This zoning board meeting is being held on May 6, 2026 at 7 p.m. 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 municipal clerk. Roll call, please. Mr. Bona Volante is not here yet. Miss Dharmafal >> here.
>> Miss Gitens is out. Mr. Cathari >> here. >> Miss Parker >> here. >> Mr. Schwares >> here. >> And Miss Shu is not here yet. And Mr. Diamond >> here. >> Okay. Thank you. We have a quorum. >> Great.
Okay. First on the agenda is approval of the minutes from two months ago. Um, we're in the packet. Any motions to approve? Someone >> motion to approve.
>> Okay. >> Second. >> Okay. >> Right. Roll call. Yep. Roll call for the March 4th minutes. Um, Miss Dharmafal >> here.
>> Um, Mr. Cathari >> here. >> Mr. Torres >> here >> and Mr. Diamond. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Motion passed. >> All right. So, we have the uh application. Is the attorney here? >> Oh, okay. Um
if it's all right with you, I'd like to actually start with >> H. You just want to vote. Yes. Uh can we start with the professionals to get like an update on uh what has changed uh in the in the past two months
and uh you know changes to your comments in this packet things like that just to get everyone caught up. >> Mr. Chair, I'll also indicate that our professionals were all sworn at the last meeting. So, they're still under oath as will be the applicants uh witnesses who
were already here last last meeting. >> Okay. >> Yes, you always. >> Okay. >> Okay. I will start. Dave Hoder, engineer for the board. Um this is going to be difficult for me because I I flagged my my letter with all the things they did
not do since last meeting. Um there are a number of things they did. Um and um some of the things they didn't do are things like uh they still need to provide meet some bound descriptions for any conservation easements because the uh uh the township
requires conservation easements. Um let's see. Um I need some additional dimensions near the building because we have a requirement that the building has to be 10t off the parking. It doesn't quite say it has one dimension but not both. If you add them together, you don't know
what you get. Um, uh, the applicant has not provided crosswalks, um, that are in the ordinance. A lot of applications don't, uh, meaning inside the parking area. Uh, the ordinance actually asks for raised
crosswalks um that are made of a different material to differentiate them so people don't get get hit. But most of the time both the planning board and the zoning board hasn't haven't asked for that requirement. So I'm assuming that they're going to ask for a waiver on that. We'll find out later. >> Okay.
>> Um they did propose a um a right ofway um widening for Cranberry Hextown Station Road. I'll let Andrew talk about that more than I. I think that's a good thing. I was unclear whether or not
they're proposing curbs and drainage on the road because when you widen the road often times you have to put curbs in and drainage and I didn't quite see that on the plan. They should provide some testimony, >> right? >> Uh most of the lighting comments I had were taken care of since last time. Um
the one thing that they are still asking for is uh the bases are 36 inch high where our our requirement is is is 6 in to exceed 6 in. Uh in a in a warehouse facility like this, it's probably worth giving them a waiver if they if this
application is approved because trucks could hit those those poles and it's better if they hit a piece of concrete than they do uh the skinny steel pole. Okay. Uh let's see. Um I did ask for
additional information in the um uh you know having to do with like performance standards and environmental that type of thing. Some of it was provided by uh testimony but um a lot of it I wanted to just be added to the reports they provided. We still need to have the
final approval from the fire department. Uh they do have a hydrant on Icetown Cranberry Road and hydrants are proposed inside the site. They do have to revise the u uh the meter vault, remove that and add a hot
box detail. The uh because the hot box has been requested now by New Jersey American. It's now on the plans. So it's completely different facility for the uh backflow preventing valves. One thing they did do is they provided a uh a detail of the senator sanitary sewer
pump station and um so I have about I don't know um 10 or 12 comments about that pump station. I don't believe it's ready for actual construction yet. It's it's a good concept plan of a pump station and now I know what they want to do and it's
acceptable but they need to you know prior to uh getting through compliance they need to you know button it up a little bit and provide all the information and it's it's in my it's in my letter on page eight and nine uh let's see landscaping generally they did
everything that I looked for I'll defer the rest of it to Liz uh and Um, so I'm I'm, you know, I'm an engineer, so I'm happy with the landscaping. Uh, but there may be some, uh, planning comments that might be a little bit better. The one comment I did have is that I felt
they should do more plants from the from the cranberries, uh, lists of shrubs, trees, and evergreens. Let's see. Uh generally I'm I'm okay with all the storm water. Uh and they I think they did a good good job of of the of the
basins. They I do I am going to ask I am asking for uh calculations on the a recharge analysis for they did a they did a 500 long uh recharge pipe uh in the front of the building. And I just want to make sure I understand how that that's going to work. So, I need those
those calcs. They did not upsize the uh our our ordinance requires that the applicant upsize um um some of the pipes uh if it's over a certain size diameter. Um and they did not do that. So, that would be a waiver
that this board would have to uh request or would have to approve if if this thing's approved. Um, it has been approved by both the planning board by the planning board before. I'm not sure if the zoning board's ever had that request. Uh, I don't really have a problem with it. It's kind of unusual.
It's almost a throwback from the 80s and 90s when a lot of the local town engineers always asked for a much larger pipe than was required because nobody knew the if the calculations were as good as they should be. I did ask for a plan uh for trucks um
and where they're going to go and how they're going to be moving material from the site or to the site. Uh there is going to be a couple hundred trucks of fill uh on the site. So, um I want to make sure there's a good transportation plan and it's not uh coming through some
parts of Cranberry that are uh pedestrian andor residential. Uh the rest of all the items are are sort of technical things uh that I'm not going to go through tonight. But in general, they did do a number of things,
especially the landscaping in my book, uh to uh bring the plans more into conformance. Thank you. Go next. And not to steal the uh applicants thunder uh but the big thing that changed is uh the work on the train
depot uh they do have a parking lot for it. They have entrance and exit. It's one way circulation. They also have a path uh on the east side of the road. That path passes by the uh train depot. I know we had talked about providing a
path and um discussed having it on the warehouse side, but having it on the other side makes sense too because that provides walking and um bike access to the train depot. I'll let the applicant get into the details because that was what I saw as the big change uh
traffic-wise. Otherwise, uh they did clean up some items. Uh there were some items that still need to be cleaned up such as sight distance at the end uh access uh points, the access driveways, add sight triangles, note regarding planting signs and other things at the
driveways. Um I did uh make a comment um regarding the right ofway at the northeast corner of the property. The the property actually enters the roadway. There's an easement uh shown on
the demolition plan, but on the proposed site layout, it shows the property without an easement or um showing how that uh property line will stay out of the uh roadway. Uh that's a concern. I'm
sure the uh applicant will discuss that. that is a new comment that appeared in my uh review based on this easement or dedication, whatever the case might be, not being shown uh at that corner. And I'll let the applicant
speak to that. But those were uh the items that I saw. Again, there's still still some cleanup items. The fire department approval is uh important here, but they did uh provide turning analysis for the fire truck. So, um I'll let the applicant uh describe the uh
firetruck analysis and then the fire department will have to approve that. >> Okay. I'll be brief. Um they did reflect some of the responses to the comments in my letter and also at the um March hearing. Um specifically, I know the
landscaping, they added more landscaping along, for example, around the the ent. also um took landscaping away from that easement to the cell tower that exists. Um they altered the architectural drawings so
that the red band is not on the facades facing um Cranberry Heights Town Road. Um and they also provided a rendering of the depot building. uh you know conceptual I think it's noted it's a work in progress but there had been
nothing in the previous submission um and really that's it a lot of my comments are sort of picky things about uh measurements so um which we can certainly work out
No. Oh, that's a red light. So, that's weird. Okay. Uh, good evening, Donna Jennings from the law firm of Wine School and Spitzer on behalf of the applicant. uh has been has been indicated, we are back here again seeking plarium final major site plan approval, a D3 variance and several bulk
variant a D4 variants and several bulk variants with respect to the construction of the warehouse and has been indicated we did spend a significant amount of time with the uh historic commission discussing the train depot. So we're going to have our consultants go through that which we do believe is a significant uh change and
something that will benefit everybody uh in the town. Um, so what I'd like to do is actually just get right into it and call Andrew up and he's going to go through the revisions to the plan uh that has been briefly discussed by the board's consultants. And we ended with the exhibit A3. So if
we're going to have a new exhibit, we should mark that into evidence and identify it for the record starting with A4. >> Yes. And maybe you use that microphone. >> Andrew Grover. G R O V E R.
>> Hello. >> You want to do the handouts, too? >> Yes. >> Somebody can do something out for me. Never mind. Thank you. Yes, we have a uh a new uh exhibit here uh for proposed conditions. Uh we're
going to mark it as A4 uh with today's date May 6th uh 2026. I was going to get into detail, but I think the the professionals did did handle quite a bit of uh what I my thunder what I was going to talk about,
but uh uh since our meeting on in March, uh we took the hint that the landscaping was was pretty critical. So based off the planners letter and the engineers letter and comments along about the hearing, we uh provided a significant
amount of buffering now uh along the uh the property that's uh our property but to the to the uh um east and uh we're going to get into some of the
details of the materials and types of planting. So, we brought our actual uh in-house landscape architect to talk in more depth about the landscaping. So, I'll let her do that. Um, but in addition to the landscaping that we uh
provided, we are showing now uh a site layout uh for the the train depot area. Uh at the time, we made the submission to the to the township. Uh we provided uh there's a parking area now with uh
seven parking spaces, circulation to get into that parking area. Uh potential for a train car of some sort to help accent the uh the depot um building. Um and in
in addition a proposed auxiliary uh building that in the future may be used for a restroom. Uh now since then since our uh submission uh the client and the architect have had multiple meetings with the historical
commission. Um so I'm not going to get too in-depth into the train train depot area because they can provide what happened and occurred at those meetings and and provide you more detail than I could uh provide. So um in addition to what we also submitted for the plans, we
provided more information with regards to the pump station, how sanitary is going to be treated. Um, we are proposing a excuse me, a pump station that will that will pump uh the sewage uh under the the turnpike
to a uh existing manhole that's about 950 ft uh from the property using a an inch and a half force main. And uh we'll it complies with all the New Jersey DP requirements. And in order to do so,
we're going to have to jackabore right now under the turnpike. So, we're going to have to get a New Jersey Turnpike authority approval to do all that. Um, but I did want to bring up there is a potential for an au an alternate um
uh location. the adjacent property to the north on the opposite side of North Station Road does have um sewer and we're still looking into maybe being able to tie into that, but we'll have to coordinate with the property owner, make
sure the capacity works and then we'll have to get easements for that um possible alternate. But we wanted to show the worst case which was to actually jack and bore under the um the turnpike to show that that's feasible.
So, um, whatever. >> And with respect to the actual proposed warehouse site, there's no new variances or >> correct. There's no new variances from what we had proposed originally uh when we presented on March back in March. >> And you've had an opportunity to review
the board's consultants letters. Correct. >> That's correct. Yes. >> And were there any comments or uh suggestions in there that the applicant cannot do or is the applicant going to comply? >> We can comply with them. So, can I ask a question? >> I know you've done it, but >> you seem like it.
>> Yeah. >> So, can you tell us what you're doing on Cranberry Heights uh station road station? I always get back and um the idea would be what is your roadway width going to be from the center line? I'm
assuming you're going to hold the same center line and then what is your right of way width and are you curved there and is there any any proposed range? >> Yes. Uh well, right now, uh we are um we're it's actually we're going to be
holding the property line along the the larger parcel and offsetting that 60 ft. So, we're actually going to be going into these the opposite uh parcels, which is kind of an unusual situation, but the fact that we have the the client um has those properties, we felt that
that was would work a lot better. Uh so therefore we're going to we're requesting uh a dedication of 60 foot rightway and uh we're proposing um it's a 24 foot wide uh uh carway.
>> When you said you're proposing a riding winding to other parcels, you're talking about the train depot parcels. >> Yes, the train depot parcels which are lot uh two and lot one and block 9.01. So you're not holding the center line.
>> Correct. Yes. >> That's unusual. It's not >> It is unusual, but we were trying to do would it be would there be anything wrong with holding center and going in both directions the way you would normal subdivision? >> If we had done that, then we would
trigger a lot of variances within the the the larger parcel because then we would have to >> offset into that property. say that varianes are triggered um by right of way widening or
dedication that they aren't necessarily difficult to approve usually. >> Yeah. I mean I'd rather see it go from the center. >> Yeah. Yes, that makes sense. But I think the the in the um the condition of the
roadway there I think we even had discussions that is pretty bad. So, we're going to have to do a full mill and overlay and anyway, so it makes sense to to kind of save the the larger parcel and uh do the way that we were proposing. >> Okay. And what about curb?
>> We're we're we're showing curb and really there's only a low point uh right around the uh this area that we we're going to be um >> describe it. >> This Yeah. No. Uh yeah, just um
south of the uh the first intersection maybe about 100 ft or so. There's a low point there where at one point we were showing an open curb, but um we'll we'll provide uh the necessary inlets. >> Yes.
>> That's good. Thank you. >> I believe that's all the direct questions we have this witness of the board. >> Uh just one really quick question. Um I know there was mentioned that possibly the sewage system would go to the north rather than through the turnpike. Um would there be anything that you need from the county given that it's a county
road and is there any other is essentially is this going back to Middle Sex County for anything if the sewage goes in that direction? >> It yeah it all ultimately goes to the middle sex sewage authority. Um but um yes we're we're going to have to make submissions to the planning to Middle Sex County Planning Board and everything
for all the improvements even uh the intersection and such. Uh I know that uh Andy had brought up uh the point about the rightway. Currently there there are u easement rightaway easements that kind of take care of this situation right now that uh because even the existing
roadway is in in the property but uh there are I know it's it may not been labeled but it was on the plan. It's very light colored um showing the easement and all the the existing improvements uh with the intersection uh
were in that. So when we make the submission to Middle Sex, we're going to have to take a look at that and and coordinate with them about the dedications and then as well any improvements and and uh the utilities that were within the um the rightway we're going to have to get approval on.
>> Thank you. just curious what is >> I um I mean I don't it's I don't have it >> it's probably with about five to set to 10 feet or so that's why I said it's about five it maybe
then it'll let us >> it doesn't really the the transition. We're going to maintain the the existing uh intersection and transition as we move further down the road. >> So, in other words, you'll be rebuilding
the road up into up to the county road, >> correct? >> Sideline, which means that you're going to be riding those curbs and those curves uh to fit your new alignment. >> Correct. Yes. And I had one question. You said that
the cartway will be 24 foot wide. That's to be consistent with the rest of the roadway because typically we ask for a little bit more. >> Yeah, we well we have um what we were showing was 24 and and then five feet shoulder lane. Uh so we do have I should
have said specified that but we do have a shoulder uh lane with that as well. So >> and then that's included in the carway. So you have 12 and five on each side. >> Yes. >> Making it 34.4 where I'm at. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. At this time, I'd like to bring up
the landscaped architect to go through some of the improvements of the landscaping plan. And um Miss Hopkins was not here the last time, so she'll need to be sworn in. >> I do. >> Yes. My name is Andrea Hopkin. It's H O
P K I N. >> And if you could for the benefit of the board give your background and qualifications. >> Of course. Uh my name is Andre Hopkin. Uh New Jersey licensed landscape architect with Insight Engineering. Insight did prepare the landscape plan that's before you this evening. Um I've had my license in good standing for over
20 years. I hold a bachelor of science degree from Penn State University in landscape architecture. Um during the course of my professional career uh I've provided landscape plans for many different project types and sectors including commercial large scale residential
um multifamily assisted living um environmental restoration and other projects. And I have provided expert with this testimony at many boards throughout the state of New Jersey. And your license is current today? >> I'm sorry. >> Your license is current and valid today? >> Yes, it is. >> The board accepted qualifications as a
landscaped architect. >> All right. Thank you very much. Um, so if you could um just describe the landscape plan revisions that you've made to address some of the comments in the review letters. >> Sure. Um, let's see. I want to pardon me for reading a little bit, but uh we did
um as you were noting install a lot of extra landscape uh landscaping along the um cranberry uh station road uh to the south of the site and around the cell tower. Uh we switched out um some um deciduous species for evergreen. So we
added a lot more evergreen species in there. Added some more took out some invasive species, non-native species, and added natives to the plant list. Um, and I just wanted to address if I could one of the uh concerns about uh the
plants from the approved town list. And again, pardon me for reading a little bit there. Let's see. So, on our plant list, uh, 15 out of the 21 proposed species are on the shade tree list, including all of the proposed deciduous trees. uh seven out of 13 proposed shrub
species are on the list and uh five out of 10 evergreen trees on uh the Shay Creek mission list um were not suitable for the site and and our uses. So we're kind of restricted uh in that regard. So, when we're talking about um the amount of evergreens and the amount of
plants on the list, we were uh looking to stay within the uh the intent of the ordinance um and we chose species that were conducive to our purposes here, namely screening uh and buffering of the site. So, plan basically was suggested uh to
uphold the objectives of our of our site design. Um we considered environmental resilience and uh we used you know again native species and plants from the list to the greatest extent possible. Um I think that's most of the the changes uh that we did.
>> I think you were going to touch on the um landscaping around the entry signage we did as well. >> Yes, we did add um landscape around the signage. We added some um evergreens like some larger evergreens about reach about uh 15 feet or so in height to uh as a backdrop to that and some um
ornamental grasses and ground covers in front of the sign. >> And then the design waiver for the 75% I think you were touching on it but if you could describe that a little bit better. >> Right. So um we are pretty close to that. I think right now we're at about 65% but again the the situation with um
the amount of evergreens required and the evergreens on the list were sort of uh serving two masters. So there's not a lot of um evergreen plants in general to choose from from the list. Uh so we use what was available to us. Uh and also what kind of skews that number is that
we have a lot of uh street trees. So we have a lot of uh trees along the frontages. Um, and so they actually spaced closer together than what is required. So if we space those further apart, um, we wouldn't have so many and it would sort of bump up the percentage
of the number. >> Okay. I think that's generally it, right? >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Then at this time, I'd like to bring up our architect to go through some minor modifications to the facade as well as uh describe the changes to
the proposed train station that everybody was looking forward to seeing. The man of the hour we're going to call you, Anthony. And Anthony was sworn in the last time. >> I was Oh, you weren't? No, my colleague was
>> Oh, okay. Sorry. Apologize. That's right. You were in South Brunswick, not Cranberry. Yeah, please. >> S C A L I S E. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> You got to get sworn in first. >> Yes.
>> The testimony you're about to give in this matter is true. >> Yes. Thank you. Could you give us your full name and spell your last name for the record? >> Sure. Antonio Scaliz SA L I S E. >> And if you could for the benefit of the
board give your background and qualifications. >> Sure. Um I've been a licensed architect uh over 20 years. Um it's in good standing in the state of New Jersey and other states. Um I'm actually the chairman of my planning board in my town.
>> We won't hold that against you. don't God bless uh and um I've been before many boards in the state of New Jersey over 20 years >> the board accept his qualifications. Thank you. So, if you could you just walk us through first the changes to the
elevation to the warehouse and then get into the details regarding the train. >> So, on Heightstown Cranberry Station Road, I we modified our rendering just to kind of give a sense of what we were looking at there at sheet A4. >> Is that going to be A5?
>> A504. Uh >> well, no, we were at exhibit number A5 for the record. >> And that is the colored rendering, amended color rendering. >> Yes. And we're using 41426 as the date. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
>> In that in this rendering, which is the bottom rendering, we're just showing that on that side, we kind of took the fenistration vertical elements which break down the mass. We kind of depressed them like set them in maybe
about a foot or so just to give a little bit more shadowing there. And I think what it does is it breaks down the mass of that length and it I think it creates an attractive uh element for that side of the elevation. And that that was pretty much that.
Great. >> No, we took the red stripe out. >> The red stripe out. >> And we took the red stripe out. Yes. Also, >> yes. Yes. >> Appreciate it. I don't know who that man is in the background. I also want to show the train station.
>> All right. We should mark that as A6 and just describe it for the record, please. >> Sure. That is sheet A507. And what I want to reference, it's also the same date for the revision, but what I'd like to reference, it's an overall
like rendering layout. And this came out of our meeting with the historic committee, which I thought went very well. Um, I think we simplified the design. Um, so you have the main
building which is there today that we all know where our client is willing to to restore that in kind and bring it back to I think it was 1937 or there was a date because there was like a series
of photographs and one of them that we all landed on I believe was 1937 don't quote me on that but I know it was in the 30s um that we would use as a side and essentially we agreed, my client a agreed to bring it back to that and we
were playing with different options as far as building and trying to do a lot of historic uh research and we couldn't find anything. So, um, the reason I bring that up is there were other structures that were in other photographs, but we
do have a structure which I guess would be towards the southerntherly end of the property, which would be like a a bathroom area, maybe a little bit of storage, which you could see here. It's just a small building where you could
have a bathroom and then that allows the train building to kind of just be its thing and kind of be separate. We also um we talked about like having a stone kind of driveway. I know on our plan it kind of looks very defined, but
I think it's meant to be a little bit more like just a stone p uh uh parking area. Um, we also had a an ADA ramp that we had put in, but through discussions with the historic committee, we removed
that ramp because, you know, as if I'm Yeah. What's that? >> It's not historic, >> right? Exact. Well, thank you. So, unfortunately, you know, we do have something called the rehab code in the state of New Jersey. And obviously when
you have a historic building where you were kind of going, we we don't want to intrude something that's foreign, right, aesthetically to it. I think it's something that we can always revisit later if when it comes down to it. But um our client is going to be maintaining
that place, that area. So it's not really I mean it's a public area, but it's not a public area. I mean obviously he is going to work something out where people can go visit the building. So I think right now we're eliminating the ramp. I think it was causing a little bit of issues and both aesthetic and and
functionality there. So, we removed the ramp. Um, we also, you know, we had some plantings there that we were doing architecturally, not with the landscape architect, but which of course you'll have a hand in that at some point. But,
um, we had some like planters there that we removed. And the other thing that the feedback we got is we tried to make a naturalook landscape. And then you can see we added a path there. Um there were benches there that we removed. Um and I
think that was really like the gist of the the from the historic committee what we had done. Um I also have a rendering that we did of the train station.
So that should be exhibit A7. >> Yeah. A506. The same date. >> So all all we're showing here is a rendering of the depot uh where we're bringing everything back to again that 1937.
The one request from the uh our client um Eddie Hadad was somebody very important to the firm. He was one of the founding members of the company. Unfortunately had passed away a year and a half ago, a couple of years ago. And
as a memorial to him, um our client was looking to add a sign there which we're calling the Eddie Hadad Depot, but of course it's historic Cranberry Station. And that was something that we I don't think that was on there before. Um that was discussed
with the historic committee. Um they seem to have no you know issues with that. And um you know maybe there'll be some further tweaks and modifications but I felt really positive coming out of the meeting. My client was also there
with me, Franco, and I think we walked away there uh feeling good about that and and the direction we're going for the train station. >> So, it's a little fluid. You know, we're able to making further modifications if that's what the board or the township
prefers. So, we're trying to work with everybody in coordination to make it a nice um rehab of the historic train. Well, I think, you know, we weren't the short answer is yes. Um, it's probably going to be locked
most of the time. You know, I think there was talk about SEC and thank you for reminding me when you said that. There was talk about securing the area with chains and that was the other thing the historic committee brought up. I guess um there's maybe some people there
that shouldn't be there at certain times and um I know that um it's going to be secured off so you can't just go in there at any time. So I think the idea was the bathroom was there to support the building and that was really the extent of it. We didn't think anything
more of it. So >> sorry. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Um, so we have it there as a secondary building and again it was bathrooms, maybe a little bit of storage and that's it. >> Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question?
>> There are two questions. One, uh, will there be electricity at the building? >> Yes. >> Okay. And there'll be maybe some security lighting. >> Yes. >> Okay. Can you add that to the plan as of course as part of any compliance plan? >> And and the security lighting would shine just on our property obviously.
>> And what are the nature of the foundations? They look like they're peers. >> Yeah. And I mean, listen, let let's be very clear. Structurally, there's going to be some TLC going on here, >> right? So, >> I mean, there are are they like concrete peers that >> they they look like they're on. I'm
sorry. >> Sitting right on the ground. >> Yeah. I mean, obviously our client has a construction background. They do their own work. Um, we're going to look at everything. We may dig down and see if that's where you're going. You know, is it three foot
down? Like, what's this how solid things are? We're going to from top to bottom basically restore the building and make sure the foundation is sound if that's what you're asking. >> No, that's that's really a building department thing. I was just wondering. So, >> yeah. I mean, they look like peers right
now. Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh that's it for now. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Sh, can I ask a couple? >> I I just have some uh clarification. So, can you just just confirm where the red is going to remain? what facads and
where will they be facing? >> So, I think it's all it's going to remain on the uh was that 195 turnpike I mean turnpike excuse me on that side. >> Um and if you give me one second >> because I just I'm just asking because
that rendering I think it's on the north side for for a while as well just on the along the the between Okay. >> Yes. So we so the only spot we took the red off was on the residential side.
>> Okay. And then how about on the south side of the building? All right. Did you >> Let me Yeah, we have it on the turnpike side. >> No, we took it off. We took it off the southern >> south and then you just have it on that little section of the north facade.
>> Correct. Which this is on Right. So, we have it on the north side and we have it on the turnpike side. >> Okay. Okay. >> And I'm just It's up to the board. what the board's pleasure. I just wanted to clarify. >> But was there is there any question
about that or because I'm happy to answer that if there is. >> It's on the >> It's on the low Yeah, it's on the lower side. Yes. >> Right. Which you could see here. See
here, this is the the low side there. And then we have it at the entry. I mean, that is their uh what's the word? You know, that's their Exactly. >> Yeah. It's part of their branding. You see, we do it on all of their buildings
in the area. I just have a couple more questions if you don't mind. All right. So, the other is the signage. I know um I think you had three signs in the earlier plans. Now, you said you have two, but I think we counted three wall signs, and I just
want to verify that it's only two. And if it is only two, where are they? So, we have the ones by the turnpike, >> right? >> And >> so, that's one and two. >> And then maybe there's a ground sign. That's the only >> No, it would have been You can have the
ground sign. It's It would be another wall sign. >> I don't. >> Is there a wall sign on the Cranberry Heights Town Road sign? >> No. >> Okay. >> No. >> All right. Let me >> There's the sign though on the train then. >> Yeah. No, it was I don't know. I have
>> on the elevations. >> Let me look. I I I don't see it anywhere else. >> All right. >> Yeah, I don't I don't have it on >> So, it's just on the entrance that faces >> the turn. Correct. >> And it's just those two and that's it for >> That's all I have other than if they're
on the ground sign. Yes, >> in the ground sign. Correct. >> That's fine. Okay. And then just I sorry if I missed it but can you just clarify with the you're going to retain or your your client will retain ownership of the depot property. >> So that was a whole discussion during
the meeting and um I think it's one of those situations where our client is willing to work with the town but he also doesn't want to create a burden for the town right because let's say there's a donation of that building then who maintains it? So, my client is willing
to bear the cost of the maintaining, you know, of that's required. Um, and then I think again, this is above my pay grade, but they're going to work something out, I'm assuming, right? Because they're also trying to make this on the national
landmark >> and my client was also willing to do that as well. And I think the whole thing became that it's a private owner. It's not doesn't have to go public, right? Because there's costs to do that. It could be as upwards of $50,000 to uh to go on the
land, you know, uh to do an application towards the historic landmark. So, um our client's willing to do that as well. So, right now it's being owned by our client >> if something changes or there's, you know, that's between our client and the
and the town. Um but I believe right now they just he you know he'll we'll maintain it all of that and there's no cost associated to you know uh to bear to the town. >> Okay. So I mean I guess the point is if the town said no we never want it
>> you're Yeah. You're maintain Yes. Okay. >> Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Those are my only questions right now. And oh, by the way, I'm sorry. I should also add our client is willing to is buying a train also for there. He wants to make
this something, you know, interesting. I mean, that that's that was part of what he was willing to do if if it's necessary and he's willing to go that that far. >> Will it be a steam train? >> I'm looking for something from 1937.
statue. >> That's his way of showing, I think, of how far he's willing to go, you know, to to make something nice there. >> And I did speak about the dedication to town, you know, dedication. I did have >> You'd have to get sworn in. You can't >> I was sworn in.
>> Oh, okay. Just want to make sure. Okay. Okay. >> So, I mean, the the train >> She doesn't know who you are, though. >> I'm sorry. Franco >> Franco Rousell. R A U S E. I'm one of the owners. So, the the train uh depot came out of
nowhere because the historic society had reached out to me a while back saying that there was an in, you know, an element on the property that has been there since 1937. I don't none of us believe that the
actual structure that's there has been there since 1937. I've walked it. I've seen it. It's probably not original, but there is a switch, like a concrete switch in the ground that I've protected sacredly since I've owned this property because that I think I believe is the
only original component to anything historic on this whole entire piece of property. And that's part of what I think generated their interest in this in this piece. and the community, the neighbors hated the fact that there'd be
truck parking there or anything that would help the warehouse portion of it. So, I came up with the idea to help the historic society make that a a national monument, obviously honoring, you know, our
deceased CEO and founder of our company and at the same time trying not to create a burden to the city or myself. Unfortunately, there's always going to be one loser in the deal. And I doubt the city would want to go through the whole process of having it dedicated to
them. And I have dedicated land to cities in the past where they become completely unmaintained. Nobody knows who really owns it and nobody cares. And I end up maintaining it anyway. And the fact that I'm going to name this after somebody and it's
going to be across the street from one of our operations. I feel like it's better for us to take the burden on and maintain it and give access to schools, people who want to learn anything about history and only open it
for those specific events when requested. I would set up a completely different division that would handle all that, you know, through the historic board and through not just Cranberry but other Middle Sex County because the train history, believe it or not, there was a president that got hurt. It was
one of the first train derailments. I've learned more about trains and frogs and everything else on this property than I've ever learned on any other property. But in the in the meantime, I think we can work out with this with the city where, you know, and
that's why we put the bathroom was because if you're going to have kids or have anybody come there as a public, you needed you need them to go to the bathroom or they'll be coming to the warehouse to the bathroom. So, that was the reason for just going to the and speaking with the historic society and
and adding that extra structure that and any of the history and books and plans that we found doesn't exist on the property. So that's really the whole thing. And I actually we had it tested since the last meeting. I have my environmental
engineer here and it's actually clean. So we found no, you know, anything that would create it to cause any trouble. I know that was one of the questions I believe from the city. But regardless, like I said, I've been involved in many different municipalities and whenever I
dedicated anything, it's always ended up being back, you know, to my problem. So, I feel like this would never be a problem to me and it would be a good thing for the neighbors because instead of having either truck parking or some other development on this piece of land
that it's actually like a national park that, you know, people could could use. you know, since it's close to residential and next to a another historic community that's in town, it's kind of stays the same as as it was a
long time ago. So, I think that's it. I like to come so that way when we have questions, I can answer them quickly and make decisions to make it easier on the board. That's why I come >> and to learn and to pass out documents.
>> Yes, exactly. Okay. Any other questions of board or questions? Yeah. >> So, you'll be running a water and sewer line to that little bathroom of some kind. >> Water.
>> That'll be up to board of health. Mhm. >> While you're up, uh I did have one more question about the path uh that's being proposed. Can you state where it starts, where it ends, and what it's made of just so the board has an idea of that
path that >> kind of meanders through the two parcels? >> I may be able to answer because again, the this side of the property was more of us kind of working some things out with the historic society. So, uh, our
engineer didn't have a chance to like fully vet it out, but, um, right now we're talking stone, you know, like a really small tight stone, something compacted there. Uh, and I think, you know, it right now it kind of goes
almost from the north to the south side as much as possible. You know, there was a whole conversation. And again, I don't want to digress into something that's not related to this, but you know, I know in other areas because I think my wife and I had done it. You have those
walking and biking paths where um you know, those old train stations and they uh excuse me, the old train tracks area and they talked about that potentially happening here or extending something. So, I think we were just trying to do something that kind of made sense if
that happens. um which obviously would be on the east side of our property, right? Um along here, but um we were just putting that path there so somebody comes off it, they can kind of walk there, go back on the path. Wasn't
really 100% defined, but I think it's the the length of the property. >> Back to the bathroom and actually the whole the whole the depot, too. What what how how are we going to secure it at night? Um what's the plan there
for? >> Well, I mean the building Yeah. >> Once the building is brought up, you know, you have a broken window. There's a bunch of things going on there, right? But from a security perspective, the building is going to be locked up. I'm sure they're going to have surveillance
there. I mean, they have their security for their building. There's going to be surveillance, I'm sure, on this side of the property. Okay. >> And then right, I'm sorry if you just said it, but the site is going to be somehow fenced off where a vehicle can't
come on. That's what you just said, but um so the idea is that you can't just have a random person at a random night pulling into there, which I think is >> what was happening previously possibly. So, there's going to be security there that a vehicle is not able to go there.
>> Okay. >> At night. >> All right. The the front of the building is going to remain open, right? Um, >> sorry. >> It's kind of hard to see >> the the the the train depot building. >> Is it open or is it
>> What do you mean open? Sorry. >> Like, are these >> So, >> are these doors that close or uh >> Yeah, >> they are. >> No, no. I mean, that was a that was a building that people walked in and out of. Yeah, >> for sure. >> Right. >> Yeah. I I we have to work out. Again,
there's a lot of fine-tuning that we have to do. Okay. >> But it was, you know, they were using it as storage. I think JCPNL or somebody was using it as storage previously. Okay. >> It's just in such bad shape that, >> you know, I think every piece has to be
touched there and brought back. the canopy, uh the the brackets, uh you know, we were talking about the foundation before. I mean, there's a lot of Again, we're going to go through this building top to bottom. >> Okay. Okay. Great. >> That's all I have. Anyone else?
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Just question about that path. Sorry. >> Yeah, sure. >> There is the winding path which will be stone, whatever. In one of the renderings, I see also a frontage sidewalk that looks like concrete. Uh, >> you're talking about here.
>> Yeah, along the frontage. Is that also proposed as well as the stone? >> Um, >> we were asking for a waiver on that. I think my drawing is showing that. Again, I apologize because it's on our rendering, but >> I
think >> the winding path is taking the place and therefore it's not doing >> right. I just wanted that clarification because it is shown on the plan, but I wanted to make sure that, you know, you're not held to putting both in if you're really
only asking for one or the other. >> No, I appreciate that. That was an error on our part just showing something there, but there is no >> I understand you're still >> Yeah. >> target in process. >> Yes. The the trying to do the the
research for this was very difficult. It wasn't a lot of information and you know we did the best we could. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And then our last witness will be our planner because we are looking for a D4 variance plus several bulk variances and
design waiverss. So he'll get sworn in and testify with respect to the necessary proofs required for the granting of the relief requested. I do. >> Yes. Robert Hudac Hu Das and David AK licensed professional planner. My
licenses are all in order and current. like me to go through my CV really quickly. Master's degree from Villanova, undergraduate from Monontlair State. Um been accepted at numerous boards throughout the state, including most recently um in Monroe here in Middle Sex County, served as board planner in
Monroe as well, number of years ago. >> Board acceptance qualifications. >> Yes. Thank you. All right. If you could uh Bob, you had an opportunity to review the application, the site. >> I did. >> And the township's zoning ordinance and master plan. >> I did.
>> And you understand the relief that the applicant is seeking this evening? >> Yes. >> And if you could uh in your professional opinion uh advise as to whether or not you think the applicant has established the approvals necessary for the granting of the D4 variants as well as the bulk and design waiverss. And if you're going to be relying on an exhibit, we're going
to have to mark that into evidence. Uh A8 is the next number. If you could just identify that for the record, please. >> Yes, this is a an aerial view showing the F of some of the surrounding properties from the subject property.
>> A I'm sorry, Donna. A8 >> A8. >> Okay. And if you could just uh start with the property description and describing the area around the site. >> Yeah. I don't want to be too loquacious, but as everyone knows, this is in a L ILI zone, which is the transportation
and utility corridor. Um, it's surrounded to the north by warehouse industrial uses in the ILS zone. To the east, you have the VHR village hamlet residential zoning. As we've previously testified, or the um
applicants recently testified to, the site was formerly operated as a fertilizer plant on lot 1.01 1 and a train depot on lots 1 and two. Variances we're seeking tonight specifically for lot 1.01 is the floor area ratio. We're
seeking variance for the loading area location and the repairarian zone setback for the man-made ponds that are on the property or will be remediated are on the property. For lots one and two, there's variances for minimum lot area, minimum lot frontage, minimum
front yard setback, minimum rear yard setback, and sign relief because the sign exists above the roof line of the train depot. So with respect to the D4 variance with the positive criteria, the court specifically in the Randolph Town
Center case have recognized that the D4 variance case, Sure, I can do that. I'll wait for the clock as well. Just need a train whistle now. >> Be more appropriate. >> Maybe Frank will get that for you guys
next time. >> The clock is a nice touch though. Again, the courts specifically in the Randolph Town Center case have recognized that um the case really focuses not upon the use itself which is permitted in the zone, but rather whether the site can
accommodate the problems typically associated with buildings where the floor area is larger than what is permitted by ordinance. These conditions typically include such things as building mass, visual impact, intensity of activity, parking demand, loading and
circulation, buffering, and compatibility with the surrounding uses. I offer the following in support of this D4 variance. Again, as I noted earlier, the proposed warehouse use is permitted in the zone. And the zone is noted in the master plan is intended to
accommodate light industrial and warehouse activity and to support a strong non-residential ratable base. The requested F relief does not create the typical zoning problems associated with excessive bulk because the building itself complies with the applicable
building height standards and the overall impervious coverage standard. The plans provide compliant parking. They also provide significant loading births and trailer parking spaces and truck turning a plan that demonstrates that circulation for typical vehicles serving the site can be safely
accomplished. The proposed layout therefore does not depend upon undersized parking, inadequate loading, or modified truck circulation in order to support the requested F relief. Additionally, as noted on A8, the property is surrounded on multiple sides
by industrial zoning and industrial land use patterns. The adjacent zone, if you will, to the north permits an F30. The property immediately to the north has an F of.275. The property immediately to the west has
an F of.25. So, the proposed F of 2.69 69 therefore is compatible with the surrounding industrial context and is not out of character with the nearby warehouse development. Our site is also constrained by existing environmentally
sensitive wetlands and by the historic properties associated with the former fertilizer operation. The proposal protects the natural wetlands areas to the extent feasible through the proposed site layout by pushing the site further to the north or the developed area I should say further
to the north. The new building will serve as part of the remedial strategy of capping those environmentally uh concerning areas on the site. As noted by the LSRP, the applicant also preserves and refurbishes the historic train depot building, providing a public
and community planning benefit beyond simply the construction of the warehouse. The preservation of the train depot also helps address the historic resource purposes of zoning and provides a meaningful site design offset to the requested F relief. We're also providing adequate screening,
landscaping, and site improvements generally in line with the ordinance requirements or the spirit of the ordinance. This will help mitigate visual impact from the public street frontages and from the edge of the industrial area. As noted, the proposed operation supports the Dayton facility
and is not proposed as an uncontrolled multi-tenant truck terminal or other more intensive industrial application. The proposed reasonable hours has been testified to by the applicant. A limited number of employees of this facility which further supports the conclusion
that the F deviation will not result in an overintensification of the property. And for these reasons, it's my professional planning opinion that the site can accommodate the proposed FDR and that the requested D4 variance relief can be granted. We still have to
go through the negative criteria, but that's the positive criteria for the D4. Now with respect to the C1 criteria, this is defined as the board's well aware as the exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a property or exceptional topographical condition or
other exceptional situation affecting the proposed development that results in practical difficulties known as hardships for the applicant in complying with the code requirements. As noted, the site is affected by several exceptional conditions. Lot 1.01 is surrounded on three sides by roads or
transportation corridors. One of those roads ways is noted will be widened. It also contains environmentally sensitive areas on the southern portion of the property. With respect to the areas of the loading zone on lot 1.01, the site has a
threeyard conditions because of the road frontages. The southern portion of the site is constrained by wetlands and due to these specific geographic environmental factors on our site is constrained and the result the loading areas are placed in a front yard. Again, as noted, they are I think they're noted
on this plan, but they're they're in this general area which is considered a front yard under your ordinance. relief associated with lots one and two is driven by the existing lot configuration train depot preservation plan and the right-of-way widening lots one and two
are reduced in size result of this widening the front yard setback condition is exacerbated by this widening and the frontage condition along station road is also further reduced by the widening and by the fact that it's already existing and it's non-conforming therefore I offer that
the C1 variance relief is justified by the exceptional situations on these properties with respect to the C2 variance defined as the benefits versus the detriments where the proposal offers a better zoning alternative and where the proposed offers a advances the MLU
purposes with the subject case with respect to the loading area on lot 1.01 1 deviation allows the loading areas to be placed where they can function safely. The alternative we either push the activity toward constrained wetlands or create a less functional and
potentially less safe site layout. The requested relief therefore produces a better planning result than the rigid application of those requirements with respect to the relief for the 300 ft repairarium zone. This relief is related to those line man-made ponds that are
proposed for remediation. From a planning standpoint, it's a better zoning alternative to remove and remediate these man-made features rather than to leave these contaminated sites in place. And with I argue with capping the site probably don't need setback.
The variance related to lot one and two results substantially from the proposed widening as we've noted and for the preservation of the historic train depot. The 2019 master plan re-examination report notes that height heightstown cranberry station road is
narrow and has no shoulder rose widening advances the safety and general welfare purposes zoning promotes the free flow of traffic by enlarging the right of way and improving road conditions. With respect to the sign relief for the train depot, the property is multiple street frontages and corridors and the sign
placement provides visibility, orientation and wayfinding. Overall, our proposal advances numerous purposes zoning as I've stated. Purpose A, safety, public health, and general welfare. Purpose B, securing safety from fire, flood, and natural and man-made
disasters through remediation and responsible site development. Purpose C, light, air, and open space because we are providing buffering, landscaping, screening, and the buildings remain within the permitted height and pvious coverage standards even though the FAR uh is over what is permitted in the
zone. and we're preserving those natural wetlands. Purpose G provides sufficient space for appropriate locations for variety of uses according to the respective environmental constraints. The site is appropriate located. As noted, the train depot is preserved. Uh
free flow of traffic. Purpose H. The proposal widens heights down Cranberry Station Road. Provides designated truck circulation and loading areas for the proposed development. Purpose I, desirable visual environment. Purpose J, preservation of historic sites,
obviously, and purpose M, efficient use of land. And remember, we only need to hit one of those, and I hit a whole coffin. Now, with respect to the negative criteria, of course, no variance could be granted without a finding that the negative criteria is satisfied. Specifically, that the proposed development will not cause substantial
detriment to the public good and the proposed development will not substantially impair the intent and purposes of the zone plan and the zoning ordinance. With respect to the first prom again the warehouse use is permitted in the zone and as I testified
through the properties located in an industrial transportation influence area with nearby warehouses and industrial development. The requested far is not accommodated by a height variance or an impervious coverage variance for the principal warehouse track. The project
provides more parking than required provides loading and trailer parking and includes a truck turning plan for intended vehicle movements. The road widening improves the public street condition rather than worsening it and the remediation and capping strategy as addressed by the LSRP improves a
compromised legacy site condition. The train depot preservation provides a public and community benefit with respect to the second prong. Again, this use is contemplated in this zone. The F is comparable as noted on A8 with the
nearby industrial uses. The property remains compliant with the key dimensional controls, the bulk variance, the bulk conditions such as lot coverage and setbacks. The requested C variance relief is tied to the sight specific constraints and the relief does not represent a substantial departure from
the zone plan. Therefore, it's my professional planning opinion that the positive and negative criteria are satisfied. I believe the board can grant this relief based on these these proofs. Would you like me to go a little bit into the um design exceptions at all or
>> Sure. Thanks. >> Sure. I'm going to be very brief on this. We have Mr. Hoder pointed out a number of these and I think there again the the standard is reasonability as Mr. Hoder pointed out it's reasonable based on the proposed use based on the fact
that for example with the the the lighting blocks the foundation be a little higher because of the trucks accessing the site with respect to this truck stall size again we've testified to the type of use this is we're not going to require the larger trucks coming to and from the site similarly
with the crosswalk you will have trucks conversing the site it's not open to the public it's not as though you know you're going to have constant pedestrian traffic. So, I think there's some reasonability that needs to be uh understood with respect to the design exception relief we're seeking tonight.
>> Thank you. >> Just a couple of questions just um >> of course. >> Yeah. Yeah. With the floor area ratio, the 0.27 that's that doesn't include the depot properties, right? That's Yes. I just thought you should put that on the record. >> No, I thought that I thought that we already did. So,
>> Oh, I don't know. Maybe you didn't. I but but it's >> I didn't but I thought it was done before. >> It's only on the west side of >> Yes. And we base it on the lot area only of lot 1.01. >> Right. That's exactly okay. And then the other only other question this is more
>> phil not philosophical but the riparian zone. It's it's around those ponds that are contaminated. Right. >> Correct. >> And so um I know you argue to see too because the benefit of cleaning up the site you know outweighed any of the detriment. Could you also argue a C1
that it's a hardship that those are there to you? I'll leave it to you to >> No, absolutely. You can argue it's a C1 because clearly they're existing. They should be remediated. There is a public benefit to that. Only reason I argued under a C2 is because I think it was
just a simpler argument to make due to the time constraints that we have. But you're right, it could be argued in a vote. >> It would have greatly limited the redevelopment potential. >> Absolutely. And it's a public benefit. Yeah. >> Anyone else? >> Could we briefly discuss the the ponds
that are being capped or proposed to be capped? You had some concerns there. So yeah, historically they were used as uh I think dumping grounds for fertilizer that uh on the property and
um and are therefore contaminated. They can't be swam swam in. They can't be used for any any purpose. You can't draw water out of them. You can't uh uh run water out of them to a stream or other water body. Um, so I
think I was um thinking about this before the meeting and this would be the first time that a board in Cranberry would and there's been about five or six of these uh where a board would give uh a a waiver or variance for um removing
uh a water feature on a property. Um and the ordinance does allow it. There's a couple of exceptions and the exception that this applicant is is uh relying on has to do with um if they're applying for and receiving an approval from
either the D or the or the feds in regard to the cleanup. And um I I I would I didn't really understand the the actual permit that was being applied for uh except that it was generally stated
that that they were going for one or the other. And I don't know if there's any testimony here tonight that >> Sure. We have our LSRP in the audience. He can come back up. It be it'd be for me at least it would be >> good to know what program they're going to you're going to and
what the permit will be that you'll receive and that could be put in any resolution if the board feels that this is a positive thing. >> Sure. >> Basil Elmer's who testified last time under oath. Still >> you reintroduce yourself.
>> Sure. >> He was on I think. >> Hello. All right. Yeah. I was here back in March. Uh Basil Elmer's um I work with the firm Envirro Tactics. I'm the site licensed site remediation professional um since uh uh 200 um
two when the client the applicant purchased the property. So to your point, yes, there's several permits. The the permit that I'll be re there's a GP4 land use permit that's going to be required.
um with the New Jersey D to do the remediation of of the this wetland. Um but ultimately the site remediation permit is is called a a soil remedial action permit and then also there's a
groundwater remedial action permit. So through um the installation remediation will be the the form of remediation is ultimately the capping of these areas. So, there's going to be an institutional control implemented, a
deed notice with the county that is on record for the property that shows the extent of the contamination and ultimately the engineering controls are is what protects the contamination
um below. So you going to have the essentially the the building slab clean fill material all acting as the cap to this to this to the contamination. So um
at the end of we've already done extensive investigation and to delineate the these uh the ponds and some other areas of concern within that area of the ponds.
But ultimately um once it's under my purview as the LSRP to ensure that all the investigation is done in accordance with the New Jersey D requirements and essentially those
permits get issued by the D once I submit the necessary reports and application showing that everything is in place and uh once those permits are issued I can then issue what is called a response action outcome letter or an
REO. It's essentially a no further action letter. But in these cases with these permits, they'll have ongoing monitoring and maintenance requirements that the cap is still in place every two years. And there'll also be some
sampling of of the water on a uh yearly or bianial basis for to to um comply with the the requirements of those permits. >> I'm going to just read the particular uh part of the ordinance that I think
you're asking for the um you know that you're leaning on in terms of allowing this the ponds to be removed. disturbance with no feasible alternative required for the remediation of hazardous substances performed with NJD or federal oversight. So you're okay
there. You're doing that. Correct. >> Okay. Pursuant to the Spill Compensation and Control Act. Can you elaborate what that is? Because I'm not sure what act that is 58. >> Right. That's a that's a new a state act. So that's the spill act. any type
of hazardous substance that is discharged to the ground. Ultimately, the spill act is what mandates these cleanups. So, in that exception, and that wording, you have New Jersey D spill act. So, that's the state mandate.
>> The federal would be the the next wording in that. I have it in my rec. Yeah, recra. and that doesn't really respond because this that's more of a federal super fund issue. Here we're just dealing with the state and the New
Jersey D site remediation reform act. >> So it's your testimony that you completely fit under item B5 in our repairarian ordinance having to do with the NJSA 58 col 102311A which is um the spill compensation
control act. >> Correct. >> Okay. That's really what I wanted to know. Right. Right. >> Yes. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> So that essentially is our direct uh application. We have no further witnesses. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh before we go to
public comment, anyone want to say anything? Any questions? We'll do that one more time. Uh okay. Let's uh open this up to public comments. Do we have anyone with
comments? >> Okay, that's okay. >> Um, my name is Marian Bosard. I did swear in the last time. >> Thank you. >> Can you just spell your name for the record? >> He is in boy O S A R D. >> Thank you. >> Some of this is just questions. Sure. But um if I could just start saying that
I've been to the been living in the house on Paul Zy Road for 40 years. This is 91. This is the most cooperative most cooperative session I've ever sat through. So, we really do appreciate the efforts being
made by everybody to ask the right questions and to have right answers. Um so, um the first at the very beginning of the meeting, it started with the road widening. This is just as that I can get back to my neighbors, some of whom are here. are is is what's being proposed
that all 10 ft of the widening is on the one side of the road. Is that what I was understanding? Instead of it being split between >> Yeah. So, um Andrew, come on up and answer the question or maybe put your good back up. >> So, just for the record, we're looking
at exhibit A4. So essentially the existing >> You can stand right there. That's all right. Yeah. I don't need to stand >> existing property line. Uh we're just going to be taking it from the opposite
property. The requirement is 60 ft. Um and uh we're holding the property. Well, the the reason I I asked that question is because while we know that the property is light industrial zone,
it does butt up against Village Hamlet residential. So, I just think everything that we're talking about has to sort of remember that. And while there are only five cranberry residents on that side of the street and the Monroe is on the other side, they're humans living there and my neighbor is a third generation
person living there. So, we have history there. So that's why I would asked that question because with that all on one side, it creeps significantly closer to my neighbor right there. Um, and that's just something to consider because we're already inundated with the truck traffic
and the noise. Coming closer doesn't feel particularly positive. Um, so that's about that traffic. Um, we strongly this is from we've been looking at the center. We think it's intention so that if
there's an event there, there is a facility. But, um, as I listened to the historic preservation meeting, it sounded as though you're going to have to build from the ground up pretty much the default anyway. It's almost like a a rebuild rather than a building restoration. Um, it might make more
sense to incorporate the bathroom inside that building, especially in light of the fact you said it would only be open for special occasions. Um, I can't see the benefit of the separate building. Uh, and we, you know, we don't want it, even if it's locked up and there's a gate and all of that, we don't want it
to look as though it's a public rest stop on that route between uh, Station Road and the rest of the warehouse neighborhood. Um, the um, I like that I heard for the first time that there would be a gate on
the driveways going in and out. That was good because that would stop some of the activity I'm concerned about. You also mentioned fencing. Um, I don't see it on the drawing, so maybe at the next time around we could see what exactly that property gates and fences would look
like. Um, you discussed the you did discuss security responsibilities. That's that's great. Um, the update to the facade, much appreciated. It is no longer just a in case you guys didn't see back there,
it's no longer just a a cement porch. It does have windows that are added. more windows. I like employee entrance with even more glass. My question would be about the type of glass only because we do get the sunrise coming from behind our houses so that reflection will come back, but I know there's lots of
materials that can be used that are less reflective, but that was a great improvement to the general look of the building. Um, we didn't know whether or not I think it's 54 55t high the building. That's just generally what they're that's allowed, right? That that's not a variance. That's just
>> correct. No variance for the height. Okay. I think that was something. Um. Oh, okay. So, where does the dog property end? Because you have those nice renderings of the warehouse, the depot, and there's about maybe is it 10
ft to the track behind the depot itself? And I was wondering who actually owns Atlanta. Are you up to the track? >> No, I don't think so. But I think the site engineer can address that better. >> Yeah. The track is within the contrail right away. We don't own that. So there's
actually the track itself 35 and then the people building about I was wondering why there wasn't. I thought it was going to be some um buffer along with that sort of separating the neighborhood from all of
the activity and then I thought it might be long so that it wouldn't be yours to so I don't know if that's something that is avoidable or whether whether we can get to things as close as just give us a little bit of visual and sound. Um
although I think you're building as is love but it will create some sound to determine compared to what we have right now. So that's that's a positive side. >> Um let's see. Um
>> yeah you know I've heard Mr. Mr. Hoder say that this would be the first time that Cranberry would allow the variance for the capping. And I'm as a lay person, I don't really understand the I understand capping versus whole remediation. Again, we're we've lived there for 40
years. We're going to live there for 20 more. I'll take 20. Um, but what does that mean to us in terms of potential risk as a capping versus the full remediation of the pond? If that just help us.
>> Okay. So, um, Cranberry is one of the unusual towns that has an ordinance that says you can't build within 300 ft of a repairarian uh, feature, which could be a pond, could be a stream, could be a lot a lot of different things. In this case, there's a pond on the property that's
identified as a repairarian feature on the state D maps. Uh it happens to be a dump of uh fertilizer. It's not a not a good thing, right? So, um the state allows people who own these properties
to either completely remove all the fertilizer and any chemicals or whatever, which is what sometimes people do, or to cap them. For example, over on the Amazon site down the way, the big big buildings, right? Um they allowed
capping and the capping was the floor of the building. Uh and so so that is probably uh 99 and 44 100% safe as removal because the building's there and
they'll you know for whatever number of years that building's going to be there, there's no way you can get down to the anything that's left. And I'm sure what they're going to do is there'll be standards to remove most of the of the materials, okay? But I'm sure there's going to be some groundwater
contamination and maybe some soil contamination that they will leave there and then cap over it, which then will have no it'll have no harm to any of the people around it. Done. >> So the capping allows a bu bigger building versus >> uh Yes. because otherwise they would
have to not be able to build around that building. >> Where you guys get the contaminants? >> Yeah, >> the contaminants are there now. So, >> yeah. The other the other comment that I'd like to say is that I think it was a good remark about you had about um putting the bathrooms in the depot
because that that'll save them a lot of money plus then they'll be less uh to worry about security. >> I suggest >> Oh, they service I didn't want it. >> They want to try >> a several commission. >> I see. Okay.
>> I did >> I did recommend that. And again, I think once we get deeper into really analyzing the structure that's there and you realize that the real true only component is that, you know, >> switch concrete switch, they probably
give some leeway, you know, or they're going to get knocked, you know, I think they prefer some >> I think I listened to that meeting and I thought it was terrific that you have to figure out how you're going to use the building before you can really figure out what that was good. Um, thank you.
appreciate that. Maybe no back middle because if it's a small little five minute let's go see what's the history of John Bull maybe necessary unless it's a requirement in any >> I think any other comments from the public
okay we'll close the public comments section question. Um based on the um outstanding items that we discussed at the beginning of the meeting, um you know, there's still some open items
here, right? So, do these need to be addressed now or should we how are we going to handle this? From my standpoint, I don't have a problem from my standpoint, I don't have a problem with uh if this board decides that this application is worthy uh to take care of
them during compliance, meaning after as a res as after a resolution. It's done uh a lot of times. um these, you know, minor site items that have to do with either landscaping or uh sidewalks or uh curbing or that kind of thing is
something that I normally almost always do uh for this board uh the planning board or other boards. So, I don't have a problem with anything that is in my letter, for example, that they said they could take care of, right? >> And I'm sure that Ed could put that in a
resolution. >> Okay. Um, one one thing that stands out to me is that that that uh what side of the road is going to receive the widening of that that part.
Um, now I I understand if if if you dig into the uh warehouse side, it triggers setback >> additional setback variances. Yes. >> Um, >> and greater F. >> Yeah, sorry. a greater F sorry the F uh
exceedence will go up because >> okay that's right that's right >> so uh >> just from a traffic standpoint too there is a bend in the road to the south by pulling the road to the east side it kind of lessens that bend and provides a
little bit better of an alignment um I you know I don't think their goal is to realign the road but I think by widening to that side you could see the bend just south of the warehouse there by going to the east side or the down side. >> Mhm. >> That flattens out the curve a little
bit. >> All right. Good point. >> Especially since there's trucks that go further south and they have to navigate that bend in the road. Flattening that out a little bit would help the alignment. I'm not sure that was the goal, but
>> the original conversation that was reason if you don't widen that side. So while it is unusual to have uh an applicant uh perform a widening only on one side, usually it's on both sides and you keep the center line where it is
historically. Uh there is a a second bite of the apple here. The uh town committee has to approve this. There has to be a uh a resolution done by mayor and council may committee and the uh town uh attorney and town engineer will
have to look at it. >> So it comes it goes through a second set of options. All right. >> Second and third set of eyes. >> Okay. >> One question though. If it if it if it does not get approved, do they have to come back to get different variances? >> Yes.
>> Yeah. They'll have to come back. And usually what happens is the town attorney uh and sometimes the town engineer call me and ask me what do you think and what happened and why is this and you know and so I I tell them what happened at the meeting
and then they make an informed decision. >> Okay. I'm satisfied. >> Great. Any other comments? >> Should we put it to a vote? >> Mr. Chairman, before you vote, I'll just remind the board that this relief
requires five affirmative votes. We've got five. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Ready? >> Yeah. >> You going to ask for a motion? >> Oh, yeah. We need a motion to approve. That's right. >> Make a motion to approve. >> Second.
>> Seconds. >> Okay. >> All right. Roll call for ZBA 413-26. Miss Dharmafal. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ari. >> Yes. >> Miss Parker, >> yes. >> Mr. Schwarz, >> yes. >> And Mr. Diamond, >> yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Motion passed. >> Great. Thank you so much. Have a good
night. >> Motion to adjourn. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> Helps me remember what happens and the board attorney. So, absolutely. Yeah. I always get the transcript.