All right, we're going to get started, everyone. [laughter] That was really loud. This zoning board of adjustment meeting is being held on June 3rd, 2026 at 7 p.m. State 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. Bono Volant >> here.
>> Miss Dharmafal >> here. >> Miss Gittens, >> here. >> Mr. Cathari is not here yet. Uh, Miss Parker >> here. >> Mr. Schwarz >> here. >> And Miss Shu is not here yet. And Mr. Diamond >> here. >> Okay, thank you. We have a forum.
>> Okay, great. Uh, okay. We're going to mix up the agenda a bit today. Um, we're going to start uh with the uh resolution for 2 to four high cranberry station road. But before that, we are going to take some
public comment on that before we go. >> Should I turn the air off? >> Yeah, turn the air off. Yeah. Okay. >> Is this better? >> All right. >> Uh, okay. We're going to mix up the uh
uh agenda a little bit. Uh we are going to start with the resolution for uh two to four heights down memory station road. However, we're going to do some public comment before that. Uh after that, we're going to be doing uh Dig Brickyard Cranberry and finally Glenn
and Phyllis Johnson. Okay. So, um I understand there's some people that want to talk about the resolution here. Is that correct? The >> Sorry. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, uh why don't we start with that? We
need to get you swear uh sworn in and Good evening. Would you raise your right hand? >> Good. Okay. >> Please introduce yourself. You spell your last name. >> Uh Lorraine Morris. M O R R I S. Uh 96
Hollyy Reed Road, Cranberry, New Jersey. Um I just wanted to quick mention after some things I heard at the last meeting, it seemed like this process was still going to take some more time and there was going to be some more discussion. We definitely have some concerns about
bathroom uh being out there, the road being moved even closer. It's basically both in my front door. Um so I just want to talk about that so that we could have a clear decision on what is expected of
the builders, what they are going to do. Um also buffering as far as proper landscaping. I know they mentioned that it was just some temporary drawings on there. Um but unfortunately if the plants go through with just the temporary drawings, there's nothing that's holding them to proper buffering
for the residents that are out there. Um it is extremely noisy the way it is now. Um having a road even closer in your front yard, a bathroom in your front yard. Uh this morning I had the pleasure of seeing someone get in touch with
nature outside of my kitchen window. um putting a fence and a path and a bathroom out there don't alleviate that. There are just some people who don't respect the area that's out there. So, that is a huge huge concern for us out
there. Um as well as what exactly is going to happen as far as the depot and who's going to be maintaining it. There's um garbage and debris issues out there. Um, straightening the road seems like a nice
thing, but when you live out there, you realize it's not about straightening the the road, per se. The train tracks are the train tracks. These trucks are barreling over it and having it closer to the house is it's already a nightmare. It's like rolling thunder hearing the trucks go over um the train
track. So, having it closer to your front door is just not a viable option for us out there. Um, I just wanted to put that out there. and make sure that these things were really discussed and that we were heard. Um, I thought at the last meeting it was mentioned that it
was going to be going before the TC before it was coming back here and it didn't. So maybe there's some misunderstanding on my part about what I heard, but if we can just get clarification on that process as as well. >> The road widening is is uh is going to
be discussed by the TC. uh that's their jurisdiction. So, uh that'll be discussed. Okay. >> Um I I've heard that the bathroom is no longer part of the plan the plan. >> Okay.
>> Um so I think that would satisfy one of the problems. >> [clears throat] >> Uh and in terms of the details such as landscaping um that uh I the way I understand it that is subject to discussion with the HBC. Our attorney could explain it
better than I can I think. So I'll turn it over. >> Oh my god. Look [laughter] what you >> Yes. When when the application was considered and approved, it was very
clear that the train depot work was a work in progress. >> Okay. And the board was was receptive to that, thought it would be a nice idea to restore the facility. And they gave us ideas about what they wanted to do. a
bathroom outside, a bathroom inside, a ramp, uh, put a car out there and the on the train tracks and all that stuff. But the the the conclusion and it's reflected in the last condition of the resolution tonight 35 and that is that
the final details of what's going to happen with the train depot are going to continue to be discussed by the applicant and the historic preservation commission with input perhaps from the township committee. We understood right
away that the township committee did not necessarily uh agree to take the project in and get it get it done and then accept that as a as an element of of historic stuff here in the town. Um but that could happen, it could not happen.
But but really the final details there were no issues related to specific landscaping. There was certainly a bathroom discussed about do you put it inside or do you put it outside or don't you have one. So I would say that the
residents if you really want to monitor what they're talking about I would say I would get the agenda for the historic preservation commission. I would see when it's on that agenda to be discussed and I would attend those meetings and put your concerns on the record. As the
chair just said, our understanding is the bathroom no longer is in anybody's idea for the property. Um, you might want to confirm that when you go to the Historic Preservation Commission, but there was no real focus on what was
going to happen to the train depot because nobody had the details. And there are no details yet that we're aware of. And we're done with it. The planning board is done with it. it'll adopt the resolution and then that will allow the parties to continue to discuss
it with public input. >> Okay. >> And then as far as the warehouse, all of that has been like decided. I know the last time they were talking about and enlarging >> two meetings on that application and that has been the site plan for the
warehouse has been decided >> and the and as the as chairman indicated the road dedication if township committee accepts it that's been decided. the the nuts and the bolts of the site plan for the warehouse have been decided by this board after
two hearings and we have 35 conditions that go along with those that approval. So that's that's done. But the depot is another matter. >> Okay, I'm good. Thank you. >> I just want to say something too. The um
with the people peeing there and stuff, it's dilapidated now. So, I think once they renovate it, put all the new sidewalks in, I don't think people can just pull over and start going to the bathroom because it'll be it'll be maintained. It's gonna be beautiful. You know, >> I even I mean, even when Chamberlain and
Barkley were there, there's I've been here my whole life. Um, [laughter] >> so the the area just is a magnet because it is on the outskirts of town. So when
there's no one there, I mean, we've had people tag the buildings, you know, just random. You wake up and there's some graffiti on the buildings. It's done, it's going to be beautiful, but somebody's going to pull over and hopefully not. I'm sure signs up and
stuff, too. >> I don't I don't have that much faith in certain parts of humanity, [laughter] >> unfortunately, from like the things that we've seen. Not all. Not all, but it's just and and I don't want to come across like, you know, oh, these truckers
because we had discussions when they were building the other warehouses about why are you not allowing them to use provide a bathroom for them? And I feel like if a bathroom is put out there publicly during the day, that does become the issue of the town, even if they're maintaining it, because we're
looking at it. So, I I I don't understand why there isn't a bathroom provided. They should not have to be stopping on the side of the road because where they're going to deliver won't allow them to come in and use a bathroom that's in the warehouse. So, >> it's it's a it's it happens often.
>> Yeah. But I mean it's it's a hope. Um but I just I I know that area is just a magnet for people who are just off the beaten path. >> Beautiful. I just saw some be nice. Hopefully
>> it it's it's definitely going to be cleaned up and you know prettier than falling down buildings, but um we'll see. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Go ahead.
[cough and clears throat] >> Ma'am, do you swear the testimony you're about to give is truthful? >> Yes. >> Would you introduce yourself? Spell your last name. >> Sure. My name is Marian Boser at 91 policy road on the Monro side of the street. So I guess my question is if we could just back up. I'm not clear on
process and I don't know what's in the resolution because I didn't read that. I don't quite refer you to that. It sounds as though the warehouse as it was designed. Sorry it's the right button.
>> Yes. Thank you. Um, it sounds like their decisions have been made on what they can and can't do on the side of the street with the warehouse, and that's that's fine. I don't know what that is yet, but I know there were things related to the the water and the but I
can't understand the how separating the depot side of the street from the warehouse side of the street uh doesn't involve the road widening. It has to because the depot side is where they were going to add 10 take 10 ft get closer to the depot get closer to the
Moody house. So am I understanding that this resolution is number one separating the two issues there's the warehouse application and then there's the add-on depot effort um because they aren't they
aren't separate when you talk about the road widening. So my question then goes to if the road widening uh is somehow part of something that the town council township committee looks at. Do they have a deciding or are
they just giving feedback? Who what's the process for the all these decisions? >> Well, I could certainly start. I think Dave is most familiar and Andy who is our traffic guy really is familiar. But the the the answer is the township
committee has to take action. They have to adopt a local ordinance accepting the road widening if that's what they want to do. So that there will be action taken by the township committee >> and that will be in the early stage of this whole project because the depot's
sort of on hold until we get more details on all of that. Like the the renovation work it it's it's not it's part and parcel to what they want to do because if and again correct me because I'm not an engineer. I don't know these things, but if they're wide if they're required to widen 10 ft on the the
warehouse side of the road, doesn't that impact their ability to build a building of the size that they have requested versus if they are putting it all on the other side of the street? >> Dave Hoder, engineer for the board, you're absolutely right. It does. Um,
they presented a plan showing the widening on the depot side, as you know, which is closer to you. uh and and and uh right now that's what's on the plan. That's what the board approved. >> Okay. But it's subject to both approval
and acceptance by the mayor and the council who have to actually do an ordinance to transfer the land to uh you know to to the town because it's it's going from the from the applicant's pocket to the town's pocket in terms of ownership. So that's when uh the thing
will finally be done, but it will be done if it happens before the construction. You won't see anything happening out there. It'll happen in a meeting. It'll happen with lawyers. It'll happen at the county's, you know, clerk's office where it gets filed and then later on they'll start construction
maybe a month or two later or three months later, whatever it is. >> So if the town council township committee fuse TC >> committee, sorry. Uh yeah. If they choose not to create that ordinance, does that kill the project for widening the street on our side?
>> I believe it has to be widened because there's a lot going on on that street. >> Agreed. But but why on this side versus their side? And if it's in the resolution and it doesn't get the widening that that is in the resolution, I would I would think they have to come back to this board, >> right,
>> for a different approval or a different method for the road widening. >> Okay. So So it really is on the township council, township committee to uh create an ordinance that allows the widening on one side of the street.
>> Correct. And but they do have the ability to say no to that possibility and that would put it back in to an application that's under review for the other. >> Yeah, it would be it would be just a very limited application back to the board to decide that item. >> I mean, it's not a it's not a lip
service effort by the township committee to do this. They actually have to discuss >> Oh, I think they think about it. Yeah. >> When will they get that? >> I thought we couldn't tell you. Tonight's only the first step of getting the resolution approved. And then once it's approved, what they have to do is they have to submit plans to the three
of us to make sure that all those 35 items that Ed was talking about are taken care of. Concurrently, they can get the ordinances done, the resolutions done, and submit them to the township committee. Uh, and uh, I would think
that the township committee will ask the board or us whether everything else has been satisfied. And is this the last item? >> And and with regard to the bathroom, is are you saying that the bathroom is no longer an issue or even being considered whether it's inside the building or
outside the building? There will be no bathroom on the depot side or is it just about placing? >> I don't have the answer. >> Oh, I thought you had said that the bathroom was no longer an issue. >> Yeah. So, from my understanding, I'm the secretary for HBC2. Um from my understanding, the latest version of the
plan that we got, there's no um out building bathroom. I don't know if they decided whether they want to incorporate it inside or not. There's definitely not a secondary. There's not an outside building going on. >> If if it's inside, if it turns out it's inside the building, that building will
be >> okay. >> Clocked um unless it's actually in use. So, yeah. >> Okay. So, just just so I know because I can reshare with my neighbors. Um what's the resolution tonight just covers their general application approvals with what
they wanted to do with your 35 points which I hope are really firm. You guys were very good about asking the good questions. But from there then it is it's a done deal. They then move forward with the only outstanding piece being the road widening which still has to go
before the township committee to get the ordinance to Okay. The road winding had to be on that side of the traffic lights, right? >> No. The reason that the road widening was on that side, unless Drew hasn't I mean has a different idea is is that they wanted it that way because yes,
they they produced additional land on their property to allow for a lower a better lot coverage number. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. >> So, it's all to their advantage. >> It's to their advantage. >> It's to their advantage >> and subject to approval a little bit further. >> Okay.
>> Yes. The thing about the bathroom is it does cost it's going to cost the applicant a bunch of money to put a bathroom in no matter where it is because there's no sewer on the site now. So, it would have to be run across the street to the site of the warehouse and then have to go to the pump station they're going to build which is going to
send it over to the other side of the turnpike. So, it's it's a it's a bit of a >> it's to me it's unnecessary. It's a it's going to be a very lovely modest museum of sorts. People there for 5 10 minutes. I think you're okay. you know, unless it's a requirement by a building that
has public attendance. Uh, all right. So, our only hope then because we kind of abandon the hope of them having a smaller facility. I mean, that that was the dream that it would be a less of a high functioning warehouse. Um, and
there's sounds to me like there's still a glimmer that that could be reduced if the township committee decides not to create the ordinance to allow them to widen the road all on one side. Just I want to make sure I'm clear in the
understanding. All right, I think I think that's it for me. I'm anxious to see what your 35 points are. Will that be tonight or another time? >> Tonight. >> Excellent. Hey guys, quickly Rob Christopher Township Committee. >> Swear the testimony you're about to give is truthful.
>> I swear. >> Please introduce yourself. >> Robert Christopher Township Committee. Just as a leazison, I just want to make sure that we have everything sort of buttoned up from a process standpoint. We've had some conversation via email with the community as well. Um the
Dvariance from what we understand is inclusive of the plan that was approved submitted and approved via ordinance at the last zoning meeting. It sounds like potentially that plan has
been altered already pre-resolution on the depot side. I'm totally buttoned up with the warehouse and the variances there. totally understand the process with the road widening and that that will hit us andor the engineer. Um, next
the depot side is where I think there's some confusion as to the site plan. What was approved via ordinance and what can still be changed or modified inclusive or in addition to the 35 points and the
[clears throat] site plan that was approved approved the warehouse and the related improvements to the warehouse. The material on that plan which talks about the train depot was conceptual only. Okay,
>> understood. >> One of two things can occur. If we believe that the changes are dramatically different than what was shown on that concept, they would come back for an amended site plan. If we agree, and I think the board agreed, let
you guys at the Historic Preservation Commission work with them and come up with a real plan. And whatever that real plan is is fine with this board. This board did not take any time to work on other than to get more information at
the second meeting about what do you intend to do generally about the depot. So my my gut tells me that you can go away and spend time working with the owner who wants to work with you and come up with a final plan for that
element of the site plan. And if it's different than what's shown on the plan and it's it's a diminous change, >> I don't think this board cares. We're not going to have to require them to come back for an amended. >> As long as it's amendable on that side, we're good. >> Okay.
>> Thanks, guys. Okay. Anyone else? Okay, we're close for public comments on the resolution. Um, let's uh make a motion to approve. >> Okay. Second. Anybody?
>> I'll make a motion. >> Somebody who No, you can't. You weren't here. [laughter] >> Second. >> Thank you. Okay. Um, roll call for 2 to four Heisttown Cranberry Station Road resolution. Miss Darmafal,
>> yes. >> Um, and we have Miss Parker. >> Yes. >> Mr. Schwarz. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Diamond. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Motion passed. >> Okay. Uh, next up is Dig Brookard
Cranberry. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I >> completely forgot that. Uh we have to approve the minutes from uh last month. >> Uh any questions on the minutes? No. Do
we have a motion to approve the minutes? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> We'll call for the May 6 minutes. Miss Dharmafal. >> Yes. >> Um Miss Parker. >> Yes. >> Mr. Schwarz. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Diamond? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Motion pass.
>> All right. Now, uh we're going to do uh dig brickyard cranberry. Uh there's a amended uh site plan to look at. [snorts] So, uh let's do that next. >> Good evening. My name is Frank Brennan
with the law firm of Stevens and Lee in Princeton and we represent the applicant Dig Brickyard Cranberry LLC. Uh we're here this evening seeking an amendment or revision of a preliminary and final site plan approval that was granted by this board on January 8, 2025.
The property is a former Midstate Filigree property on the corner of Brickyard and Heightstown Cranberry Station Road. Uh it's about 14 acres in size. It's got three buildings, a large stone covered area with some machinery on it. Uh the approval that was granted
in 2025, uh allowed uh the applicant to use the property for the operation of the construction company uh and make some general improvements to the property. But generally, it's the buildings that are there are staying there and having
uh outdoor equipment, vehicles, trailers, etc. is is uh the use that was approved in 2025. As part of the resolution compliance tied to that 2025 approval, the
applicant had to make application to and get approval from the Delaware RA and Canal Commission, DRCC. When DRCC looked at it, they decided that we needed some drainage improvements, and that's largely what they focus on. That's their purview. and
they issued an approval subject to a a uh stormwater basin system being installed at the property. The the uh application here before you this evening is simply to amend our approval and
amend our site plan approval to include that storm water basin that's been designed uh and approved by the DRCC. Uh the drainage calculations have been submitted to them. It's all uh they're they're good with everything there, but
we now have to backtrack, go back to Cranberry, go back to the county and have it included. It it really doesn't impact the use of the site in any way. Uh it's this is at the rear of the site and the the opinions from the board professionals are that it's that it's
generally a good thing for the site and a good thing for the area. We have uh some testimony here this evening that we can certainly provide. We have Kevin Brackl from Robert's Engineering uh who has prepared the revised site plan. Kyle
Matthysse is here to my right. He's with the applicant. Uh, and to the extent necessary, I I think Kevin can just probably spend five minutes and give a slightly more technical overview of what is going on here at the site
with the basin and then we can answer questions to the extent you have any, but it really is as simple as a drainage basin goes in. Drainage basin helps the site. Drainage basin is what the DRCC wanted. Um, so Kevin, if you would uh we
need to have you sworn you're going to be a witness. [snorts] >> Mr. Bracket, do you swear testimony? You're about to give us truthful. >> I do. >> Thank you. Would you give us your full name for the record? >> Yes. Uh Kevin Brockl B R A K Lel. I'm a professional engineer for Robert's
Engineering Group. I've appeared for this board many times. >> We'd ask your be accepted as an expert engineer. We're good with that. Thank you. And if you would just explain using the site plan that that you have in front of you and let's mark that
applicant one A1. This is the site plan the amended site plan. Uh as you can see in the eastern portion of the property detection is now proposed as a requirement from DRCC. uh it when they when we submitted to
DRCC, they look at historical data and it showed that there was improvements made after 1980 indicating that storm water should have been addressed then. So now they're backtracking and we addressed it now. Uh it will be used as
a wet basin meaning it will hold water very similar to the one at Penske Trucking. So the average depth will be about 4.2 feet. uh it will provide water quality, it will provide quantity uh requirements, all the elements that DRCC
required for approval. Uh as you as Frank stated that otherwise there's no changes proposed to the original site plan. So it's tuck back again back to these portion of the property. Uh I'm sure there'll be
required to have a fence around it for obvious reasons since it's a wet pond. That's a requirement. That's pretty much it. >> In in addition to that, there's one minor point that our our we've spoken to to Mr. Hoder, Ford engineer, the as part
of the conditions that were approved in 2025, there was to be a dumpster enclosure that was to be made out of brick or concrete or cinder block. And the applicant uh is is requesting and asking whether it's possible to do just
a do a fence. And so maybe you can explain that just a little bit more. Kyle, let's have you test be sworn in first. >> You swear a testimony. You're about to give his truth. >> You give us your full name and we call it for the record. >> Yeah. Kyle Matthysse. Last name Mat His.
And you are employed by the applicant. >> Yes. >> Um yes. So as part of the the resolution compliance, there is a requirement to do screening around the dumpster um enclosure. And I believe that the site
plan references in the notes a six-foot uh concrete or block wall to on three sides to surround the enclosure. And in in past we have done things like um a fence with the green mesh through it or
things like that. We were just looking to see if there was other options other than building a six foot high cinder block wall around the enclosure. Um that was pretty much the request. and and on this site where can you just point out on A1 where that dumpster
enclosure is located? >> I'm going to be a little bit general, but it's on Southtown Primary Station Road about in this area right here. >> And is there already a wall in front of that? >> There's a wall that runs along Heights Primary Station Road that's about chest
high, maybe five inch feet high right now. It's been there forever. And so that would act as one side of the wall. the dumps would be against that. And then we were going to construct two more walls for to require for the required three walls. And we were just asking if
we could just fence in versus pouring a foundation for concrete walls. Pretty much it. It's just like a typical if you go into a parking lot for Dunkin Donuts or something like that. They're it's a a screened enclosure with with uh
screening inside the fence and everything like that. That's all instead of a big uh concrete wall. >> Okay. >> So, that's that's the relief we're seeking for the basin and then a modification on the fence for the enclosure.
Um, and we don't we don't have any other testimony. I think we've addressed uh there was a concern about drainage calculations which have been submitted and approved, am I correct, to DRCC already? >> Yeah, those were part of the DRCC approval. Okay.
Um, so that's that's it. We're open to questions. >> Thank you. Um, questions from the the professionals. Go ahead, >> Mr. Chairman. Yeah, Dave Hoder. I'd like to say something. Um, so about a month ago, they they resubmitted a plan for what we call resolution compliance to comply with those maybe not 35
resolution items, but probably 20. And they did most of it. Uh, but then I noticed that there is this basin in the back. And um the basin's large enough where you can't miss it. It'll be there. uh you know any board member who drives by is going to know that oh my god I
didn't approve a basin but yeah it's there and it's open water and um it's a good thing for drainage it's a good thing for uh uh you know uh the uh the area in terms of uh uh the animals and
drainage and erosion and the environment. So I don't have any problem with it. They did submit the calcul asked them for calculations. They submitted them today about two o'clock. I got I did get through them by by this meeting. So I looked at them and they're fine. Okay. Uh but I was going to do
something else today and I that's what I w up doing. Uh so um because you know all these drainage calculations are they can be 100 pages long. Uh they're not they're not simple. Uh but so I don't think there's any problem with uh doing the basin. Matter of fact, I think it's
a good thing. I I urge the board to approve it. I don't really have a a a an opinion on the fence. Um boards do concrete. They do, you know, they do fencing. Uh what they did was they sent me a picture of I think Kevin sent me
Brack sent me a picture of a chainlink fence with slots slats through it so you can't see through. And that so that would be on three sides and and on the back would be the the brick the block wall that that you know the board envisioned before. So that's up to you.
>> Chemicals and stuff you put in. >> Well, there's no there's no real chemicals on the site. The the previous tenant, Midstate, was the one that was doing the concrete pre-cast. Now there's no longer use of chemicals. >> Sometimes that's why they make you put the concrete up for containment of
anything you put oils or anything won't go out. >> No, it's not meant to be like an enclosure that captures oil or anything like that. It's because there's none of that really on site. >> Does anyone recall the reason for the
specifying the concrete? >> Dave, does the retainage base require a fence around the door or require that because there's there going to be water in it? Yeah, I don't think it does, but I think it would be a good idea to put a fence around it. They mentioned it tonight,
but it's not part of any resolution. I [clears throat] would think that you don't need more than like a 3 foot high fence that I mean, what I also like to see because it's kind of decorative is is a is a postal rail fence, but then put
chicken wire >> that's up to the height of the the top of the postal rail because you don't see the chicken wire. You see the beautiful coastal rail fence >> which looks like it's a rural area which is nice which is this is but yet you still can't get in. >> Can't put their feet in there to hop
over smaller >> lock we'll consent to a a split rail fence posting rail fence with turkey wire or chicken wire whatever standard there. >> That's actually looks nice. I like that. I don't want to do like a chain link
fence. That would look terrible. >> Great. But you're asking for a change of fence >> on in a different location. [laughter] >> That's like, you know, >> I had to get that in. >> It's a huge basin. That's not >> Unfortunately, this basin is bigger than we wanted. If we don't want the basin,
>> no, I think that that's a good solution. Thank you for doing it. >> Thank you. >> How does the water get is it just sheet the the site is pitched to that retaining wall? Is that it? >> Okay. So, no piping involved. >> No,
>> except for the out. >> Okay. Thank you. [clears throat] Any questions for the board? Any uh anyone from the public want to say anything? >> All right. So, we're talking about uh
two amendments to the uh approval. One is the the basin with the with the fence as described >> and the other one is the [clears throat] it'll be a basically 100% uh what's the word? Uh you won't be able
to see through it because the >> correct. Yeah. Yeah. >> But it'll be a chain link with with inserts. So, >> okay. Any other comments? We can How about a motion to approve?
>> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Okay. >> All right. Roll call for ZBA 398-24. Mr. Bono, >> yes. >> Miss Dharmafal, >> yes. >> Miss Gens, >> yes. >> Mr. Parker, >> yes. >> Mr. Schwarz, >> yes.
>> And Mr. Diamond, >> yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Motion passed. >> Okay. Thank you. It's always a pleasure working with you guys. [laughter] Some boards I can't say the same, but you guys are great.
>> All right. Uh, next up is Glennon Phyllis Johnson. >> Double bubble double trouble. [laughter] Boy. Oh boy. Mr. Chairman, I'll indicate that proof of notice, publication are in order. The board has jurisdiction this evening. We
should ask Mr. Brennan, of course, we have six members present this evening. Use variance requires five votes in the affirmative, and we usually ask the applicant if they want to proceed without a full board. Yes. Okay, fine. Thank you.
>> Good evening. My name is Frank Brennan. I'm with the law firm Stevens Lee in Princeton. Here representing this evening the applicant Glenn and Phyllis Johnson uh regarding the subdivision of a property uh with an address of 73 77
North Main Street, Cranberry. Uh this is a property near the intersection of Westminster Road or Westminster uh Street, I guess it is. And it it also is
very close to the corner of Bunker Hill. It you you probably know the property. It has a learning center there now, but for decades and decades, it was Harold's Briar's Ice Cream Store. um if if you go back at least 20 years. So that's the
the historic context of it. It's a flag lot uh which is and quite a large lot. Unusual that the flag then terminates on Bunker Hill. So, uh, we'll explain a little bit more of the layout of the
property, but the the the lot as it sits, it can be subdivided, uh, without any relief needed as to size or setbacks to to build a house on the Bunker Hill lot. Currently, there's a garage on that
lot. Uh, so this application is a subdivision application to separate the property into two lots. One would contain the current residence on Main Street with the store that's attached to it, which is now learning center. Uh,
and the second lot would be on Bunker Hill. The property is located in the village commercial district. Uh, and as part of this application, there's several different waiverss that are and
variances that are necessary. Some are for pre-existing conditions and some are new. And and one is is really kind of an oddball, but we'll I'll go through them rather quickly. We we have some testimony from a professional planner, Jim Kyle, this evening. Uh and from Ted
uh >> I'm always going to butcher that name. From Robert's engineering uh and from Glenn Johnson, the applicant himself. the the uh just to give you a quick rundown on the variances that are needed here. Uh if a subdivision approval is
granted, the garage would remain in place on the Bunker Hill lot. The reason for that is that if somebody wanted to build a house there, they would undoubtedly take down the garage. But there is a world where an
adjacent neighbor might purchase that property and want the garage there. And there's actually some discussion that's ongoing that would that would have that exact result come to pass. And so we've gone back and forth. Does the garage
come down? Does the garage stay up? Ironically, to leave the garage in place requires an approval because it's an accessory use that no longer has a primary use. The house is gone. It's now part of a separate lot. So that requires a variance to leave the garage in place.
The second uh variance required is that uh for the for it's a we we call it a variance. I been corrected by Jim Kyle. It's actually a waiver for off- streetet parking. Uh the main street property
will not have any off- streetet parking which is not uncommon on Main Street. Uh so that's a a separate relief. and the uh the off streetet parking for Bunker Hill was technically supposed to have
two and a half spots and we're going to have two spots. There's also a a rather odd uh situation where uh this is this is a kind of a pre-existing situation where there's a breezeway, an enclosed
[clears throat] breezeway between house on Main Street and the little store next door. It was probably done 80 years ago so that the owner of the house who ran the store could get easily between the two buildings. Uh again, twist of law,
kind of like you can't buy ice cream in Newark without a doctor's note after 5:00 on a Sunday. That's if you believe that. That's actually a law on the books in Newark. Here in Cranberry, you can't have a house connected to another building with a breezeway. So that
breezeway although it's existing uh requires relief. It requires approval for that existing nonconformity. Likewise there's the front yard setback on the main street property uh requires relief. We're not
changing it. Same with the sideyard setback. Not changing it, but these are pre-existing grandfathered conditions uh that that are before the board. At the same time, the the new conditions that relief is being sought for is to leave the garage in place and with respect to
parking. Uh so that's a general overview of the application. As I said, we have three witnesses this evening. Uh and the uh uh as as part of that, we would start with the applicant, Glenn Johnson to my
right, uh who has very brief testimony. But uh Glenn, if you would have raise your hand if you [clears throat] want. >> You can remain seated. Do you spare the testimony you're about to give is truth? >> Yes. >> Thank you. You state that your name for the record. >> Glenn Johnson. >> And [clears throat] and when I was
meeting with Glenn to to explain, usually you have to explain what happens at a zoning board meeting. I said, "Well, Glenn, you've been on the zoning board. You've been on the planning board. You've been on the township committee." He said, "Yeah." He goes, "I've been on the receiving end. I've been on the giving end." >> [laughter]
>> So, welcome back, Glenn. >> I'm not sure whether you're giving or receiving tonight, but let's let's assume there's a little of each. Uh, if can how long have you and your wife owned the property? >> Uh, since the fall of 2000. >> Okay. And tell me about the You live in
the primary house on Main Street. Tell me what happens with the the store or commercial building directly adjacent to your house. We were approached um boy quite a few years ago now. It's eight years maybe uh
by our present tenant who had a business um where it was primarily at that time uh tutoring kids on writing. Um the the students are primarily from the South Asian community.
um they were they're almost all born here, but their parents were not. The parents uh generally speaking feel perfectly comfortable, you know, helping the kids with their math and science homework, but because English is not their first language and because they
know the kids will need to do essays and things like that for for college, uh they're willing to send them to something like that. And since then, she's expanded a little bit. She does some tutoring in math as well as the writing. Um, and so she's been with us
for quite a few years now and has sessions mostly. It's Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday morning. Uh, nothing starts until after school is out. They're usually finished by about 8:00 p.m. um
during the evenings. On Saturday, they're usually out by 12. uh when the the clients, customers, students are come to the learning center, uh how does that happen? Do the do the parents park? Do they drop
students off? Tell tell me about the logistics of that. >> It's basically a a parade of lex of uh u electric cars. I mean, that that's what it really comes down to. They come, they they stop at the curb,
they let the kids off, and the parents go, I don't know, I either home or or down to Teddy's for coffee or something, and then come back later, an hour and a half later or something like that to pick the kids up. So, um,
>> it's mostly just dropping off, you know, really. >> You don't see them parking necessarily? >> No, not not in the immediate neighborhood. >> And I guess they're very quiet. >> Oh, yes. Yes. Um, with respect to the your current garage
and driveway on Bunker Hill, does the tenant, your your tenant at that building, does that tenant use your driveway for parking? >> No. No, never has. >> Have the tenants, visitors, students, uh, parents use that driveway for parking?
>> No. Um when the school is in session or the center is in session, do you see uh more people parking on Bunker Hill or Main Street? >> Not for any any length of time. I mean, sometimes the parents when they're
coming to pick the kids up will park, the father will get out, walk in there, pick the kid up, and get in the car and go. So when they park, uh, it's usually not for much more than 5 or 10 minutes. >> Okay. Uh, in your the 20 years that you've lived
in the house, uh, have you observed kind of anecdotally whether there's any problem parking on Bunker Hill or Westminster, the other side street? >> Really? No. I mean, our public works
department stripes Westminster. um all the way to Maplewood and most of those spots go empty almost every day. >> When you say stripes, it's striped for parking. >> Yes. Yeah. >> And on Bunker Hill, it's it is not
striped, but do you see parking there? >> Uh on occasion, but not not very often. It's usually um you know, somebody who might be visiting one of my Monre Hill neighbors. You know, they might park at the curb. Now, there's a house right next door to yours on on corner of Main
Street in Bunker Hill. It's not There's a little cottage and then there's a house right on the corner. They're not adjoined by a breezeway. Uh but do they have off- streetet parking? >> They do not. >> Um
the the uh Glenn, that's really all the questions that I have for you. He's here the rest of the evening to answer questions, but certainly can answer questions now from the board or the professionals. >> Thank you,
O. Next witness is Ted P. [laughter] Do you swear the testimony you're about to give is truthful? I do. Thank you. Ted Pivot Varic. P is in Peter. I V as in Victor. O V as in Victor. A R N I C K. Pivo Varn. I am the uh director of
land surveying and uh land development at Robert's Engineering. I've been there since 2016. Um prior to that I was a principal and partner at Princeton Junction Engineering, which I started work there in 1983. I've been a licensed land surveyor in the state of New Jersey
in good standing since 1991. Um, so since 1983 I've made my living in the civil and survey field and I'm and since 91 I've been a responsible charge of thousands of surveys, subdivisions, major, minor site plans. Um, I've never been in front of this board before, but
I do regularly represent my clients in front of planning, zoning, um, including counties. >> Thank you. I'd ask his qualifications be accepted uh for testimony this evening as a land surveyor and you're not an
engineer but but a land surveyor. The uh Ted if you would we I know you have an exhibit here which is the subdivision plan and let's label that uh A1.
>> Sure. Is this one on my >> um I have two exhibits. Uh the first one is the just the minor subdivision plan which you have a copy of that already. This is going to be A1. In addition to that, I have um four site
photos. I'm going to call that A2. I'll refer to that one in a minute. Um, okay. I again I'm the director of land surveying and plan development at Robert's Engineering. I prepared these
plans. Um, uh, the property is 77 North Main Street, one North Main Street, runs perpendicular on the right side of this this plan. Um, it's also county Route 614. Um and then it also the the existing lot
also has frontage on Bucker Hill Road which runs parallel to the top of the page. Uh the existing parcel is is actually an an L shape. Um contains about 15,48 square ft. Um there is a residence with
a connected commercial building that front on North Main Street. Um and a singlestory twocar garage that has frontage on Bunker Hill. That's the garage sits right in right in that area right there. Um the applicant is proposing to draw one single line
straight down here to create the two lots. Lock um 42.03 will front on North Main Street with the residents and the business and lot 42.04 4 will front on both bunker hill with the garage. Um
there are a couple of existing non-conforming bulk uh variance conditions which is uh the front yard setback for the existing building is only 2.2 feet. Um and part of the the front setback is based on the
requirement is based on the average for the lots within 200 feet. We calculated that. We located all the houses up and down the street and we calculated a front yard set back of three feet. So we need relief from that. Um there are two side door variances. Um on the right
side the the building is only set back 8 feet where six feet is required and on the left side it is 5.3 feet where six feet is required. Uh there's also a combined sideboard setback variance needed because you need 12 feet for that
and we only have 6.1. Uh >> and those are those are pre-existing conditions. >> They are pre-existing conditions and we're not doing anything to make them any worse. Um the proposed lot 42.03 which is on North Main Street that has
the existing buildings on it will contain approximately 7,441 square ft. Uh proposed lot 42.04 which is on Bunker Hill contains 7,67 square ft. Um and this lot is made to
conform completely with the B requirements. Um I do have I do want to go through the engineers report real quick if you want. Um there was a couple conditions in there and a couple technical comments that I think we need
to address. Um, first he asked whether the the uh subdivision will be perfected by heat or the final plan. I think it's our understanding that we're going to just file deeds to to protect the subdivision. Um, the engineer also requested mentions of a future dwelling. Um, we just don't
know what size the future dwelling is right now. Right now, the existing garage is going to stay there. Um, but I do show the maximum billing envelope that could be used um in on lot 42.04.
Um, but I think I don't think we have a problem with putting a note on the plan saying that the uh the future dwelling is approximate and that the new dwelling um shall be constructed larger than permitted unless the applicant comes back in front of the board. Um third, the engineer noted that on North Main
Street, it's a county road. Um so we will be applying to the county for their for their approval. Um as a condition of approval, I can't imagine there's going to be any additional right away required to count for Main Street. Um fourth, the
engineer asked if we're going to be installing curb curves or sidewalks. U it's my understanding the sidewalk along Bunker Hill was installed already. It's there. Um, and >> Ted, if you wouldn't, that's probably a good time to look at the photos because that really tells us a lot about what's
happening at the sidewalk. >> I'll just go through these four photos right now. The first one is the the front view of North Main Street. The bottom is the rear view of North Main Street. Uh, the first one top on the right is the front view of the garage on
Bunker Hill. And this is the bottom right is the rear view of Bunker Hill. Uh you can see from the front view on Bumper Hill that there's a concrete apron and there's already a sidewalk that runs along the frontage. Um since there is already a sidewalk and
there's the existing curb on Bunker Hill is at the intersection of North Bane, but it only goes to the radius return. It doesn't extend up here. That would be this direction. You can see there's no curve there. When you say radius return, it literally comes around the corner by a couple feet and stops because of a of
a handicap depression in the sidewalk that has it has some curving to it. >> It comes around and it's actually more than that. It goes around through an inlet. There's an inlet right there. So, it extends 10 feet past a storm inlet that's right down there at the corner. >> Um, so and that would be down this
direction in this photo to the left down that direction >> down to down to the east towards Main Street. >> Correct. uh towards the the north there's no curb on this lot and there's no curb on the lot next door and that goes for about 150 ft until there is
curb. So this our proposal is not is to leave the sidewalk alone and to not install any curves or sidewalks on bunker hill. Uh 50 engineer requested information on the number of bedrooms. Uh it's my understanding that the existing dwelling
on on Main Street has four bedrooms and any house that would be built on the new lot on Bunker Hill, we also anticipate that being four bedrooms. Um and this gets into the the parking issue because it's we would propose a fourbedroom
house on Bunker Hill that would require 2.5 parking spaces. So, we're asking for relief to just have two parking spaces in the driveway just in case any future house that gets built there doesn't have a garage. If there's a garage, we can have two in the
driveway and one in the garage. Um, so that's that's the reason for that relief. It would look actually similar to this, two cars parked in front of the house. Um, sixth, uh, the engineer comment on storm water management. The application
does not propose any land disturbance greater than one acre. We're not proposing the creation of one or more quarter acre of new regulated impervious surface. So therefore, the storm water management report and general stormwater
management is not required. Uh but I think we we add a note to the plan stating that no storm water shall be directed to adjacent properties. Uh in general, Hunker Hill flows down this way. You can see there's a little bit of a retaining wall along this side. So
that would be similar to what we propose if there was a house to go in there. Um and that any house that would that would have to be built there in the future would have to be back um and get township approvals for that in township
approvals with respect to construction permits. >> That's right. etc. And the to the extent uh historic preservation commission has jurisdiction, they would have to get approval for the design of the house and so forth from historic preservation. >> That that's correct. We're not proposing
anything right now. So they would have to be back in front of the channel for that. So really in summary, uh the plan creates two lots from the existing L shape. It's really just cutting the L
off. Um, and that lot 42.03, which is the existing structures on North Main Street. Uh, and and that that lot will contain all those existing condition variances, the side yards and the front yard. Um, the breeze wagon.
Um, and 42.04 04 would would be the one on Bunker Hill and that would fully uh fully comply with the new house with the acceptance of the garage that was spoken earlier. So that's really all my testimony.
Any questions? >> Again, Ted Ted P will be here the rest of the night, but if you have questions now, happy. So, since most of that testimony was about my my letter, I just have a couple of comments. Um, so the testimony is
that uh they are going to be filing it by deed, which is good. Don't really need to file it by map. Uh, and uh there was further testimony that the county probably will not ask for a widening. That's probably true. My my knowledge of what the county usually does be not
going to widen Main Street just for them in that area. Uh, and then, um, the curb and sidewalk comment is something I put in a lot of my residential. It's really, in this case, it's not sidewalk, it's curb. There's no curb on the street on Bucker Hill except for that little piece
down at the end. So, if the board required curb, which is kind of in the ordinance, so it would have to be a waiver. Um, there would be curb, then no curb, then curb, then no curb. So, maybe it's probably right to give the the waiver on the curb and not ask the applicant for curb. In terms of parking,
um the existing home and the uh the the learning center is a pre-existing condition with no parking. The new house uh is asking, as I understand it, to be a fourbedroom probably uh which would require two and a half by spaces by
RSIS. And it may be that you only get two. So you're asking for a half a space variance. Is that correct? >> Right. >> It's reasonable. um uh they can park in their driveway with two spaces to
provide a half a space and build a separate garage or a garage under the house just for a half a space. That's up to the board, but probably not necessary. Uh in terms of storm water, uh there's really nothing no comments except that I would like to make sure that the flows don't run and cause any problems to the
neighbors. Uh so therefore, run it out to the street to Bunker Hill. That's about it. Um you said existing sorry existing condition is uh there there's no off streetet parking for the house but there
is right I mean that's what the garage is in the driveway so >> well you're right there's existing >> maybe I misstated you're right >> there is parking today >> in the fact that there's a garage >> right >> and maybe two parking spaces in front of it
>> and that will be gone >> right so so we're going to be losing some parking there. Also, I I know this is not what's being proposed now, but what's the I have to go look up the
ordinance. Are you allowed to um have designated parking in front of a house? That doesn't sound right. >> Not that I know. No, >> I mean the parking that's in front of a house is for everyone. You mean you mean are you referring to
parking off street parking that's in front of the house as opposed to a side driveway like a front driveway? >> Yeah. >> You're not talking about street parking. >> No, no, no. I'm talking about um having I mean basically what they're proposing if the house is built here is a
large paved area in front of the house for cars. >> Well, uh Mr. Chairman, that exists now though as a driveway to that garage. >> Right. Great. >> So, it's really that that probably will not change. >> You know, they'll probably take advantage of that paved I think it's
what? Concrete that concreted area. >> Yeah. >> Oh, it's as Okay. >> Does the ordinance allow that? Because um I mean having a garage facing >> that's that's the front of the garage and then you see that there's an asphalt twocar parking there. Now, >> right
>> right in front of the garage. This garage is actually a little bit too close to Bunker Hill. If there was a house built there, it would be it would sit farther back if it require setback. I may be remembering wrong, but there was something about uh
garages and driveways right in front of the house, I believe, but I could be wrong. Go ahead. The footprint of 60 by 40 that you have on the garage lot is a is that a
theoretical footprint that is currently >> that's compliant. >> That is the maximum building footprint. Okay. based on the setback on >> I can't imagine anybody's gonna fill the entire >> to that if I bought that lot I could build to that size now
>> subject to the other requirements >> without any >> that's right >> got it okay thank you >> yeah if they build any bigger they would have to come back to If you have further questions for Ted, happy to hear him. Otherwise, we'll move to our last witness, Jim Cop. >> Think we're done?
[snorts] And Mr. Pow, you swear the testimony you're about to [clears throat] give his truth. >> I do. >> Thank you. You introduce yourself, please. >> Yeah, this is a little weird because Ed and I work together in Pennington and now he's swearing me in here in Cranberry. So, >> well, he rarely tells the truth. So,
it's not true. [laughter] >> And and [clears throat] Jim, you can introduce yourself, but you're you're from Hopewell, which is either the cranberry wannabe or cranberry is the Hopewell wannabe. I when I look at the two towns I'm like wow this really looks familiar you know. >> Yep. That's where our office is. So uh
good evening everyone. James Kyle KY with Kyle Mcmanis Associates in Hopewell. Um qualifications. [clears throat] I I think the last time I appeared in front of this board was actually for the school edition next door. Um so I'm licensed by the state as a professional planner. I have
a degree in planning from Ruckers which I received in 1996. I've been practicing for 30 years. Um, I've been qualified as an expert before over 330 boards in the state, including this one. Uh, I also represent a number of municipal clients. I'm in Pennington, Lawrence, uh,
Delaware Township, and Harden County, a couple of communities in Warren County as well. Um, so those are my my qualifications. >> C, counselor, would you accept this qualification to be honest? [laughter] >> Of course. So, uh, let me just pass out this
exhibit real quick. [clears throat] >> So, this is a 2026 aerial photograph uh, and the tax parcel base map that I got from the state's JS system that I prepared myself. So this shows the subject property block 23 lot 42.01
uh in the center outlined in yellow you can see Bunker Hill Road just to the north of that Westminster. It's not labeled but it kind of comes in uh in the middle right portion and then of course North Main Street. Um since there may be some Knicks fans
here, I'm going to dispense with a lot of the discussion about describing the property because Ted did a very good job of that and we'll just jump right into the relief here. uh which Frank characterized correctly. So, as far as the subdivision, the lots that
we're proposing, with the exception of the non-conforming conditions for the two existing buildings on the proposed lot that fronts on North Main Street, both lots are conforming as to area. Um everything will be conforming uh for the
proposed loting on Bunker Hill Road. the bulk conditions. I agree with Liz. Since we're subdividing this property, I think we should be seeking bulk relief from the board for those existing non-conforming conditions. So Ted ran through them at sideyard of uh point8 on
the north side and then 5.3 on the south and then front yard of 2.2 where three was the average that was calculated per the ordinance. Um these would qualify on the positive under the C1 hardship criteria. Obviously, the only way to ameliate those conditions is to either
remove part of the building or acquire additional property from either the north or south lot. So, you can see pretty clearly in this arrow. So, these lot lines, these are not exact. They're not surveyed. They come, they scan the tax
maps and conflate them to the rightway. So, they're a little off, you can see, but >> so the cottage on lot 41 to our north is pretty close to the property line. um that would create a further non-conforming condition if we were to acquire property from them. Similarly,
um to the south, lot 43, same condition. That that dwelling is very close to the property line. So, there's really no hope that we could acquire additional property to increase those setbacks. So, I think on that basis, we clearly qualify under the C1 hardship criteria because we can't ameilate that um with
any physical remedy. And then on the ne on the negative again these are conditions that have existed for quite some time. Um you know we're 60 80 maybe you know on the main structure could be more than 150 years that that structure's been there. So
these conditions exist. We're not exacerbating them in any way. They've been on the ground for quite some time. They're not really going to have any impact on on the adjacent properties. Um, and then if you look at the intent and purpose of those standards, while it's not enumerated, and I did go
through the township master plan, so we had the 2010 master plan and then the 2019 re-exam, not surprisingly because I look at a lot of master plans across the state. There there's really never any discussion about why specific setbacks are required in a zone. Um, but it's generally geared
at providing adequate light, air, and open space, which is purpose of the municipal land use law. So appropriate standards are developed based on the size of the lot. Um here there's not going to be substantial detriment to the intent of those standards. Again, because we're in the historic village,
these are conditions that have existed for, you know, decades, if not more than a hundred years. Um if this were a new lot, obviously this would be a different discussion, but these are buildings that have been there for quite some time. So I don't think there's any detriment or substantial detriment to the intent of
those standards especially given the environment you know that that we're in here in the village. The other two variances that are required are devariances. Uh as Frank had said the first one is because when we subdivide this property we're going to have an accessory structure that is not going to have a principal structure
related to it. That principal structure will be on a different lot. So that requires a D1 use variance under Cranberry's ordinance. The second is a D2 variance. It's a little abstract. Um, as Frank had mentioned, we have this breezeway connecting the two structures, which is not permitted in the ordinance.
There's actually a specific uh phrase in the BC district that says you can't do that. Now, this has been this connection has existed for more than 80 years. Um, if you've been by the property, you see it's it's kind of pushed to the back. It's a very small breezeway. I think there's only maybe five or six feet
between these two buildings where that connection is. So, it's it's not very obvious given that non-conforming condition and the fact that we're subdividing the lot that it sits on. There's a case that Liz cites in her memo called Raspberries v. Kingwood Township. And what the court determined
in that case is that if you have a legally existing non-conforming use on a lot and you make it smaller, you need to seek a D2 variance because it represents a proportional expansion of the use because the lot is getting smaller. Um the facts in that case were a little
different. It was in an industrial zone. There was an existing residential house. Really what the court was focused on in Raspberries was um buffering. Does the reduction in lot size create any situation where it's going to increase the impact on any of the adjacent properties? So we'll talk about that one
second. So on the D1 variance for the accessory structure, um the garage is going to remain and the Johnson's will continue to use it until either the lot is sold. You know, as Frank had indicated, perhaps that lot
becomes part of another adjacent lot. Um you know, as we mentioned, the house on the corner does not have any off- streetet parking. So it's plausible that they might want to acquire it and and use the garage or construct a new garage. Uh, so for the time being, the garage is is going to remain. It'll be
used by the Johnson's until they sell the lot. Um, so [clears throat] on the on the positive criteria for the D1, I think that the public welfare is promoted because the site's particularly suited to this use. The the new lot and the garage will again continue to have a strong relationship to the dwelling and
it'll provide parking as it has in the past and that'll only cease, you know, when either the lot is sold or a house is built. Um, but given the proximity of the garage and the and really this is a temporary variance, you're granting use relief that'll probably be eliminated
once the lot is sold because either the garage will become part of another lot or a house will be built there. So, this is really kind of temporary relief that we're asking the board for on the DVR. Um, but again, given the proximity of that garage, it's currently accessed through
the lot. uh the Johnson's can park there and walk through the yard to get to their dwelling. Um so even though it'll be on a separate lot, it it's still suitable for that use. Um I think it also promotes purposes of the MLUL, probably most notably purpose A to
promote the general welfare. So granting the relief in this situation allows the Johnson's to continue to use that garage until something different happens on the lot. But I think um in this situation, if you go down Bunker Hill, you have the house in the corner
and then you know there really no commercial uses north of Bunker Hill. It's all single family residential. Bunker Hill is all single family residential. Then you have this kind of oddball garage just you know stuck in between houses. So I think ultimately
this solution is better for the neighborhood. either a dwelling is going to be built there or if the garages continue to be used, it's going to be used by one of the adjacent property owners. Probably not the one to the left. They already have a garage, but I would imagine there would be some interest from the corner folks in that
uh to solve their off street parking problem. Um so I think [clears throat] overall this represents a better approach here because it's either going to be a dwelling or that garage then becomes part of an adjacent house rather than one that's located on Main Street and is kind of disconnected.
um that'll be more compatible generally with the single family that we see along Bunker Hill and and north of Bunker Hill. Also, purpose G to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses. Again, while it's on a separate lot, the accessory garage will
continue to provide off- streetet parking for the Johnson's until, you know, something changes with it. on the negative. Um, first looking at any potential impact to adjacent properties with the garage remaining there. Nothing's really going to change for the time being. So, there's not really much
potential that, you know, obviously nobody sees the lot line that we're creating. They just the garage is there. It'll remain. So, there's really not much of a chance that there could be any substantial impact on adjacent properties from the grant of the relief here. Um, [snorts] and nothing's going to change with the appearance of the property either. There's no construction proposed at this
point, so there wouldn't be any significant impact. And then when we look at the the second prong of the negative criteria, we have to show that there's um no substantial detriment to the intent purpose of the zone plan, but we have to do that in an enhanced fashion under the court case Medici
VPPR. And what the court said there was that if the board is granting D1 use relief, [clears throat] there's an enhanced burden on the applicant to show that the grant of relief is not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance and essentially reconcile why this use has not been
permitted by the governing body in that case. So, I did go through um there's no purpose statement for the VC in the ordinance or in the master plan, but the VC is obviously discussed pretty extensively in both the 2010 master plan and the 2019 re-exam. There are specific
goals and objectives related to the VC. Um there are seven of them and I'll read them quickly. Preserve the historic village character. Maintain a hard village edge. Maintain the residential commercial use mix in the village. Maintain the viability of commercial enterprises within the village. Maintain
a walking village that provides pedestrian connections and linkages with adjacent residential areas. Encourage development patterns that reflect the characteristics of Cranberry Village. And allow for a greater variety of housing and shopping opportunities on the few remaining parcels of accessible
vacant land in the township. So I think here when you go through those goals and objectives, the grant of the relief for the garage is not inconsistent with those. Um, and when we address the Medici enhanced proof [snorts] and the reconciliation, I think here this again
is a temporary condition that we're seeking use finance relief for. At some point, it's going to either revert to being a garage associated with an adjacent property or could be a new structure. Um, that's entirely consistent with what would be happening in the village per the zoning ordinance.
And I think the reconciliation comes in the fact that, you know, if a house is built, that's probably a better outcome for the neighbors. um or it just becomes part of an adjacent lot and provides off-street parking there. But I think really the fact that this is ultimately a temporary condition that we're seeking
relief for is is the best way to reconcile this under under Medici for the D2 variance. Um [clears throat] the standards are are slightly different than this. We don't have to address the enhanced proof on of D2 for an expansion.
Um [clears throat] but we do still have to show the positive and the negative criteria. So I think on the positive it it's kind of the same purposes as the D1. Uh but the difference here is that on on the general welfare benefit,
you know, eventually this could result in a construction of a house here on the on the proposed lot that would uh fit better with the neighborhood, the residential neighborhood that we see along Bunker Hill. And that would be more compatible with
what we see. And then also G to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations. Um granting the relief here again will provide a better arrangement ultimately for the neighbors. [snorts] Negative criteria on the D2 and any
impact to adjacent properties. Again, the Raspber's court focused really on things like buffering and and changes to impact as a result as a result of the lot getting smaller. here. Nothing is physically changing on the lot that's going to remain. Um,
meaning that already has structures on it. Those structures will remain as is. There's more than sufficient yard space. Both of these lots that we're creating more than comply with the minimum area requirements for the district. Um, and and the non-conforming structure
that we're talking about, the breezeway connection again is is not going to change. And and it's very, as I said, the connection is kind of pushed back from the face of the building. you can hardly see it. So, it's it's not really going to change anything um with that. So, I don't think there's any chance
that this could substantially impact adjacent properties. Now, in the impact of the intent purpose of the zone plan, um this standard is the basis for the standard is not really discussed in the master plan. I think if I were to guess at the intent in a
historic village, things like connecting breezeways are not necessarily consistent with what you would see historically. So, I imagine the standard was put in there to avoid um potential visual impacts and and things that aren't really consistent
with with the historic character of the village. Um that's my best guess unless Liz has some insight. [laughter] >> I have no idea why. >> Yeah, but but I get it. I mean, I I you know, I I could see why that standard was put in place just because of the
historic nature of the village. But here, as I said, the the connection is is very understated. It's very small. It's very minor. Um, so I don't I don't really see any potential that it could substantially impair the intent of that standard. And I think it's probably more geared
towards new construction in the village as opposed to a condition like this that has existed for eight decades. So, um I don't think that that'll have a substantial impairment to the intent of that standard. So, I think we can meet the both the positive and negative for
both the D1 and the D2. I do want to talk about the parking um real quick. So, Liz, you had called that out as a variance, but the parking standards are in the design section. So, I there's not I know some ordinances have provisions that say, well, parking is always a
variance. So, >> I would agree with you. The one thing is there is in the um in the zoning ordinance for the BC zone which I didn't catch. I'm just catch it because the >> the chair found it [laughter]
>> which is that no parking uh or vicular drop off or circular driveway shall be permitted in any front or side yard. So you will [clears throat] need a variance to the extent that that driveway remains >> the driveway the existing driveway in the to the bunker hill.
>> Right. >> Okay. >> Um >> but but you're correct that the fact that there is no off- streetet parking if this were to be approved. The fact that there's no off- streetet parking for the existing sort of mixeduse building. Right.
>> That is not a variance. It's a design waiver. You're right. >> Yeah. So, the other thing is the cranberry's ordinance, if you look at the residential parking standards, um, in that section, I think it's 1543 if I'm remembering correctly, but the
the township ordinance only requires two parking spaces per single family dwelling. RSIS would require two and a half, but as Andy will tell you, there was a whole big amendment to the RSIS in 2023 where they said whatever parking
requirements are in that table, 4.4, I guess it is, 4.5, I can't remember. Those are maximums. Um, a lot of people had always applied them as minimums. And it was funny. I I know the story because a guy called down to DCA and he was talking to the reviewer and the guy said, "Well, what are you talking about?
these aren't these are minim these are maximums not minimums and you know the guy said well how would you know that it doesn't say that so they actually amended it to to provide that and you no longer need a dimminimous exception if you don't meet the requirements of of the table so really in this case I think
the township has decided that two spaces per unit is is appropriate that's what's reflected in the ordinance so um I don't know that we would necessarily need relief for parking for the proposed lot because we will be able to provide two spaces in the driveway. Ultimately, if a
house is constructed there, I can't imagine they won't have a garage. But either way, we can we will comply with the two spaces required by the ordinance, and we don't need a dimminimous exception to do that under the RSIs with the 2023 amendments. Now, we do require
relief because we're not going to be providing the two spaces for the existing dwelling. Um, [clears throat] so the the discussion on a waiver is a little different than a variance. We really just have to show that it would exact undue hardship or would not be
practicable. Um, in this case, obviously with the subdivision, there's really no way with the lot width to get additional off- streetet parking behind the structure. And quite honestly, I don't know that that would really be a good [clears throat] idea because it would result in a a driveway
coming off Bunker Hill to a parking area behind. I don't know that all the neighbors would be real happy with that. Um, my understanding in this case, and I read through in the 2010 master plan, um, Andy's office did a whole parking study about Main Street, and I think you
heard Mr. Johnson tonight talk about the fact that, and you all probably know it, I think there's less demand for on street parking on the north side of Main Street and Bunker Hill as opposed to, you know, go go a block down and it's a whole different story. So, I think in
this case, um, you know, there's adequate on street parking on Bunker Hill. Um, you know, we spoke with the Johnson's about this. They didn't really have any concern about not having that parking. Um, the the use that is in the
existing commercial building, there's no parking required for it under the ordinance in the VC, but as we heard tonight, the way the use functions, it doesn't really require parking because most parents are just dropping their kids off and coming back and picking them up later. And that's really evenings and Saturday mornings. So I
think in this case um you know could we put off streetet parking behind there? We might be able to but it's going to result in the condition that um is going to put parking in a place that we probably wouldn't want to see it and and it would negatively impact the neighbors. So I think here with the
availability of Simon Street, the Johnson's are comfortable with it. I I think granting the relief makes sense in in this case. um because it just wouldn't really result in a good condition on the property. >> We just take a two-minut break. I have a
question. Uh >> oh. This makes this sense. But you can have a driveway up front because you're parking inside the building. >> You know, a lot of these ordinances are set up so that the driveway goes to the
side of the building, >> the parking goes, you know, the drive the the garage doors are on the side of the building, so you don't see them on the front, >> which is a more desirable situation. Mhm. >> I don't want to comment about the 18 because we don't know what the existing is.
>> [clears throat] >> We're just trying to clarify and is it is it there's some discussion as to whether a variance is needed for parking in front of the house. >> Correct. It's not it's not the house.
It's the existing garage. >> So, if you built a single family house there, you you could have parking in front of the house, but >> what Dave and I were just discussing, we actually think the intent is to make the parking along the side into a garage.
Yeah. If I could say something. I've had this happen in a lot of other towns that I work in and and I think the intent of this was to not have parking in front of any new house, >> but have it either in a in in the garage in the new house >> or around the side in the new house,
>> right? >> But not necessarily in the front. So, I do think that that it's a variance uh for um for parking located there. >> Okay. >> Uh but not necessarily the spaces, the number of spaces. The other thing is that the ordinance in the next section
under three has uh something about width and it's uh no more than 18 feet wide. So maybe we can get Ted back up here to tell us how wide that driveway is and whether it's more than 18 or if it's smaller. >> So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing it up.
>> Yeah. >> And it's specific to the VC zone. >> Yeah. I mean that that make that makes some sense to me. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, the garage the garage width right now is about 28 ft wide. So the the
existing driveway in front of that is 20 28 ft wide. Um the building envelope is 40t wide. Um, so I can't imagine any garage on the new house would be 40 ft wide. It
doesn't make any sense. Um, so 18 ft would be less than half of the of the width of the building. So, but the existing driveway right now is about
27 ft long. And so the board the applicant has to has to decide whether they want to provide want to ask for a variance since it's in the it's in the zoning section uh uh for that very wide driveway or if they're going to cut it if they want to cut it down to 18
therefore conforming with any future house that's there and then the board has to decide whether that's acceptable. >> Yeah. So I I think the issue here is you can see in the photo on A2. I'm sorry. We should have marked this A3. I forgot
we do that. So um so on A2 here you can see there are two garage doors, two single garage doors. >> I don't think it's practical to remove part of the driveway because then you wouldn't have access to the door, right? So I think we need to request the relief. But again, for a condition that,
you know, may exist in the future or may not. Um but it's it's there today. It's probably been that way for quite a while, I would imagine. Um, so we would request the relief for that. And I think the basis for it would be it's an existing condition. We have a garage
here. Obviously, you can see in the right hand photo on A2, the top right, that we have two doors that we need to have access to. So, the width really needs to kind of match the [snorts] width of the garage in order to provide access to it. >> Or, Mr. Chairman, we can think more like
a computer program and put an if then statement in there >> where, you know, if the garage stays, the the the driveway stays. If a house is built, it goes down to 18 [clears throat] ft. >> That might be better for for drainage for, you know, the neighborhood, that
type of thing, not to have so much impervious. >> But that's up to you. >> I I think that's a reasonable solution because obviously Yeah, >> most two car garages are not 27 feet wide. They're usually 20, 22. And the
drives themselves are enough for two cars or 20 feet or 18 feet. Very common. >> Most door openings are eight feet. >> Yeah. >> Garage door open >> and two feet in between two door openings maybe. So >> yeah, >> I have another if then [laughter]
>> uh which is Yeah, which is I understand, you know, Jim, you you said I Jim did a really good job with the testimony explaining the variances because they are in some ways some of these are a little bit technical, you know, sort of that you do have these existing bulk variances, but you're creating a new
lot. So you kind of need to apply for them again or the for the first time probably. But the if then is there's a potential that this this is the garage will be there and being used by the Johnson's for as long as they need it or
until they sell it, but it could also be uh sold to someone as a garage. And I think that you might want to consider conditioning if that is the case that it have to be to an adjacent property owner. And the only reason I said you don't want somebody across town being
like, well, I have a garage on Bunker Hill. [laughter] you know, and so I I just that's another sort of condition that I think you want to try to avoid. >> I think that makes complete sense. Yeah. You don't you don't want to have somebody buy a lot with a garage and they're I don't know running a
landscaping business out of it or whatever they're going to do. So, [clears throat and cough] I think that makes sense. [snorts] >> We would agree that We have no other witnesses. >> Open to the public. Who who would like to uh say something? Anyone?
>> No comments from the public. >> Okay. Uh, I'd like to say something. Um, something that stood out for me. Um, you the the positive criteria I mentioned was
there's going to be a new house. That was the positive criteria. However, this lot, you know, this proposed new lot doesn't seem very well suited for a house. It's a very narrow lot. Um, you
would not, you know, the the the parking plan won't work. You can't park [laughter] in front of in the front lot. Um, you can't even park in the side lot according to the ordinance. So, you know, I'm torn here because that's
the positive criteria, but it doesn't seem to be a very good one to me. So, I just want to state that. All right. So, uh should we >> Oh, you have a question. Sorry.
>> I have a comment as well. Um I'm a little concerned too. I know that there was testimony presented about the business not needing the parking, but I'm concerned long term about that. What's it's a four-story house not having parking for having for the resale value of the house? It's just that's just my personal perspective. So, I just
want to put that out there. >> Anyone else? I I am concerned about the parking being taken away from that North Main Street mixeduse lot as well. Um I know the current owners are fine with it. Um but in terms
of the ongoing viability of a of a commercial property in the downtown I that's that's that is a loss. So I just want to note that. Like my question for Dave. Dave, do they have to put up 40 foot house 40 foot
wide? Is there a zone like a size in the in the historic? >> Well, it would be the you bring it up for me. >> I have it here. Sorry. The width the minimum the required minimum width in the VC is 40. >> Yeah. This is right on the border with
the PHR which is has a bigger minimum sub in all the regulations. But were you talking about the house dimension? >> Yeah. >> Because really the house dimension will will depend on u the side setbacks right
>> subtracted from the width of the lot which is 50 almost 51 and what you have left is is is that 40 about that 40 ft. Yeah. So it could be a pretty wide house for
the zone. Can I ask for a clarification regarding the parking? We have two lots that this will become subdivided. Right now, it's one lot. The one lot uses the garage and we'll use that garage until that property sold. If
that property sold, it could go to the adjacent property and they could use it for parking and that would resolve their parking demand. 77 would no longer have that parking available to them. The third option is
if it's sold and goes to a house, then they would have their own parking demand, which would be solved by this garage that they're going to driveway and garage. But now you have 77 without that off- streetet parking and the corner lot, which doesn't have that adjacent.
If it wasn't purchased by them for use to fulfill their demand, then you have the three lots with each having demand. I is that the potential that would happen for the different lots? Because
when it gets subdivided and continued to be used by 77, the demand is solved by using that garage. But if that garage goes away and becomes a house, then there's an additional demand entered into in those three lots. I just want to
get the clarification as to maybe where that parking for 77 and where the corner lot currently parks because they don't have that ability to use the garage. Where do they find that parking? >> You're you're still on the road. Where
people on the corner, your direct neighbors, they have no walk through parking. Where do they go? >> They park on Oak Hill adjacent to their home >> and parking is allowed on that street and you you've testified already this evening that you see no no problem with
people parking. Same with Westminster. Those stalls on Westminster all the way down past the cemetery are largely empty every day. Um the the the other thing I'd like to to point out um in terms of of the
potential uses of this property and loss of parking or gain of property, the the it struck me as I looked at the subdivision uh that because this is a flag lot with frontage on Bunker Hill
that's in the village commercial zone. So ostensively, uh, if you had a subdivision and a house built there, you'd have a house that's built that's compatible with the rest of the uses on Bunker Hill. But as currently zoned, you
could take that garage and make it a store uh, or an office or any commercial use that's permitted in the village commercial zone. A bank, as long as it didn't have a drive-thru, it could be a bank or a pharmacy. um you would end up
with a use that's not really compatible with the residential use on Bunker Hill at that same time because the village commercial zone does not require off streetet parking. That's changed several years ago. So you can you can have
commercial uses in the village zone without off streetet parking. Uh ironically it's residential uses that trigger something different. But so ostensive they they could if you didn't subdivide the house and have a house built on Bunker Hill, you could sell the
current property, develop the garage into a pharmacy or a bank or an office, have eliminate the parking because you don't need parking and the situation is exponentially worse. So, I'm not the
planner and and I'm not trying to testify, but I but it occurred to me more as the layman attorney that changing that that the status quo of that property, which is really kind of odd that we have a commercial use
permitted on Bunker Hill, would probably be much more of an affront to the people that have properties that residential properties on Bunker Hill than having another residence there or leaving the garage that's been there for decades in place.
Um, and at the same time, you could eliminate all off street parking for that flag commercial use and we'd have no are we losing a space here and there with what's being done? Yes. But you
could if with the current zoning the way it is developed at all commercial, no parking at all. >> Subdividing wouldn't solve that. U I mean that would still be VC the new the >> well it would now be a residential use in the VC though. >> I mean but there's nothing to stop
someone from opening a bank after >> that's true and it's a it's it's up that's true that that could happen. Um but >> what's that? >> Yeah. Uh so so the you know the there there's a there's a there's a world also
where it it would make sense that if this subdivision is approved given the rest of the uses on Bunker Hill that the zoning change it really probably is no longer appropriate to build commercial use. The intent is to to build the
house. >> No. >> And we can't we can't reszone at this point. >> Not at this point. It would have to be done. >> Yeah. By the tension committee. [clears throat] >> Go ahead. >> Yeah. I think the the bottom line here, maybe I didn't say it very artfully when I was providing testimony, but the
bottom line is we think this is a better planning alternative here given the zoning. This is going to result in a better outcome. Does it result in the loss of a couple of parking spaces? It does. But I think based on Mr. Johnson's testimony, you know, someone that's there every day and sees it, you guys
might see it, too. I don't know. But, you know, the the off streetet, excuse me, on street parking in that area is not as much of an issue as it is in the rest of the village. So, [clears throat] yes, we're we're losing two spaces for 77. And, [clears throat] you know, there's
really two outcomes here. It's either the adjacent property owner buys it, continues to use as a garage, or somebody buys it and and builds a house, but I think ultimately that's either one of those outcomes is better than the possibility of some other commercial use on this property as well. Or, you know,
having to construct parking for 77 behind that building and, you know, coming up with some way to access it and having a parking area there and, you know, additional impervious. it. I think this just makes a lot more sense from a planning perspective given the VC zoning and what's there today.
>> But Jim, just sorry to add, but if that the subdivision is not going to preclude a commercial use going there. >> It would not. >> Right. >> Right. >> Right. So it's not I mean you're talking about better zoning alternative that could still be a bank. Theoretically,
>> it could be, but I think the discussions that we represented tonight are that there's an ongoing discussion with the neighbor about buying it or, you know, I I don't see somebody looking at the lot going, "Gee, I'm going to put a pharmacy there." You know, probably doesn't make a lot of sense. >> I agree. But I guess you guys are playing both sides of the argument.
>> Uh, [laughter] yeah. No, to some extent. Yeah. But but I think I think the subdivision in this case probably obiates a lot of that because it's really two outcomes. I think it's either going to be a house or somebody adjacent's going to buy it and use it for parking. Yeah, I agree with you. I agree with you. >> Yeah, I don't I don't think there's any
other likely outcome as a result of the subdivision. And the other thing is to really the relief that we're asking for, it comes down to, you know, two parking spaces. The D1 and the D2 is kind of like an oddity of of just the configuration of this property. It's it's, you know, in my view, you know,
I've seen or argued thousands of variances. This is kind of an odd situation with, you know, the breezeway and then the garage remaining. But again, that that's likely to be a temporary condition because the neighbor buys it. They're probably going to just merge it in with their lot and it'll all
be one lot. >> I think I'm a little uncomfortable approving something if there's something really incompatible that can get in there. But it's be is it beyond the authority of this board as a condition to say that the the newly created lot
would be that resoning would be sought or you know something like something to the [clears throat] I I can't think of anything I've ever seen like that. Um >> I don't think we do that. [clears throat] >> We can't condition it. It's way beyond what we can
>> Yeah. Okay. We just couple years last year. >> [laughter] >> Don't say anything, man. The sense we have is that the that the residential use is probably either it stays the garage goes to adjacent
neighbor or it's a residential use. If a commercial use went there as a subdivided lot, they would have to come in for site plan approval. uh and not whether it's it may be this board or the planning board. One of the land use
boards in Cranberry is going to have to decide whether that commercial use works at that location. So by approving this tonight, you're not approving uh that a bank can go there or that a pharmacy would be built there. Any commercial use
is going to have to come back before a land use board and seek approval. That said, it seems quite unlikely that that would happen. >> Would your client be willing to deed restrict the property that if it was
granted a subdivision, it could be used either only for the garage or a single family home? >> No. >> And abandoned the opportunity to >> I just spoke to him about that and he said, "No, why it's why should he restrict the zoning?
Any other comments? Should we open it to uh approval? Uh please to make a motion to approve. >> I'll also remind the board again, you
need five affirmative votes. I'll make a motion to approve the uh addition or the second. >> Second. >> All right. Roll call for ZBA 416-26. Mr. Vonoplant, >> yes. >> Miss Dharmafal, >> no.
>> Miss Gens, >> no. >> Miss Parker, >> no. >> Mr. Schwarz, >> yes. >> And Mr. Don, >> no. Okay. Motion denied. Thank you.
>> And uh that's it. Should we uh >> So we need a motion to adjourn. >> Motion to adjourn the meeting. >> Second. Yeah, that works. >> All in favor? I >> Okay. Bye.