By David Kilby, Staff Writer
CRANBURY — An ordinance promoted by the Middlesex County Planning Board that attempts to protect bodies of water and their surrounding areas was tabled at the Cranbury Township Committee meeting May 9 because members said they felt it needs clarification.
The committee had referred the ordinance to the township Planning Board and Environmental Commission so it could be further reviewed. But the Planning Board deemed the ordinance was not in compliance with the township Master Plan, and the commission ruled the current township ordinance already in place for protecting water bodies is sufficient for Cranbury.
The township ordinance currently in place states no new permanent structure may be built within 200 feet of the center of a body of water.
The county ordinance, which is being promoted by the state Department of Environmental Protection, states the “riparian zone,” or area around the water bodies to be protected, should be 150 feet from the bank of any trout production water, trout maintenance water, segments of water flowing through an area that contains documented habitat for a threatened or endangered species of plant or animal and all upstream waters within 1 linear mile of such waters.
Water bodies designated as “C1,” or documented as pristine, would have a riparian zone of 300 feet from their bank.
For all other water bodies, the riparian zone would be 50 feet from their bank. The ordinance would prohibit any new structures within those riparian zones from being built.
Anyone who wishes to build a structure within a riparian zone would have to receive a variance from the local zoning board.
Any party who contests the location of a riparian zone boundary would have the burden of proof in any appeal regarding the boundary, reads the ordinance.
At the committee meeting last Monday, committee members said they were not comfortable with the wording of the ordinance. At the next committee meeting May 23, a new ordinance with modified language should be introduced.
”We thought it was important not to have two conflicting ordinances,” Committeeman Dan Mulligan said, “and if someone came before the Planning Board, we thought it was important that they knew the setbacks and what compliances they had to follow.”
He added, “It’s very important that we do it right the first time, and we don’t have anything conflicting,” he added.

