Cranbury Housing Fair Share Plan

(*but were afraid to ask)

 

updated June 24, 2025

Why is Cranbury Township initiating eminent domain to take possession of Andy Henry’s Farm (located at 1234 Cranbury South River Road in Cranbury NJ, hereby referred to as “Andy’s Farm”)?

There are many news stories with headlines that Cranbury Township is moving to seize the land through eminent domain. In order to meet its obligations under the Fourth Round of the NJ State-mandated Mt. Laurel Obligations, Cranbury Township was required to identify and submit to the state of NJ (by June 30, 2025) parcels of land within the Township to accommodate the construction of 265 affordable housing units. “Andy’s Farm” was one of these parcels, and was identified as such via an April 28, 2025 ordinance.  The ordinance outlines that the Township may acquire the property thru either voluntary negotiations or thru eminent domain (which includes a formal negotiation process). The ordinance states that while it was the Township Committee's preference to acquire the land via voluntary negotiations with the owners, the ordinance granted the Township Committee the legal authority to initiate the eminent domain process, which includes the formal negotiations.  

 

How did the state calculate 265 units for this round of affordable housing?

The state calculates each municipality's specific "fair share" of units based on various factors including vacant land, job growth, existing affordability, and the number of low- and moderate-income households. The calculation actually yielded over 300 for Cranbury, however, the amount is capped at no more than 20% of the Township population. You can find the complete state criteria here. 

Why is the Township Committee doing this? Can’t they just say NO to this state requirement? 

The rules for the Affordable Housing process are well-defined and highly encourage townships to follow the process. If the Township didn’t submit a viable plan by June 30, this could open up the Township to Builder’s Remedy, where a developer can propose developing ANY land within the borders and can build 4-to-1 the number of market rate homes to affordable homes. You can do the math: ~200 affordable units plus ~800 market-rate units means ~1000 new units in town, which would have a profound impact on our town and school system. Challenges to the state from municipalities have overwhelmingly been rejected and favored the state and/or developers. Leaving anything up the court system takes this matter out of Cranbury’s control and into the hands of a judge. 

 

Why “Andy’s Farm”?

Good question. There are certain requirements the properties to be considered have to have in order to receive state funding for the development (e.g. sewer service, public water service, access to public transport if available).

(Note: Properties that do not have sewer and water will score much lower, as they would require 2 to 3 years to ask the sewer authority to extend the line to those properties, and it is not guaranteed that it will happen.)

If all requirements are met, the project is fully funded. If any of the requirements are not met, the project receives proportionally less state funding, and the Township (via taxpayer money) would need to fund the shortfall, which would be incredibly burdensome to the tax base (an estimate of $4k to $5k per household per year was provided at the 6-23-25 Township Committee meeting). “Andy’s Farm” happens to meet all the requirements. The Fourth Round Housing Element and Fair Share Plan (“4th Round Plan”) submitted June 13, 2025 (approved by Planning Board 6-24-25), shows that only a portion of the property is being considered for affordable housing; the existing farmhouse and property on two sides are not being proposed.

 

You’re telling me there are no other properties?

That is not the case. There were three (3) parcels identified as part of the 4th Round Plan submitted on June 13, 2025. Other parcels include1274 South River Road and a parcel located atCranbury Commons on the corner of South Main Street and Old Trenton Road.The Township Committee, with a working sub-committee, spent a significant amount of time evaluating potential locations. Unfortunately due to various restrictions on various parcels, these are the only ones that, when combined, can meet the requirements as a whole (see diagram on Page 25 of the linked plan above to look up a specific property). The situation stinks, and the Township Committee is trying to make the best decision for the town to have the least negative impact to the largest number of constituents. 

 

How did the Henry Family find out about this?

Good question. The property is listed on the tax rolls as being owned by “Henry Realty LLC” and has been leased for many years to a livestock farmer who places cattle on property all over New Jersey prior to slaughter. The Township attorneys unsuccessfully tried to reach the owners by telephone to discuss the matter. They ultimately found an address in New Mexico to send a notification letter. It turns out Andy and Chris Henry are the surviving children of the most recent person to live on that site; both live in New Mexico, and have not lived in Cranbury for decades.

 

What did the letter say?

Regarding eminent domain, the April 21, 2025 letter sent from Township attorneys to the Henry Family said…well… read for yourself: (Source: 5/9/25 public posting by Jay Taylor to All About Cranbury, public Facebook group)

(See pictures adjacent to this post)

The letter contains boiler-plate language; while it does mention the prospect of eminent domain, it did not say that this was the primary course of action. 

Cranbury Township is currently in negotiations with the Henry Family concerning the acquisition of his land. Due to the legal nature of these negotiations, no other information regarding them can be provided at this time (note: to authors knowledge it hasn't been made publicly clear as to whether these negotiations are part of the voluntary negotiations or the formal negotiations under ED; it could be that this is a "distinction without a difference", but still not public info.)

 

Why has the Township Committee held closed meetings on this topic?  Doesn’t that violate the Open Public Meetings Act? 

The Township Committee can hold closed meetings for very specific topics (legal, personnel, contract negotiations, and land acquisition) where having open meetings could compromise the ability of the township to take action, or violate individual privacy. “Land acquisition” was the stated reason for these recent closed meetings.

 

Couldn’t the situation with “Andy’s Farm” have been avoided?

ABSOLUTELY. The property owners had an opportunity in the past to preserve his land under various farmland preservation programs, but chose not to. 

 

Why?

You’d have to ask them.

Cranbury has a long history of preserving farmland. More than 20 farms with over 2500 acres have been preserved to date.

You can view all of the preserved Cranbury farmland here.

Spokespeople for the family have said the Henry's had no plans to sell the land to developers based on a promise they made to their parents to never sell the farm; spokespeople say that the Henry Family said that the Henry Family didn’t want the town to spend money to preserve the farm, and instead use those funds to preserve other farmland.

Had the Henry Family decided to formally preserve the farmland, the number of required housing units would have been reduced AND the threat of eminent domain would have been avoided as the land would have been preserved.

What doesCranbury Housing Associates (CHA), a non-profit entity, think about all this, especially as they have been involved with past affordable housing initiatives in Cranbury?

A spokesperson for CHA has expressed disappointment that CHA was not included in the subcommittee to develop the 4th Round Plan, as communicated during the6-23-25 Township Committee Meeting. A CHA spokesperson claimed that the Township Committee was given bad advice, that the Township Committee did not include CHA in establishing guidelines to avoid Builder's Remedy, and that in October 2024, CHA offered to present general parameters of the 4th round to the public, but received no response from the Township Committee. Another CHA spokesperson claimed that the Township Committee did not ask for CHA assistance until February 2025 when it was asked to assist in the development of the parcel at Cranbury Commons (see below). Another CHA spokesperson proposed that the Township Committee should review groupings of smaller developments, which CHA claims are viable, to be considered in lieu of the larger projects included in the 4th Round Plan. That being said, it remains unclear as to whether or not CHA's suggestions would comprehensively meet the requirements of the 4th round. 

There’s been a lot of media attention on this. I’ve seen clips of people dressing up as farmers and cows, raising a lot of awareness. What do they hope to accomplish?

Raising awareness is great! It’s a sensitive and complicated topic. What would be even better than just raising awareness would be if these folks also presented comprehensive, tenable alternative solutions, which, unfortunately, has not yet been the case. 

 

Some townspeople who sound like they understand this process have suggested other properties that should be considered (e.g. a farm on George Davison Road). Why can’t the Township recommend that parcel instead?

As it relates to that parcel, there is a deed restriction that limits the use of the land for agriculture only. While it wasn’t protected under traditional farmland preservation, the deed restriction has an agricultural easement which creates the same protection, and explicitly states that the land is to be used for agriculture and conservation.

An attorney representing the property owners of this parcel has presented this opportunity to the Township Committee and Planning Board, and you can listen to their comments at the6-23-25 Township Committee Meeting. The Township Committee received additional information on this property on June 20, 2025 and said they may review.

Reversing that could set bad precedent of unpreserving farmland and would run counter to the goal of protecting farmland. Plus, this property does not have sewer and water service, so would not be considered for 100% reimbursement, exposing Cranbury taxpayers to a large tax increase if that property were designated for affordable housing. 

 

So the Township Committee just wants to push low-income housing to the outskirts of town?

Um, no. As shown by the properties selected in Rounds 1, 2, and 3, the Township strongly favors properties close to the residential village center. The three properties proposed in the June 13 document are the only tenable parcels. Not to mention: the parcel located at Cranbury Commons is practically in the center of town. Previous affordable housing rounds consumed all other property adjacent to walkable zones within the village area.Cranbury has a long history of meeting its affordable housing obligations with centrally located housing.

Now the U.S Department of Agriculture is involved?

Yes  Secretary of the Dept. of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has sent a letter to the Township Committee urging them to halt any action until the USDA completes a funding review. In the letter, Rollins states that the USDA is reviewing the project to determine if any federal funds are involved because, if so, form AD-1006 needed to have been submitted to the National Resources Conservation Services. As of the time of the letter, Rollins says no such form had been submitted.  You can read the full letter..here.

 

The mayor or members of the Township Committee must be in the pockets of the real estate developers. 

That’s not a question; that’s conspiracy theory speculation. 

Either show some evidence of this or knock it off. 

 

What can I do to help? Someone online said I should inundate Cranbury Township with OPRA requests. 

Please don’t harass town administrative personnel by inundating them with duplicate requests. 

 

So what CAN I do?

You can stay informed. Read the submitted plan. Get your facts from legitimate sources. Attend Township Committee meetings. Ask questions directly to Township Committee members. Nothing will be solved by debating strangers on Facebook groups. You can be civil and listen to others. This is a complicated topic and there is no “silver bullet” solution. 

 

Why do YOU care?

Because I’m a Cranbury taxpayer and because the Township Committee has done an underwhelming job of keeping people informed of their decision-making process and because some of our neighbors have allowed online influencers to infiltrate town-related social media with misinformation.  Why do YOU care? 

********

Note: the Township Committee had provided aFAQ on June 3,2025 which covered some similar ground. That being said, it's more limited in scope and not as easily found.