You are on page 1of 5

2005 UNION COUNTY CROSS‐ACCEPTANCE REPORT

Union County Department of Economic Development Division of Planning and Community Development Bureau of Land Use Planning
February 28, 2005
Cranford Transportation circulation will be a growing problem in this region. The town has vehicular and rail transportation access in this community. However, during peak hours arterial roadways are congested. In order for this community’s “Transit Village” area to continue growing additional modes of transportation as well as providing smoother and more efficient existing transporation systems will be required in the future. To advance transit services in the area, light rail or small shuttle services should be considered between communities and designated mass transit parking areas. Along with development of the these regional mass transit parking areas, the town may need to consider restricting truck cargo loading and unloading during peak rush hours along the North and South Aenue corridors. Utilities in this community are adequate at the moment. However, our aging sanitary sewer infrastructure is becoming a problem. Some of the sewer mains are more than 100 years old and

Union County 2005 Cross‐Acceptance Report 3 Final Report will require major repair or reconstruction in order to provide for continual growth and redevelopment. In older communities like Cranford, inflow and infiltration into our sanitary sewer systems are getting worse. This increases the risk for more frequent pipe failures, stresses treatment plants, and adds to the cost of water treatment every time it rains. By encouraging communities such as Cranford to become re‐growth or “Transit Village” communities, the State and/or County will have to provide financial assistance for sanitary sewer infrastructure improvements.

http://www.unioncountynj.org/econdev/cafinalrep.pdf

page 201

Union County
Local Cross Acceptance Informational Meetings
Municipality: Township of Union Date of Meeting: December 14, 2004 Location: Union County Administration Building Meeting Subject: Cross Acceptance III relation to Municipality ATTENDEES Name: Agency: Phil Haderer T & M Associates (Engineering Consultant) Stan Slachetka T & M Associates (Planning Consultant) Kamal Saleh Union County Department of Economic Development (UCED) Gary Weltchek UCED The meeting agenda included: Introduction Cross Acceptance Overview Demographic Data Review County Cross Acceptance Information Survey County Maps Environmental and Land Use Concerns Cross Acceptance (OSG) Schedule Page 202 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Mr. Saleh described the informational questionnaire that was sent in November to all the Union County municipalities. This questionnaire has

been sent to all the municipalities to obtain updates on planning documents such as the Master Plan, Re-Exam Reports, Zoning Ordinances, Zoning Maps, and redevelopment plans that have been adopted by the town. Mr. Slachetka will provide the information to the County. Mr. Haderer noted a redevelopment area and will provide the County with a description. Page 12 C. Map Changes
Municipal Mapping Change Requests Six municipalities submitted requests for certain changes and corrections to the Preliminary State Plan Map. Maps illustrating the requested changes are included in the appendix of this report. Cranford A large part of the north side of Cranford is shaded as “maintained critical environmental sites” on the N.J. Preliminary State Plan. Cranford’s staff questioned the definition of a CES. To their understanding the definition for “maintained critical environmental sites” calls these areas “sensitive features located either outside of a planning area classified as environmentally sensitive by the State Development ad Redevelopment Plan or within designated centers located within such planning areas.” Cranford’s engineer and planner are unclear if the shaded areas on the Cross Acceptance III map represent flood areas during one hundred year storm in Cranford, if so then the area appears too large. Cranford’s representative wanted to know how this designation (CES) affects the residents and/or the municipality in the form of restrictions or future funding and the town can work with the County and State to modify thee designations if necessary. County’s Response: A map change is requested for the area in question and a better definition of CES criteria has also been requested of the Offie of Smart Growth (OSG). Page 19 Associated Town: Twp. of Cranford RFC: Request to move the Critical Environmental Site (CES) designation boundary as noted on the CA III map in this area away from the existing residential area.

Sources: Draft State Development Redevelopment Plan – Cross Acceptance III Map (CA III Map) Coverages provided to Union County; and 1999 Union County Aerial Photography. Page 19 Amendment # 3‐C (number associates to map in appendix) Change Type: __ AG/Farm (Agriculture/Farm); _X_ CE/HS; ___ BA/C (Boundary Adjustment/Clarification); __ CL/C (Clarification Correction), __ Pks (Parks); __TR/OS (Trail/Open Space) Associated Town: Twp. of Cranford RFC: Request to consider Critical Environmental Site (CES) designation on the State Plan Map for the area surrounding the Cranford Department of Public Works yard known as the Cranford onservation Area because it’s forested and has traversing streams. However, the public works yard should not be included in the CES. Sources: Draft State Development Redevelopment Plan – Cross Acceptance III Map (CA III Map) Coverages provided to Union County; and 1999 Union County Aerial Photography RFC:

Page 20
RFC: Request to remove Critical Environmental Site (CES) designation as noted on the Cross Acceptance III Map for the area surrounding the existing residential area in the north‐end of Cranford extending into Kenilworth and maintain a smaller buffer area around the Rahway River Cranford Section.

Page 48
Protection of the sanitary sewer system is of great concern to the Township, especially since Cranford is a designated “Transit Village”, is undergoing redevelopment, and the Township’s infrastructure is aging. Some of the mains are 100+ years old. Major repair or reconstruction projects will be needed for this infrastructure in order to provide for intensive growth. Inflow and infiltration problems also have gotten worse over the years. For these reasons, the Township believes that the State and/or County need to provide financial assistance for these sanitary sewer infrastructure improvements.

Page 221 Draft Cross Acceptance Report Format – David Maski, Schoor DePalma Mr. Maski described the report format and noted that it did not include any issues to be negotiated during the next phase of the cross acceptance process. He and Mr. Saleh noted that the County will now begin the process of completing the report which will be the subject of a second public meeting to be held on February 23, 2005 at 3:00 PM in the Faculty Cafeteria of Union County College in Cranford.