That's so fun. All right, we're going to call this planning board meeting to order. This planning board meeting is being held on January 8th, 2026 at 7 p.m. Please rise for pledge. I >> aliance to the flag of the United States
of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. Um, statement of adequate notice under the Sunshine Law. Adequate notice in accordance with the Open
Public Meetings Act was provided on January 5th, 2026 of this meeting's date, time, and location. The agenda was mailed to the Cranberry Press and Home News Tribune, posted on the Township Bulletin board, mailed to those requesting personal notice, and filed with the MU municipal clerk. Roll call,
please. Miss Anderson, >> here. Uh, Miss Elbidawi is out. Mr. Giddings, >> here. >> Miss Conerum, >> here. Mr. Mildenberg is out. Mr. Mucelli >> here. >> Mr. Pulk >> here.
>> Mr. Stewart >> here. >> And Mr. Whitman >> here. >> Okay, thank you. We have a quorum. So, at this time, we're going to start our reorg. Um, so at this time, I'm going to open the
floor for chairperson nominations for 2026. >> I'd like to nominate Wayne Whitman. I'd >> like to enthusiastically second that nomination. Okay. >> Um, any other nominations? All right. At this time, the floor is
going to close for nominations. Roll call for Mr. Whitman as 2026 chair. Miss Anderson, >> yes. >> Mr. Giddings, >> yes. >> Miss Conram, >> yes. >> Mr. Mucelli, >> yes. >> Mr. Pulk, >> yes.
>> Mr. Stewart, >> yes. >> And Mr. Whitman? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I can vote for myself, right? >> You can. >> Okay. >> So then it's on you. >> Okay. Thank you everybody. I appreciate it. I will try to do a good job for the
board as we did last year. Um, at this point in time, I'd like to nominate um a vi vice chair Jason for being vice chair. Can I have a nomination or can I have a motion to approve?
>> Moved. So moved or second? >> We got a we got Lisa >> nominated and Bill a second. >> Okay. Um All right then. Okay. Um, any other nominations? >> Okay. Okay. We're going to close the
floor for nominations. Okay. Roll call for Mr. Stewart as 2026 vice chair. Miss Anderson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Giddings. >> Yes. >> Miss Conerum? >> Yes. >> Mr. Mucelli? >> Yes. >> Mr. Pulk? >> Yes. >> Mr. Stewart? >> Yes. >> And Mr. Whitman?
>> Absolutely. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> And thank you. >> All right. >> Okay. Next item on the agenda is to nominate the board secretary, Gina. And Gina has graciously accepted to be
our board secretary if we want her. So I could have a uh a nomination. >> So moved. >> I have a second, please. >> Second. >> Okay. All right. Roll call for me as board secretary. Miss Anderson,
>> yes. >> Mr. Giddings, >> yes. >> Miss Conram, >> yes. Mr. Mucelli, >> yes. >> Mr. Pulk, >> yes. >> Mr. Stewart, >> yes. >> And Mr. Whitman, >> yes. >> Okay. Thanks everybody. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Um, at this point in time, I'd like to uh hold uh representatives to the um development review committee. We need two. In the past, Bill and I had served and then Deanna was an
alternate. >> Do we still Anybody want to do anything different than my direction? >> Yeah, I know. I know. >> I barely >> I I I I just being honest. >> Does anybody want to change that? Are we good with that, everybody?
>> Okay. >> You don't need a vote. You just say it's >> that's it. So move. >> Okay. >> Okay. At this point in time, um I'm going to do this as a mass uh nomination for all of our board
professionals. And the board professionals that will be nominating are the board attorney, board engineer, conflict board engineer, board planner, board traffic consultant, and conflict board traffic consultant. So Tina's going to read the names. >> Yeah, I can read them. Um, okay. So,
this is for Sharon Dragan of Mason Griffin and Pearson as the board's attorney. Martina Bailey of Mueller and Bailey as the board's conflict attorney. Elizabeth Laney as uh from Phillips Price as the board's planner. David
Hoder from Hoder Associates as the board's engineer. Tom Decker from Van Clee Engineering as the board's conflict engineer. Andrew Feranda from Shropshshire Associates as the board's traffic consultant and then David her from her and Caner as the board's
conflict traffic engineer. >> Does the board anybody have any corrections, comments or anything that they would like to add to that? Okay. >> Just need a motion. >> I just need a motion to approve that. >> So moved >> and a second, please.
>> Second. >> Okay. All right. Roll call for the board professionals for 2026. Miss Anderson, >> yes. >> Mr. Giddings, >> yes. >> Miss Conram, >> yes. >> Mr. Mucelli, >> yes. >> Mr. Pulk, >> yes. >> Mr. Stewart,
>> yes. >> And Mr. Whitman, >> yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You get to you get to stay. >> Okay. Next item on the agenda is the 2026 calendar. Did anybody everybody get that was handed out before the end of the year.
Did anybody have any corrections or comments? >> It's the same dates at least. >> No, the dates didn't change. >> No. >> Yeah. To be honest, I didn't look closely. I just assumed the dates were the same. >> They are. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, we good with Do we have to have a
nomination for that or just say okie dokie? >> Motion and second. Yeah. >> Got to be formal here. All right. Can I have a motion to approve the calendar for 2026 for the planning board? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. Roll call for the calendar
year. Uh, Miss Anderson, >> yes. >> Mr. Giddings, >> yes. >> Miss, >> yes. >> Mr. Mucelli, >> yes. >> Mr. Pulk, >> yes. >> Mr. Stewart, >> yes. >> And Mr. Whitman? >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Next item on the agenda is the designation of our official newspaper for 2026. >> Do they still exist >> somewhere? >> Yeah. Um the only kind of change to it I don't know >> you
change earlier this summer that starting >> in March um first that all municipal notices uh that are generated by the municipality the official place for them is on the website and also your bulletin
board. So now you do not have to put notices that are initiated by the municipality in a newspaper anymore >> as of last March or this coming >> this coming March. >> So if we made a motion, can we make it through March and then have that? >> Yes, that's what's going to happen in
this resolution. you you're designating um and you're doing you're also first of all you're designating Home News Tribune to receive all notices until March 1st and then starting March 1st it says that the notices will be published on the
municipal website and then also the bulletin board and then there's a link that you have to direct the public to uh from your official website um to uh check um any notices there's special
section and then um for the planning board and the board of adjustment will do the same thing. Applicants are still required to publish in an an official newspaper. So you're designating Cranberry Press and Home News to do that. So they were still and I think
this was done I don't even know if you need my comment but I think it was done to save municipalities money because um uh it was going to be pretty expensive to um you know they newspapers could actually charge uh based on subscriptions and so now now that it's
online like how many subscriptions are that is that it could be a lot you know so >> this is okay >> this is why it was done this way anyway so um that's what this resolution basically says and if uh anyone wants um uh notices of meet meetings or minutes
um under um Oprah, they could get it through the official website, you know, right? So, >> could I suggest >> is there Oh, go ahead. You >> I bet we're going to say the same thing. >> Maybe >> is there value to letting the public know over the next couple of months via maybe the mayor's newsletter or something?
>> What I was going to say that the process is changing because I'm sure there are a lot of people that do still go to the newspapers. So I think just to let them know we're not >> I think that right now under the law you have to put a public notice out twice a month that this is hap of your process
is happening. So but the mayor's newsletter sounds good too you know. >> Yeah. But you publish things more than you have updates regularly with >> township updates every Tuesday and then the uh every other Tuesday in between that it alternates and it's the mayor's
update. So the mayor's update. >> So we got that covered then. So, it's it's every week >> and I will say that um it's a minimum requirement. I mean, the board could still opt you are funded by the committee and the committee could still opt to put notices in the paper too
online. I mean, but most people aren't doing that. They're just going with the website and >> for free online things sounds good to me. >> Yeah. So, I'm just saying. >> So, how how does that change for applicants that have >> applicants? It doesn't change because >> the notifications for variances does
>> they will still have to publish in the uh two newspapers that were one of two newspapers that you've designated the cranberry press and home news is a alternate right >> other way around. >> The other way around. Okay. >> Um All right. So >> maybe you should just say plan planning
board designates cranberry press as the alternate is and then home news as the change that. >> Yeah. Okay. Just a sec. >> Do applicants have to Does it also have to get posted online >> on the website?
>> I haven't seen anything about that. Whether they have to post online or not on the website. >> Yeah. >> Um I'll have to check into that. >> Yeah. Because this is just a resolution of the planning board. Have you heard that they had to I >> No, I just think it for convenience.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, it's pursuant to the municipal land use law. So if it gets changed then then they will have to do that you know >> I haven't said >> does the school board have to do the
same for going the same way okay times >> okay >> yeah I'm um >> I didn't look at the law with respect to school boards Yeah.
>> Times own by the Star only, >> right? Right. Oh, no. Some of these papers are only online. That's one of them, right? >> Yeah. >> So, I'm not sure if it um I'd have to go back and look at the actual law to see if it, you know, Well, your board
attorney should do that for the school board. >> Okay. Anyway, we have a resolution that needs a you know >> as amended. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, can I have a resolution as designation of official newspaper for
the next three months? >> Yeah. Motion. Anybody? >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. Roll call for the official newspapers. Miss Anderson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Giddings. >> Yes. >> Miss Conro? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Mucelli? >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Pulk. >> Yes. >> Mr. Stewart. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Whitman. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. For next item on the agenda is the approval of minutes from December 4th, 2025.
>> I don't know if everybody >> It was so fun writing these. It was like one page. >> Yeah. >> How many times did you hear me? When are we getting out of here? >> Okay. Any uh comments, corrections?
Can I have a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> I have a second, please. >> Second. >> Okay. Roll call for the December 4th minutes. Miss Anderson, >> yes. >> Mr. Giddings, >> yes. >> Miss Coneran, >> yes. >> Mr. Pulk,
>> yes. >> And Mr. Whitman? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Next item on the agenda is public comments for non-aggendum items. Seeing no public, I will close the public comments section for non-aggenda items. And next
item on the agenda is resolution PB 402-25, Amazon Services LLC. So, um I didn't get any comments from your office. Did you have any? >> None. All right. And I didn't get any from Andrew Miranda either. So, and he's
um or the applicant's attorney. So, I guess we have none. >> Okay. But I think we we thoroughly the the night that we we really we we we thoroughly hashed that out and I think Andrew was fine with it. Okay. At as of the night of the meeting.
>> All right. So, um I had done an original revision which actually I don't even know if that's in your package, but then I got a couple of little comments from um David on the same day and I made that's why this has revised on it. And then I noticed that there was a um memo
from the Cranberry uh fire company with some conditions. So I just incorporated that into this draft. And um so there's very tiny little >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Pages. You want me to go through what they are? >> You know what? Yeah.
>> If if it takes three seconds or less, you know. Okay. Yeah, I would do that. >> So the first change was on page um let's see. I'm just paging through this one on eight. um where on the at the top where it talks about design waiver exception
for the paved loading area and I just um specified that the turnaround analysis there was uh included both unloading and storage. So that word was put in there. >> And then um the next change was on page
11 when it talks about the um engineering conditions that needed to be uh fulfilled and it was um just a revision to the word um a correct with respect to the architect's plans um
being revised to basically um include revision dates on it. So it just used accurate instead of correct. That's just, you know, it just Okay. >> And then the other >> I don't think we could approve it. >> I don't know. It's just some, you know,
preference. And then, um, the Cranberry Volunteer Fire Company, that's on page 11 at the bottom about an undated report. That's their normal language about um, apparatus and putting Knox box keys in and such. And that's also was as
a comment and then um, as a condition. So um on page 16. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Oh and so that can be that um comment regarding the >> right. Okay. And then the fire department. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Yeah. So that's it. >> Okay. Does anybody else have any comments or questions? So I guess we'll we'll um propose that with the amended changes per you Sharon. >> Okay.
>> All right. Can I have a motion to approve the the resolution PB 405-25 as amended? >> So moved. >> Second, please. >> Second. >> Roll call for PB 402-25
resolution. Miss Anderson. >> Yes. >> Miss Conne? >> Yes. >> Mr. Mucelli? >> Yes. >> Um Mr. Stewart? >> Yes. and Mr. Whitman. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Motion passed.
>> Okay. Next item on the agenda is application PB411-25 Kersner Associate Cranberry Gates. And it looks like that's being carried to the next meeting. >> Right. >> Again. >> Yes. And um they originally the last
meeting that we had discussed this it was uh you know permitted for them to carry without further notice. So, as long as you announce it that it's which you just did to the next meeting, then they don't have to renotice. >> Okay. >> Um, if I may, um, I don't think I'm
going to make a flight, a 7:30 flight on February 5th, uh, to Germany if I'm here at the planning board. So, I will not be here on February 5th. Okay. >> Being that Kersner is carried >> to the next meeting February 5th, Aman will have to recuse herself. to just be
aware of porum >> that the both of us will then not be here for that. >> Got it. >> Okay. >> Mhm. Thank you. >> Okay. >> I mean, >> if it went the way of this meeting, we're moving pretty quick, but I'd still
have to hustle to Newark. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, I think this >> 7:30. >> Yeah. You're not hustling. You need a time machine. >> Yes. I That's not happening. Yeah. >> Okay. Uh, next item agenda is a working
session. Uh, this is on the zoning subcommittee revisions, checks list, and design guidelines. And I'm going to turn it over to Liz to guide us through this. >> I am gonna turn it over to Dave to go through the checklist. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Right.
>> Where is the checklist in this? >> Um, >> it's highlighted. Yeah, it's back further. There was a lot of papers for this. your packet to see if you have a yellow marked checklist. Um, it's important because, uh, Gina did a great
job of of highlighting the changes we made. >> Yeah. >> So, the zoning subcommittee went through the checklist and solicited comments and came up with a couple things, quite a
few things. Uh, there are 60 items on our checklist now. Maybe 61. Well, how many did we have for pork? Just out of curiosity. >> What's that? I'm sorry. >> How many did we have on the >> We had 61. >> Oh, we had 61. >> I call it 60 because I thought the last one was added without putting it putting
it in the ordinance. >> So, it wasn't quite enforceable, but >> we enforced it anyway. Uh, now we have 75 and we have one extra category. We thought it was important to put in single family variance plan, meaning
people would come in, you or me, with our house to try to change something at our house. It's good that um there would be a little bit less of a rigorous uh set of requirements. So that's what we did. Uh we set it up as a separate category. you
can see by the items uh that are checked what things need to be uh uh put in in place in order to have that type of application looked at by the board. Um the concept plan is about the same uh in terms of the amount of different things
that need are needed. Um but we also took the checklist and we we divided it up into administrative, general, site plan andor subdivisions and created different items based on
what their need were. And last one, I'm sorry, second to last, design and reports, studies, and calculations. Uh which hopefully will make it a little bit more clear. Most of the time that the people that fill these out are either attorneys or architects or engineers. Uh we're hoping to maybe make
that audience a little bit uh well make them make them a little bit more knowledgeable on what to do and how to do. Um, people that have been here before know pretty much how the CH the Cranberry checklist works and what, for example, what I do or what Gina does.
And, um, I've hopefully trained some of the engineering firms and attorneys offices uh, to provide the information that's needed on the checklist. This now further refineses it by by giving more I
guess you could say more ownerous requirements for the site plans and subdivisions and less for the you know the minor subdivision the single family the variance plan and the concept plan. So take a look through the uh the
various uh yellow marks. Those are the items that were items that were changed or added. Okay, completely added were the ones that are in yellow. Things that were changed. You can see where there's like on page two, item 12, the words existing and proposed were put in there.
Uh the words in 14 shown on drawing. And and so what we're trying to do is try to break up between the type of application, what was actually needed for that application. And and you can see we spent a lot of time u changing
things and adding things. Um, we did take out some things that were a little um um sort of repetitive. Okay. We uh made sure we put good information on recycling requests on that. Uh we
changed item 46 by adding things like grease traps because a lot of the restaurants uh we want to know and make sure that they're not uh pouring grease down our drains and clogging the sewers, etc. Okay. Uh and um the design section has a
lot of changes um and additions um and things like scenic overlay which um we have an you know we have sections of the ordinance on and um uh having to do with things having to do with knockouts and trailer storage which would come up at a
couple of meetings like with Amazon. Okay. Uh, we made a little bit more we g we gave the architectural item number 60 a little bit more beef so that they know what they have to provide. Okay. Number 63 and I'm skipping through because you can read the most from them yourself.
Um, rooftop information having to do with equipment and any signs or mechanical stuff that's up there um has become quite a a question on almost every uh commercial or industrial building. And then sightelines. We've
been requesting sightelines on major site plans. Well, almost the whole time I've been here uh and you know since 2010, but it was never in the checklist. And people are providing it happily providing because they want they want to get their stuff approved. And it's not that hard today with AutoCAD to provide
um you know a a map showing what the site would look like from a certain point on let's say on a street somewhere or from a residence or whatever happens to be nearby. So, and then the item, for example, I'm skipped over it, but item 61, aerial, that's important. A lot of the newer
with today's digital world, everything, it's easy to throw a Google map on there and show where the site is and what's surrounding it. Uh, I mean, I use it all the time to to understand where, you know, what's near what's near the what's near the site. And it's good to have it now on the plans. It's so easy to just
pop it on. It takes 30 seconds in AutoCAD. Uh so we combined a couple things having to do with uh drainage calcs showing you know they have to have an area map showing the what areas go to what
places. Um the one comment I went going through going through this today I'd like to add if nobody has any objections. I'd like to add an environmental impact number 73 um on on uh preliminary major preliminary
subdivision which is it there? No, it's yes it is. It's it's not there. So So instead of three three checks along the bottom on item 73 be four checks uh asking for uh major preliminary. So, so we get the environmental information as part of preliminary, not just as part
final because preliminary pretty much you're approving and final is really just trying to square the edges and make things proper. >> David, just for clarification, besides the single family where it's highlighted and there's no check mark, >> right? >> Where it's highlighted in yellow, we've
removed the check mark. >> Yes. >> Right. Yes. To make it easier cuz we didn't we didn't want it to be too difficult for the single family people >> or the minor >> or minor minor variances. Yeah. That have no that have no that have no sight
plan. >> So >> So everywhere where there's a check mark that means it needs to be filled out for that particular item. Correct. >> That's right. No, I mean an applicant can still correct Mr. Chairman. But the applicant can still ask for waivers. And
I go sometimes go, >> "Well, they could always ask for anything." >> And and I sometimes go back and forth with them and said, you know, like I said to them, I call them up and I say, "They're not going to give you this waiver. You could ask for it, but you're going to get to the meeting. It's going to delay you one month." You know, that type of thing. So they they think about it strongly and decide what to do and
what not to do. Um but they can always ask for a waiver for any one of these items. Uh, I believe in in my position as the guy who does the completeness, um, if I can't convince him to to not ask for the waiver, I have to let him go
through to you guys. And if you notice in the last year, I've now I've now been supplementing my letters with checklist items. something I came up with a year ago. I decided to, you know, as these guys or women or or or attorneys or engineering firms
put in applications, sometimes they're so definite about how they're going to do it and I can't change their mind and um and I believe that the board needs more information. It then comes to you guys and you have been very good about backing me up on most of them. So, that's good.
That's really about it uh for the checklist. I mean, there's a lot of change here. And uh what what we got to do is we got to delete what's in the ordinance now. And Sharon and me were going back and forth today a little bit about that. There's a section under 150 that has the checklist. And it's not in
this format. It's it's a it's just a a list ABCDEFG, that kind of a thing. Uh under site plan, under subdivision. I don't know why we couldn't actually put this right here. >> You could. >> Uh and and so we'd like >> Well, that's what that was my next story. Could we do this and somebody
can? >> Yeah. >> Is there any way this could be done where somebody could download it, fill it out electronically? I mean, you know, >> um, >> go down go down along here and check a B, you know, it's all like >> I think that's what they do. But, but yeah, once once it's uploaded into our
ordinances, you can cut and paste from the ordinance. I do it all the time when I when I when I write my letters, you know, it's it usually the format gets a little weird and you got to play with it, but but it works. there there is a um section 89 and it's checklists you know it's all but it's all in a
narrative so and it's it's arranged by um there's one section for a sketch plat and a concept plan you know and there's se 23 items for that and then there's the minor subdivision checklist and so I I I was asking did anyone check that
against this this checklist because you don't want to be inconsistent right so one of one of the things you You have two alternatives here. You could amend each of these sections with the same items that are being added here or we um
uh delete this section and then supplant it with the table instead. You know, this whole checklist >> I I would almost recommend something. >> Yeah, cuz >> you know >> I think you're going to be to try to get
things to match up. You're going to go crazy. It's never going to match. I was going crazy just reading this with the whole, you know, so I and then then I was I thought, okay, then I would have to just go through the whole each checklist. >> No, no, that would be that would be crazy. I mean, the whole point is the
whole point is to streamline this thing. >> Yeah. >> Well, they they they should both be the same, whatever format you choose, whether it's narrative or or >> I guess you could call Excel. You could call this a table or an attachment and say, you know, um, refer
to attachment one for all our checklist requirements and that and it's in the ordinance. I've seen them in other people's ordinances like that. We just have to put it in there. >> Now, do we have to do we have to have an explanation for each one of these in written or just it's self-explanatory? >> I think it's pretty um Well, in on this
checklist section right here, it's there's no explanation. It's a checklist. Yeah. So, they just call me or or they email me asking what what do you really need >> prior to that there's separate sections for each type of approval that you have and what you have to do for those you
know and regarding final uh for example final approval that's in section 87 it says for an application you need to submit three copies of a final plan you know and then who you send them to. I don't think there's anything inconsistent with those sections with this checklist. Um, I would just double
check. >> Yeah, this doesn't really have those kind of things in it. >> Yeah, I think they're separate. So, I think that your checklist submission items, you know, could be accomplished by a table like this. >> Would there be any value to adding um,
for example, shade tree, a link to the shade tree? You reference shade tree and they have to go through the proper process. What about HPC or the fire department? a live link that gets them to where they need to go because we're telling them they need to go there.
>> Okay. So, we have we do have, for example, and right away it's easy to find. Historic preservation is number three, >> right? >> So, you're asking for their review or approval, >> right? >> You're saying >> I'm saying just where they can click on it and get to >> Yeah. Hyper. Yeah. Exactly.
>> And and I'm sure in here somewhere, and I'm not finding it right now, is the shade tree commission also. There is, but I'm saying like add a link to how you get to the Shave Tree Commission how you get to like a hyperlink, >> right? Like a hyperlink so that they they can click there and say >> you can do that. That's I don't know if
you can do it in the ordinance kind of weird. >> Well, but it would if you do it on the online version, you're not adding the URL. >> Yeah, you could do it the word underline and it's like >> and then you hit that and it goes boom goes the Shade Creek Commission, >> right?
>> Getting into the 21st century. Look at us all fancy. >> Yeah, we could do that. You know, >> at the beginning of the second fourth of it, >> you know, I just thought of something. I just thought of something else, too. You see on on the right side it says applicants mark. >> Mhm.
>> How about engineers mark after that? >> We talked about that. >> Did we? >> Yeah, we did talk about that. >> I don't remember that. But think about it. I'm I'm always when I go through these things whether I do it digitally or I do it by longhand I just write in the in the you know in the column on the
on the right hand side in the margin and u I'd rather have a you know just a a section just a an extra set of places for me to put an X or an O or Y or whatever
>> or a check mark. Now, um, let's just I'm just looking at something here. Yeah, there's a section 150-84, which is general provisions. Um, and, uh, I think we should just double check for that because I'm looking at some of the
requirements, and it's like for D under that section, environmental impact statements when required. It's required for all preliminary, preliminary, major, subdivision, and site plan applications, and all applications for phase one preliminary. So does that um comport
with >> checklist read it again. >> Um all right so this is a general provision under 150-84 and then under >> required for >> yeah required for all preliminary preliminary major subdivision and preliminary major site plan. So we do do we require
>> Okay. Yes, we have both of those. >> Require it for anything else though. >> Just the finals. >> The finals. Okay. So >> but it would be the same report usually. Not always. >> All right. Well, then um maybe we should I don't know add that for finals too or something. But >> Oh, you mean in that section?
>> Yeah. >> I mean, I don't know. >> I just don't want >> We're going to a different section now, right? >> Yeah, it's in a different section. That's why I wanted to check these sections to make sure that um they're just all compatible. >> Well, every ordinance that I've ever seen always has one of those paragraphs
at the bottom that says if it's not compatible with a previous ordinance. >> Well, I understand that. It'll be >> either either that stricken or >> it'll be over um yeah supplanted basically. All right. Um and then like for minor subdivision and minor site
plan approval, it does say that they'll be these applications will be going to environmental commission and soil conservation district. So I mean they are going to outside agencies. Um >> right and that was never part of the checklist per se but we did >> right. It's an instruction for one year.
>> Yeah, we we did that's sort of part of the application, >> right? So, I don't think it's inconsistent. >> Yeah. >> Um >> I mean, we do have in here historic preservation commission because that's come up and somewhere in here is also uh the uh shade tree. >> Yeah. See, I don't see um All right. So,
maybe that's something where the shade tree commission should be um added to some of these other sections. It's not in the checklist maybe, but um if if it's supposed to be if it's well if it is supposed to be submitted then it should be added to these other
because like there's one section 150-86 is the is a narrative specific to preliminary major and site plan approval and it's got these other um it's got middle sex county planning board freehold soil conservation township historic pres but if it's supposed to go to the shade tree it should that should
be added there too. Uh could be or could it just be on our application? I mean >> well I I think you if you you would be subject to challenge if it's in one section and not the other. >> Okay. >> So I think it should be added.
>> Yeah. So, in essence, what we're going to be doing is cleaning up the written language in the ordinance to >> match our checklist >> and then put the checklist in there >> and get rid of the verbiage that was in
there that this that checklist would replace that verbiage then one section. >> Yes. Yes. But then we have the two other items in the section that Sharon was just talking about that need to be also amended.
>> I just I just found something just because it came up it came up at the the last minor subdivision we had where they said, "Oh, your ordinance oh your checklist doesn't require us to do a landscape plan." and we had wanted them to show us the landscaping and our we
have in 150-56 it says all uh site plan or subdivision applications have to provide a landscape plan. So this we have minor subdivision that they don't have to but maybe we should add that checklist. What do you think?
>> Truthfully I don't think so. minor >> cuz well that was >> because most minor subdivisions are a person that's subdividing off his his or her backyard >> and there's no uh I mean like we did have the one that came in um was it Maplewood?
>> Yeah, that that's the one where they said we didn't have to do it >> and >> um we yeah they they didn't they didn't provide one. Uh is it going to turn out horribly? Most homeowners do their own landscaping. You I don't know if you want to tie a
homeowner, a new homeowner into landscaping plan that they don't like. I don't It's really I've I in the five or six towns I work for right now, >> I don't know of anybody that requires a landscaping plan um for um a single
family home, which is really the byproduct of of a minor subdivision. If it's three of them or four of them, yeah. Then it becomes a major subdivision. You gota you gota go. >> Yeah. I I wouldn't This is just talking off the cuff here. I don't envision a lot of these happening in town
personally. So, well, I make people do this when I when if if if we were in a circumstance where we're getting one every other week, that'd be a different story. But these these come up.
>> They're rare to be honest with you. >> So then we >> somebody subdividing a lot. >> We should change the or change the ordinance to take it out to make it clear. >> Yeah. >> So wait, what does it say? >> It says that all site planner subdivisions have to provide a >> Well, but okay. But a a single family um
well a uh Okay. Well, a minor subdivision should say major. >> Yeah, we probably should um revise that. Let's just make a note to do that. >> Yeah. >> I mean, unless it was. All right. So, this is a blanket requirement for every
site plan or subdivision right here in 150-56B, >> right? That's what it's um >> it looks like. >> Yeah. >> So, that one should be uh modified. >> Yeah. Um, but if is there a a reason, you know, if
someone requests a variance where they might um want a landscape plan because of, I don't know, some condition on the property. I mean example was the Greeks subdivision because they were running the easements through the other property and there you
know so that was a case where we kind of needed the existing landscape plan >> and so if you're >> not proposed but existing >> applying for a variance that's another condition because you would normally maybe not require that for a minor but
here we are requesting a variance because we to make to subdivide the property. Yeah. >> You know, public health, safety, and welfare. So then you could require a landscape plan. >> Okay. >> At that point, because >> they could they could always seek a waiver >> and they could seek a waiver. Yeah, that's true.
Well, >> on subdivisions, most of the I mean, back in the old days when I used to actually prepare lots of subdivisions and and and uh you know uh site plans with 100 homes or whatever, we would usually do buffering landscaping for
buffering for uh street street edges for entranceways maybe around a pool or something, you know, if there's a if there's a a pool for the association. But then on a single family or or on a single plot inside that subdivision, I would do like
a typical landscape. You got to have ground plantings. You got to have maybe some plantings towards the the back of the property to subdivide from one property to the back. Um and uh you know, maybe some something else, I don't know. Uh and um
but it was not something that each individual property would then come in with something that is better than that. when you build a expensive house, usually you want to have a nice landscaping plan. Um, and I know again I don't think that you should tie a a
homeowner into a landscaping plan when they probably don't haven't thought about that yet when when you know maybe when it's time the guy gets a bonus or she gets a bonus or something and they decide to spend a bunch of money on 30,000 on landscaping. Well, wonderful.
>> Yeah, I agree that we shouldn't ask for the propose. I think we should ask for it. It's hard. We should ask for the existing though because >> there might be a 24in diamond tree where they want to show the driveway and we don't know it because their survey doesn't show like Princeton, you know,
requires you show all the existing landscaping when you're doing >> see if it says something in that with >> and sometimes there's an issue. I I in another town um somebody went and cleared you know clearcut vegetation
about 20% of the lot all the trees you know which then caused a storm water issue and then they needed a variance you know to develop >> yeah we wouldn't want them doing that that's a that's a 20 yard penalty so >> so they had to they did have to provide
a landscape plan as a um you know mitigation measure in order to get their variance approved but it wasn't on the checklist, you know, but it was they basically >> is as close as >> caused, you know, a bunch of storm water issues on this property because of the
loss of all the trees, you know, >> so that's just >> I can see it coming up some in some circumstances. >> 67 is where we have it and it's not checked for minor >> and 51 also. >> Yeah. And that's where we reference the sheer. >> Yeah.
Uh, and that one is checked for for minor, but you said 61. >> So, do we have to change the verbiage in the ordinance though to reflect that? >> Well, right now, let's see. You require it for everything. And then, um,
>> it's referencing the ordinance >> and, uh, for a, let's see, number 67. Um 67 does not require it for a landscape. So you would have to change it. The
150-56 with the landscaping to remove >> for for a minor to just clarify it would be for a major I guess is what right? >> Yep. >> And that's for a subdivision that wouldn't require a variance then. Is that right?
>> Because if it requires a variance then then >> Well, right now um let's see. We have we took out the check mark for the single family/variance plan because it's yellow with blank. >> No, that's meaning it was added
completely. So the single family varian column was added. >> The whole column is yellow because it was a it's a new category. >> Yeah. So So there was nothing there previously. >> There was nothing there previously. So, do you want a check mark in there then? >> Which item you talking about, Sharon? >> It's number 67. It's a landscape plan
when you have a single family and a variance >> or not. >> Why does a variance change? Uh >> only if uh only if there's an issue with people's views. >> Well, on the last one, Bill was right.
There was a a rightaway issue >> that ran through the property. >> You were concerned with the existing trees. I was more concerned with the existing. >> Yeah. >> Not not proposed. >> And if if you want to leave it on a case-byase basis, then you don't put it
in as a requirement. >> You know, >> what would what would the largest minor subdivision be? Is it only residential or could it be >> It could be commercial, but it's usually if you're creating fewer three lots. I have to double check, but
it's it's like if you're taking one lot and making two, that's typically >> it's definitely a minor. And then after that, bigger is usually a major, >> but it could be like Amazon, >> but then they would still have to come with a site plan for everything else. >> That's true. That's true. >> I mean, we could we could amend 67 to
have both existing and proposed landscaping, you know? I mean, that's it's actually a good idea because you think about it, uh, almost every >> Yeah. >> large property that comes in, you want to know what's out there, >> right? Correct. I think that's because
you may want to save a tree or save right >> a grouping of >> or a tree is in the you know a 200 year old tree is right where your driveway is going to be >> but you have that in 51 you're showing existing trees to be protected and trees to be removed in 51. So we're talk it's
two different things. We're talking about trees in 51 and we're talking about landscaping in 67. >> Well 67 is future. It's proposed. Right. >> Right. >> And 51 is existing. So she's saying you don't have to do existing. >> But the thing about um 51 is they really
are focusing on uh >> well trees trees only, >> right? >> Uh and that's six inches or bigger. >> Would landscaping include trees? Yes, but but 60s or bigger does not include all landscaping,
>> right? >> So, I mean, do you do you care if there's a a small birch somewhere or a uh you know, a katoniester or somebody else can be better at me than than better than me and knowing different
plant names, you know, hydrangeanger or something and it's going to get removed as opposed to a large old oak tree. They don't care. Well, I think I think we you know what? I think we have what we need in the checklist.
>> It's just these days weeds. >> So, existing by my house and help. >> All right. How do we want to leave that? >> That's up to you folks. You were either going to, you know, eventually uh change. >> You have to be consistent.
>> I know. That's right. Whichever you decide to do. >> Consistent. So your choices is in the ordinance remove the landscape plan for >> minor right >> and have it be major and >> right >> and site >> and which is how the checklist is
represented now >> correct because we don't have minor check >> right minor subdivision we do have minor site plan but not minor >> not minor subdivision >> but does does it mean we couldn't ask for that on the >> No you can you can but they were when
they came in they were like we were we were in supposed to, you know, we and so >> well the thing is if if if somebody's asking for a variance, especially maybe a use variance, well, it wouldn't be this board. Um, one of the special reasons for approving it could be landscaping
>> could it could soften the blow in other words. >> So there you ask for it, you know, you ask for it and they give it to you and that gives you a reason to say yes to the application. >> Well, that's same for a C variance too. Setback variances. Um, and they could
be, um, if it was a C variance and there was a subdivision, they'd be in front of the planning board for that one, >> right? >> You know, so you could ask for them. >> Um, so I believe this is a way better checklist than it was previously and uh,
I urge the board to adopt it with or and send a letter to the I guess a letter or note to the mayor and counsel to >> what's the what's the doing? All of this is it um timewise I guess
>> um it's up to the I don't know how you how the committee wants to handle ordinances. Do they at the meeting say we've seen a recommendation from the um either the zoning subcommittee or the planning board because it's going to come back to the planning board anyway
for review for consistency with the master plan. So, um the ordinance could either be generated by the town committee or by the planning board depending on what the township committee says, you know, if they say, "All right, we want the um you know, planning board or planner to prepare the ordinance or
whoever, you know, and um and the township attorney can do that. I could draft it. Whatever you want to do, you know, >> I mean, I would recommend it come from the planning board." >> Yeah. >> And be drafted here. That's human impacts on a meeting. So, as a practical matter today, since there's a bunch of
things that it sounds like you have to change, >> this is Yeah, this is >> we would be approving it in concept with all the changes discussed, you would then come back with an actual draft that we would recommend that the township committee adopt, >> right? >> Then it goes to the township committee
for adoption and or change. Then it comes back to us for >> Yes. Yep. That's how it's done. >> Okay. >> So, we're looking at maybe getting this done by the end of March, maybe. Well, we this is only the first item of about three or four. >> Well, that's that's a second question
actually, which is do you want to and this is again a a township committee question. Do you want to parse parcel these out? Meaning, there are going to be changes all over the place. And do you want to take some of it peace meal? >> I mean, honestly, I think it should be
one body work. Okay. All right. >> Yeah. I wouldn't do peace. That's just a biggie. >> That's going to drag it out. >> Okay. Okay. Then all these items, >> it might be later. >> Yeah. >> That it fully goes through, but it goes through as one comprehensive body of
work, which is really what the subcommittee was tasked with doing, >> right? >> Yeah. >> So, once we finish all this tonight, we have to decide whether Sharon or the planner or the town attorney
put together the final draft. >> Well, she already said she'd rather come from the planning, so >> Yeah. Okay. The town attorney. >> No, it's well, isn't it? Usually it comes from the town attorney. Almost always, right? >> Well, >> whether it's recommended by us or not is
>> not even that important until it gets put in ordinance. >> Out of line for us to to >> if committee tells us to do it, we could do it, you know. >> Yeah. >> So, but if not, >> we're in the trenches. It doesn't sound like we're voting on anything there tonight because we're going to have
given you notes on one piece of what we >> Yes. >> to be a comprehensive package. So hopefully next time we don't have to go through this part, but we'll go through another part and it'll all come together as a master and between now and then offline there can be a sorting out of drafts, >> right? I've um just because I've done it
both both ways, you know, sometimes I'll get an as as the town attorney, I would get an ordinance that's pretty much in in ready to go, you know, and it might come from the planner's office or whatever, and then I would go and look through it for boilerplate. There's just
provisions that you just add to all ordinances mechanically to them and say, "Okay, you need to add this, whatever." and I would put it in final form, you know, so it could be done that way or if tell me to do it, you know, the I think the town attorney still needs to check
it no matter what because it's his thing. >> I'm not saying we're just going to bypass him, but I think >> but we can put it together. >> Craft it and then send it to the township attorney. >> It's the only way it makes sense because you will Yeah. This entire discussion
and anything else is going to be tele. >> Okay. I mean, why put Kevin through this? I mean, you know, >> Steve put Steve through this. >> Yeah, we probably probably, you know, I would rather not go through all this again.
>> I think that's true. >> This is a pretty big job here. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Just put me but >> Yeah, it's fine. >> But our people are already we're already into that, you know. I might, you know, we're just
>> reinventing the wheel if we have to re-educate everybody else to do this. It's just better if we put it together, send it over, and then the attorneys can cross check with back and forth with one another. Oop, sorry.
>> And then, um, you know, we go from there then. >> That's that seems logical to me. >> I I like the check. I mean, um, just out of curiosity, what would you envision an applicant, let's say,
coming into, as an example, put a generator on their property, an industrial group, they'll just use this checklist, go down and and and >> they can use minor site plan, >> right? >> You know, and use that and it be >> But I mean, they would use this checklist to go down and just, you know,
Yeah. If it's applicable, fine. If it's not, they check it off. It's not >> right. And if I agree with it, then it goes forward. And yeah, >> well that that's existed before today. We've just improved it. >> Just revising, >> right? >> Just revising what adding some new things, revising it, trying to
streamline some other things. Um >> I think there are things in here that are designed to help the applicant. >> Well, that's what I meant. I mean, >> so they come in and they're ready to talk about certain things that are important to the board, which hopefully the checklist has conveyed to them. that the checklist agreements are mutually
beneficial to the applicant and the planning board, which was the whole intent. >> Yeah. Because I I really want I had more in the past year where we're building the plane as we're flying it down the runway and I don't want to waste the board time doing that. It it's
that's silly. either they come to the DRC first and they work out this stuff or they really pay attention to these checklists and they come in and it's all cut and dry and they know what they got to present and then you know
>> so um if we're doing one omnibus type of ordinance here and we're going to add these other things you know amendments like commercial design standards and all that then that's the meat section of the ordinance, right?
So, I could then uh amend the one landscaping section to just um >> put in that it only is going to be applicable to major subdivisions if that's what we want to do and that can be part of the whole thing and then because then it will be consistent with
this this checklist and then another section of the ordinance will be the adoption of the checklist. So, >> okay. So the core things that I captured for the checklist were replace the ordinance with the actual checklist.
>> Right. >> Right. >> Add a hyperlink potentially for HPC and shade tree. >> Add the engineers mark column. >> Yep. >> And then the last thing that you just said, chairman, which is in the ordinance, remove the minor. >> Right.
>> We're going to just um we're going to add the word major. Yeah. It doesn't actually say anything. It just says subdivision. So, >> and I requested the EIS on a U major preliminary subdivision >> on item 73. >> Right. >> Did we need for the checklist? Did we
need a list of definitions for the checklist? Do we need that or >> Well, they're in they're in the ordinance. Okay. We didn't go through them. >> Okay. That's another whole situation. >> We have chickens first. Chickens come before the >> Oh, I know that. Yeah, that's that's the
board's priority this year. Chickens. >> Been told that. Um Okay. So, there is the separate section with listed definitions. Okay. Oh, I did have one thing on the checklist.
See if I 19. Let's cross reference 19 here. >> First applicant will be >> on on item number >> on item number 19 where we have names
block number. Do we have anything that we have to um have proof that those people were contacted? You could always give it there could always been a list of who it was sent out for. Do we have anything in there that that there was proof of of
contact? >> Well, Sharon reviews that before, >> right? They have they're by law the applicants are required to request a list of property owners from the tax assessor and then they have to um before the public hearing they have to notify everybody.
>> Right. But is there anything I mean yeah they notify but is there anything that says >> notice >> that >> that that they have to show that they received information back from the people that they notified. Do we have
anything like that? In other words, >> proof that actual proof that the person that received it and >> well, they have to serve them by certified mail. And and the law is is that they just have to show that they mailed it out to them by certified mail.
Not that they actually received it. And I don't think by law that we could go beyond that. >> Okay. >> You know, we can't require like super notice that you actually received it. Now, there's >> return receipt requested. >> Yeah, it's return re receipt requested. So, if um the applicant's required to
give you the white notice, that section and and the green cards, which show that they did receive, but if they don't get anything back, they're not required to. >> Okay? But as long as there's something that shows that they were served the paper or that they were it was >> the white the white receipt to show it
was mailed out. It's got the stamp from the post office on it. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And it shows what date it was mailed. >> Okay. So yeah, >> because I want to avoid the situation of like what happened with D on with the person on D road where
>> well you know >> it it looked like that I saw the application it looked like they were sent out but I don't know it you know he said he never got it so I don't when they came here >> yeah and you know strange things happen sometimes the
applicants entitled to rely on the list that they get from the tax assessor sometimes you have situations where people move, >> right? >> And then they don't there's somebody new in there, they don't get notice, you know, and it's whatever is the most current tax list is. So,
>> you know, it's not much you can do. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But I would say, and you might, I don't know if you would agree, but in every town that I work in, somebody will get up during a controversial application and say they didn't get noticed. >> Pretty much. I mean it is just you know
it is part for the divorce whether that's true or not >> if you've got the weight receipt and especially the green card then they were served >> the green card the resident signs right >> that's the one they signed yeah so I don't know what happened there but
unfortunately >> okay >> that's all I had on on that >> all right you want me to start then on the Yeah. >> Next. So, there are three separate uh handouts. So, I'm going to start with
um the one that's G Cranberry Village Historic District Design Guidelines. So, it it it doesn't have a heading, but it's actually from section 150-41. And you'll notice there's like roof shapes on the first page.
>> Is that the old one? >> That's the old one. Did you Did she >> I don't know if I got the new one there. Did I get the new one? Oh, there it is. >> Yeah. >> Okay, good. Um, so the this is the general section for design guidelines,
but subsection G was the Cranberry Village Historic District. And I think we spoke about this last time, but HPC in chapter 93 has their own design guidelines um and they differ from
what's in here. So it was sort of two sets of guidelines that are um applying to the same area. And after a lot of discussion both on the subcommittee but also discussion with HPC, we thought it was best to just have a reference in in
this section that to look at 937 and it's our and maybe Sharon can verify that this is true is that because we have this reference and we incorporated it herein that we can hold people to those design standards at this.
>> I think you should be all right with that because you referenced to them. Now you're saying, "Okay, I've incorporated this 937 into my land use ordinance." So I think I think you're good. >> So, you know, this is removing a whole bunch of sections of the ordinance. Just I mean, it's a very pretty section with
all these drawings, but it um it's, you know, at this point sort of uh >> well, it's redundant. >> It's redundant and and confusing, I think, if you're an applicant. Um, >> especially if you're an applicant that's going before HPC and you're referencing
this and in front of HBC they're in chapter 93 and it's just going to >> so we're taking we're taking out all these pretty pictures and all that stuff. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean and and also you know on a parallel track the HBC were in the
process of amending chapter 93 to based on this board's direction um >> sort of have a a separate set of standards for contributing and non-contributing historic buildings. Right. So um you know they're kind of working on that. It's just better this way. It's a little more streamlined and
a little a little more consolidated into one area. I was today years old when I learned that there was a roof style called hip. >> Yes, I have a hip roof. >> You have a hip roof. Yes, you do. >> Liz on that one.
>> So, doesn't the MC district also reference this section? >> So, the CM you mean this this? >> Yes. CM. >> Okay. The CM >> district is another another big question that I
>> Okay. But keep hold it. hold your questions until you'll see them because that's comp to me that's really complicated. But if you look at sort of the at the end of all the red lines there are there's subsection I which has industrial design standards
and then a couple of pages after that which is really the last two pages in your packet. You'll see a bunch of um crossouts on the very last page of this. Um, and the reason for that is because
back in 2021, we amended the signage ordinance, and these regulations are all in that section of the ordinance. They weren't they were all moved into one place, but they weren't taken out of the place that they were coming from. So, this is now
again, it's a redundancy. So, this is sort of trying it's a cleanup item, basically, something that by accident wasn't done in 2021. So, I don't know if anybody has aside from the CM question if anybody has any >> I don't want to digress here, but I'm
gonna um on our signage ordinance. I don't think there's one signage applicant that's come in that has agreed to our ordinance and everyone we've had to give a variance on. So, I is this something while we're cleaning the kitty litter
box up here and and cleaning all this stuff up, is this a good time to maybe look at that again? Because I I I I I we have nobody has has has come in with it and agreed upon that with that.
Everybody, >> we don't have to, Mr. Chairman, we don't have to give a variance, right? So, maybe it's better to always have that hammer. >> I know that. But we're given we haven't we we've given a variance for everything. >> But so I just want to >> You're right. You're right.
>> But and and that's one I think school of thought which I actually you think is good in a lot of occasions. But there one thing that Evelyn really liked and I have it and I've done sort of did did this exercise where there are um one of the applicants and I'm gonna blank out
who it was but it was somebody that was along the >> Arie. Was it Arie? Okay. But it was they're along the turn >> and they provided an equation. >> You know, if you're driving this the 65 miles an hour, you need the sign to be this long and this high.
>> And it it's >> it was the electric. It was uh >> It was Arie Associates. They did provide an equation. >> Arie. It wasn't No, it wasn't Cooper. >> It wasn't Cooper. >> No, it was Arie. But I >> Yeah, Cooper asked for too, I think. >> Right.
And but Evelyn um I think liked it because at the very least it wasn't just grabbing a number out of the air which is what a lot of signage ordinances are which you meaning if you have some basis for saying this really should only be 200 square feet and somebody comes and
said no we need 500 and it's you know why >> all we really need to talk about today is whether we want to give them the assignment >> making that >> well if if if you want to if you want to keep it as is and with with the
understanding that we can still keep handing out variances based on maybe some good logic there. >> Yeah, >> I'm okay with that. But it it just seems like it's the one area
that we just we we just okay it seem like we're always you know say yeah we give you variance and it you know it's >> it's not like they're major like it's not like you know ours says 200 and they want like 700 you know it's like we need
300 and it's like right we'll give you >> the variance for 300 or something like that. Um, but if we feel that we want to leave it and have the ability to deny it anytime we want to for whatever reason, then I'm
okay with that, too. I think it leads to a long discussion and I think there's a happy medium between just having some standard that is so loose that it never becomes an issue and having to listen to half an hour or more
of testimony on it every single time. Uh I think I think the point you were making at the beginning was maybe we've learned a lot from these variance requests that that our current one is a little overly restrictive particularly as it relates to size particularly as it
relates to the frontage law of a turnpike >> industrial buildings. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So >> yeah, I'm I'm talking >> I'd be up for asking them to take a look at it. >> I'm I'm talking about industrial. I'm not talking about um >> Main Street,
>> Main Street or like commercial or anything like that. That's that's a different story. I'm talking about our industrial base out there. >> And I know Evelyn was really specifically focused on the turnpike, but but that doesn't necessarily we can look at it just in general, but I think
she was sort of, you know, the idea that people are driving a certain speed and you know, >> Yeah. But I would qualify that we're not asking you to relook at all of the sign orders. >> 100%. But I guess my question is within the industrial zones, is it only the turnpike that you're considering?
>> I could take a look at it. I would think it would be all all but I mean I would say the bias of the planning board is still going to be that we don't want ginormous signs on route 130 and stuff like that. So I mean take that take that spirit in mind. >> Yeah. But anything along 130 that's
highway commercial. That's not indust Well, there are industrial. That's right. There is. So, an industrial signage review is what's being requested. >> Okay. >> And it's it's more of a review for consistency if we if there's some it's
something that you can come up with to just >> kind of reflect back on everything we've done. >> We have even Richard Price had a whole compilation of all of the variances that had been given. >> Yeah. Exactly. You know, because it
always comes up, well, what have we looked at? What have we done in the past? And so I can just add to it. >> Yeah, that's the one area. That's the one thing that just kind of jumps out. I mean, everything else is pretty much nuts and bolts. I mean, we, you know, we
go through, but it's like, and you're right, Jason, we sit here and talk a half an hour and you're 45 minutes on on, you know, is it 250, is it 200, is you know, can you see it going 70 miles an hour down the turnpike? And it's
like, you know, in the end of the day, we're we're we're usually given some kind of relief on it, you know, >> right? If there was a history of us >> pushing back, that would be one thing, but there's not a history of us having significant objection to these changes.
>> And it was still worthwhile to do it in the beginning because I think we learned from it, >> but we therefore eventually agreed with it because we agreed with it. And if you have a record of doing that 10 times, I think there's enough data points there to suggest that there's room for change
>> at least to look at it. >> Yeah, we'll take a we'll take a look. >> And and again, just for the industrial area that everything else stays status quo, >> highway commercial or commercial or you know, signs in the front of your house
or whatever. >> No problems. because we had already started to do that with Evelyn. >> All right. Sorry to digress on that. So, >> no, that's not for >> Before you digress, did anyone have any comments on the historic changes? I did not, but I'm just asking. >> I don't.
>> Okay. All right. So, the next group that I want to go through is um starts with 150-42 commercial design standards. >> I had a question in this one.
>> Okay. Why? I understand why it might have been in there originally, but why in the revision are we maintaining all the specific language for a future development that's already been >> Okay, so that hold your hold your question. >> Okay, because that hold this is a good it's a
really it's a good question. So, um let's just get there first. So, so some of this stuff up front that you'll see on the first page, it's a lot of honestly a little bit of word smithing because some of the language as it stands is confusing to everybody.
So, um you know, if anybody has any specific questions um but it it's really it's not a lot of brand new stuff. It's just trying to make it clear to um everybody. Um
>> I I did Yeah. on I guess on my on my old one, but it looks like it's the same thing on on D and E. >> Um I had a question on it, but I don't know what the question was. I just have question mark on my paper dumbing me. I just
>> because of um the word primary or orientation. Does that make a difference? >> Maybe that's what it was. Wait. >> Well, 75 ft and then 90 ft. Um, there's like two 175 190 and then says on which
it has a primary. >> Yeah, it looked like there were It looks like it was I didn't understand why the the two >> and it does say that in the ordinance right now. >> Yeah. No, it's not a change. It was um the only thing we changed was public right away versus lot line because
sometimes that's confusing. But if I guess what the primary orientation we could say >> yeah because it looks I didn't understand what what what the reference was because it looks like one's 75 and one's 90 >> and that's how it is now. So it's 75
like it's the front of the building is 90 and the sides are 75. >> Okay. But I agree it's not a great >> does it doesn't seem clear to me. >> No, you're right. Um, so we could say what you know we have
language further on about >> can we say front and sides or something like that or >> you know we could say this the the you know >> sideyard or front yard or >> I think the issue becomes corner properties. >> Yeah. >> Right. which um
>> which is a whole another animal. >> We have minimum of 75 ft from the public rightway and the max of 90 from the on which it has primary orientation. >> Yeah. Picture that.
>> Yeah. So your question is should we is there a better way of saying it on which it has its primary orientation? Right. >> All right. let me look into it rather than try to come up with it now. But it could be,
you know, primary street facing facade or something like that. Um, but you're right, it it's complicated. And then I had a question right just south of that on item number two, pedestrian
>> circulation. I said side sidewalks shall not be required along Route 130 in the highway commercial zone. However, >> they shall be required along other public streets.
>> Yeah, I mean that's again that's that's how it is now. I mean the language that we added was that we don't require it on the HC, but all the feedback we get from applicants is the county says you have to provide it. >> Right. Um,
>> so why don't we say that? >> Why don't you want to just say because we said unless required by Middle Sex County, but I >> is required. >> Yeah. >> Or the or the DOT for that matter. >> Yeah. So maybe we should just say sidewalks shall be required along with or
>> I think we're going to be I think we're going to be addressing that sooner than later. >> So I think we should make that change now. >> Okay. because we're going to be faced with that sooner than later. >> Do I need to call out Route 130?
>> What's that? >> Do I need to call out Route 130? I mean, if we're saying that they're Yes. >> required along all all other public streets, then do you know what I mean? >> Well, Route 130 is highway Route 130. Um, >> I would
US Route 130. >> Okay. So, let me just take that. Um, >> right >> now we don't need anything along the turnpike, right? >> Are there any properties that front that?
>> Yeah, there are a bunch of properties that front the turnpike, >> but there's no access. >> But there's no access. >> Well, that's what I meant >> to town essentially. >> Pedestrian walking. But I think we're going to be faced with
a sidewalk situation on Route 130. >> So later say sidewalks are required and all streets, all roadways except for the turnpike. >> Right. >> Okay. All right. So sidewalks pursuant to section 150- shall be required along
all public streets except the New Jersey Turnpike. >> That gives you the out from Route 130. Well, if if the county says they don't want them, >> that's a difference. Unless the >> then what do we do? Give a variance from
that section. >> Well, do we put that verbiage in there unless unless determined as not needed by a higher authority? Whatever that higher authority do or county says, God has told me. >> I'm not putting in sidewalks. So, what
are you going to do about it? I had a dream last night. >> DOT has been moving towards asking for sidewalks more. >> Yeah. So, >> well, the reason why I'm saying this now is we're going to be faced with a situation sooner than later
and that we're going to have to deal with this and it's better we change it now and if we need to put verbiage unless >> you know the county or the state does not require it. I mean, the applicant
can always throw a hissy fit and say, "Well, we're going to appeal this up to the county do and whatever and, you know, have at it then, I guess." Um, >> I first of all, I'm supportive of sidewalks everywhere. I think it's just pedestrian friendly. Um, I would think
the language should just be unless something to the effect of unless a county the county or state specifically recommend against it or some I mean that there's a better wording than that but um I mean it wouldn't be that if they
don't require it because then that would be neutral and I would say we're not neutral but >> rule of denial of the of the state or a county >> right I mean something to the effect of if the state or county doesn't want then that's fine. But otherwise,
>> I'll see what I can do. >> Yeah. >> Okay, that's fine. All right. Um, >> like a reversal for you. There was some thing like three months. >> Yeah, I know. I'm changing my mind now. Yeah. >> Um,
>> I saw the light. How's that? >> Okay. Somebody talked to me. >> A good transition to our lifetime. >> No. So on page two, you the version you had was all highlighted and it said like I need to check with Andy Fernanda and so I found I did. So on this section
you'll see he did a little word smithing um on page two which is just part under three subsection B. Um there's parking ratio reductions and he just did a little uh I guess word smithing so that
made sense to him you know that he was an improvements. Um then okay so this is we're talking about in the this is the HC commercial zone and so we did again some of this word smithing 60% of instead of the
front facade areas we said the primary street facing facade um and we also were saying that it has to be to finish occupied space so you know the trans it's can't be to mechanical space essentially
Um let's see. >> You almost should do a definition of primary street >> street facing >> or just primary street. Most ordinances uh in this situation refer to the the street hierarchy in the
master plan >> whether it's you know from from state to county to collector to you know right down to a residential street. So you know a primary street would be a
primary street facing on that frontage I think is that's how I'd read it. So whatever the site plan shows and wherever that building is facing that becomes the primary site >> side even though it may not be the master prime master master plan primary site.
>> Correct. >> So you >> well the primary site could be Route 130 or or George Davis and Road. Right. >> Right. >> Right. >> So you're thinking primary street is confusing because that's like a charm of >> I'm just just I just think we should define it some way. >> Okay. you know, either site defined or
or um master plan defined. >> Okay. All right. That comes up a few times. >> Yeah. >> All right. Okay. Um so going along, you turn to page five
and this has to do with materials. Um and it was good to have Bill on the committee because he could provide his expertise on this but um it's F materials subsection two and then AB and C. Um so saying that you know
acrylic stuckco over stud framing is not appropriate. Um and then saying uh materials that age and are difficult to maintain and not and take out that such as paint overshopped finished metal. Do you know why we did that? >> To not give them an example.
>> I see. >> Is that right, Bill? I remember that. >> Okay. >> All right. >> For instance, this is inappropriate. >> Yeah. Don't Don't even think about it. >> Yeah. Um, >> now I had a question on number three there. Um,
>> that the security grates. >> Yeah. But a garage window grill should be enlivened with artwork decorate. That's is that allowed or not allowed or what is that something we want? >> It's saying to in the event this is
>> I can tell >> because that could get kind of subjective if you know what I mean. >> I I can tell someone in my firm wrote this. So >> I know we could but >> yeah because I I mean I mean are we going to pray murals on the side of things? I mean you could get
>> um but we did ask we had one applicant that came in. We asked them for tinting or painting of the rear windows. Remember? >> Yes. >> The old fetus property. >> Why don't I say enlivened with decorative tiling or ornament? Decorative or ornamental metal work.
>> Ornamental materials. Why metal work? >> Okay. Materials. Okay. >> All right. And get out >> artwork out. >> Yeah. And I'm going to take tiling out as well, actually. Yeah, >> tiling. Okay. Uh
>> um all right. So building detailing um talking about, you know, having active street frontage but not making them have to do it if it's a, you know, on a corner lot and all of their
mechanicals are on one side. Um and then a lot of the Okay, here we come down again. This is under on page six B pedestrian circulation saying it's not
required along Route 130. So this and then I say unless required by the state DOT. All right. I will mimic the language here. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. On seven there.
>> So that on six then that would be B. You would you would change that then. Right. Exactly. And then in seven, um, the parking reduction section, again, it's the same changes that Andy requested. Um, and then again, building design. I
mean, one thing we talked about and we I didn't do it because it was too confusing is there the two sections are repeated almost word for word. And I don't know if we could consolidate. I'm not sure there's any benefit in keeping
the GC and the HC separate. Um, you know, because it's a lot of words. >> I think there must be, but I'm not remembering it now. Like, let's see.
defined it as the same and then had a carve out point that said >> other than being a lot of words I think I'd keep them separate >> would you >> yeah I think so then >> okay
uh all right so seven okay then on eight it's the same situation with the primary street basic facade area. Um, okay. 10. It's the same with >> Yeah, you'd have to change that again on
number three. >> 10 10 item three. Any with the artwork and >> Oh, right. Thank you. Okay. >> Okay. >> I just reached the area I asked about. >> I know. I'm so excited to talk about it.
>> I I had so here is the situation in a nutshell which is >> heard of that here. This is the the CM community mixeduse zone and it was created after the 2010 master plan and to do the the redevelopment of whatever
the Hagerty and I can't remember the two or three properties and um subsequently when you eventually a developer was identified a redevelopment plan was done and the redevelopment plan specifically
says that it that it replaces the underlying zoning. So, initially when I was going through this, I was like, just take it all out because there's a drawing that is in here that doesn't represent what's actually on the ground.
So here's my concern and I've spoken about with Sharon but I really actually I did not get in touch with Steve Gadell today and I need to get in touch with him which is as you are well aware there was
um the owner of property in the SM you know was was sort of threatening to to litigate um and was going to come to the zoning board for a use variance ra rather than try to get or rather than
amend the redevelopment plan. >> And so if that was the case and it was a zoning a use variance, what is the zoning? Is it a use variance from the redevelopment plan or is it a
use variance from the CM zone? And this is really kind of super technical, but that was my only reservation about taking it out because if we do that means then
there's no other zoning. I mean, sorry, the redevelopment plan says there's no other zoning. The redevelopment plan says this is these are the land regulations for the site, but I'm concerned that the jud a judge the judge didn't seem to be buying that, would you say?
So that is >> how does this change that? I understand that you your theory your argument but what what if here fixes that because it's not a restatement of the redevelopment plan. >> Well so
>> is it a restatement of the redevelopment plan? Is it it's not different. >> And so I think that's another thing which is that there is when you do a redevelopment plan you're required to do an ordinance. So it then becomes part of the zoning ordinance. Cranberry did do that and it
was adopted, but to Sharon and my knowledge, it wasn't ever incorporated into the code. >> So it's it's possible that we take the CM out and just put in that ordinance.
>> Is this it exists somewhere? Something we're just discussing right now. >> I >> should this be a closed meeting or >> Well, yeah. I I just can I ask Sharon that question? Are we are we getting there? Do we >> I don't know where this is with
litigation, but it this point was in litigation at least. That's why >> it's currently not been settled, >> right? >> No, >> it hasn't been settled. >> It's been >> Yeah. So, >> I mean, I could ask questions. I would
probably trip it over. So, the long and the short of it is that's why I had initially taken it out and then was like, "All right, no, I'm not going to because I I need more legal guidance." >> Can we park this for now and then come back to this? Maybe we go in close
session. >> Yes, that's fine. >> Just I think there's some >> Well, that time to speak with Steve. >> Yeah, I I mean, I can we can either do it tonight or we can do it next time and I'll talk to Steve in between. >> Next time. Okay. Just hold hold everybody hold their legal questions
here. >> Um and Sheriff, if we start tripping into something, just say >> we're tripping into something and >> and I totally agree. My earlier question was related to that though because the CM zone referred to the historical
design standards which were changing and that was my initial question about >> Yeah, >> that didn't seem right to be changing that. So that should be just tie that into that conversation. Yes, let me write that down. Okay, so that that's it for now for that.
>> All right, so then there's a final sheet and we can go quickly and I'm going to turn it over to >> moving along here. >> We are moving along. Turn it over to >> I'll be relatively quick. Uh >> so I I uh um helped to change the lighting plan. I've been doing lighting for a long time. Uh, and I, uh, no, I
did learn a lot from our esteemed architect, Bill, about a couple of things, uh, which was great, and he really helped me out a lot. So, the idea here was to try to, um, number one, get the, uh, LED information in here with
the green sky stuff and make sure that, uh, I mean, dark sky, wrong word, um, so to reduce, um, light pollution up into the air so we can see our stars at night kind of thing. uh and and dim the the lighting during the uh the evening hours. And that's
pretty much what the first page items two and three are about. Uh there's a lot more to it than that in the uh in the US Green Building Council's LED V3 light pollution, but but the the main part of it is exactly what you see in
number three. Okay? And that's the most important part and the kind that the part that influences us in terms of site plans and uh commercial properties. I have a question on page. >> Yeah, >> I have a question on page one.
>> Yeah, on item number four. >> Well, I'm not there yet. I'm gonna do four now. >> Okay. >> So, um the one thing that um that Bill helped me out with was that um a lot of these site plans are providing lighting with very very harsh high Kelvin above
4,000K uh white lights out in their parking lots. And what we're trying to do here is we're trying to soften it. Uh something around 27K is warm white. You a little bit of yellow mixed in almost not not near as bad as the old sodium
vapors, but but not near as white as the remember remember the original LEDs came out and everybody hated them because it was so white. That's all been sort of buffered a little bit now with and that's what item number four is about to try to create a little bit of a lower Kelvin temperature. Bill, if you want to
say anything else. >> Yeah, 2700 is an incandescent bulb. So when you, you know, you can see it when you go down Main Street, you know, most people have that color lighting, but then when you have a, you know, 4,000
Kelvin, you know, LED light in in your outside light, it's really stark. So just trying to keep everything a little bit more subtle. >> Yeah. My question, can I ask my question now? >> All right. My question >> is is the Calvin is that a standard way to calculate?
>> Yes. >> Is that our standard way to calculate? >> Okay. >> It's a national standard. >> You can look at any light bulb these days and it'll probably tell you what it is. >> It'll say K. It won't say K. Yeah. >> I think we need a parenthesy after. >> I was warm white. >> You're missing this typo
>> after >> in number four after warm white. >> Oh, put a par. You're right. You're right. Okay. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. >> Okay. Good. Okay. And then um the rest of it really has to do with glare of quick story. Um item number seven, the
apex angle of the cone of inflam infl uh illumination to 150 degrees or lesser angle. I know exactly what that means, but I have not been able to find an manufacturer to give me that information on any light ever in my whole adulthood.
So I want to take it out. But the whole idea is to not spread light to adjacent properties and residential properties. And if we go to the next page, I added a section at the bottom about that. So that's items one through five, trying to
keep residential properties from getting inundated by lighting that shouldn't be there. Okay. And then I item C above the second uh section on the top of that page with no glare. So the whole idea is to try to create a situation where an
industrial zone or a commercial zone will not impact adjacent residential properties. >> Okay. I do have a question on item B on page two. >> We have um Street Lane is a type supplied by public service electric gas
company. Do we have Jersey Central in town here at all? >> We have both, I think. >> Yeah. So should we have both utilities listed or utility whatever or you know do we need to name the utility specifically or >> we can just
>> or do you want to say by yes supplied by the public utility >> utility of yeah something along that line >> because we have >> so no public name just public utility >> I think we do have Jersey central >> split yeah >> can I ask a really stupid question
>> no stupid question >> it kind of is like in the the source of light and its visibility in the winter is totally different than in like the summer. So the stuff that we all see in
the winter because of the lack of leaves like violates a lot of these things. How do we accommodate for that like the seasonality of visibility? Uh, change the landscape ordinance >> or should I not see? It's not a stupid
question. It opens up a can of worms. >> More weeds in the >> You can't accommodate for that. >> There's no such animal as a winter summer light, >> right? >> It changes, >> right? It's just the >> No, that's not a stupid question. I mean, when the leaves fall off the tree, >> but the ordinance is written for the
worst case without the trees. that the lighting calculations and design and and glare is assuming is not taking in consideration leaves or landscaping. >> Okay. >> So, it's worst case. >> Okay. >> I guess yeah, you're right. If anything,
the summer's worse because or summer's better because there's no light coming through because you have all these leaves, right? And you have a street I mean, I've seen many places where you, you know, there's ordinance that say don't put a street tree near a street lamp. related,
>> right? >> Yeah. Like we do it all winter long. We drive around. I'm like, I never noticed that before. It's because you can see it. Now, >> I kind of have a related question, which is we reference glare a whole bunch in this. Um, and in cases like, you know, C at the top of the page, it says, you
know, two foot candle or point two foot candles with no glare. Is glare a very clearly definable thing? I mean, what I'd worry about is because this applies to residential properties, too. It's like if my neighbor suddenly says that my front porch light is glaring on their thing,
am I violating the ordinance? I mean, because they see it. >> I don't know. >> I'm going to look it up on Google. >> I mean, in my mind, the word glare, maybe better words, is that
you don't see the light source. So, like, you know, >> I guess what I'm thinking is because this also applies to houses, >> I think. >> Yeah. >> If I drive up and down Main Street, I and I look, I can identify almost every
light source that's in the front porch. >> Well, and it says with every application for approval of a site plan, that's what it says at the beginning of 150-48. So, >> so we're gonna It's sort of anyone who has a light source is grandfathered, but if you come in with a new one, then
>> that's what >> Okay. >> But it's also a single family home, right? Wouldn't Yeah. Isn't sound. >> Yeah. It wouldn't be applicable to a single because it's a sight plan. >> You can't get your neighbor now that new >> B. That's fine. >> Strong or dazzling light is what glare
is in the definitions. >> Strong or dazzling. I I think Cranberry historically has been very good about enforcing the light fixtures not to see the lights, you know, not to see the light source. I
think there's been some there's been some illuminated signs, billboards, some, you know, light pictures where now you do see those and I think >> very vividly >> vividly and there's been a lot of complaints against them. So, I'm not
opposed to making trying to make this clear that the neighbors shouldn't see the light source. You know, you don't want to be a residence next to a warehouse where you see that light shining. You know, when when the library was was first built, the the information
board was running 24 hours a day. And every time I walked through my house, I just saw this big light source coming, you know. So, that's kind of what, you know, they they closed they shut it down now. It's totally fine after hours, but that's what we want to try to avoid. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, item number 11 now has all light shall direct light downward and the light source shall not be visible beyond the property boundaries. >> 11 is the old eight. >> Oh, okay. Yes. But in any case, uh the
verbiage uh talks about boundaries. >> Which part talks about how the sing none of this applies to the single family home? Well, the uh introductory paragraph and under 150-48, it's a with every application for approval of a site
plan. So, >> I saw that part. >> Yeah. And so, a site plan's not required for a single family house. >> So, by definition, this entire thing doesn't apply to a single family home, >> right? >> Okay.
>> Is the C5. This is timers remote control. What does that mean? >> It should be or or remote control. >> Timers or remote control. >> I think there's a >> but there's no site for now. I guess we
would just say point them to the contradiction of that and it would be more clear if we just said that this only applies to that this doesn't apply to but that's fine. >> Liz just pointed out item number five the last item I just have a typo timers
or remote control shall be used. Okay, >> that's about it. So, um, any comments? Any other comments? >> Not on not >> all the rest of my comments were related to how it would apply to single family
homes, >> right? Assume that that's an applicable. >> All right. But you So, do you want to make that clear? Is that what you're saying? >> I think we I you know, >> I I I don't know. I mean, I'm agnostic. I I I would have to understand the
broader context in which it's in because we're look we're we're pulling this out like if it's in the middle of a section that has been only only exclusively talking about large >> both commercial and industrial. >> Yeah. >> I mean you're in this whole section about um
>> sidewalks >> sidewalks and applications for in context it's probably more. >> Yeah. because there's things about curbing before that and so it's all the design standards right for vehicular circulation streets.
>> So should we include that in there? >> Maybe we should say major site plan and major um uh subdivision >> but in a minor you could have a minor with >> okay >> commercial next to residential. I think we, you know, I think you really want to
protect residential >> from the commercial and other uses. >> Really, the lighting on a on a a subdivision, even if it's a five lot or 100 lot, it's usually mostly just street lighting. >> Yeah, I was going beyond lighting. Like there's a whole section here where I'm like, "Okay, so now I'm going to have to
put screening around my my HBAC thing because it's more than 12 inches tall and stuff like that." But as long as all none of that applies. I'm trying to get to the original section for this. >> Commercial design scan
48. >> Well, 48 was the lighting section. >> Oh, so where you want to go then? >> Well, I was wondering if this is under like a general section of uh >> It's just design. No, is it? >> Sorry, I said that. >> Um that's all under site plan and
subdivision standards. Ah, that's what I mean. >> Yeah, you're right. You're right. So then automatically that doesn't apply to single family. >> Yeah, >> that's true. Even when it's being developed as a group like >> when they came to us for the Hagerty property, >> right? Is that I >> and they had a whole bunch of things and
that that doesn't count. >> No, then it would >> Okay. >> That was a plan. It just doesn't apply retroactively to an individual, >> right? Exactly. >> Only to the development of a neighborhood. And that was relevant because originally they did put all the
HVAC right in the right on the front of the street with no screening. >> Right. >> Right. I mean, if the town came up with an ordinance for dark sky standards to be applied as a police power for all residences in the community. I mean that
that would be probably in a different >> Yeah, that's not my intent. >> No. And that would be that would not apply to development. That would apply to >> I almost mic just now. I think my point >> be hiring a he'd be hiring a police patrol at night. So the lighting patrol
I think my comments from the beginning were aimed towards the idea that I didn't think we intended this for single family >> but I wanted to make sure that we weren't accidentally doing so if you're telling me the context is a major site plan then that's fine. >> Correct.
>> Okay. >> Okay. So do you want to keep going? >> Yeah. We don't have much left, right? >> Not much left. So, um the next page after the lighting is storage and disposal of waste. You'll see two highlighted things at the bottom. Those
need to come out um because I realize that it's redundant to uh what's above on under B under yes at B. So the only thing that was really changed was um
I guess we said rather than unified and harmonious with the overall architectural theme, we said it shall be architecturally compatible with the principal building or surrounding landscape. So um that's that's really the only change there. Oh, and that it
can't extend above the enclosure. You can't have a pilot. Um okay. So then under public utilities, we uh referenced the section that talks about the panone green um you
know uh >> hot boxes and and you know so that's just so people know to look in both places if they find themselves here. Um then moving along to section 55 screening of exterior and mechanical
equipment. So this is sort of, you know, a lot of our applications, we spend a lot of time on the on these issues. >> Um, and so trying to address both when they're on the roof and then when they're um ground mounted. And you know,
there's one um caveat, which this doesn't apply to solar panels because that's its own issue. It's really only to HVAC systems, but also all of the unusual mechanical
equipment that we see on this board having to do with manufacturing. Um, so it would apply to that, but the idea is to give people a head start in designing um their enclosures before they come to the board. And um I don't know, but if
anybody has any specific questions, I can >> Well, that this this The last three are really kind of a lot of things that we focus on at our meetings. So, I mean, if there's any one section that we really kind of next to
signs, I mean, this is these three areas are the one we really kind of like trigger items that we really kind of go a little bit buggy on and and really kind of hold our applicants pretty strictly to some kind of a guideline.
you know, especially with stuff mounted on the roofs or, you know, emergency generators or um the hot box. >> Does everybody feel comfortable with these as as they are?
for now. Everybody feel good with those? Okay. >> Bill usually leads the charge on this. >> I know that. And yeah, I mean I mean I know. So I'm just saying >> but I mean that these are usually our trigger items. I mean,
>> well, and I don't there's nothing that we could put in an ordinance about this, but a number of times when these items have come up, it's because the occupants need has changed >> and they're needing to add something on the exterior of the building and we then
have, you know, the first half an hour of the conversation is, well, why can't it be in the building? Um, you know, you wonder if there's a way that people that when they're putting these facilities together could have some foresight to say down the road, let's And I know that sounds ridiculous. >> No, it's not because it's not it's it's
not ridiculous, but it it's it's sometimes it's hard to envision. Oh, I know >> what the change would be. Change of change of use >> for something unless unless you were clairvoyant to say, "All right, we're going to leave X space within the building in case
there's an expansion or or whatever to make those modifications or outside of the property or something like that." >> Well, the schools that's a whole another separate issue that >> is an example of expecting things to stay one way. Yeah, but the changing
>> the school did not come to us about the hot boxes sitting in the middle of the parking lot right now. >> No, >> that's that's a whole separate issue >> because they didn't have to come to us and >> do that.
>> Maybe not the best example, but no, it's something intended to be thing and then it changes to be another and you can't foreshadow that, >> right? I mean, this this 15 years ago was not an issue, but now it's an issue because everybody requires this now. And then and then we're pretty anal about
making sure you hide it as best you can without damaging the ability of it of whoever to get in and out of it. >> Did you see this question that Aman sent earlier about um the school? Do you want me to ask?
>> I think I just kind of brought it up. I I mean in essence the school is is exempt right now from us >> doing anything about that. >> I mean it's in our plans. I mean for what everything else is but you know
>> is is the w around it yet? No, there's it's it's just the location and what could have been done, I think, to protect it better than what it is right now because it's sitting in the middle of the parking lot. And if they just extended the apron
around where it is, it would have eliminated and maybe not even eliminated any parking spaces, but just, you know, eliminated any problem with somebody driving into the dog on thing. So,
>> well, you're welcome to get the school board's attention. >> No, >> I think I made my point. >> I will speak to the township. >> I know that >> doesn't have to be. >> Yeah. And again, we're not we were never
trying to hold up the I mean, my goodness, we didn't want to hold up the whole thing, but there was just a lot of back and forth on that. But we're we're digress. I'm digressing here. So, and keeping everybody from going home. So, so what's our next It looks like we
got through this all tonight. >> Yeah. >> Which is good. Um I we don't we do do we need to have a separate meeting or are you going to try to cut try to put this all together with Sharon and then are we
going to come up with some kind of a draft ordinance to give over to the township attorney or you how how mayor what would you like to do? Would you like us to go that route? And >> I think so. And then it goes through the
attorney and then I could have solved your >> life. I don't know. between the time of introduction and the uh public hearing, that's when it should come to the planning board for um consistency review. >> Lost my list.
>> It shouldn't be an issue since you already drafted it. So >> So are we looking then? May maybe by the end of next or next month we could have something. >> How busy are you?
>> No, no, no. ambitious. >> How about by March? Is that >> Yeah, let's do that. Let's do that. >> I mean, I'm trying to get I'm trying to get some kind of time frame where we can, you know, in my head where at least we could say, you know, get it
back to us in March and we give it the final okey to go to the township committee and then the township committee's got to do their okeying and then get it back to us. So maybe by May >> it'll go and be the final stamp of
approval on the thing. Maybe >> unless they get it back to us in April or whatever. >> I mean that's is that am I kind of >> is that feasible? >> Good. I I that my only concern is um just going through the rest of the ordinance which Sharon has already done
a lot of but to make sure it's consistent that that's just a little bit time consuming. >> So we we'll look for March then. That's two months. >> Yeah. >> Okay. That if that's not feasible, just let us know >> next month at our meeting next month
then. >> All right. All right. I'm going to close that out. Which was very good. Thank you everybody. That was good. Um we have no applicants so we don't have to have that section. Um old and new
business. We just did the whole zoning subcommittee work. Um, did you want to do a five minute overview of what we did what you did at the end of the year with the affordable housing and everything and just >> Yeah. send in everything. And then
>> basically the sorry um basically kind of where we left off is we went in through the challenge period um in through the court system um with retired judge Jacobson where she held two settlement conferences um with the township and the
challenges challengers to the plan. Um we have since entered into a settlement agreement with um Fairshare Housing uh which indirectly puts us into a settlement agreement with the Henry uh Henry Realy Company. Um and we've since
um gone into a settlement agreement with CHA uh which means that we that gives us one remaining challenger. Um and we put those settlement agreements um into the judge and submitted them into the judge.
um along with um >> by the deadline >> by the deadline of December 31st. Um and it also um we were able at that point to publicly announce that we've moved off 1234 South River Road and we've moved um
to a new location which is 1260 South River Road um which is just short of a mile closer to town. still on South River Road on the east side of town, but um closer to the infrastructure of of downtown um and still scoring um the
same uh which means that it's you know the ability to get 9% federal tax credits for that for development um are still really high. Um we have um so what happens next is the special adjudicator
and um Judge Jacobson will prepare their report and their opinion letter that goes up to Judge McCloskkey. I believe that's the right name that I have. >> Um and then that will be um basically their their her final say her honor's
final say on on that and then they will determine what goes what happens to that final challenger. Um but for the most part um we've reached the settlement agreements that we felt that we needed to reach settlement agreements with. Um so you'll see a ordinance um that will
be um on January 12th's agenda for the township that will uh be prepared for Cranberry Commons to move forward as part of the settlement agreement with CHA. Um, and then we will continue with our negotiations and we were hoping to
close on 1274, which is the senior project on South River Road. We were actually hoping to close on that property by the end of the year, but um, I have not heard that we've done that, but we're we're certainly close on that. Um, and then we're fairly obviously in active negotiations with 1260. But 1260
not only is an alternative property, but it's a a willing seller. Um so um which is a a far better scenario for for the township. >> What about Cranberry Commons? Is they >> Cranberry Commons is part of our
settlement agreement with CHA >> ownership. So who's did >> CHA would be the management of that that that property? >> I get that. But I meant they're not the current owner of the property. Did we already negotiate with them or are we in active negotiations? CHAS in active
negotiations with the property owner. So >> they're negotiating but we purchase it. >> Yeah. But we Yeah. We'll provide. Correct. >> Okay. >> And with the final is that the 20th of of of January >> that the final So the final gavl coming
down is the 20th. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So this month two week a week and a half from now. >> Yeah. Yeah. And then my intent as mayor and working alongside with Kevin um Vanise, our attorney for affordable housing, is to kind of a publish a
public statement. So that um a lot of the things that the residents of Cranberry felt that we weren't transparent around, there were reasons for that which we've tried to clearly indicate throughout the year. Um, but now that these are part of the public
record, uh, we are able to kind of go back and explain what it was that we weren't able to share. Everybody knew why because we were under constraints of litigation and and legal and legality. Um, and now that there's everything is now a matter of public record in the
eyes of Judge Jacobson, that allows us to kind of go back and not Monday morning quarterback everything, but certainly explain some things in more detail of why um, we weren't as transparent and forthcoming. And those handcuffs are kind of off off of us now. And I'm hoping that statement won't
really be a mayor's statement. It'll be more of a statement coming from the full township committee so that people understand things a little bit more. Um, and maybe maybe that helps uh people kind of, you know, understand the situation a little bit more and the the
pressure that all of us, including this this board, have been under this year. Um, so I wouldn't say that we've gotten over that, you know, through it, but we've certainly got it. We also were able to work um very closely with pretty
much every chief of staff of the governor's office and every agency with HMFA and DCA and D and anybody that would take our call, but we were basically on speed dial with the governor's staff. I would say the latter part of the last six months and I'll
make that very very clear in this statement that goes out to the residents and that that was a lot of heavy lifting behind the scenes and you know we really do thank you know those members of the governor's staff that kind of stepped in and and helped us out and realized what
it is that we would need. And again I want to just thank the residents of town. We had 36 um public comments that went in. They're all a matter of public record now for that HMFA, that 250 foot buffer rule. Um, you don't need to open them. They're all out there in public
comment and public information. And you can see all the residents of this town that kind of came to and I had asked for people to present public comment in favor of this language change. And I was really happy to see the people that stepped up and did it. And in talking
with HMFA, it was actually the public comment, a resident comment that made a big difference. It wasn't just that Wayne and Aman showed up in person and I I presented a letter um you know asking for it, but it was really the residents that took up that cause and did it that
made the difference with HMFA. And you can kind of you can read through that whole transcript, all 400 something pages of it. But it's just it's just goes to show you that it does make a difference when the public or residents
share their opinions um with the government. It really does. And in this case, it it made the difference um with us being able to get that language change and make 1260 a viable and a site suitable for development. Um, so we're
we're very excited excited about where we are. Um, but again, it's not we still have a lot of work to do. It's not finished yet, but >> right that that's the next step. So once the the final gavvel comes down on the 20th, then >> yeah, >> the planning board will be involved with
a lot of things. It'll be the subcommittee with Bill and myself and then it'll there'll be stuff coming to the planning board with plans and and things. It'll be everything on the 1260 property, the full site development, and that will that will follow the normal
process. It won't be special meetings and 11th hour pressuring or anything like that. So, that's the good news is that we'll be able to conduct business in the way that we're accustomed to conducting business. And they'll maybe be using our brand new checklist. Who knows? And uh but that's what that's
what they'll be they'll be doing. And right now that that is scheduled for a full um 130 units, family units uh on that site. >> Are they going to use the whole property or just part of it on 1260? >> Uh 1260 you can't use the entire
property because of the way that you've got the >> there's a pond there that >> Yeah. Yeah. all that has been and they they have uh we have a letter full letter of commitment from D that they understand that and again moving to residential and their 99-year flood rules and all of those types of things.
Um we had um uh Walters Group had hired Princeton Hydro to do a full site report on it. We presented that to the D and then we got a letter that was also submitted to Judge Jacobson um that we have the full cooperation support of D
for sight suitability um for the site too. So that was something that we were able to get from uh the D as well um which I think went a long way. Um, I think in general, I can't speak for Judge Jacobson, but just being involved in those meetings and reading body language and everything that she said, I
think she was fully supportive of Cranberry negotiating to get to these settlements agreements and again applauded our our long history and how we've managed affordable housing. So, and then indicating that even through the adversity that we had, we were still
able to get to where we needed to be and was happy with the site that we had chosen. So, we're we're moving along. >> So, I think this is a very positive note, especially for this board because
and as you just said, it doesn't um we had to do things in kind of a herculean manner last year that normally we wouldn't had to do. And that was um a heavy lift for everybody. And I'm not envisioning that this year that it'll be
more of a >> a normal process just like any other applicant coming in to do something that we could, you know, work at a normal pace and and be, you know, diligent like we normally are with any applicant. >> And I would expect again based on the
original application for 1274 and the way the Walters Group presented to the planning board, I I would hope that that this application will be as buttoned up as that. and you know will hopefully be yeah you know be a you know a good process here. I I can't predict what
will or will not happen, but at least it'll be under the course of a normal meeting, a normal application, a normal review process, and you know, no lastm minute um expectations of this board, which >> well, I thought Walter's group were especially um
um cooperative with Bill and I when we reviewed their plans and incorporated a lot of the design changes that we had actually recommended to them. So, I mean, that's that's a testimony to them that they're willing to at least work with us,
you know, on that kind of thing. So, >> yeah. Yeah. So, um we'll expect the affordable subcommittee of which, uh Wayne and Bill are part of that will continue. Again, it will probably continue through 2026 >> unless somebody else wants to do that.
But uh that'll that'll continue um without a doubt just in case if we do have any unexpected challenges. But other than that, I I just don't foresee them. I think this is will happen like a a natural process now. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Mayor. That was your question. >> Yeah. If there's any other question any
other questions? >> Yeah, I'll be happy to answer right now. >> Okay. >> Um I do have one um maybe new business and this kind of falls into our affordable housing. Bill and I have been talking about this. I'm kind of gone
just touched about it with Liz. And this is something I'd like to do this year is relook at um a swath of our zoning in town and see how we can I guess make it amendable to affordable housing and more of a general
aspect where we can look at this now and not be faced 10 years from now with what's going to come down the PR 10 years from now and have and at least have a discussion on what we might be doing and do in a certain area um of the
town. And I don't know how we would handle that if we if we're talking about specific properties or a specific area. Can we do that in public or do we have to do that in close session? I I don't know. That's something maybe Sharon you
could advise us on. I mean because it it's a swat I mean I'm proposing a whole swath of land um to be looked at and I don't know how if if that's in the public domain or do we have to talk about that privately
first >> but one thing you could do is do a subcommittee members >> well the subcommittee of Bill and Wayne have come up with some ideas but you know we got to run it by everybody here. So, I mean, um,
>> this would be part of a future, um, wave of additional requirements from the state. >> Yeah, we're we're going to be the town is going to be faced with something in the future. And I I mean, and this is something that you're going to have to get involved with less like what's the
tripping point for the school for how many kids and you know what, you know, things along that line. I mean, these are all things that we have to talk about cuz, you know, I'm looking at it might be a crazy idea or that, you know,
but I want to set us up now so that if people in the future want to take advantage of this in the zone, then they can at least take advantage of it because right now it's not it's not in it's not included.
And if we're going to look at making, you know, try to make some housing and it maybe don't, this might sound crazy, some market housing, too, smaller market units for people to possibly afford in
town, you know, without tripping into something with the school, you know, with with Princeton High School. I mean, this is something I think we need to re reassess now. Um, and again, I might be wrong. the board could say, you know, no, Wayne, you know, we don't want to do
that. It's ju that's just me right now. Um, but this is something, you know, think about it and if we, you know, come back to the next meeting, um, if we want to explore this then and then we could look at how we would go about doing this.
I mean, I could talk with Liz separately, too, on what I'm thinking about and then at least, you know, Bill and Liz and then, you know, how we would even attempt to tackle this. But, but you're going to need to let us
know either, you know, how this how this works with the school because I don't want to propose putting in 400 houses and it's like time out. That's that's game match point. that's going to kick us out of our contract with Princeton, you know, I
don't want to do that. So, but if it's accommodating potentially future affordable housing obligations that we're going to be faced with because there's absolutely no indication this is not going to happen in the future again and how we how we're going to address
this. I mean, um I just can't see the town having to go through this and ripping itself apart again 10 years from now. and land is only going to be more expensive 10 years from now, exponentially more than what it is right now because we're running out of it in
town here. So, I just think if we set oursel up now to at least address this, I think we're we're doing maybe a justice to the town to try to avoid this for the future. But again, I'm I may be wrong. Um, but think about it.
Okay. Any comments or questions on that? No. Everybody wants to go home. I don't blame him. on. >> Well, it's it it's I'll give you I'll give you the only the
only advice I could give you is when I was on township committee back in the good old days in the '9s. Um, and we were looking at the entire farmland and preservation program and how the heck we
were going to preserve all this land. And we had to look out and say, "Okay, if we don't do this now, what's going to happen 30, 40, 50 years from now?" So, we're almost at that point. I mean, we're 30 years past that point
and we would have looked like Plansboro or South Brunswick or East Windsor or West Windsor or Monroe. And you know, 70% of our town is is either preserved through farmland or parks or open space or whatever. And
that's a testimony to the people back at that time that said we don't want this. But it's kind of bit us a little bit now because we don't have the land to do the affordable housing or things along that line. So I that's why this kind of trips
into this now. How could we with this hanging over our head in the future? How could we safeguard the town against this? Cuz it's unknown. You're right. I don't know what's going to happen 10 years from now, but something's going to happen 10 years from now. I don't hear anybody saying we're getting rid of the
affordable housing program after this round. That's it. I it it's not happening. So, it's just something that I think if we could if we could look at something and make make sense of it and it's a it's
not so crazy if this helps us safeguard for the future then it's it's something I think we need to look at. >> The only caution that I would give there is if you're comparing round one, two, three, four is that the floor is going to continue to move under your feet.
>> Oh. and that the requirements and parameters and guidelines and rules are going to continue to change. They're going to change within the round. Um, and that's the only thing that I can say is going to stay consistent is that you
can't just go to some playbook and say when you were dealing with affordable housing and what you were able to do and the flexibility that you had in the program versus where we are now is night and day. And so I would expect that I
don't necessarily know that the changes in affordable housing have been improvements to it. It's not a six sigma approach to an issue. It's not continuous improvement. It has just been change and it's just been different.
It's not good or bad. It's just that it's been different and that's been consistent. So what round five is going to look like, how they're going to calculate numbers, but there is such a thing as you've reached the point that you're developed as a
community and there's a strategy there that needs to be looked at that >> well that could be the strategy too that we're not touching anything now. We're leaving everything as is and it'll be >> there won't be any place. What is the criteria that they define right now as a
town being developed >> that you there you don't get a number because you have you don't have enough developable land and what's what does that look like how are they defining a developed a fully developed town
>> I think 10 years from now this town will be fully developed whatever is land is left >> based on developed >> based on this process that we have gone through um I I one could start to make that argument now.
I mean a unit here, group home there, this there that doesn't going to add up. >> Well, that's what we need to that's what we need to flesh out, too. But think about it, everybody. Okay. All right.
With that said, >> can I have a motion to adjourn tonight? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. All right. >> All in favor say I. I.
>> Thank you everybody.