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 September 7, 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.


Robert Dreyling, Allen Kehrt, Richard Stannard, David Stout, Joan Weidner, Thomas Harvey PROFESSIONALS PRESENT

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


PB 091-05 Jen-Dar Realty LLC

Block 2, Lot 10, LI Zone 1246 South River Road

Preliminary & Final Site Plan

Mr. Stannard seconded the motion.


AYES: Mr. Kehrt, Mr. Stannard, Mr. Stout, Ms. Weidner




Mr. Dreyling

Jim Golubieski, Mr. Speer


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)

Mr. Stannard motioned for the approval for the resolution. Ms. Weidner seconded the motion ROLL CALL:




Mr. Kehrt, Mr. Stannard, Ms. Weidner, Mr. Harvey None

Mr. Dreyling, Mr. Stout

Jim Golubieski, Mr. Speer


Mr. Preiss updated the board on the Recreation Sub-Committee. There was sense that the focus would be on active recreation and that the Master plan not deal with passive recreation and open-space, at this time. What has become clear in the recreation committee deliberations and what has come out at the community meeting was that one really could not separate the active from the passive. There were a lot of issues of overlap. Has been asking if the scope of work could be expanded to not only include active recreation but also passive recreation. To also allow for an extension of time for the work to be done and that another community meeting to be help to allow from input on passive recreation.

There was also comments made that there really had not been a focus on seniors or their needs. Mr. Kehrt said he felt that there was a need for another public meeting.

There was also discussion of member of the Human Services Board to be on the sub-committee also to represent seniors' interests.

Mr. Walher said that seniors' should include adults such as 50 and old in the traditional sense. There were no objections to Mr. Preiss's recommendation.

Ordinance No. 08-06-20 An Ordinance of the Township of Cranbury, Middlesex County, New Jersey, Concerning Outdoor Dining and Revising the Code of the Township of Cranbury by Amending Chapter 150, Land Development and Adding New Chapter 106, Outdoor Dining.

Mr. Harvey explained that this was the referral back to the PB. Mr.Preiss said that after the last PB review the changes were incorporated as asked to be made and the Township Committee felt that they were of the substance of nature and therefore they decided it would be better to reintroduce the amended ordinances and they were obligated to send it back to the PB for their review and recommendations. The draft does incorporate the changes as asked by the PB and he did have a list if anyone was interested. Mr. Stout added that they also discussed a compliance schedule so there would not be a rush to the PB.

Mr. Golubieski motioned for the referral back to the Township Committee as introduced. Mr. Dreyling seconded the motion.





Mr. Dreyling, Mr. Stannard, Mr. Stout, Ms. Weidner, Mr. Harvey None

Mr. Kehrt,

Jim Golubieski, Mr. Speer


PB 082-04 Virginia Neill/Ken Miller
Block 18.07, Lot 47

106-108 South Main Street Minor Subdivision

Extension of Time

Mr. Driggers explained to the board that this was a simple subdivision before this board and the board gave the applicant a minor subdivision subject to the approval of Middlesex County to put a circular driveway in on both properties. There was one existing. The other driveway on the southerly property and County has not responded despite several attempts to contact the County.

Mr. Kehrt motioned for an approval of an extension of time for 90-days so that the applicant could get approval from Middlesex County. Mr. Stannard seconded the motion.


AYES: Mr. Dreyling, Mr. Kehrt ,Mr. Stannard, Mr. Stout, Ms. Weidner, Mr.


NAYS: None


ABSENT: Jim Golubieski, Mr. Speer


PB 101-05 Prologis Park Cranbury (South Park)

Block 10, Lot 4 & 19

Station Road

Preliminary & Final Site Plan

(Carried until September 14, 2006 at the applicant's request)

PB 116-06 Steve Feibus

Block 26, Lots 4 & 5.01 Route 130

Minor Site

REPRESNTATIVES: Donald S. Driggers, Esquire

Geoffrey Brown, Princeton Junction Engineering Steven Feibus, Applicant

Mr. Stonaker announced that he reviewed that affidavit of service and publication and conferred jurisdiction over the board to hear the matter.

Mr. Driggers gave a condensed version of the history of this property. Several years ago the ZBA gave approval for the Oil Well. Later another building on the property had a fire and there was confusion as to what or who allowed for the second story of the front. After construction was started a mistake was found and as a result litigation en suite and additional applications/interpretations on FAR. There was issue to whether the detailing tenant was a permitted use.

There was still a requirement that the applicant proceed before this board for site plan approval on the second floor.

Mr. Stonaker said that this was a normal site plan application and the argument that the applicant would make was that they have not changed any of the site details. Mr. Harvey questioned that the fact that they added a floor that was not there before does not change anything. Mr. Driggers said that there was additional SF and they provided the uses that would require additional parking and does not require additional site plan issues.

Mr. Harvey said that it must require more parking.

Mr. Driggers said that the Township was basically out of the suite except for this land use issues which Judge Burly said to go back before the board and get your approval.

Witnesses were sworn.

Mr. Feibus explained that he started with the zoning process, Jeff Graydon. That he was told that he had to construct it on the same exact footprint and he showed it to Jeff Graydon and was told it was fine, when it gets to the construction office he would just sign off on the plans. Sever weeks later permits were issued and he built the building.

Mr. Driggers said that there was correspondance that did indicate to stop there was a mistake, but construction had already been started.

Mr. Feibus said the first story was used for offices. There is a small office and the rest of it is basically a large garage that he used to store vehicles. The business Mr. Feibus was in was the leasing businesses were he stores vehicles there that are either his personal vehicles or leasing vehicles. Approximately 249 SF for storage at the northerly portion, the southerly part on first floor is used for office 430 SF occupied by a building contractor, the most he has seen there is three people and half the time it is empty. They don't come in Saturday or Sunday and no customers come in.

Mr. Driggers asked how big the second floor was. Mr. Feibus answered that the plans show 2066?? SF but doesn't understand how they arrive with the SF. Mr. Driggers asked if the second floor was occupied by office also. Mr. Feibus answered yes, one office, a gentleman that does some designing of fabrics. There are two persons, no customers, their showroom is in Manhattan. There is a road contractor in the rear, they come in they get their stuff and they leave. The balance of the building is occupied by the newspaper, Trenton Times.

EXHIBIT A-1 Titled Minor Site plan Sheet 3 of 3, prepared by Princeton Junction Engineering, P.C., D. Geoffrey Brown

EXHIBIT A-2 through A-12 photographs of the site

Mr. Feibus pointed out that the macadam had been there for some time and now it was being considered "stone" driveway, but it was not really stone. There was dirt, rocks a semi hard surface.

Ms. Marcelli said it was comment #B6 and read the comment a loud to the board.

Mr. Harvey asked are the only changes to the building/property are a second floor and a taller building, nothing else have been changed. Mr. Feibus said that no lighting has been changed, nothing. Mr. Harvey asked if the same property existed four years ago. Mr. Feibus said that the only thing that he did, when they built the two-story additional, they re-faced the building. There was new block put on top of the existing building to carry the design all the way through.

Mr. Preiss asked if it was not being used then there would be an objection to taking the stone out and landscaping and not using it as a driveway.

Jim Faraci, 12 Silvers Lane, directly behind the new, old building. Mr. Stonaker swore Mr. Farad. Mr. Farad gave a written statement of the items he verbally covered. His concerns covered lighting, continual hourly/daily/holiday use, and noise. There would be little problem if

there was consideration for the residences. He said that his property line was 2 ft from the macadam driveway. The easement is 50 ft and the fence is in the middle of the easement, 25 ft. There is no buffer. He felt there should of put in more if he is forced to have a 50 ft easement why isn't this application forced to do something to help us out. More trees or maybe a fence would be nice or the driveway eliminated.

Bill Franke, 14 Silvers Lane, was sworn. He said that he was north of Mr. Faraci. He felt that since there were more businesses and more activity that the adjacent homeowners should be protected from noise, pollutions, lights, etc. There is a never ending amount of uses that should not be adjacent to residential area and loading docks should be landscaped and bermed to protect us. He should be able to operate but it should be within some boundaries.

Mr. Driggers asked about the lights on the building. Mr. Frankie said that they are in the rear of the old building; they are the lights that shine through the windows and on the back of the building. Mr. Stonaker said that they should be noted on the plan.

Mr. Preiss said that the board now has the opportunity to make improvements to the plan and bring it up to the present code.

Mr. Stonaker said yes, but what the board is dealing with is a site plan that applies to the new building and the building attached to it.

Mr. Preiss said if there are deficiencies that whether they are approved or not as part of the original site plan, this board has the opportunity to the existent that they are none conforming to the standards of the ordinance.

Mr. Stonaker said only if they are the same standards that apply at the time they came in.

Mr. Dillon, Cranbury-Station Road, asked if the original tenants get occupancy permits. If they already had permits as a permitted use in the building he didn't understand the issue.

Mr. Stonaker said that the board was limiting themselves, not to the use, but to the site plan issues. We are talking about buffering, landscaping, lighting, etc., they are all site plan issues that the board can deal with. The uses now have to comply with the ordinance and they are testifying is that the uses they are proposing do comply with the ordinance. As far as hours of operation, that is not something that the board has jurisdiction. If there was something in the record or something with the conditions of the approval with the zoning board, not this board, at the time of the approval then it is something the zoning officer needs to look at.

Ms. Marcelli said that regardless of the garage use working 24 hours/7 days a week was not grandfathered in with the Oil Well. There was specific testimony of the hours of operation for that facility when it received its use variance.

Mr. Stonaker said that was really a zoning board matter, not the planning board. He said that zoning officer would be the only one who had jurisdiction to issues a violation.

Mr. Preiss asked if any of the cars being leased were being stored outside. Mr. Feibus said that he typically kept them indoors, there are times when occasionally outside on temporary basis depending on the market.

Mr. Harvey asked if someone could come to the site, see a car and buy it. Mr. Feibus said that most people go to their website.

Mr. Preiss said that he noticed some of the cars actually being stored in the driveway leaving the property which was a concern of his. The other thing was that the last time the Zoning Board reviewed the application there were a number of illegal signs on the premises and asked if they had been removed.

Mr. Feibus said that they were removed a long time ago.

Mr. Marcelli said that her issues was the parking area, the stone parking area adjacent to the macadam really can be used. If it is not usable and in the woods and the neighbors are requesting additional buffer her recommendation tot the board was to remove it and put in the additional buffering. If it is not usable then remove it. As far as the turn-around are in the rear, she believed that it was used. There is a drive-up door there that is required to be paved so it needs to be shown and curbed. It is not a storage yard for the contractors' cars, leased cars, or any other vehicles that are being stored in the rear. That was not part of the original site plan approval. She understood that it was necessary to drive up to the door, but it is also necessary to eliminate uncontrolled parking areas. His recommendation was to reduce that area to allow for just the drive-up on the southern side of the southern building.

The big stone area south of the building should have a portion of it paved to allow access because it is just for a truck to pull up there and pick up signs and leave. There is some lighting that is not shown. She felt that there needed to be an understanding of where the lighting was. She said that the plans show no lighting or photometrics or anything shown on the south, west or east side of

the building. She was sure that there was dock lighting that was spilling outward instead of spilling downward and that was not shown. There was access amount of parking area, gravel area, lighting, stone area to be reduced to allow access into the area and rest curbed, landscaped or plant grass.

Mr. Preiss said that if the light illuminating from the windows could possible have blinds down at night to prevent spillover.

Mr. Feranda wanted a clarification between the warehouse area use, office use, and storage. He made a recommendation of placing "No Parking" signs along the drive aisle around the quick lube facility. He understood it was an existing facility and not part of the site plan but vehicles are parking along that. Mr. Feibus said that was a waiting area and they are only there for a few minutes. He asked what size trucks enter the facility.

Mr. Harvey listed the issues as; 1. The lighting on the outside of the building and internal lights as they affect the neighbors, 2. Driveway, as Ms. Marcelli raised, paving, curbing, etc. 3. Landscaping, 4. loading areas, turning analysis for all the loading bay doors, 5. Noise.

The application was continued until October 5th.


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 September 7, 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

Josette C. Kratz, Secretary