MINUTES

OF THE

CRANBURY TOWNSHIP

PLANNING BOARD

CRANBURY, NEW JERSEY

MIDDLESEX COUNTY

 

 

TIME AND PLACE OF MEETING

 

††††††††††† 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 March 1, 2007 at 7:30 p.m

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

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

 

STATEMENT OF ADEQUATE NOTICE

 

††††††††††† 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.

 

MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE

 

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

 

PROFESSIONALS IN ATTENDANCE

 

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

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

There were no public comments made.

†††††††††††††††††††††††

 

MINUTES

 

February 1, 2007 minutes upon duly being motioned and seconded were unanimously approved.

 

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

PB 116-06†††††† Steve Feibus

††††††††††††††††††††††† Block 26, Lots 4 & 5.01

††††††††††††††††††††††† Route 130

††††††††††††††††††††††† Minor Site

 

Mr. Allen Kehrt motioned for the approval of the resolution.† Mr. Dulin seconded the motion.

 

VOTE ROLL CALL

 

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

†††††††††††† NAYS:††††† None

†††††† ABSTAIN:††††† Mr. Harvey

†††††††† ABSENT:††††† Mr. Wahlers

 

MOTION CARRIED

 

 

PB 107-06†††††† Kerzner Associates

††††††††††††††††††††††† Block 2.01, Lot 3.01

††††††††††††††††††††††† 1 Corporate Drive

††††††††††††††††††††††† Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval

 

Mr. Golubieski motioned for the approval of the resolution.† Mr. Panconi seconded the motion.

 

VOTE ROLL CALL

 

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

†††††††††††† NAYS:††††† None

†††††† ABSTAIN:††††† Mr. Kehrt, Mr. Harvey

†††††††† ABSENT:††††† Mr. Wahlers

 

MOTION CARRIED

 

 

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. Golubieski motioned for the approval of the resolution.† Ms. Weidner seconded the motion.

 

VOTE ROLL CALL

 

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

†††††††††††† NAYS:††††† None

†††††† ABSTAIN:††††† Mr. Kehrt, Mr. Harvey

†††††††† ABSENT:††††† Mr. Wahlers

 

MOTION CARRIED

 

 

APPLICATIONS

 

Extension of Time for Application No. PB 082-04 Virginia Neill/Ken Miller, Block 18.07, Lot 47, 106-108 South Main Street, Minor Subdivision

 

Mr. Driggers said he apologized for continually coming before the board on this matter.† This is a minor subdivision and the County has agreed that they do not have to put in the second circular driveway.† On the first week of January they submitted plans to put in a K-Turn and they have not heard back from Middlesex County.† They verbally said the K-Turn was okay but they havenít received a confirmation.

 

Mr. Driggers said that everything else was ready.†

 

Mr. Stonaker said that they can continue it for another 60 days but beyond that it raises issues.

 

There were no public comments made.

 

Mr. Speer motioned that the Board grant the extension for an additional 60-days.† Mr. Stannard seconded the motion.

 

 

VOTE ROLL CALL

 

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

†††††††††††† NAYS:††††† None

†††††† ABSTAIN:††††† None

†††††††† ABSENT:††††† Mr. Wahlers

 

MOTION CARRIED

 

 

 

 

PB 121-06†††††† Xenogen Biosciences

††††††††††††††††††††††† Block 1, Lot 5 & 7.03

††††††††††††††††††††††† 5 Cedar Brook Drive

††††††††††††††††††††††† Minor Site Plan to Install Liquid Nitrogen Tank

 

REPRESENTATIVES:†††††††††††† Donald Driggers, Esquire

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Jules Johnson, Facility Manager

 

Mr. Driggers said that this was a minor site plan for a nitrogen tank that is nine feet high and would be installed outside.† If the company no longer needed the tank they agreed to remove it.

 

Mr. Johnson was sworn.† Explained Xenogenics was a biotech company for research in Joe Sternís Complex Cedar Brook.†

 

EXHIBIT A-1†† Site Plan as submitted in packet

 

The way the building was laid out the tank could not fit inside the building as other facilities sometimes have.† The height is 9 ft and would be located in the rear of the building.† The liquid nitrogen would come through the line into the building.† They met and complied with all State regulations.†

 

Ms. Marcelli mentioned that the ordinance states the limit was 8 ft high and the design was 9 ft, which would require a design waiver.

 

She also asked if the gate was locked.† The applicant replied him and his superior officer would have the key.†

 

Mr. Johnson said that only in confined spaces was the nitrogen a hazard of which they would have an alarm to indicate leaks.† Outside it would be no concern.

 

Ms. Marcelli felt that the police and fire department should have a copy of the plans indicating where it was located and what the contents were.† Mr. Speer asked if they are supposed to have a lock box.

 

Mr. Preiss referenced that the tank would appear above the 6 ft fence.† He did not feel the fence needed to be extended but requested perhaps some plantings initially could be 8 ft.

 

There were no public comments made.

 

Mr. Golubieski motioned for the approval of the application.† Mr. Panconi seconded the motion.

 

VOTE ROLL CALL

 

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

†††††††††††† NAYS:††††† None

†††††† ABSTAIN:††††† None

†††††††† ABSENT:††††† Mr. Wahlers

 

MOTION CARRIED

 

 

 

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

Block 21, Lot 3, Zone A-100

39 Cranbury Neck Road

Minor Subdivision

 

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

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Renee Anstiss, Landscape Architect

 

 

 

Mr. Casey said that they reconfigured the lot lines.† They eliminated the flag lot and moved the line around the peony garden.† They have allowed a residential access drive off Cranbury Neck Road utilizing the existing driveway.† They separated the driveway from the residential driveway.† The lots would be Lot A 2.1 ac and Lot B 6.75 ac. Lot A is now larger due to the elimination of the flagged lot.

 

There was some discussion regarding whether or not to limit building to this particular area only and not to extend further into it.† There could be a building limitation restriction if necessary.† Mr. Harvey said, since this was a conforming lot, he felt that in the future if somebody wanted to build a different structure and did not violate any setbacks he felt it was onerous to say the owner could never do it.

 

Mr. Dulin said some of them were concerned of the precedent ramifications.† He did look at the property and felt that if he had an opportunity to restate that he would not be as concerned about restricting the property.†

 

Mr. Harvey said that if it was a conforming 6-ac lot with nothing on it a person ought to be able to put their house anywhere they wanted as long they were not in violation of the setbacks.

 

Mr. Casey said that they would prefer not to have the restriction.

 

Mr. Preiss said that the size of the subdivided lots created an impact where one would want to be sensitive to the agricultural area.† One of the ways to mitigate the impact would be building limitation so not to have house to assure the neighbors who would have been otherwise be here tonight.

 

Mr. Harvey said that he could move that house anywhere he wanted on those six areas and the neighbors could be vary unhappy because it was blocking their view.† He felt this was arbitrary.

 

Mr. Golubieski said, but you were not granted an exception.

 

Mr. Speer indicated that the board is being sold on a view.† It should be reasonable to say that we would grant permission but we want to control the affects that it was going to have.

 

Mr. Harvey said that the applicant should come back with real plans showing the exact lines.

The meeting would be continued to a date in early April and will re-notice.

 

 

PB 091-05†††††† Jen-Dar Realty, LLC

Block 2, Lot 10

1246 South River Road

Preliminary and Final Site Plan

 

REPRESENTATIVES:†††††††††††† David Orron, Esquire

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Peter W. Strong, Crest Engineering

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Vincent A. Piacente, Inside Architecture, P.C.

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

 

Mr. Orron explained that this was a continuation of preliminary and final site plan application with waivers.† They were before the board last July.† At that time the board ruled on a portion of the application which was a side yard setback variance for the southerly portion of the proposed building.††

 

EXHIBIT A-1†† Color rendering of Crest Engineering, Display, dated February 1, 2007

 

At the July 2006 meeting, the planning board denied the portion of the application that sought a bulk variance for a 15 ft side yard setback in the southern area.† They have since redesigned the building so there would be no side yard variance requested.

 

They have already given planner testimony and traffic testimony as part of the former application.† Mr. Stonaker concurred.† He also indicated that the notice continued from the last hearing.

 

Mr. Strong said that building size and location changed slightly, it was shortened to eliminate the side yard variance.† Building became a little fatter and there were several parking spaces that were deleted from the sight and technical changes to landscaping and other site design issues.

 

They are down one parking space from 90 to 89 spaces.† They provide 74 spaces on site as shown and eight spaces labeled as banked spaces, south of the existing building.† They are requesting a waiver for the remaining missing seven spaces.

 

Mr. Orron said, at the last meeting there was discussion of the southern most parking spot in front of the existing building and whether there was an issue of backing out the space and conflicting traffic in the main drive.† They would be extending the island ten feet to reduce the chances of a car doing the maneuver.

 

Mr. Orron said that Mr. Feranda provided an updated memo.† Mr. Orron said that they really did not want to lose that parking spot and as a result would work out modifications.

 

There was also commentary from the Township Landscape Architect, Scott Levy concerning plantings along the curb area to the south and the north.† Initially in the plan, it was proposed to be planted in a linear fashion and it was requested that they be planted in offset fashion.

 

Grass paver access had been removed after consultation with the Fire Company and Fire Company has granted a letter, dated February 18, 2007, regarding the matter since the building is sprinkled.

 

Mr. Golubieski motioned for approval subject to the following conditions:

 

1.                   Township Engineer and landscape engineerís reports,

2.                   Applicant will note the number and design bollards on the application,

3.                   Subject to approval with the Township Engineer,

4.                   Three variances for lot area, front area, and side yard,

5.                   Design waivers,

6.                   Applicant will use a product that would match the existing building,

7.                   Outside agency approvals.

8.†††††††† Sign would be no more the 60 SF.† Identifier of the project with street number, plus three tenant identifiers.

 

They were agreeing to the Landscapers memo February 27, 2007, Engineerís memo of March 1 and February 1, and variances in February 1 and technical comments in March 1, 2007 memo.

 

Mr. Speer seconded the motion.

 

 

VOTE ROLL CALL

 

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

†††††††††††† NAYS:††††† None

†††††† ABSTAIN:††††† None

†††††††† ABSENT:††††† Mr. Wahlers

 

MOTION CARRIED

 

 

ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING

 

There being no further business, on motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was thereupon adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

 

CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY

 

††††††††††††††††††††††† 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 March 1, 2007, consisting of 8 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 August 2, 2007.

 

 

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

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

 

 

/jck