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 July 6, 2006 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 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.




Mr. Dreyling, Mr. Golubieski, Mr. Kehrt, Mr. Speer, Mr. Stannard, Mr. Stout, Ms. Weidner, Mr. Harvey




Josette C. Kratz, Secretary; Cathleen Marcelli, Township Engineer, Joseph Stonaker, Esquire, Planning Board Attorney; Richard Preiss, Township Planner




This was a joint meeting with Township Committee.  Members of Committee present were Ms. Pari Stave, Mr. Wayne Wittman, Mr. Tom Panconi and Trishka Waterbury as Township Attorney, in addition to Mr. Stannard and Mr. Stout.  Upon a motion duly made and seconded Ms. Kratz was appointed Deputy Clerk this the proceeding of this meeting





Postponed May 18, 2006 and May 25, 2006 until July 20, 2006.




PB 109-06 Cedar Brook Corporate Center, Block 1.02, Lot 5, Proposed 1-Story 3,522 SF Restaurant Preliminary & Final Site Plan and Minor Subdivision for to move property line from Lot 4 to Lot 5


Mr. Golubieski motioned for the approval of the resolution and Mr. Speer seconded the motion.




              AYES:            Mr. Dreyling, Mr. Golubieski, Mr. Speer, Mr. Stannard, Mr. Stout,

                                    Mr. Harvey

             NAYS:            None

       ABSTAIN:            Mr. Kehrt

         ABSENT:            Ms. Weidner





No. PB 106-06 JERC Partners V, LLC, (Mancran Building, LLC/Woodmont Half Acre, LLC), Block 8, Lot 1.04, Middle Campus/Half Acre Road, Amendment to Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan


Mr. Golubieski motioned for the approval of the resolution and Mr. Speer seconded the motion.




              AYES:            Mr. Dreyling, Mr. Golubieski, Mr. Speer, Mr. Stannard, Mr. Stout,

                                    Mr. Harvey

             NAYS:            None

       ABSTAIN:            Mr. Kehrt

         ABSENT:            Ms. Weidner





PB 060-03 Rock IDI Cranbury LLC, (Mancran Building, LLC/Woodmont Half Acre, LLC), Block 8, Lot 1.01, Middle Campus/Half Acre Road, Amendment to Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan.


Mr. Golubieski motioned for the approval of the resolution and Mr. Speer seconded the motion.




              AYES:            Mr. Dreyling, Mr. Golubieski, Mr. Speer, Mr. Stannard, Mr. Stout,

                                    Mr. Harvey

             NAYS:            None

       ABSTAIN:            Mr. Kehrt

         ABSENT:            Ms. Weidner







PB 101-05        Prologis Park Cranbury (South Park)

                        Block 10, Lot 4 & 19

                        Station Road

                        Preliminary & Final Site Plan

                        POSTPONED UNITL JULY 20, 2006





PB 118-06       Cranbury Housing Assoc., Inc.

                        Block 20, Lot 10.01

                        Old Cranbury Road

                        Major Subdivision and Site Plan


REPRESENTATIVES: Christopher Tarr, Esquire

                                    Mark Berkowsky, CHA Applicant

                                    Maurice Rached, Traffic, Maser Consulting P.A.

                                    Mark J. Janiszewski, P.E., Maser Consulting, P.A.

                                    Joseph B. Stevens, RA, J. Stevens & Associates

                                    Neville Walters, Operations Management



Mr. Tarr explained that this was for two waivers and preliminary and final site plan approval. 


Mr. Stonaker reviewed affidavit of service and conferrer jurisdiction. 


All witnesses and Township professionals were sworn.


EXHIBIT A-1   Landscape Plan

EXHIBIT A-2   Architectural Rendering Mural

EXHIBIT A-3   Series photos of other existing (three photos)



Applicant was staying with a similar building design as used on previous projects.  Based on COAH requirements using four units in a building. 


Mr. Stevens was accepted as a professional in his field.  Intent to was to use similar color schemes and shutters to add variety.  Porches are one foot deeper with added railings.


Ms. Marcelli wanted the borings done as a condition of approval. Ms. Marcelli asked Mr. Janiszewski (accepted as a professional in his field) for a copy of the survey. Mr. Janiszewski gave an overview of the stormwater design.  They were looking at a colored up to 4 ft vinyl fence on top of the berm subject to the Township Engineer’s approvals. Waiver requested for the difference of height.


Mr. Golubieski asked if the design waivers were reasonable.  Ms. Marcelli felt they were.


The bulb of the cul-de-sac had a 30 ft width.  They were not compliant to the 40 ft requirement and asked for a design waivers of the residential standards. The subcommittee preferred the 30 ft, although the applicant said that they could build a conforming 40 ft cul-de-sac and preferred that.


Mr. Wittman asked about the berm.  There would be a berm averaging 1 to 2 ft.  There are portions where they cannot construct a berm in which they have provided additional landscaping.  There was no objection to additional landscaping if needed.  The reason for areas with no berm was the swale that sits behind the property in the south end.


Mr. Rached was accepted as a professional.  His opinion was to build the cul-de-sac to standards for emergency vehicles access for safety.  He looked into the roadway on the northerly side, the additional driveway was not needed.  The trip generation would be 10 to 12 trips per hour.  There were no operational issues.  The cul-de-sac was for the occasional refuse truck. If one way in it would encourage speeding through development and create a conflict with those backing out of parking spaces.  There was still concern with lights spillage.  The one way in would become an enforcement issues.  It would also require additional signage. The painted aisle way area allows people to unload cars during winter time rather then climbing over a snow mound to get to the sidewalk.


Mr. Walters explained the cost factor of sidewalks.  Dumpster would be empty once a week for trash and one for recycling. 


Mr. Harvey felt the issues were sidewalks, porches, and north entrance.


Mr. Preiss said that instead of the branch walkways there should be direct walkways.  These units are townhouse units.  Virtual everyone can park directly behind his or her units.  He preferred the units to be individualized as in PB EXHIBIT 1 - Concept A that Ms. Marcelli drafted.


Mr. Berkowsky said that there is no private common space, only patio space.  This provides more open space. The reduction of sidewalk cuts on the maintenance costs.  It also reduces liability costs.  There is no reserved parking either.


Kenneth Block, 17 Hargerty, he agreed in CHA’s rendition and understands his residents.


Elizabeth Silverman, CHA Board, this is a small space and maintenance issues.  They did not want to due anything to impeded Neville. 


Mr. Berkowsky said that the lease does not allow for the planting of any material or place anything, even a chair.


Mr. Golubieski said that they should defer to the other issues.


Mr. Stannard asked about the width of the painted aisle way.  It was said that it was three feet.


Mr. Kehrt did not feel it would be safer to walk down to a painted area then to walk straight out of their call.  When you exit your car you generally go forward.  The sidewalk acts as a collector to get to a safe haven.  There should not be hard to find a straight sidewalk in the snow.


Mr. Berkowsky said running a sidewalk along the parking would add to maintenance costs.


Mr. Preiss had comments regarding the porches.  He liked the streetscape, but felt that the porches could be more pleasing by extending them in depth and width.  He did feel the side entry porches worked well, maybe a little more depth. The center porch could use a little more work with railings, depth or even material on the base.  PB EXHIBIT 2 Porches. There was discussion of slab on grade and Mr. Berkowsky felt it drove the cost of the unit up.


Mr. Kehrt suggested a painted form liner.


Mr. Feranda said that locating the access at an appropriate site.  It leaves a long distance from entrance to end point. RSIS has a requirements over 300 ft provide a 40 ft bulb.  One needs to remember emergency vehicles.  If Title 39 is granted police can come onsite.


There was lengthy debate over the size, providing hammerheads, etc.


Mr. Wittman felt emergency access in only with the grass pavers would be appropriate. It would be nice to have a sidewalk only the parking lot.  He liked deeper porches.  He wanted more landscaping. He liked shutters on all the buildings. He would like to see an elevation of the landscaping on the southern side.


Mr. Block was concerned with the enlargement going to the edge of the KHOV property line.  He commented that Mr. Berkowsky spoke with KHOV residences extensively and that none of the Township’s professionals took any time to speak with any of the KHOV residence.


The landscaping does not reflect reality and he did not feel there was room as depicted on the plans.


Jeannette Frady, 7 Hagerty, mentioned that the sprinkler system was also on the CHA property.


Ann Maluso, 13 Hagerty, asked to keep in mind the berm needs to be 6 feet total to block KHOV from the cars.


Peter Frady, 7 Hagerty, the den and bedrooms are in the rear facing the CHA.  That allows for a lot of light to come in.  If there are pets, they need the barrier.


Diane Stasi, 18 Old Cranbury Road, asked if drawing was the same was mailed to her.  Mr. Berkowsky said that it was slightly different to accommodate Building #2 moved back to save a tree.  She asked if this was for low and moderate income. Mr. Berkowsky explained that this was per the requirement on the third round requirements.  She mentioned a scooter accident that happened over the weekend and suggested no second entrance due to the amount of accidents that have happened along that curve.  She was also concerned with overnight parking.  She agreed with Mr. Preiss’s comments on the porches and that these were here for the long term.


Jeannette Frady, 7 Hagerty, commented on vinyl or wood fencing.


Ms. Stave would have rather saw the original plan.  She said the planting on the KHOV side would be a challenge. She likes what Mr. Kehrt said about the porches regarding the form liner. She did not want to incur additional expenses.  The traffic engineer said it best about enforcing egress.  The fire company should address access for emergency access.


He liked the idea of the bulb and felt 30 ft was sufficient. He liked one access.  A little money could go into the porches.


Mr. Stout said the sidewalk should be like the front, but plan is fine. The porches provided elsewhere are sound.  If there are low cost items that is fine. He was for cul-de-sac and could not see logic for entrance on the north.  The fire department should address their needs.  Smaller with less paving is great for all parties.


Mr. Panconi echoed comments made.    He felt CHA did a very good job; one cannot point out CHA housing.  Porches could be dressed up a little more.


Mr. Speer felt they could go with the hammerheads.


Mr. Golubieski motioned for the approval of the application preliminary and final site plan subject for 2 family and 4 family dwellings for a total of 20 units:


1.                   The design waivers for four foot solid fence, no environmental study, no traffic impact statement; and for peculation and soil log tests; and

2.                   Subject to conditions outlined in the Township Engineer’s, Township Planner’s, Landscape and Traffic reports; and

3.                   Subject to any outside agency approvals; and

4.                   Township Engineer approving the materials to be used in the fence (vinyl fence, not white color); and

5.                   Final approval of landscape engineer with resolution with CHA; and

6.                   Subject to approval of Township Planner with regards to additional railings and materials to be used on the base of the porches, such as form liner (stamped concrete); and

7.                   Design will include a 30 ft cul-de-sac with grass pavers if required by Fire Department; and

8.                   Suggestion to the Township Committee about the possibility to restricting access to parking on the roadway.


Mr. Kehrt seconded the motion.



























There being no further business, on motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was thereupon adjourned at 9:30 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 July 6, 2006, 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 November 2, 2006.




                                                                        Josette C. Kratz, Secretary