MINUTES

OF THE

CRANBURY TOWNSHIP

PLANNING BOARD

CRANBURY, NEW JERSEY

MIDDLESEX COUNTY

APPROVED ON AUGUST 4, 2005

TIME AND PLACE OF MEETING

The regular meeting of the Cranbury Township Planning Board was held at the Cranbury Elementary School Cafeteria on June 9, 2005 at 8:00 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, and, Josette C. Kratz acted as Secretary of the meeting.

STATEMENT OF ADEQUATE NOTICE

Pursuant with the Sunshine Law adequate notice according to the open public meeting act was provided of this meeting’s 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 PRESENT

Mr. Robert Dreyling, Mr. James Golubieski, Mr. Eugene Speer, Mr. Richard Stannard, Ms. Joan Weidner, Mr. Thomas Harvey, Chairman

PROFESSIONALS PRESENT

Carolyn Cummings, Court Reporter; Josette C. Kratz, Secretary; Andrew A. Feranda, Traffic Consultant; Cathleen Marcelli, Township Engineer; Joseph Stonaker, Planning Board Attorney.

RESOLUTIONS

PB 043-02 Rock-Cranbury L.L.C. - Station Road

Block 8, Lot 5.01

73 Station Road

Amended Preliminary Major Site Plan

MOTIONED BY: Mr. Golubieski

SECONDED BY: Mr. Stannard

VOTE ROLL CALL

AYES: Mr. Dreyling, Mr. Golubieski, Mr. Stannard, Ms. Weidner, Mr. Harvey

NAYS: None

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: Mr. Kehrt, Mr. Stout

MOTION CARRIED

PB 060-03 Rock-Cranbury L.L.C. - Middle Campus

Block 8, Lot 1.01

324 Half Acre Road

Final Major Site Plan

MOTIONED BY: Mr. Golubieski

SECONDED BY: Mr. Dreyling

VOTE ROLL CALL

AYES: Mr. Dreyling, Mr. Golubieski, Mr. Stannard, Ms. Weidner, Mr. Harvey

NAYS: None

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: Mr. Kehrt, Mr. Stout

MOTION CARRIED

PB 082-04 Virginia Neill/Ken Miller

Block 18.07, Lot 47

106-108 South Main Street

Minor Subdivision

MOTIONED BY: Mr. Golubieski

SECONDED BY: Mr. Dreyling

VOTE ROLL CALL

AYES: Mr. Dreyling, Mr. Golubieski, Mr. Stannard, Ms. Weidner, Mr. Harvey

NAYS: None

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: Mr. Kehrt, Mr. Stout

MOTION CARRIED

PB 084-05 Gentle Healing Wellness Spa - Training Spa

Block 5, lot 16.01

South River Road

Preliminary & Final Site Plan

MOTIONED BY: Mr. Golubieski

SECONDED BY: Mr. Dreyling

VOTE ROLL CALL

AYES: Mr. Dreyling, Mr. Golubieski, Mr. Stannard, Ms. Weidner, Mr. Harvey

NAYS: None

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: Mr. Kehrt, Mr. Stout

MOTION CARRIED

PB 066-03 Ozbotkins, Inc. Hannah & Mason’s on Main

Block 23, Lot 54

39 North Main Street

Denial of Amended Site Plan to allow for evening outdoor seating

MOTIONED BY: Mr. Dreyling

SECONDED BY: Mr. Stannard

VOTE ROLL CALL

AYES: Mr. Dreyling, Mr. Stannard, Mr. Harvey

NAYS: None

ABSTAIN: Mr. Golubieski, Ms. Weidner

ABSENT: Mr. Kehrt, Mr. Stout

MOTION CARRIED

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Mr. Harvey was approached with the idea of starting the meetings at 7:30 p.m. with the thought that they would get finished at an earlier time. Polling the Board, with the exception of Mr. Speer, most members seemed receptive of the idea. Mr. Harvey announced that they would now begin at 7:30 p.m.

APPLICATIONS

PB 415-00 Chinmaya Mission Tri State Center

Block 22, Lots 16 & 18

Cranbury Neck Road

Extension of Time (1^st Extension granted on April 18, 2004 for 1 year)

REPRESENTATIVES: Bruce Samuels, Esquire

Mr. Samuels explained the history of the application. The preliminary approval was good for three years and the final approval was good for 2 years. Last year they requested an extension for final approval and the Board granted it through to April 2005. In April, Mr. Samuels had written a letter requesting a one-year extension for each approval. They are still pursuing permits DEP. They intended to build Phase One with approval from the County Health Department, but the DEP rescinded the County’s approval for Phase One. The reason was the septic system proposed could not be approved in stages. The full proposed build out had to be approved by DEP before they could build Phase One.

Mr. Samuels indicated they had a meeting scheduled for next week. They hoped they would allow the facility to proceed with an equalization tank. There are only a certain number of days a year that they exceed 2,000 gallons. By constructing this equalization tank on the average the effluent would be much less than 2,000 gallons per day, it would be released over an even time period.

Mr. Stonaker said, pursuant to the statue, this was another governmental agency that can take action. They are probably entitled to a one-year extension.

Ms. Marcelli asked if this would be a full blown meeting. Mr. Samuels indicated that he did not feel it was full blown. To his understanding it was not the first meeting. It would be a pre-application meeting.

Mr. Samuels said that there would be some amendments to the site plan, one of which would be to remove some parking in the front yard and also they have run into structural type issues with the existing barn. They are putting together a plan that would maintain the integrity of the Board’s first approval.

Ms. Weidner asked if there were a limitation on the number of extensions that could be granted. Mr. Stonaker said that it appeared to be the last application for extension for Final approval.

There were not comments made from the public.

MOTIONED BY: Mr. Golubieski to approval extension until April 18^th, 2006.

SECONDED BY: Mr. Dreyling

VOTE ROLL CALL

AYES: Mr. Dreyling, Mr. Golubieski, Mr. Speer, Mr. Stannard, Ms. Weidner, Mr. Harvey

NAYS: None

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: Mr. Kehrt, Mr. Stout

MOTION CARRIED

PB 085-05 Natilee Caricato

Block 30, Lot 2.01

70 North Main Street

Minor Site Plan

REPRESENTATIVES: Natlilee Caricato, Applicant

Jennifer Forest, Esquire

TWP PROFESSIONALS REPORTS:

Memorandum from Jessica Smit, Registered Environmental Health Specialist, dated May 31, 2005

Memorandum from Richard Preiss, P.P., Phillips, Preiss, Shapiro Associates, dated June 2, 2005

Letter from Scott A. Levy of Scott Alan Design, dated June 6, 2005

Mr. Stonaker announced that he had reviewed the affidavit of service and the affidavit of publication and confered jurisdiction on the Board to hear the matter.

All professionals and witnesses were sworn, both for the applicant and Township.

Ms. Forest indicated that they were before the Board with request of a Minor Site Plan approval for a change of use of an apartment from residential to a photography studio/office on 70 North Main Street. The property was in the VC Zone. The proposed office use was a permitted use within the VC Zone. Other than the change in use with the addition of two signs they would not be making any exterior changes to the building. They were also requesting a design waiver for the minimum parking spaces. The ordinance required four parking spaces and applicant could only provide one parking space.

Ms. Caricato said they were looking to use the top floor apartment of 70 North Main Street, where she would work with a partner, Marjorie Jones. Their established businesses were mostly freelance portrait photography. The apartment was perfect the way that is stood with no renovations needed. The business would be by appointment only. Usually the clients want to be in their natural settings, 60% to 75% is usually taken at a different location. This would be a centralized location to meeting clients, book appointments, have them pick up profs, etc. There would be no chemical processes on-site.

In front of the red barn there was one designated parking space. Aside from that they did not anticipate needing more than three spaces at any given time.

The sign specifications were changed. The larger sign would be 38" L x 18" H and would say “Portrait Studio Cranbury, NJ” with black lettering with silver trim and white background with possible silver border. The silver would be aluminum leaf paint similar to the one used on the Township sign. She had received approval from the HPAC.

Ms. Marcelli asked what the new hours of operation. Ms. Caricato said that they did not have any at this time. She said that they anticipated between 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. but they were going to see how the clients came in. Family portraits sometimes have to wait until all the children are home from school. They do not plan on going late into the night but maybe after school a couple of hours. Mr. Harvey said that he did not think that would be a condition.

Mr. Harvey asked if there were any other questions and opened the floor for public comments.

Mr. Frank Marlow welcomed Ms. Caricato to the town on behalf of the Business Association.

Mr. Craig Gilbert spoke in favor with no problem of the use.

Mr. Harvey closed the floor to the public since there were no more comments made.

Ms. Weidner asked what would happen with the use of the apartment in the future, would it go back to residential use if this business was no longer here. Mr. Stonaker said that it could be used only for the identical use otherwise an apartment for residential use or come back to the Planning Board.

Ms. Weidner said that she had one comment of the sign. The property adjacent to her had a similar sign and in vary windy stormy weather it bangs against the two columns. She suggested a shorter chain that would not allow for the leeway of the sign.

MOTIONED BY: Mr. Golubieski

SECONDED BY: Mr. Dreyling

VOTE ROLL CALL

AYES: Mr. Dreyling, Mr. Golubieski, Mr. Speer, Mr. Stannard, Ms. Weidner, Mr. Harvey

NAYS: None

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: Mr. Kehrt, Mr. Stout

MOTION CARRIED

PB 400-00 Cransud LLC (a.k.a. Cranbury 93/Sudler)

Block 5.01, Lot 1

100 Liberty Way

Amended Preliminary & Final Site Plan (or Minor Site)

REPRESENTATIVES: William Lane

Richard Goldman, Esquire

Steven Spinweber, Applicant

Carl Penke, Engineer

____ Engals

TWP PROFESSIONALS REPORTS:

Memorandum from Jessica Smit, Registered Environmental Health Specialist, dated May 31, 2005

Memorandum from Richard Preiss, Phillips, Preiss, Shapiro Associates, Inc., dated June 6, 2005

Report from Cathleen Marcelli, P.E., Hatch Mott McDonald, dated June 9, 2005

Report from Scott Levy of Scott Alan Design, Inc., dated June 6, 2005

Mr. Goldman announced that he was here for an amended preliminary and final site plan for one of the two Sudlar buildings on Cranbury South River Road, Block 5, Lot 1. There was a two building project of which this is the southern boundary along Security Drive.

Building was originally built as a spec building, designed to allow the building to be divided into four uses. There was an entrance at each corner of the building with an associated parking for each entrance corner.

They have been fortunate to enter into long term lease with United Stationers as a sole tenant. As a result of taking the whole building they have asked to realign and expand the parking facilities. They have a security based entrance system limiting them to one or two entrances.

After several meetings with the Township professionals they had decided on the decommission of the other two parking areas and would do it in a way that eliminated digging up the black top. The one on the north corner would be converted into an active recreation facility and the one on the southeastern corner would be converted into a passive recreation area with picnic tables.

The applicant requested 251 parking spaces and the ordinance required 167 parking spaces. The prior plan had 168 parking spaces. Mr. Goldman indicated that they needed at least 165 parking spaces just for employees. They had approximately 30 truckers that might come in the morning and need to park their car during the day. There were about 50 additional parking spaces for visitors, sales persons, service persons and seasonal expansion during their busy periods.

All the professionals and the applicant were sworn.

EXHIBIT A-1 Colorized Site Plan

Mr. Speer had concern that some of these facilities would not be used.

There were no public comments made.

Ms. Marcelli had a comment regarding the use of the recreation area and an additional basketball court in the southwest corner. She asked if there was that much of a demand for basketball courts.

Mr. Goldman said the tenant said it would be useful to them.

Mr. Golubieski motioned for the approval of the Amended Major Preliminary and Final Site plan Approval for the additional parking spaces to be relocated and increase from 169 to 251 parking spaces. Subject to the conditions outlined by the Township Engineer, Traffic, Planner and Landscape Architect’s reports.

MOTIONED BY: Mr. Golubieski

SECONDED BY: Ms. Weidner

VOTE ROLL CALL

AYES: Mr. Dreyling, Mr. Golubieski, Mr. Speer, Mr. Stannard, Ms. Weidner, Mr. Harvey

NAYS: None

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: Mr. Kehrt, Mr. Stout

MOTION CARRIED

PB 375-99 KHOV/Kushner/Hagerty/Four Seasons @ Cranbury (a.k.a. Meadows @ Cranbury)

Meadows at Cranbury

Block 20, Lot(s) 6, 10 & 14

South Main Street

Old Cranbury-Hightstown & Old Trenton Road

Amended Preliminary and Final Site Plan, Retaining Wall

REPRESENTATIVES: Mel Lehr, Homeowners Associates

Pat Salasko, Resident

Robert Curly, Esquire

Peter Silverton

TWP PROFESSIONALS REPORT:

Memorandum from Richard Preiss, Phillips Preiss Shapiro Associates, Inc., dated June 2, 2005

Letter from Scott Levy of Scott Alan Design Inc., dated June 6, 2005

Report from Cathleen Marcelli, Hatch Mott MacDonald, dated June 9, 2005

Mr. Curly explained that there were five affected lots. He gave an overview of the previous history for these properties and the conservation easements.

All professionals and applicant were sworn.

EXHIBIT A-1 Amended Preliminary Plat

Mr. Silverton explained the proposed retaining wall. They proposed to construct a retaining wall approximately 210 ft in length in the rear of these four properties. There would be a landscaping hedge at the top placed to provide screening and safety in place of using a fence.

Ms. Salasko, an affected residence, said that four feet out her back door hits the slope. She said that she would really like to see the wall there.

Mr. Lehr, Homeowner’s Association, commented that the Board of Director’s supports the plan presented this evening and indicated that in the packet was a letter from their general counsel that indicated that the Homeowner’s Association would take responsibility for the retaining wall.

Mr. Dreyling asked if their were a liability issue for the Township. Mr. Stonaker said that the Township does not have liability, but that the Homeowners would.

Ms. Marcelli said that the conservation was to the Homeowner’s Association, not to the Township. She suggested taking a look at the homeowner of Lot 10.37 , putting that wall up and the bushes reduces their usable backyard. There would still be a steep slopped area to back rear corner of Ms. Salsko’s property and would need something to stabilize the grass or sod. She would need a plan showing that. Ms. Salsko represented there was four feet to the steep slope and Ms. Marcelli felt that it was more like 15 feet.

Ms. Marcelli asked that the applicant revise the plan to show all of the existing contour to the rear Lot 10.34 and also the existing contours on how the applicant plans on tying them in. She wanted to confirm that the proposed contours of 94 through to 97 tie into existing contours without further disturbance.

Mr. Preiss, regarding Lot 10.34, asked what would prevent them from putting the retaining wall on the conservation easement line and why did they have to encroach in that particular location by seven feet.

There were various discusses, but there was no conclusive reason for constructing the retention wall in a straight line.

Mr. Stannard commented that the applicant built a larger house, then decided that there was not enough property, and than tries to take something that was not theirs to build a backyard.

Mr. Stannard asked if there had been any study conducted to assure this Board that no harm was being created by filling in this easement.

Ms. Marcelli said that there should be an agreement in the resolution regarding post rainfall, watershed, etc.

Mr. Golubieski felt he did not have the confidence that the applicant would follow through on their obligation since they had not in the past.

Mr. Speer suggested skewing the wall. On Lot 10.34 there would be an adequate backyard if the wall were on the conservation easement line.

Mr. Stannard asked how the public interest was advanced by this application. He would fell better if he know what the purpose of the conservation easement and how the benefit exceed the determent.

Mr. Curly said that the negative criteria was also minor, not being a determent to the public.

Mr. Preiss mentioned that the landscape architect had some comments about enhancing the landscaping.

Mr. Curly felt that the suggestions were acceptable and would agree to all that was requested.

There were no public comments made.

Mr. Dreyling wanted to hear from Ms. Marcelli and Mr. Preiss if this was something that they felt was desirable or not.

Mr. Preiss said that the Board seems to be grappling with the notion of a self created hardship. He asked some questions like has the wall been necessitated by the homeowners choosing to building a home on the property that put the rear portion of the home so close to the conservation easement. To some extent that may be true. The Board needs to balance the fact that is where the houses are located and there was going to be some use of the rear yard.

Given the rear of the homes so close to conservation easement, whether the conservation easements would be used