ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CRANBURY, NEW JERSEY
TIME AND PLACE OF MEETING
The regular meeting of the Cranbury Township was held at the Town Hall (Old School Building) Main Meeting Room, 23-A North Main Street, Cranbury, New Jersey, on September 14, 2005, at 8:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Dale Smith, 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 of the Sunshine Law adequate notice in accordance with 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 IN ATTENDANCE
Mr. Gerberich, Mr. G. Johnson, Mr. R. Johnson, Ms. Kemp, Mr. McCarville, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Shea (7:45 p.m.), Mr. Smith
PROFESSIONALS IN ATTENDANCE
Richard Preiss, Planner; Cathleen Marcelli; Engineer; Jeffrey Green, Esquire, Zoning Board Attorney; Richard Guinta, Court Reporter; Andrew Feranda, Traffic; Court Reporter; Josette C. Kratz, Zoning Secretary.
The Secretary announced that a quorum of the members was present, and that the meeting, having been duly convened, was ready to proceed with its business.
ZBA 095-05 Geoffrey & Gail Forrest
Block 33, Lot 23
18 Maplewood Drive
REPRESENTATIVES: Geoffrey Forrest, Applicant
Marty Coffey, Contractor
Mr. Coffey and Mr. Forrest were sworn. Mr. Coffey explained that this was a bulk variance regarding side yard setbacks for an addition to the home. On the north side they would be looking at three feet set back. The other side, right, would have eight feet to give him enough room to get a truck or car back there.
Mr. Smith said, comparing with the existing building, the applicant moved the setback on the north side. Mr. Coffey said about 1.5 ft.
Mr. Forrest said that they received a letter from HPAC dated September 7, 2005, suggesting approval of the design with the condition that the exterior window moldings on the addition match the existing molding.
Mr. Forrest explained that he wanted to try to keep away from the neighbors, as not to encroach in their view. On the eastern side the neighbor has a sixteen-foot wide property.
The board discussed the possibility of shifting the addition to the south a bit.
Mr. Preiss asked whether the applicant had contact with the adjacent property owner.
Mr. Smith opened the floor to the public.
Mr. ____, an adjacent property owner, said that he had no problem with the addition and he had no immediate plans to building on his property toward the vacant area of his property.
Straw vote was favorable.
Mr. Green read a resolution aloud, where the board had several minor changes they made.
Mr. Shea motioned for the approval of the resolution as read. Ms. Kemp seconded the motion.
VOTE ROLL CALL
AYES: Mr. Gerberich, Mr. R. Johnson, Ms. Kemp, Mr. McCarville, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Shea, Mr. Smith
ABSENT: Mr. Hebert
ZBA 414-00 Cranbury Service Center
Block 10, Lot 12.02
Preliminary & Final Site Plan w/Bulk Variance
ZBA 076-04 Cranbury Service Ctr/Perrine
Block 10, Lot 12.02
REPRESENTATIVES: Donald S. Driggers, Esquire
Julia Algeo, Maser Engineering
Robert J. Walsh, Env Engineer from R.J. Walsh Assoc. Inc.
Ms. Algeo, previously sworn at the last meeting explained the changes to the site plan that NJDOT had recommended and the removal of the residential structures.
EXHIBIT A-4 N.J.D.O.T. Driveway Access Exhibits for Cranbury Service Center By Maser Consulting P.A., Dated 9/14/05
Ms. Marcelli explained the reason for the improvement along Brickyard Road was consistent with every other major site plan approval. It was the one opportunity for the improvement. There are two major site plans associated with the property, asking the applicant to comply was not too onerous. If the applicant does not improve it the tax payers will have to pay for the improvement. Brickyard Road does not meet the current Township standards, and therefor she stood by her recommendation to make the improvement the full length. There was mention to the design waivers and distance between the driveways and intersection. She mentioned Mr. Feranda=s point for a design waiver required for the Brickyard Road entrance for distances less than 200 ft so she suggested two driveways as opposed to three. The intensity of the gravel vehicle storage area has increased tremendously. The whole area was going to be disturbed constantly. Ms. Marcelli recommend that it be curbed and paved for the protection of the fence, and that they would maintain it over time for control of stormwater. It was a nice notion to think that gravel would allow for the infiltration into the ground water but over time this will become an impervious area due to the intensity of the vehicles being stored in the area. She recommended that the ordinance be upheld for the paving and the curbing of the storage area.
That they have enlarged and moved area closer to the wetland=s buffer. At this time she had no comment until a grading plan, landscaping plan, or anything to understand the full impact is provided. She would have to reserve engineering comments until they submit such plans.
Mr. Driggers said that they would have to engineer this site. They would like to see the board consider, tonight, the approval of the subdivision, considering that the board was comfortable with Perrine and give the subdivision and the Cranbury Service Center coming back for their site plan.
Mr. Feranda said that Brickyard Road was narrow and there would be improvements based on testimony. He would like to see that the vehicles can actually maneuver and signage for the trucks, showing that Vehicles would go in the correct lane.
Mr. Preiss said he agreed with Ms. Marcelli, they received this plan tonight and one Monday and have not had opportunity to review and provide comments. His office will need to do a full review. He did have some preliminary comments and suggestions. First was with removal of the two residential structures of which he supported that would eliminate one of the AD@ Variances. There is still AD@ Variances required for the gravel storage area exceeds ten vehicles so that was still a variance. He agreed that the circulation and truck parking was a lot better. Secondly, he was concerned with the truck for two reasons. One reason was the gravel area would fit, but in a manner that when this operation becomes active and the vehicles are needed that they will not park them in that area. Once they come back from wherever the go that they will park them somewhere on the side. There should be a commitment on the applicant for designated parking for the daytime storage of the vehicles and should be marked on the plans.
He shared Ms. Marcelli=s comment that was in his original review letter on curbing and paving. He wanted to see a detail of the fencing, his sense that even though landscaping was provided along the perimeter, it is possible that the landscaping would disappear and people able to see through the slats. He felt that there were aesthetic concerns.
Removal of the three oaks trees he would leave for review from the landscape architect. He thought that some type of landscaping should be provided in that area to compensate for the loss of the trees. With respect to the lights, even though this was not adjacent to a residential area, he felt that it should be down lit not to create a glow on the adjacent properties or highway.
He felt that the applicant was moving in the right direction with his commitment of removing the roof sign and two free standing sign, but still have not received any architectural elevations. The board has been asking for so time both at the DRC and the meetings. He wanted to see them for the existing building as well including improvements, signage and any other structure that would be on that site.
He asked for a table explaining exactly what signs where being proposed and their conformance with the Townships sign regulations.
It seemed to him that the applicant was still proposing a truck service area, provided in an open area with just a canopy over the top. This was the only opportunity, not just to improve the property, but to bring it up to the standards that Cranbury has for commercial properties. To allow the applicant to go forth and have trucks services done in a situation where there is an unenclosed building with full view of the public, he felt appropriate given the visibility of that area from Route 130.
He indicated that he had asked, last time, that as a condition of the approval that the tow trucks in operation not be stored in the front yard nor should they be permitted to parked overnight within the front yard and also be located in the impound area.
He would like to see details on the dumpster, including landscaping, enclosure, or other screening.
There was some discussion as to the amount of cars that would be allowed in the storage area. Mr. Gerberich came up with the idea to word it along the lines that a space was space and nothing would be stored outside of the space.
Mr. Richard Schroeder was sworn and accepted as an expert in the field of architecture.
EXHIBIT A-6 Architectural rendering of Canopy Sheet A-1, 1 of 1, by Richard Schroeder of Schroeder Architectural Studio, Dated 9/6/05
Ms. Marcelli did not feel that was going to look good if there were no screening provided.
Mr. Walsh, environmental expert, explained the environmental impacts on the property.
EXHIBIT A-7 Fax to Rob Walsh from David N. Miele from NJDEP Bureau of Southern Case Management (Formerly the Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks), Dated 9/13/05
Ms. Marcelli said that she had not received the original remedial action work plan and had requested. Mr. Walsh said that it was delivered to the PB/ZBA office on 9/12/05.
Mr. Kratz requested that any information requested be provided both to the requesting party and the PB/ZBA for the file.
Ms. Marcelli said that she had received a big box prior that was not the information that she requested. She also what all correspondence from the NJDEP. Mr. Smith concurred that he wanted a NFA for soils and ground water.
ZBA 077-04 Perrine Pontiac - Hummer Showroom
Block 10, Lot 12.02
Preliminary & Final Site Plan
REPRESENTATIVES: Michael Balint, Esquire
Kevin Brockel, Princeton Jct. Eng.
Frederick Perrine, Applicant
Mr. Balint asked Mr. Perrine if the building facade was trying to closely mirror the existing building. Mr. Perrine answered that it was. The design was toned down from the original design generated by Hummer. The lettering would be the same size as the existing lettering.
EXHIBIT P-3 Artists rendering of the elevations of the proposed Hummer Building.
Mr. Preiss said that he reviewed the wall sign and had questions as to whether that would require a variance. The size of the wall sign may be 5% of the facade but not to exceed 50 SF, and the sign was about 65 SF. Mr. Perrine agreed. Mr. Preiss added that the applicant would be requesting a additional variance for the size of the sign.
Mr. Preiss pointed out that a sign may not be permitted high than 15 ft above grade. He asked the elevation from grade to the top of the sign. It was about 60 ft. Mr. Balint said it would exceed and need a variance. Mr. Preiss mentioned that it could not project more that 6" from the face of the wall.
Ms. Marcelli said that the architectural site plan and the engineering, they differ in the number vehicle outdoor storage area. She asked which was correct. She also mentioned that the Princeton Junction plan shows the outside dimensions of the building as 1138 ft x 62 ft and then. Mr. Perrine indicated that he felt that they were 7300 SF.
She mentioned that the other thing that see saw on the rendered site plan which was not in conformance with the ordinance was the base of the lights, they could not project more than 6" above grade. If they were in a parking lot area they allow more of a base but these were behind the curb line.
Mr. Preiss wanted them to make sure that the height of the building conform to code of 35 ft.
Mr. Feranda indicated that application would need to be made to the NJDOT for access and the Township to be copied with any documents.
Mr. Smith asked for a clarification of what they were asking for. Mr. Preiss said site plan approval, and variances for the free standing sign and wall sign.
Mr. Balint asked for the board to consider approving the subdivision and Perrine=s site plan subject to a time limit on Cranbury Services Center=s submission and approval within a designated amount of time.
It was found that six months, March 2006 would be the date chosen as a condition.
Mr. Richard Johnson motioned for the approval of the D variance with the subdivision. Mr. Shea seconded the motion.
VOTE ROLL CALL
AYES: Mr. Gerberich, Mr. G. Johnson, Mr. R. Johnson, Ms. Kemp, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Shea, Mr. Smith
ABSTAIN: Mr. McCarville
ABSENT: Mr. Hebert
Ms. Kemp motioned for the approval of the Perrine preliminary and final site plan. Mr. R. Johnson seconded the motion.
VOTE ROLL CALL
AYES: Mr. Gerberich, Mr. G. Johnson, MS. Kemp, Mr. McCarville, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Shea, Mr. Smith
ABSTAIN: Mr. McCarville
ABSENT: Mr. Hebert
Cranbury Service Center would be carried until November 2005 and all plans and documents submissions would be delivered to the PB/ZBA office no later than 10 business days for the November 9 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
There being no further business, on motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was thereupon adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY
I, undersigned, do hereby certify;
That I am duly elected and acting secretary of the Cranbury Township and,
That the foregoing minutes of the Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting, held on September 14, 2005 comprised of 2 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 this January 11, 2005.
Josette C. Kratz, CPS