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 August 3, 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. Speer, Mr. Stannard, Mr. Stout, Mr. Harvey




Carolyn Cummings, Court Reporter; Josette C. Kratz, Planning Board Secretary/Land Use Administrator; Cathleen Marcelli, Township Engineer, Joseph Stonaker, Esquire, Planning Board Attorney; Richard Preiss, Township Planner; Andrew Feranda, Traffic Consultant






Mr. Preiss said that the intention of this ordinance was to make it explicit because it has not been regulated up till now.  The first piece would be changes to the LDO that would allow outdoor dining in the Village Commercial District, the Highway Commercial District, and as an accessory use to restaurants in planned development parks in the LI and the RO’LI District.  The major portion of that ordinance that the requirement of anybody seeking outdoor dining would have to come before the planning board for site plan review.  The standards in the village commercial district are some what more stringent then the other districts because it was a mixed use district and there was residence that may live above or close to or adjacent to outdoor dining area.  The second part of the legislation would be introduction to Chapter 106 for Outdoor Dining License.  Would only be for dining within the Village Commercial District.


That would be an annual renewable license obtainable from the Township Clerk.  This was for concerns of the outdoor dining in a manner that is in keeping of health and safety standards.


Mr. Harvey said that he thought that it was the intention of the Township Committee to have a public hearing.  Mr. Stonaker said that they are required by law.


Mr. Golubieski mentioned that he wanted to be sure there was adequate pedestrian access.  Mr. Preiss said that the ordinance makes provision in both the site plan requirements as well as in the licensing requirements to make sure that it does not block adequate pedestrian access.   MR. Speer said that he did not object6 to being in the public right-of-way or sidewalk, per se, but it seemed to him that the real operative restriction is the one that says they have to leave a 4 ft passageway. 


Mr. Golubieski wanted rules that were standards and didn’t want to have everything come back and we are in the same situation.  He wanted to avoid a lot of variances in the future.


There were no public comments made.


Mr. Dreyling felt there should be different hours of operation for different zones.  Mr. Preiss said that the licensing is for the Village Commercial only and there are no specifications of hours of operation for the other districts.


Mr. Speer felt the closing hours to be ambiguous.


Mr. Golubieski motioned to recommend the ordinance back to the Township Committee with suggestions made by board members.  We believe that the ordinance is not contrary to the Master Plan and support the ordinance. Mr. _____________ seconded the motion.





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

                   NAYS:      None

             ABSTAIN:      None

               ABSENT:      Mr. Kehrt, Ms. Weidner








PB 101-05        Prologis Park Cranbury (South Park)

                        Block 10, Lot 4 & 19

                        Station Road

                        Preliminary & Final Site Plan


REPRESENTATIVES: Richard Goldman, Esquire

                                    Stephen Borghi

Edwin Caballero, P.E.

                                    Carl Penke, Traffic Engineer

                                    Gerald Lenaz, Planner

                                    Edwin Klimek, Architect

                                    Michael Nashamkim, Applicant



Mr. Stonaker announced that the board took jurisdiction of this application and continued it to this date. 


Professionals were sworn.


Mr. Goldman described the application for a 600,000 SF building that will front on Station Road, a smaller 210,000 SF buildings that will be in the rear of the property, and an addition to the existing building of 105,812 SF.  This is a fully conforming application, in terms of no variances required and a few waivers.  Loading in the front yard and parking within the front yard.


This site had its own package plant on the site for sewer treatment and underground bladder water tank for water supply.  They requested an amendment to the 208 Plan, which was approved.  The facility will be removed.


Mr. Stout wanted to begin by noting that he wanted the applicant to address the Township Planner’s report.  He agreed with the planner says about the intensity of the development, of being excessive.  He felt that the board made these points several times at the DRC meetings.


Mr. Goldman said that they had Mr. Lenaz analysis of the site and they created a series of exhibits trying to indicate and show to the Board the nature of the development and the nature of the impact.  He indicated that they would address them thoroughly.  He thought that they should point out to the board the best measure with warehouse buildings, how much building you are putting on a sight compared land area of the site was FAR, and that this project has lower FAR than the other projects have been approved on Station Road.


Mr. Golubieski added that he had not see any changes that reflect the concerns of the DRC.  It looked exactly like the plans that they looked at DRC. 


Mr. Goldman said that building sizes are dictated by the conditions of the site.  There were significant changes in terms orientation of driveways, eliminating all but the existing entrances on Station Road.  They proposed significant berms and plantings. 


Mr. Harvey said that they would try to get through as much as they can but that they would not finish this evening.  He felt that heart of the problem was the different argument you just began to make and Mr. Preiss’s view.  He said that they would like the applicant to start so that the applicant could get a sense of how the board feels.


Mr. Nashamkim explained how Prologis was running the project, the existing facility, and the market. 


Mr. Caballero, qualified.


EXHIBIT A-1   Site Development Constraints Plan, Sheet 1 of 1, dated June 3, 2006


He explained the orientation of the property and adjacent sites.  The property contained 139.92 acres in the I/LIS Zone.  There are a number of constraints on the property.  They have received an LOI from the DEP for the wetlands noted on the site.  Along the southerly and westerly property lines there is exceptional resource classification wetland which has a 150 ft buffer associated within it.  Within the central portion going in a westerly direction there is an intermediate classification wetlands and that has a 50 ft buffer associated with it.  Within the center of the wetland buffer is a stream.  That stream has a 100 year flood plan associated with it.  As part of obtaining approval for the sewer service area mapping provision they have dedicated 75 ft riparian buffer measured of the existing 100 year flood plane.


EXHIBIT A-2  Overall Site Layout Plan, Sheet 3 within the site plan set.


The applicant was applying for a preliminary and final site plan for Lots 4 and 19.  They are proposing two buildings and an addition to the existing building to “square off” the south-westerly corner of that building.  That proposed addition will be 15,812 SF, for a total 921,247 SF for whole building. 


Building #2 in the north-westerly corner of site at 600,000 SF double loaded on north and south sides.  Parking was based on the breakdown of 5% office and 95% warehouse for 359 parking spaces would be required, they are providing 361 parking spaces.  They did a second calculation based on the existing office in the existing building which is 13,000 SF office and recalculated as is and they would be required 234 parking spaces and they are providing 239 parking spaces.  They proposed to bank 122 spaces along the northerly end. 


Mr. Harvey said that he was put off by what to do with the elephant, if we create these trailer spaces along the building and Home Depot says your not giving them enough spaces that we are putting the trucks where ever they want.  The applicant can mess around with the site plan for as long as they want about where you want these things but it really doesn’t mean anything because they might do whatever they want. 


The board requested the applicant to research the original approvals on the property to see what was approved.


Mr. Harvey said, assuming the board approved the trailer storage and tell them where they will park, and they can’t parking other places, and therefore they are using those spaces for trucks and they only get “X” amount of spaces and if it is a problem it is their problem and this is the site plan, period.


Mr. Goldman said that Mr. Nashamkim was hopeful that he could get some answers from Home Depot regarding the board’s questions including the trailer storage issue.  The trailer storage makes the property more marketable.


EXIHIBIT A-3 Overall Utility Plan, Sheet 15 within site plan set.


They would be tying into the 16 inch water main and looping around building number two and coming down Road “A” and tying into loop system around the existing building to building #3.  Sanitary sewer, there is an existing sanitary sewer incorporated into Liberty Way and there is a manhole at the intersection of Liberty Way and Station Road.  It can accept the flow from this facility.  Building #3, because of the elevation we have a space submersible grinder pump on the south side of the proposed building that has 2 inch force main that goes in the north easterly direction. 


EXHIBIT A-4   Overall Landscaping Plan, Sheet 21 within the site plan set.


EXHIBIT A-5   Cross Section A

EXHIBIT A-6   Cross Section B


Mr. Stout wanted to be sure that the berming would not create a tunnel effect.


EXHIBIT A-7   Cross Section C

EXHIBIT A-8   Ariel Photo, 2002


Mr. Harvey asked Mr. Goldman to write Mr. Stonaker a letter extending the time on the application until September 15, 2006.  The next meeting will be September 7, 2006 and September 14, 2006.


















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 August 3, 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