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 20, 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. Golubieski, Mr. Speer, Mr. Stannard, Mr. Stout, Ms. Weidner, Mr. Harvey




Carolyn Cummings, Court Reporter; 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





Minutes May 18, 2006 and May 25, 2006 were upon motion duly made and seconded were approval unanimously.




PB 118-06        Cranbury Housing Assoc., Inc.

                        Block 20, Lot 10.01

                        Old Cranbury Road

                        Major Subdivision and Site Plan


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




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

             NAYS:            None

       ABSTAIN:            Ms. Weidner

         ABSENT:            Mr. Dreyling, Mr. Kehrt






PB 117-06        Purdue Pharma L.P.

                        Block 1.02, Lot 4, Zone RO/LI

                        6 Cedar Brook Drive

                        Amended Preliminary & Final Site Plan (Minor)


REPRESENTATIVES:             Alan Porter, Attorney

                                                Joseph Prior, Kupper

                                                John Neimic


Mr. Stout recused himself from this application.


Mr. Porter explained that this was a small application to amend to allow for an expansion of an existing loading area to allow vehicle access.


EXHIBIT A-1   Close-up Photograph of Loading Door

EXHIBIT A-2   Blow-up of the site plan as submitted colorized


They will try and remove fewer trees if possible.  New Belgium block curbing will be installed. A sprinkler head will be removed.  Installation of two new bollards.  The applicant was requesting three design waivers; elevations, traffic impacts study, and drainage calculations.  Ms. Marcelli was comfortable with those waivers.


Ms. Marcelli said that originally there were five dock doors approved.  When the building was built it only had one dock door.  They never exceeded the original doors approved, the received approval for five doors and only installed two.


The businesses concern was the safety of the drugs and sharing building space/loading areas with controlled substance.  The truck needs to be brought close as possible so there is no chance for a diversion.


Mr. Preiss ask for the applicant to indicate on the plans that are submitted which trees would be replaced and which would remain and where the replacement trees would end up.


Ms. Marcelli asked for the updating of the chart on impervious coverage.


There were no public comments made.


Mr. Golubieski motion for the approval of the amended preliminary and final site plan with the three design waivers.  Subject to the conditions outlined in the engineer and landscape engineers report.  Subject to any outside agency approvals.  Condition that plans for relocation of the trees.  Revision of the chart to reflect current and proposed conditions.


Mr. Speer seconded the motion.


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

             NAYS:            None

  ABSTAINED:            Mr. Stout

         ABSENT:            Mr. Dreyling, Mr. Kehrt





PB 091-05       Jen-Dar Realty LLC

Block 2, Lot 10, LI Zone

1246 South River Road

Preliminary & Final Site Plan


REPRESENTATIVES:             David Orron, Attorney and Principal

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

                                                Peter W. Strong, Crest Engineering Associates

                                                Paul Scymanski, Planner

                                                Frank Miskovich, Abbington Associates, Inc.



Mr. Stonaker reviewed affidavit of service and publication and conferred jurisdiction on the board to hear the matter.


Mr. Orron explained that they were here for a preliminary and final site plan approval.  The plan reflects an evolution of a plan from three separate appearances before this board or elevations of this board.


EXHIBIT A-1   Color rendering of the site plan


Three acres are required and this property was just over 2.5 acres.  Variance needed for frontage where 300 ft are required and they have 251 +/- ft.  They are providing 33.8 ft setback to the south of the property and the side yard 39.8 ft.  Three of those variances are already preexisting.


The County widened South River Road and took a major portion of their frontage when they widened the road, but would not have changed the non-conformity of the lot acreage.


There are also several waivers mentioned in the Township engineer’s report.


Prologis was not willing to sell additional property making it impossible for the applicant to increase the size of their lot.


EXHIBIT A-2   Series of nine photographs of the existing property and building


Applicant’s professionals’ and Township’s professionals were sworn.


There was much concern voiced from the board members of the applicant trying to put too much building on too small of lot. 


Mr. Stannard pointed out that these standards are not produced with the notion that if one does not have enough they can simply borrow from their neighbor.  He needed to know precisely what the hardship was.  The case quoted was that typically the buildings in the area are big boxes, but the applicant could not say that because we have those big boxes “anything goes”.


Mr. Orron said they were staying within the FAR and building no one would ever see.


The applicant went through the Township engineer’s report and indicated which items they agreed to.


Mr. Harvey paused the hearing to talk with the Prologis applicant due to the length of time Jen Dar was taking.  Mr. Stonaker said that it appeared that this application was going to proceed for at least an hour more and did not want to start a new application after 10:00 p.m. and requested a further extension to August 3, 2006, the applicant agreed.


EXHIBIT A-6   Photograph of existing building


The applicant set out to set up the site, architecturally, to keep the existing buildings image and not end up with the “Big Brother” syndrome with the new proposed building. 


EXHIBIT A-7   Architectural Color Rendering

EXHIBIT A-8   Color Samples

EXHIBIT A-9   Floor Plan

EXHIBIT A-10 Architectural Elevations


Board indicated that they did not particularly want to see directory signs up toward the road.  Mr. Orron said that it was important not to loose their identity.  Mr. Speer said that Huff, Moran, and Orron have been around a long time and he would like to see only their name out front.

Mr. Priess asked if the shortening of the building would make it un-aesthetic.  Mr. Scymanski said that would not have a substantial impact on the design.  Mr. Preiss said that Mr. Scymanski testified that was one of the purposes of the MLUL.  Mr. Preiss added that he wanted to now if complying buildings still have a visual environmental.  Mr. Preiss asked, in terms of creating sufficient office space, if the building was reduced by 2,200 SF would that have a sustainable detriment on the availability of office space in Cranbury. 


Mr. Preiss asked if an 18% percent was not an efficient use of land.  Mr. Scymanski explained what the ordinance said.  Mr. Preiss asked if the narrowness of the property make the property undevelopable?  Mr. Scymanski said, of course not.  Mr. Preiss asked if they had 50 ft on either side. Could one still accommodate an office building that was able to function from an internal point of view.


Mr. Orron wanted the Board to recognize that they did not feel that the ordinance was meaningless.  They presented a project that complied with FAR and in such a way that would minimize the setbacks. 


Mr. Preiss pointed out that he did not see any classic hardship intended under the MLUL related to the narrowness or the topography, or any peculiar conditions that can be applied in any other situation.  He did not hear justification for the side yard setback.  


There were no public comments made.


Mr. Golubieski motioned to reject the variance of 38 FT setback.  Mr. Stannard seconded the motion.


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


The applicant chooses to come in after they amended the plan.



PB 101-05       Prologis Park Cranbury (South Park)

                        Block 10, Lot 4 & 19

                        Station Road

                        Preliminary & Final Site Plan


Jurisdiction taken and postponed until August 3, 2006 without further notice.




There being no further business, on motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was thereupon adjourned.




                        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 20, 2006, consisting of 6 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 ___________________.




                                                                        Josette C. Kratz, Secretary