With more than 20 township residents in attendance at the third Cranbury Road Mobility Study public meeting on October 22, Community Development Department staff and the Louis Berger Group presented a concept that will feature a four-foot sidewalk, with two to three feet of buffer, that will extend along Cranbury Road from Route 571 to the town line.
No design for bicycle use was incorporated in the proposal. The new sidewalk will be built on the northbound side from Route 571 to Millstone Road before crossing over to the other side at Steele Drive due to right of way. There will be additional crosses, including one mid-block crosswalk near Rabbit Hill Road.
“This is the alternative we’re working on,” Community Development director Pat Ward told the audience. “We’re bringing it back to you to continue dialogue.”
The presentation was well received by Cranbury Road residents, and further feedback will be collected in the next several weeks before a final report will be submitted to the township residents, administration, and council, as well as to the county, as Cranbury Road is officially County Route 615.
“Everybody is in for the sidewalk. I thought tonight would be final, but it will be an open dialogue,” said Sarah Thomson, who lives on Cranbury Road. “We want to keep the esthetics. We appreciate the support of council.”
With her next door neighbor Samirah Akhlaq, the duo initiated the neighborhood’s request to install sidewalks by going door-to-door to rally support and appealing to the council.
“I’m humbled and excited they heard everything we said. We wanted to save trees, not give up land,” Akhlaq said. “We got our voices out and they heard us.”
Mike Dunn of the Morristown-based Berger Group presented the hybrid alternative, which was formulated in response to resident feedback after five sidewalk and bicycle path alternatives were discussed at the previous public meeting in August. (The News, August 22). Challenges include steep slopes, utility poles, large trees, houses close to the road, and environmental constraints in the Bear Brook and Millstone River areas.
The proposed sidewalk will meander and cross over to limit impact on utility poles and trees, avoiding 23 utility poles and impacting nine trees — significantly fewer than previous alternatives. Easements that give permission to build sidewalks will be required from 20 properties. Property owners would still own the parcel in question and would be reimbursed by the town.
George Fallat of the Mercer County engineering staff said the final cost of the proposed sidewalk would be in the “order of $500,000.” The estimated cost of $280,000 given in the presentation excluded environmental permits, stormwater management, tree clearings, and easements. Utility relocations, retaining walls, and other site-specific costs were also excluded.
Fallat said the county and township will apply for state and federal grants. The county will work with the township and would be responsible for grant administration and construction oversight.
Once a final report is approved, the township will work with the county on acquiring funding, says Brian Aronson, the township’s assistant manager of engineering. The township recently submitted a grant application to the department of transportation for pedestrian improvements on the most buildable section of Cranbury Road, between Route 571 and Sunnydale Way.
As Cranbury Road stretches across Bear Brook and the Millstone River, the township will also need to acquire environmental permits from the state Department of Environmental Protection, as well as work with the Delaware & Raritan Canal Commission. Sidewalks represent impervious coverage, so stormwater will run off.
Aronson says the current concept would be built in three phases, with the first extending from Route 571 to Van Nest Park, the second from the park to Rabbit Hill Road, and the third from Rabbit Hill Road to Plainsboro.
Several residents voiced concerns following the presentation.
Ted Whiteby, who lives on Piedmont Drive, asked about edge lines on Cranbury Road, which would give cyclists a clearer demarcation from car traffic.
Silvia Ascarelli, another cyclist who lives on Melville Road, asked whether the 11-foot lanes could be reduced to 10-foot lanes to accommodate cyclists or sidewalks on both sides, but township staff said the state Department of Transportation forbids doing so. “Overall it’s a good plan,” Ascarelli said.
#b#WW Council: Ellsworth Debated#/b#
Will Shawn Ellsworth’s properties qualify for redevelopment designation? That question was a topic of debate at the October 20 West Windsor Council meeting and will be the subject of a resolution at the November 10 meeting. The properties in question are two residential lots on Cranbury Road adjacent to the Ellsworth Center, which is part of the redevelopment zone and has been approved for mixed-use expansion.
The resolution, which would begin the process of determining if the properties qualify for redevelopment designation, comes at the request of the township administration. Land use manager Sam Surtees, planning board planning consultant John Madden, and township redevelopment attorney Kevin McManimon sat before council to explain their request, which partly is in response to pending litigation filed by Jacinto Rodrigues, the owner of the blighted property behind the Ellsworth Center. Ellsworth also attended the work session.
“The township is initiating this on our own,” Surtees said after the meeting. “Under redevelopment, there are better opportunities for the township and the developer to develop that property.”
Last fall, the zoning board granted a D-1 variance to Ellsworth’s two residential properties, allowing the property to be used as a parking lot and a stormwater detention basin. In April Rodrigues filed a lawsuit challenging the variances, arguing that the zoning board lacked the authority to amend the zoning because it drastically changes the uses of the nearby redevelopment zone properties. Rodrigues has filed a site plan application to redevelop his adjacent property, requesting the same variances that Ellsworth had requested. (The News, September 12).
“Redevelopment takes away the need for variances and it gives jurisdiction to the planning board,” Surtees says. If the properties become part of the redevelopment zone, Ellsworth would not be relying on the variances that are under litigation. Factoring in appeals, Surtees says, relying on the zoning board variance approvals could take years.
The resolution, if adopted, would give the planning board 45 days to prepare report and to conduct a public hearing. If the planning board recommends redevelopment designation, it would require approval from council.
Surtees told council the costs incurred would be around $20,000, drawn from the redevelopment trust, which has sufficient funds.
In other council matters, a resolution regarding a grant for the relocation of the bus stop at the intersection of Alexander Road and Vaughn Drive, in the parking area of the Princeton Junction train station, was pulled. The plan is to move the bus stop more than 500 feet east along Vaughn Drive.
West Windsor Parking Authority secretary Alison Miller said the current bus shelter corner location creates congestion for cars leaving the Vaughn Drive lots. Relocating the bus shelter would help clear up the intersection.
But council president Bryan Maher questioned the rationale for moving the bus stop. Expressing his belief that the obstructive bus stop is “stupid,” Maher asked, “Did you think about getting rid of it altogether?” Miller responded the bus stop is outside the authority of the parking authority. She agreed to provide traffic studies that Maher requested. The resolution is expected to come before council at the next meeting.
The resolution voicing the township’s support for two state bills that would identify telecommunications subject to taxation on their business property was passed 3-1. Verizon has two properties in West Windsor that account for more than $320,000 in tax revenue. Council member Kristina Samonte was the lone dissenting vote, saying, “I don’t think it’s a solution.”
Township attorney Steven Goodell explained to council that the intent of the state bill is to keep Verizon from tax exemptions on its properties. The issue is over statutory interpretation of a vague 1997 telecommunications law. Telecoms argue there should be a yearly determination regarding whether carriers count as local exchange companies, defined as carriers providing dial tone to 51 percent of a local telephone exchange, while the league of municipalities is advocating new language that would amend the 1997 statute and clearly identify companies subject to taxation on their business property.
Teresa Lourenco of South Post Road spoke during the public comment period, detailing concerns she and several neighbors have regarding excessive noise and lighting originating from Mercer County Park. “It is a lot to ask a neighborhood to endure every single weekend,” Lourenco said. “It’s just too loud.” Light shields from baseball field lights and buffer trees for park noises were mentioned by Lourenco.
#b#Howard Hughes Update#/b#
Council has not yet responded to the Howard Hughes Corporation’s request to initiate the redevelopment designation process for the company’s 658-acre property, the former American Cyanamid site on Clarksville Road at Quakerbridge Road. Council members say a response is expected soon.
At the September 22 council meeting, Howard Hughes representatives made a presentation to the public before requesting action from council regarding redevelopment designation, making a follow-up request at the October 6 council meeting.
The property was discussed in closed session prior to the October 20 council meeting, according to council president Bryan Maher.
Reached by phone after the meeting, Maher says the council has a general view and plans on responding in the next few weeks.
The general consensus of council members and the community is that Howard Hughes has not provided enough information. But the company wants redevelopment designation for the site before discussing any planning specifics (see below).
“They did not give us much in detail,” council vice president Geevers said over the phone after the council meeting, adding that many residents have also given council members similar feedback.
The presentation made one month ago by Howard Hughes outlined a plan that departs from the property’s current research, office, and manufacturing (ROM-1) zoning. Instead the property would feature mixed-used residential and retail development, as well as community-usage development. However, the presentation did not provide details beyond the intentions outlined.
Toward the end of the business meeting session at the October 20 meeting, council member George Borek gave a report on his meeting with the township’s Department of Public Safety. Borek explained after the meeting that the township’s emergency services, EMTs, firefighters, and police are looking at the positive and negative impacts of a potential Howard Hughes development.
“Emergency services are patiently waiting to see what they are going to do,” Borek said. “They gave us a taste; we haven’t seen a snapshot yet.”
During the public comment period, former council member Alison Miller strongly urged the council to get more information from Howard Hughes before initiating the redevelopment designation process.
“Now is the time for you to get information from them,” Miller says. “You need the leverage to find out what they have in mind.”
When reached by phone after the meeting Miller, who has also previously served on the Planning Board, the Zoning Board, and the Site Plan Review Advisory Board, said she has spoken with residents who have heard more specifics than what the company presented before council.
“I don’t understand why Howard Hughes can’t tell the council everything that they told everybody,” Miller said.
West Windsor resident Patrick Boyle has met with Howard Hughes representatives multiple times over the past year. In addition to discussing an indoor youth sporting facility — Boyle is heavily involved in the community’s youth athletics — some of the company’s other specific ideas were discussed as well.
“I want to emphasize that these were just some possible thoughts,” Boyle says. “Howard Hughes mentioned the possibility of apartments over the storefront town center, and a movie theater and restaurants. Behind that possibly townhouses, a hotel, and office space. Behind that single family houses. Yes, there were thoughts put out there.”
Reached for comment after the council meeting, Howard Hughes project director Chuck McMahon emphasized the need to follow the process.
“Under New Jersey law, the property has to be designated as redevelopment before you can plan the planning process. It is premature to begin speculating on the nature of the uses or use of property. We can’t do step two before doing step one,” McMahon says. “Redevelopment designation doesn’t do anything. They seem to feel that designating something is giving us something. It merely sets the framework.”
McMahon says developing the site under the municipal land use protocol is “not advantageous for the township” because then the township would not have access to PILOT payments.
“Under redevelopment protocol, it then qualifies us for state low interest financing that helps us with all sorts of things,” says McMahon, demolition and water and sewer infrastructure as examples.
Speaking on the two different land use processes, township redevelopment attorney Ed McManimon said municipalities can decide whether to pursue redevelopment, a process that broadens the power that governments have to interact with land owners and developers. “Redevelopment allows for interaction by contract,” he says. “There is significantly broader control to the municipality if they think it has value to interact with developers by contract.”
When a redevelopment plan is adopted by ordinance, a municipality has expanded abilities including eminent domain, clearing land, as well as the ability to provide financing, loans, and grants, and issue bonds to assist with a specific project. A municipality cannot contract with developers before redevelopment designation.
And while under redevelopment law the planning process does follow formal designation, McManimon says that regardless of which land use process is taken, nothing prevents the owner or developer of a property from interacting with a municipality and its planning and zoning boards to discuss a property’s planned use.
