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 December 1, 2005, 2005 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




Ms. Carolyn Cummings, Court Reporter; Josette C. Kratz, Administrative Officer/Planning Secretary; Cathleen Marcelli, Township Engineer, Joseph Stonaker, Esquire, Planning Board Attorney; Richard Preiss, Township Planner



PB 099-05       Matthew & Patricia Long

                        Block 21, Lot 3, Zone A-100

                        39 Cranbury Neck Road



REPRESENTATIVE:                        Matthew Long, Applicant/Owner


Mr. Long was a resident for 20 years of a property owned by only four owners.  Mr. Long showed various photos of work that had been performed on the property and aerial views of property.  Property is adjacent to farmland preserved property.  He wanted to subdivide his property. He would like to move barn to rear of property.  The subdivision would let them move back there and build a small house next to the barn.   Scale of barn would remain the same.  The house they presently reside in would remain and be subdivided off.  He would duplicate the look of the two out buildings.  The garage, which is handy, would be duplicated in rear.


Mr. Marcelli recommended a dedication to a Right-of-way to Old Cranbury Neck Road and to have one driveway instead of two side by side.


Mr. Preiss said that looking at an aerial the adjacent lots would be close to the same size or slightly larger than existing lots and consistent.  He was concerned with the location of the house, barn and garage since area behind was part of the preserved and could be visual from other areas of Cranbury.   He thought that proposed building locations might be too far back.  If house placed behind barn one would see barn as opposed as house, preserving farmland look.


Mr. Long said that he has grown 200 to 300, 3 inch in caliper American Hollies, planted in areas that would be screening, active screens.  It would be totally blended into the landscaping.  He plans on containing peony garden.  The oldest was 75 years old and some are extinct.  He plans on growing them out more on the field area.  Peonies were not within the green area.


Mr. Kehrt complimented Mr. Long, when Mr. Kehrt was chairman of HPAC and he came in with a design that HPAC didn’t like he totally redid to the design to be more compatible with the area.  He felt Mr. Long would be sensitive to the area.


Mr. Stout said he was okay with it as long as he is in keeping.  He has seen the care he has taken with the property.  Mr. Stannard as it keeps sensible and sensitive.  Mr. Kehrt had not problem with application. Mr. Speer cannot accept to split off an eight acre lot to a non-conforming lot.  There is no reason other than it would be done tastefully.


Mr. Long said that the restoration of this barn will be a great undertaking and he was thinking of both the barn and property.  Mr. Speer asked why not restore it where it was.  Mr. Long said it would not be convenient to use with the rest of the property.  This would allow him to see the whole property every night instead of portions only on the weekend.


Mr. Golubieski was concerned with precedence and agreed with Mr. Speer.  He wanted more justification.  Mr. Harvey said that he felt that it was consistence with the other property and slightly larger.  Mr. Golubieski asked why he couldn’t do it with his own lot.  Mr. Speer remembered when six acre zoning just went into preservation and there were people that subdivided lots and they were exceptional and would not be done in the future.  Mr. Harvey said he thought zoning was always vulnerable.  Mr. Dreyling asked if this was not a flag lot and went straight back would it be given the same consideration.  He agreed with Mr. Speer and Mr. Golubieski.


Mr. Stonaker said that every application stood on its own.  One would look at the neighborhood and there is case law regarding a C2 variance.  If someone else comes in with a lot similar to the character of the neighbor there is an argument for precedent.  Mr. Stonaker said there are not too many lots like this lots.  Mr. Preiss agreed with Mr. Stonaker.  The argument is looking for the criteria.  The configuration as drawn gives a conforming lot in the rear and the front similar to those adjacent.  The juxtaposition was to the area preserved and character of the six-acre lot. 


Ms. Weidner said that she was undecided.  She said she would need more information.  Mr. Speer said that he was looking for positive reason for the Township to grant.


Mr. Stonaker said that would be what the applicant would have to perfect.


Mr. Harvey felt there were a number of reasons that this should be done.  One reason would be the preservation of the barn.  He felt there was a benefit for dividing this way.


Mr. Stout said that it might be helpful to look at the Township as a whole.




PB 092-04       Petrucci (Middle Campus - Half Acre, LLC)

                        Block 8, Lot 1.03

                        Half Acre Road

                        Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan Approval for an

                        Existing 160,185 SF Warehouse (Bld. 3)



Jurisdiction was taken and carried until January 5, 2006.  No further notice will be given.



Ordinance 09-05-24   An Ordinance of the Township of Cranbury Repealing in its entirety Chapter 93 of the Code and Replacing it in part with New Chapter 21 in Part 1 of the Code, entitled “Historic Preservation Commission,” entitled “Historic Preservation.”


Mr. Stonaker explained that the ordinance was referred to the board from the Township Committee.  It was decided there would be a subcommittee to consider the ordinance by the planning board.  The sub-committee made the recommendations.  The changes have been sent to this board.  The procedure would be that the PB would send the changes back to the Township Committee; they will have to reintroduce because of the subsistent changes and send it back to the Planning Board.


Mr. Speer was happy with Ms. Waterbury’s changes and taking back closer to the Guideline of the Secretary of Interior.


Mr. Preiss said it was ill worded, but they don’t want something that is so different that there is a jarring difference from the old and the new.  You want it as harmonious as possible.  You do not want to undermine the original structure by mimic the older portion.  He felt it was in artfully worded.  The question is whether you allow it mimic or difference.


Mr. Stonaker felt the PB should put this in their referral back to township Committee.


Mr. Kehrt opened discussion of materials and had no problem with synthetic materials, page 35, and number 2.


Mr. Stonaker said Township Committee has to re-introduced and will be sent back to us when they re-introduce.  Mr. Speer said that they did not want to new one to be so substantiated.


Discussions were closed


Mr. Golubieski motioned for the referral to the Township Committee.  Mr. Speer seconded the motion.




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

                  NAYS:      None

           ABSTAIN:      None

             ABSENT:      None





2005 Master Plan Re-Examination Report - Announcement from Secretary that proper notice was made to the Cranbury Press and adjacent clerks and County Planning Board.


Mr. Preiss explained that for a master plan to be valid it has to be re-examined every six years.  Last re-examination was 1999.  This is a review to see if the goals and objectives have changed. There were changes made to of which he read out load.


There were no public comments made when floor was opened to the public.


Mr. Golubieski motioned for the approval of the 2005 Master Plan Re-Examination Report.  Mr. Kehrt seconded it.




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

                  NAYS:      None

           ABSTAIN:      None

             ABSENT:      None








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 December 1, 2005, 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 February 23, 2006.




                                                                        Josette C. Kratz, Secretary