we worked together handinand with the first three rounds. So, moving forward in this, if you do have things that you need help with, we're here, okay? We're not, you
know, and it would make it easier on all of you. You don't have to fight this battle alone. Secondly, I I'm not going to comment on a pro property specifically because I may I don't want to conflict myself in the future for something I may
have to decide on with the whole process here. But with your observation that I know you have to have a plan in by the 30th, is there any way that plan can be modified after it's submitted? Can you submit a plan and say we have a better
way to build a mousetrap? Is that an option? Sorry. Uh it is possible to amend a plan. There are legal hoops that would need to be followed for that. So, and we might be able to use Cranberry's
past experiences in affordable housing. We've been lauded by the state as having a great affordable housing situation here in town. We've met all our rounds. We've built great affordable housing. It's people are proud to live in it,
proud to look at it. We integrated in our community. You know, again, there's different ways to do things. I know you're you're faced with some tough situations, but you didn't have to do it alone. And if there's help in the future that people from the planning board,
zoning board, CHA, or other or school board can can offer assistance or guidance, please just call upon us. Thank you. Thank you. Linda Schilling, 40 Station Road. I'm not against the affordable housing,
but I just want to um support what some of the other speakers have said and to say this farm is not the place for affordable housing. I can't think of a worse location topped with the fact that
you're going to take a man's farm who does not want to sell his farm, who's received offers from developers and has not sold, and now we're going to take it by eminent domain. I I can't even believe that our township committee is
considering this. I've lived here 40 years and I've lived through all the rounds of affordable housing and this is the first time that we didn't know what was going on. And I feel very deceived because we I came to a lot of township
committee meetings with CHA and you pretended that you were going to listen to us and you didn't. You already had a developer. I mean, that's what it looks like. So, anyway, I'm very disappointed. Thank you.
Thank you. My name is Mike D. Rosa sixstation road and I am adam adamantly against the acquisition of 1234 South River Road in particular. You've seen the residents taking time to be here tonight. You have
heard their concerns. No secret. But tonight, the GoFundMe for Andy's legal expenses is now up to $4,000. You're hearing residents say no. And we're funding the legal fight to sue the town. their own town, our town. So, please say
no to this vote because we will fight. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Stacy Butvich. I am a resident actually in Plansboro at 312 Aspen Drive. I'm here I'm actually a realtor who specializes in selling farm
properties. Luckily, out of 150 sales, most of our farms don't end up going towards development. We certainly do push to preserve farms. It is understandable that Andy didn't want to preserve the farm because he planned on being there for all those years and didn't want to use resources where they
could have been allocated in other ways. The fact is this isn't a cranberry problem. It's an everywhere problem. I go to all 21 counties just about and wherever there's farmland and we can sell it, we're hearing the same things over and over. Cranberry didn't suddenly
become a town that lacks sewer. It's o it's been that way for the most part. The committee can talk about the constitution and ka housing, but Andy has a privilege to his constitutional rights also to own property. Cranberry
allowed so many warehouses to be built and then everyone is looking around and can't find land. Wonder where it went. The time to reszone property was then, not now. Not Andy's farm. Andy's family has had a plan for his farm for 150
years. Where has Cranberry's plan been? I understand with Koa Housing that if it is not fulfilled, the town can lose its right to oversee zoning and master plans. Well, maybe it's time for that. Thank you.
Is there anybody else in the hallway that wants to speak? Hello, Kevin Golasano, 15 Prospect Street. I know you're all volunteering your time to serve our town and thank you for that. Um, there are dozens and
dozens of other professionals who do volunteer this time. You work with them all the time on the different boards and committees. You got to include them. You got to reach out. It's been done before. They've worked very hard on all this. And you're really missing out on a wealth of knowledge and better ways of
doing things. This feels like we're out of ideas and this is the wrong way to go. Thank you. Anybody else for public comment? I will. Okay. Thank you, Andy. Okay. So, good evening. I'm Andy Henry.
I'm one of the owners of this family farm and homestead on South River Road. I grew up in Cranberry. I love this town as much as all of you do and I deeply appreciate all those who have supported us in keeping this
property. Thank you very much. I went to third, fourth, and fifth grade right above our heads. My great greatgrandfather's name is etched into a stained glass window
right here in the Methodist church. But it occurred to me that our ownership structure is confusing because we look like an investment company. So why are we called Henry Realy Company? It's because when
my elderly parents were doing estate planning, their lawyer just chose that name and registered it with the state. I don't know if they had even had any input in it. So but it was done strictly for the purpose of transferring ownership of the farm to my brother and I over a period of years.
That ownership transfer was completed in 2013. Now, the only real estate that was ever in this limited liability company and that ever will be is the farmland of the house, plus
whatever cash we have to add annually to cover taxes, insurance, and repairs. In the 12 years since my brother and I have had full ownership, we've put over 200,000 and we intend to keep
maintaining that payments to keep the farm going. Had I received a call from the town council, I could have explained our exact situation that we weren't a investment company that were a
family with deep ties to Cranberry. And in fact, those ties predate the purchase of the farm in 1850. So if the town council thought this is an investment company, well, now you
know you made a mistake. It wasn't. You now have the opportunity to set things right and cancel this taking. So please do so. Now look right here, right where we are, the township line is exactly one
half mile from exit 8A of the turnpike. Highly sought by developers who have been trying to get us to sell for over 30 years. And we resisted. But had we done so, this property would have already been a warehouse, and you'd have to find
another place. So that's what you should do. Find another place. Just pretend this is a warehouse there already. Okay. Well, thank you. Now, this farm has exactly what this town prides itself in. Has open space, rich history with a
farmhouse as historic as the one we debated for 90 minutes two weeks ago, and it's in much better shape. And we just want to keep the farm and our family. Thank you. Is there any further public comment out in the hallway? Can someone
do a gut check for me? No one. No. Okay. Hearing none, we're going to close the public hearing for this ordinance.
Okay, I need a motion to vote on cranberry ordinance 04250. I'll move. And I got a second. I'll second. We'll move on to roll call. Mr. Christopher.
Yes. Mrs. Elvadabi. Yes. Dr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Scott? Yes. Mayor Coner? Yes. unanimous. Thank you. I hope it happens to your houses and your families. Don't forget your own properties. Remember
somebody lives there. Can I get a motion to pass consent resolutions A, A, and B? So move. So move. Second. Thank you. Move on to roll call. Mr. Christopher.
Yes. Miss Elidawi. Yes. Dr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Scott? Yes. And Mayor Kir? Yes. Thank you. I will now open it up to public comment. This is general public comment. If there's additional public comment on any
other matter outside of that resolution or ordinance, I can open it up. You don't have to raise your hand. You just go up and sign your name. Sorry.
Do you need this? Nope. Oh, you put in I got you. Good evening. I know you had a tough meeting tonight. I I apologize for my fellow public members but you know the
emotions. I'm here representing the historical society to go back to uh meeting two weeks ago. uh I just really asking the question when you will take up the discussion of the dancer house so we can hear everyone's opinion to know
whether uh the society has to provide additional information or whether the information provided especially by HPC lead you to the conclusion that the house should be saved and the sooner the better certainly proper maintenance
needs to be done now and I think it's in were in the deed restriction in your right to tell the owner put some at least temporary protection on that roof so the house can be saved. But I think again the evidence and the information
provided even by their own structural engineer does say the house can be saved. So we look forward to the public discussion to hear what committee feels should be done. if I can address it. I believe the followup was that we were
going to get some um additional um engineering reports and contacts so that a more comprehensive um evaluation of the property could be made. And I believe that the uh current chair of HBC, Jennifer Sutmire, felt
that she had some good context that she could then provide the property owner. I believe if I'm misspeaking, let me know. But that to me was the immediate followup. So the the burden is on HPC to provide additional information. They basically said that they had a list at their fingertips that they could provide
which is why they rose their hand to be but the concern is that you need to at least get a tarp over that roof so it doesn't keep going because it'll be two three four months and that I can't that I can't address that wasn't specifically mentioned but we can make it a followup
to see if those names or companies have been we'll follow up with Jennifer then. Okay. Well, we'll do the same. Okay. To make sure that those names were provided to the property owner because that was the next step. Yeah. The ball is in their court. The ball's in the property owner's court. So, they have work they
have to do. Okay. Well, you're saying we're waiting for HPC to provide information. They may have already. Okay. I don't know. But the the to get that report done and completed is on the property owner. That's the expectation. But as long as it doesn't sit for
another six months or a year and they're that's that's the concern. It it can't based on the fact that we we're asking them to address this, right? So we just just to move it along. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. this one, Steve Volano, Prospect Street.
Um, I wanted to, um, follow up on what Mark said again, just to, uh, really, uh, lay it down. I know that you said that it's in the property owners court to do this. Uh, and it and you're saying it's their that's it's actually not right. They
once they submitted a a a report to you as a township officials showing the the building in a in the state that it's in it actually automatically triggers should automatically trigger the ordinance that uh I think believe it's maintenance ordinance for chapter 16 is
that right the it's in the in the documents that things have to be kept weathertight and uh it's in your it's in the code of cranberry's maintenance ordinance. So the zoning official is I believe the executing the ex executing officer for who actually has to that's
not okay property maintenance is not the zoning officer it's an enforcement officer it's not quite stipulated who it is so who is the it's the it's Jerry Thorne okay so does an official complaint have to be made by someone to Jerry Thorne in order for them to follow
if you see from the road that there is an opening in the roof where there's not windows or a door is a jar. If there's anything in that code that he can see from the road, he won't go around the house. He doesn't That's fine. He doesn't have to go anywhere near the house because the structural engineers submitted a report showing that the roof
is leaking and showing that there are openings in the side of the building. So, all the information that Jerry needs is in this the reports that were submitted by the owners themselves. Someone needs to make a complaint in then an official I I'll probably be following up with an official complaint. Okay. uh whether that's done on behalf
of uh the historical society as a trustee member or whether it's a personal one uh if there needs to be multiple complaints if that would help we would be happy to provide multiple complaints. Uh probably one would do. Okay. Um so that is uh just wanted to get that because it seemed like a
technicality was tripping that up uh from happening. So the fact that there's documentation on their part that shows this should automatically show that uh they have to maintain it. uh this is even regardless of what decision is being made on the building because that's it's still being made. So I just
would also remind you that please consider uh the whole construction engineers uh words themselves and how the foundations were good. The parts can be replaced one part at a time. And if you were to look under any piece of aluminum on a piece of of house on Main Street, means ones that are being
replaced currently, patching and repairing, fixing, you'll notice that uh the state of sophets, trim, and other elements that are mainly cosmetic for the building that look they're tough uh are fixable, totally fixable. The structure uh if it's one piece that
needs to be repaired, it gets repaired. uh things that were uh not understood by certain structural engineers uh are are understood by others and it's a repairable building. So just want to still put that out there and uh thank you for hearing me. Thank you.
Two different sessions of public comment. Yeah, technically. Hey. Um, I just wanted to say that I'm I'm really disappointed in all of you tonight. Um, you had an opportunity. You heard from the public who you represent,
how we felt as a town, and you could have taken a step and say no and and stood up, and instead you all said yes. And I just I I'm sorry. I feel sorry that that you had to vote that way. Um but I don't approve and I I really wish
you had thought that through and voted the other way. I'd rather take our chance fighting the state and proving how wrong this number is for cranberry that we have to it's so bad that we have to take somebody's farm to build on that we have to take anybody's property to
build on that. How is that fair? How does that how is that equitable that we have to take somebody's property that their family grew up and ra were raised on the farm that they built? I remember when it was a tree farm and it was a mess. They spent a lot of time and money
cleaning it up to make it the farm that it is now. And I just wish there was more that we could do. I wish there was more that you did do. And I'm sorry. Is there any other public comment? Hearing none, we'll close public
comment. Are there any action items that were captured this evening? Right. Uh oh my I will follow up on the engineering contacts um for the dancer house to make sure that they were
provided to the pretendics and if not then the request will be that they need to find their own if they haven't been given them. Any other action items? Okay. We have a motion to adjurnn. So
moved. Second. All in favor? I. Thank you. Hold on. You're still alive. Shut off the microphone, please. Please don't.