By Jennifer Kohlhepp, Managing Editor
The Cranbury Housing Authority wants to develop 32 new affordable housing units on a Route 130 property close to the center of town.
The call for 32 units is a compromise struck with residents who petitioned against the development of 48 units on the 40-acre site on the west side of Route 130 historically known as 130D.
Mark Berkwosky, president of the nonprofit organization that has managed the township’s affordable housing for the past 50 years, appeared before the Planning Board on Sept. 17 to discuss Cranbury Housing Authority (CHA)’s development application.
“There are no variances required but there are several waivers,” Mr. Berkowsky said.
The project, which will be located near Cranbury Estates and Cranbury Walk developments, would offer very low-, low- and moderate-income rental housing. There would be four very low-income units, 12 low-income units and 16 moderate-income units.
Very low income means a maximum income of $22,000 for a single person and $31,500 for a family of four. Low income means a maximum income of $37,000 for a single person and $52,500 for a family of four. Moderate income means a maximum income of $59,000 for a single person and $84,000 for a family of four.
“School teachers and police officers all fall within the range as well as many of our township employees,” Mr. Berkowsky said, adding preference would be given to military veterans.
Mr. Berkowsky testified that there are currently 150 people on Cranbury’s affordable housing waiting list.
The new development would provide a mix of one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom units in four buildings that are two stories high. There would be 64 parking spaces and two dumpsters.
The project would have a circular driveway with access to Route 130, an emergency access route and a pedestrian link to Ryan Road that would allow residents to walk downtown, to the school and the library. The development would not have a playground, just open spaces, according to Mr. Berkowsky.
Attorney Ron Gasiorowski, representing a neighbor of the property, objected to the hearing of the application based on its proposed use of an easement on the neighbor’s property to provide water and sewer services.
“My client raises an objection because (the CHA) is extending a use on an adjacent property which does not permit such a use,” Mr. Gasiorowski said.
Since the blueprint for the project showed general recommendations and the CHA had not yet determined if it would have to use the easement, Planning Board Chairman Allan Kehrt said the objection was duly noted and that CHA could proceed with its application.
Later on in the hearing, Mr. Gasiorowski said he spoke with his client and they agreed that some additional conversations may result in some sort of change in their position.
“Because of this, we decided to carry the meeting until Oct. 1,” Mr. Kehrt said. “After that decision, I opened the meeting for public comments and asked that they be limited to those individuals who would be unable to attend the Oct. 1 meeting. There were limited comments and the meeting was adjourned.”
