††††††††††† The regular meeting of the Cranbury Township Planning Board was held at the Cranbury Town Hall Municipal Building, Old School Building, 23-A North Main Street, Cranbury, New Jersey, Middlesex County, on February 1, 2007 at 7:30 p.m




Thomas Harvey, Chairperson, of the Cranbury Township Planning Board, called the meeting to order and acted as the Chairman thereof.




††††††††††† Pursuant with the Sunshine Law adequate notice in accordance with the open public meeting act was provided of this meetingís date, time, place and agenda was mailed to the news media, posted on the Township bulletin board, mailed to those requesting personal notice, and filed with the municipal clerk.




Michael Dulin, James, Golubieski, Allen Kehrt, Thomas Panconi, Eugene Speer, Richard Stannard, Dietrich Wahlers, Joan Weidner, Thomas Harvey




Carolyn Cummings, Court Reporter; Josette C. Kratz, Secretary; Andrew A. Feranda, Traffic Consultant; Cathleen Marcelli, P.E.; Joseph Stonaker, Esquire; Richard Preiss, P.P.




There were no public comments made.





Minutes for November 2, 2006, November 30, 2006 and January 4, 2007 were unanimously approved.





PB 091-05†††††† Jen-Dar Realty, LLC

Block 2, Lot 10

1246 South River Road


The Board took jurisdiction but applicant would carry until March 1 with plans addressing LOI, with no further notice.



PB 012-01a ††† Rock-Cranbury, LLC (Foreign Trade Zone), a.k.a. Crate & Barrel,

††††††††††††††††††††††† Block 4, Lot 1.03, (Formally Block 4, Lots 1, 2, 3, & 5)

††††††††††††††††††††††† Prospect Plains Road & Half Acre Road

††††††††††††††††††††††† Amended Preliminary & Final Site Plan


Mr. Kehrt recused himself from hearing this application due to a conflict of interest.


REPRESENTATIVES: Steven Barcan, Esquire

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Richard Burrows, Engineer


Mr. Burrows being sworn and accepted gave testimony.†


EXHIBIT A-1†††††††††††††† Original rendered plan as approved

EXHIBIT A-2†††††††††††††† Rendered plan as proposed

EXHIBIT A-3†††††††††††††† Sheet 1.01


New area will now abut the main buildings with a slight gain in loading doors and the same number of parking spaces as approved in 2004.


Mr. Golubieski motioned for the approval of the application with the following conditions:


1.       Approval for the side and rear yard variances;

2.       Subject to the engineer and traffic consultantís reports;

3.       Applicant to provide plans that comply with #8 of the engineerís report;

4.       Amend plan with all construction activities as part of one set;

5.       All outside agency approvals;

6.       COAH requirements;

7.       Consolidation of lots prior to CO;

8.       Restore fire lane and construction lane.


Ms. Weidner seconded the motion.




††††††††††††† AYES:††††† Mr. Dulin, Mr. Golubieski, Mr. Panconi, Mr. Speer, Mr. Stannard, Mr. Wahlers, Ms. Weidner, Mr. Harvey

†††††††††††† NAYS:††††† None

†††††† ABSTAIN:††††† None

†††††††† ABSENT:††††† None






PB 099-05†††††† Matthew & Patricia Long

Block 21, Lot 3, Zone A-100

39 Cranbury Neck Road

Minor Subdivision



REPRESENTATIVES:†††††††††††† Robert Casey, Esquire

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Mathew Long, Applicant/Owner

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Kevin Rasmussen

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Renee Anstiss

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Paul Szymanski, Planner


Applicant representatives and township representatives were sworn.


The barn was falling down and was placed where it should not be and needed to be restored.† To enjoy the view and the rest of the landscape of the property the proposed spot seemed idea.† The new barn area would become the focal spot.†


EXHIBIT A-1†††††††† An artistís rendering of the proposed barn site

EXHIBIT A-2††††††††

EXHIBIT A-3†††††††† Photographs of existing property

EXHIBIT A-4†††††††† Six (6) pages of rendering pictures and photographs

EXHIBIT A-5†††††††† Wooden model of proposed project (picture also included of model in EXHIBIT A4)

EXHIBIT A-6†††††††† Old Plan

EXHIBIT A-7†††††††† Open Space Map



This would be a perfect way to preserve 200 years of history; with barn, garage, and carriage house.† It would be a new carriage house.† The restored portion would be the barn.


There was no final decision on what to do with the existing house, possibly sell the house and subdivided portion after this project was completed.


Mr. Harvey said that he felt there was a benefit. The clear benefit was that the applicant is preserving a 200-year old barn of which the applicant could not afford to preserve any other way.† The alternative to not having the subdivision would be the disappearance of that structure.


Mr. Kehrt said that when he was on HPAC they went through an enormous amount of trouble to preserve the barns in Cranbury.† He believed that there was only one preserved barn in Cranbury.†


Mr. Casey said that it was nice to be before a board that was this engaged in these issues.† Having the stream of consciousness was stimulating.† This was a planning tool.† This was a creation that they were trying to do.† Something that was positive for the community and a community asset.† That people would be proud of the peonies and what was done in that area.† This was the project that one would want to be duplicated, to live in an old farmhouse and maintain the heritage of this community.† Cranbury is famous for its agricultural preservation and accent of agriculture.


The Longís were attracted to this property.† It is a nursery property, not a basketball court, tennis court or pool in the backyard.† There was nursery stock and beautiful species of plants back there that you cannot duplicate anywhere else.


Preserving the barn will create a beautiful visual impact and put something that was complimentary that would be barely noticed.† But one would know they are in a farm community when they see.† This is a natural fit. It is a beautiful opportunity to continue to hence the property for the benefit of the community, to make people to continue to notice what Cranbury is doing.† This compliment the work of Cranbury.† This is what it is all about and in line with the philosophy of the Master Plan.


Mr. Preiss addressed his memo and explained that this was not an impact to the land.† With regard to the view shed from the rest of Cranbury, he did not feel it was going to be a substantial disruption.† It would be an added structure on a six acre parcel, but the purpose and intent was in keeping with the Master Plan.


Mr. Golubieski was still concerned with the precedent that it would set.


Both Diane Stasi and Gene McDermott of Cranbury spoke in favor of the proposed project.


Mr. Kehrt said that this was one of the better proposals that he has seen come before this board in a long time.† This was a good one.† He was assuming that with the history of the New Jersey Barn Company that he was in favor of the application.† He would have liked to see a single curb cut on Old Cranbury Road.† He felt that the applicant could configure the property line to save the peony garden on the new lot and keep one driveway with an easement to keep only one curb cut.


Mr. Dulin said he felt that there was a certain sentiment that there was a certain level of truth but on the other side there was concern that this might set a bad precedent.† That is the biggest stumbling block. If we could come up with some way to make it more restrictive.† There are a number of different issues that we can work on where it would be possible to make it restrictive to replicate it elsewhere, but in ways that one would want to replicate.


Mr. Stannard said that this was a beautiful building.† But one would find people that would say that a wide open space was more enhanced.† He was thrilled to hear that the opportunity has so many distinguishing features that it would not be easily thrown out.† They have the benefit of the barn, and the Township Committee would be spending money to save another barn.† He would support this application.


Ms. Weidner had a question on whether the idea of precedent was set aside. Mr. Stonaker said that if one could find another piece of property like this in the unique situation like this that preserves uniquely these then, yes there would be an argument for precedent.† But he felt that it would be unlikely that one would find another piece of property just like this.† If there was a deed restriction it would make it unique and people would not agree to that situation.


Mr. Stonaker did not recommend that such a deed restriction.† Mr. Casey felt the sense was not to create a monster out there and preserve the agriculture character.


Applicant would return to the board on March 1st with more information on uniqueness of the property in addition to the SF/FAR issue.





There being no further business, on motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was thereupon adjourned at 11:00 p.m.




††††††††††††††††††††††† I, Undersigned, do hereby certify;


††††††††††††††††††††††† That I am duly elected and acting secretary of the Cranbury Township Planning Board and, that the foregoing minutes of the Planning Board, held on February 1, 2007, consisting of 5 pages, constitute a true and correct copy of the minutes of the said meeting.


††††††††††††††††††††††† IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name of said Planning Board this March 1, 2007.



††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Josette C. Kratz, Secretary