Uh, Township Monroe Planning Board meeting July 23, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. Please stand and address the flag. >> To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it
stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [snorts] >> In accordance with the open public meetings act, it is hereby announced and shall be >> There we go. Thank you.
>> In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, it is hereby announced and shall be entered into the minutes of this meeting, the adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by the following. Posted on the bulletin board of the office of the township clerk. Posted on the bulletin boards within the
municipal complex. Printed in the home news Tribune and Cranberry Press on December 28, 2025. Posted on the Monroe Township website and sent to those individuals who have requested personal notice. Laura, can you please do the role? >> Vice Chairman Rothman
>> here. >> Miss Bratzky? >> Yes. >> Mr. Manesh Patel. Miss Damiani [clears throat] >> here. >> Mr. Slavichek >> here. >> Mr. Weiner. >> Mr. Butinsky >> here. >> Councilman Markeel >> here.
>> Mayor's Representative Mr. Patel. Chairman Gaffrey >> here. >> Okay. Laura circulated the minutes earlier in the week. Um I'm sure you've all had a chance to review them. I think there was a mistake on Mr. Razimo's last name. But other than that, uh is there
any uh is there a motion to accept the minutes? >> So move. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> opposed. >> Abstain. >> Hearing none. Um there's no applications tonight. So we're going to move on to memorializations.
We've got uh PB1274-26 Kings Row Developables LLC. >> Move the resolutions. >> Okay. Um second >> second. >> Is there any discussion?
It's a voice vote. >> Vice Chairman Rothman, >> yes. >> Miss Brodzky, >> yes. >> Miss Damiani, >> yes. >> Mr. Butinski, >> yes. >> Councilman Markell, >> yes. >> Chairman Gaffrey, >> yes. >> Okay. The second one is PB1275-2630
of Bill Road, SG LLC. Is there a motion to uh move the uh resolution? I make a motion. >> Is there a second? >> Any discussion? >> Second.
>> Any discussion? Okay. Um, roll call, please. >> Vice Chairman Rothman? >> Yes. >> Miss Brosky? >> Yes. >> Miss Damiani? >> Yes. >> Mr. Binsky? >> Yes. >> Councilman Markell? >> Yes. >> Chairman Gaffrey? >> Yes. Okay. Under discussion items tonight, we have three three items. And
the first one is under PB1262-24. It's a uh reaffirmation of a minor sub subdivision for Green Vest LLC. Does anyone wish to come forward on that? >> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Frank Wnooki with Flaster and Greenberg,
the attorneys for Green Vest. Uh as indicated on your agenda, our request is to reapprove the subdivision that was granted uh by a vote in December of 24 affirmed in resolution in 2023. Under the law, uh either a deed or the
plan needs to be filed within 192 days of the resolution. Uh number of items came up along the way and that 192 day or five day uh time period wasn't met. So we are requesting that the board reapprove the subdivision
and then we can go ahead and file the deeds working with your attorney on the forms of the deeds and your engineer. The other request is that the resolution had a requirement that in lie of curb and sidewalk that a contribution
>> you can sit down. >> I'm sorry. >> You can sit down. You can sit down. >> Oh okay. microphone's still picking me up if I'm sitting down. >> You can pull it closer. >> Okay, fine. Thank uh the other is that the resolution had a condition in it
that in uh the board waved the uh installation of curbon sidewalk because of the area out there. This is just a lot line adjustment so forth. And during the hearing, the engineer had recommended that the contribution not be made either. Uh for some reason, the
resolution came through with a request or requirement that the cash contribution be made. Uh we're asking that that uh be waved. Uh also um in accordance with your attorney's request, we published and served notice of the
application tonight. >> Thank you. >> You have any comment? >> Uh okay. for us for speak. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so first on the extension, I know there there's we've been going back and forth. I think
a property owner had changed and and just trying to get the deeds going. So, uh, you know, I have no no objection to that with regarding the um the, uh, the board waved the requirement for installing curbon sidewalk. Let me back up. So, this this was a subdivision.
Uh essentially what it was, it's it's preserved land that they're subdividing and uh there's a conservation easement that's going to be put up over this land, but the subdivision was actually to clean up uh two or three existing
homes that are on the frontage of Hoffman Road uh for this where they had you know over the years over the decades you know encroachments whether it was a shed whether it was a fence line. So what this applicant did was he cleaned that all up to give those couple
homeowners, you know, the land that their encroachments were on. Uh so that's what essentially created the subdivision. And um and so under the heading that nothing was being built. It's it's just a subdivision essentially cleaning up those couple homes and uh
and then the land is in a conservation easement um as well. um you know that this board waved the sidewalks as well as a contribution and uh and and the resolution there there was a transcript and the transcript I believe had it
correctly and then but the resolution uh there was just a typo in the resolution. So essentially uh you know I have no objection to that as well. Uh again the board did grant the waiver of both the contribution and uh installing the curbon sidewalks
>> based on the reasons that I just said. Okay. Chris, anything to add? >> No, I have no com excuse me. No comments on this application. >> Right. And any comments or questions? [clears throat] >> Question. And I'm I'm going to ask
yourself as our legal representative. >> If we Is this working? >> Good. If we as a board routinely require applicants when they come before us who
are on come to the curb, okay, to either put in curbs and sidewalks or in lie of that the appropriate funding for that if that's what we do standard and this application meets that need or meets
similar needs. If we don't require this of this applicant, does that make it arbitrary and capriccious if we then ask of other applicants? I just want it to be standardized so that we'll never be in
court where we have to answer why did you make this one do it but not that one. So that's my question. >> Short answer is each case is judged on its own merits. uh if you find that there are particular circumstances
unique to this particular property and the surrounding properties uh you have a basis uh to depart from your usual standard. Uh this is not as I understand it an ordinance requirement. Is that correct >> Mr. Chairman? Um installation of curbon
sidewalk if there's an application here it is it is considered uh required. I mean it's in our code. >> All right. And then basically we're >> you're giving relief from an ordinance requirement just as you would give relief with respect to a setback or or
anything else. So you have to have a basis to do it. >> Um but I think your question vice chairman is more your concern for the future. >> All right. And and I would not have that concern uh for the same reason I just
started the conversation with. Each case is judged on its own merits. >> Okay. >> And Mr. Mr. Chairman, I I would add that the uniqueness of this is they're not proposing to build there's there will never be a house on this property. It's it's in a conservation easement to
preserve this piece of land. And the only reason it was here was for the subdivision to clean up the the two or three existing homes that had encroached into this this lot over over the decades before. Uh it's a wooded lot and again
the entire lot I think there's a I think there's an access easement of maybe 10 feet wide through the middle of it to get to a landlock parcel but the rest of it's in a conservation easement can't be built on. So that was the uniqueness of it. Additionally it's on Hoffman Road and there there's there's no curve no
sidewalks and and again there there's no construction that will ever be part of this lot. So that was the uniqueness. I I think that based upon those factual points, you would be on very solid ground to find the unique circumstances.
>> Okay. Thank you. You have a question. >> I'm just I would just reiterate what council said. We're just adjusting lot lines and so that uh if in effect somebody else comes in adjusting a lot line, uh they probably shouldn't have to
put in curve either. So, so I I'm comfortable with uh the controls as it stands. >> So, with that in mind, do we have a motion with respect to both requests? >> I'll make the motion >> and I will second it.
>> Okay. >> Can I uh interject here? >> Yes. >> Uh since your attorney said this should be a public hearing, I think it ought to be open to the public just for the record. >> Okay, that's fine. Then we're open up to the public. Anybody wish to be heard? Hearing
none. Is there a move to close the public portion? >> Motion to close public portion. >> Thank you. >> So, uh, does anyone want to make a motion with respect to two requests? >> He did already. >> I had made a motion, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> There was a second vice chair.
>> Okay. Any further discussion? >> Vice Chairman? >> Yes. >> Miss Bratzky? Yes, >> Mr. Amiani. >> Yes, >> Mr. Slavichek. >> Yes, >> Mr. Boutinsky. >> Yes, >> Councilman Markeel. >> Yes, >> Mayor's Representative Mr. Patel. >> Yes. >> Chairman Gaffrey. >> Yes.
>> Thank you very much. >> Okay. This evening we have uh two review and recommendations of ordinance ordinances and I'm going to turn each one over to Mr. McGowan to introduce it to the board. The first one is number 0-6-20226-13.
Mr. McGawan. >> Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, um, I just want to give a a brief overview summary of why this is in front of the board tonight. Um, as you all know, every time there is a requested change to our chapter 108, uh, our land use,
uh, code, um, it's required by the MLU to, uh, come to the planning board as well for a recommendation that it is consistent, the change is consistent with our master plan. And so, uh, that's what's before you tonight. The council introduced an ordinance on June 29th um
and it is on their agenda for second reading on August 3rd. And what this does, it essentially creates a clarification in our existing ordinance. Um, as the mayor spoke at the last council meeting, we've gotten a number
of questions uh from residents understandably about the issue of data centers uh in Monroe as that has become um a topic of a lot of conversation around the state of New Jersey. Um the mayor clarified as I will again tonight that we don't have any applicants um who
are proposing to come into the town and construct a data center and we do not have data centers as a permitted use in any of our zones. That said, in four of our zoning districts throughout town, there is some vague and I would argue
arcane language um that exists from decades ago that references data processing facilities. Um in our research we've we are confident and comfortable that data processing facilities um does not equate to what
are being constructed and debated about now in terms of data centers across New Jersey and across the country. That having been said, uh, in order to take away any doubt and and create, you know, that clarification, all this ordinance does is it strikes those words data
processing um facilities from the four districts where it appears in our ordinance. Um, there are no data processing facilities in uh currently in Monroe Township. Um, and this would, you know, hopefully clarify that uh that
point that it's not a permitted use and um and under the MLUL, if something isn't a permitted use, uh it is a prohibited use and and therefore would not have the ability to come to this board for an application for development. Um that's the uh that's the crux of the first ordinance, Mr.
Chairman. >> And you're seeking the recommendation that it meets with the master plan. >> Correct. We'd be seeking that recommendation tonight and then uh and then the council would would consider it at its next meeting. >> Sure. Chris, you won't be heard. >> Sure. I'll be pretty brief. This one's
pretty simple. It's as Kevin just said, it removes data processing facilities as a permitted use in four different districts and purely so that there's no conflation between a large scale or hypers scale data AI uh cloud computing data center and what these are. Um there
would always be an option if anybody wanted to do a data center. They'd have to go to the zoning board seeking a use variance. Um that being said, the purpose you're here tonight is to determine whether it's consistent or not with your master plan. Your master plan, which what's the date on your master plan? Last adopted in 2022, uh of course
does not reference data centers. This is a very new um issue that's come up just within the last not even 12 months, even going back to 2025. We were not talking about this in any of my towns. This is a very 2026 planning issue. So this is not referenced directly at all in your master plan. However, your master plan
does throughout its various elements in the land use element as well uh talk about a desire for land conservation uh uh energy conserv not energy conservation um renewable energy conservation of natural resources uh
protection of the environment things of that nature. So on under that understanding with the impacts we know that some of these data centers can have in terms of their water usage and energy usage as well as their land consumption because some of them are are very large like like big warehouses I think the one being built in Vinand right now is about two or 30 hundred,000 square feet one
being proposed in Utah right now don't know where it is in the approvals it's something like four or five million square feet of a data center uh that to some degree the large scale data centers would be inconsistent with the goals of your master plan. So removing them as a permitted use or this tangential
potentially could be conflated with a data center or or an attorney using chat GPT to write their legal arguments for them could try and say that uh data processing facilities what a data center is. I I think that would be inconsistent with your master plan if somebody were to propose one of those. Therefore taking it out of the list of permitted
uses I think is consistent with your master plan. >> Thank you. Any comments from the board? Hearing none. Any anybody from the public wish to be heard? Shell Armin Nathaniel Street. Um it is high. There we go. Okay. Um yeah,
I'm grateful for the changes being made here. I do have a question. uh on uh the permitted use under uh the planned office commercial district that's the first one 16 6.16
and it talks about office type research can someone explain that I mean that's a new use so first page on the ordinance >> we're talking about 013 >> I I believe that is an existing
permitted us it's just by deleting B and C. Then what used to be uh D now becomes C. Oh, actually I think that should be A then B. >> Might be missing a letter there, but that's really not >> there's there's no new uses in the or it's a good question. There's no new uses in the ordinance. Uh it's just that
all the uses are listed here and the ones that are being deleted are scratched out. >> Okay. But it says new text is in. So my mistake thinking that it's a new >> Yeah. Yeah. No, no, it's a good question. It's just that the lettering of it. I would say that's probably like an office research and development type
of facility, corporate research if say 3M were to want to do a research facility here where they're testing types of scotch tape, something like that. >> So that's not going to be misconcred or anything like that. >> That that would be quite a stretch.
>> Well, and Okay. So then all of the numbers and letters in red are not necessarily new uses. They are just changes because of the strikeouts. >> Yes. >> Of what we're doing. Okay. Let me just
see if there's anything else. And um yeah, my question essent and the research lab subject to performance standards of article five that's on the last page that's H under 6.25.
And again, you say that that's pre-existing. >> Those are all existing uses. >> Since I'm here, what the research laboratory subject to performance standards? Just a quick explanation. >> I mean, offhand, I can't speak to what the performance standards are, but we do
have a number of research laboratories uh in the township. You know, uh we have companies that test pharmaceuticals and um Offc Center Drive and and probably one or two other areas of town. So, that's been in there for several decades. I don't mean to go off on a tangent on
this one. I I know the the purpose of this uh public portion, but if we just since um uh Mr. Rothman brought this up on uh 6.18,
number three, the regional shopping centers bulk variances. I mean, to your point, Mr. Rothman. Um when you say that uh we should we have standards and we should stick by our standards. I've been to a lot of these meetings where these especially things
like number three are really >> not st not um a lot of them have been waved. So I hope that um you remember that when we go into some other issues where uh some of these like bulk standards should not be
waved. But anyway that's not for this purpose. Thank you. >> I will keep that in mind. [clears throat] >> Thank you. Um, anybody else from the public wish to be heard? >> Hearing none. Is there a motion to close the public portion of this? >> Motion.
>> Second. >> There a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Yes. >> Okay. The Does someone want to make a a motion to make a recommendation that is consistent with the master plan? >> Yeah. I I would just say that that what
the resident brought up uh article five that's a performance standards of our code. So um you know it typically applies to most all the uses. Um it's just our performance standard section. >> What I'm saying? >> Thank you. >> Thank Mr. Chairman.
>> Yes. >> I'd like to make a motion of recommendation for ordinance number 0-6-2026-013. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Okay. Any discussion? Hearing none. >> Vice Chairman Rothman. >> Yes.
>> Mrsky, >> yes. >> Miss Damiani, >> yes. >> Mr. Slavichek, >> yes. >> Mr. Putinsky, >> yes. >> Councilman Markeel, >> yes. >> Mayor's representative, Mr. Patel, >> yes. >> Chairman Gaffrey, >> yes. >> Okay. The the second recommendation is
for ordinance number 06-0 I'm sorry 06-2026-014. Mr. McGowan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll also just give a brief overview of this. This has to do with the landfill site between Spotswood Gravel Hill Road and Lanny Road. Um if you remember
earlier this year, um this board um recommended to the council to declare that an area in need of redevelopment. um so that a potential redeveloper could utilize that landfill site as a um solar
field, solar farm, solar array. Those words are sort of used interchangeably. Um so the council went ahead and did that, designated this as an area in need of redevelopment. Um, our planner uh then created uh what is before you
tonight, the uh redevelopment plan, which is essentially the overlay zoning of that site, which would allow for the parameters by which a um a a an owner could build solar facilities on that
property. Uh the only permitted use uh under the redevelopment plan is uh for those solar panels and and and Chris can get into more uh details of the specifics here, but it essentially creates the zoning for an applicant to come in under the redevelopment plan and
actually construct the solar panels setbacks, buffers, height requirements just like just like any other zoning ordinance. And so this again um would need the recommendation um of the planning board in order for the council to uh to take final action and adopt
this redevelopment plan um at its next meeting. >> Again to be consistent with the master plan. >> That's correct. >> Chris, there we go. Thanks. Yeah. Uh I have just a few things to add. So, as as Kevin said, this is the plus or minus 85
acre former municipal landfill off of Spotswood Gravel Hill Road, and that was designated by the town uh just earlier this year as an area in need of redevelopment. And then under the municipal land use law requires that a redevelopment plan be be put together. And the plan for this all along has been
that this be converted to a solar energy system, essentially utility scale. So, not just little solar panels that serve a use on the site, but actually feeds into the grid. Um it provides that as a permitted use on this site as well as bulk standards for buffering landscaping requirements
around the perimeter, fencing, things like that, height, uh some performance standards as well as a requirement of a which is not typical for most applications you see, but requires a decommissioning plan that anybody who wants to build the solar array there has to provide a plan for what happens when their useful likes cycle is over so they
don't just get abandoned there 30 years from whenever it's built. Um, that's really all the plan is is to take the former landfill and turn it into a solar facility, which is encouraged by state law. And like like the last ordinance, the purpose here is to determine whether
or not you feel it's consistent with the master plan. I believe it is. Let me find here. I've got the discussion specifically on your master plan. So, as I said before, your master plan was adopted in 2022. uh within your
you have a utilities and infrastructure element of your master plan. Within that there are very specific goals that are almost directly pointing to a project like this and that is to promote the use of renewable energy sources incorporate community solar projects into Monroe's power grid. Now I don't know if this
would be a community solar project or not off the top of my head. >> Yes. >> Oh, it is it is going to be community solar. Okay. Community solar means that a portion of the power is given to local residents at a discounted rate if they are low or moderate income. So that is directly supported by this. Promote communitywide implementation of LED
lights and solar power grids. Consider alternative energy sources at all public facilities. This is former municipal landfill. I don't know if the town would retain ownership and lease it or if they'd be selling it, but similar similar goal there. Um
need for greater consistency of the power grid and need to improve electricity to prevent power outages and residential developments and to continue to promote underground utilities. where this would eventually be connected to the grid. So, this is directly advancing several specific goals of your master
plan. And uh unlike the uh data centers where that's I'm kind of getting hypothetical, this this is very specific that your master plan calls for renewable energy and solar. So, I think this is substantially consistent with your master plan.
>> Thank you. Any discussion? Anybody from the public wish to be heard? Sh Arminino. Okay. So, I looked this up uh for for tonight's meeting and it said something about the clerk has the documentation. I tried to find the
documentation. Were they present on the internet on the website? I couldn't find them or do I have to go directly to the clerk to read this? >> M Mr. Chairman, I believe they are on the the website uh connected to that ordinance with the rest of the draft
ordinances on the count council's website. Um but I could double check tomorrow. I don't have it in front of me. >> I was hoping to have it tonight since it's part of the ordinance tonight. Do you guys have it in your packets? Somebody can
>> I have give it to me. Um, and secondly on this or ordinance or is this not the scope of this? Um, is there any talk about the financing on this? I mean, do we still owe money? Did BSAF
or I'm sorry, I don't know the name of the is this for me or do I have to get it back to copy? >> Okay. >> Oh, okay. Yeah, I looked for that and I did a search on the website and I
actually put municipal landfill redevelopment plan and nothing came up. So, I don't know if I was in their or because I that's where I got it from. It was under their ordinance. I I went the ordinance. Okay. I might have missed it, but I thank you for for the for this. Um
but my question is um from before this even became uh something that was considered we had we still have enough financial obligation on this landfill. Is it is there any place or maybe even in here spelled out what our obligation
is? Are we getting paid? Are we selling like this is an this is important. We were told that uh the most recent owner was going to take on all the financial burden and I don't think that happened. So I can add. >> It's not really part of a redevelopment plan. That would probably be subject to
a redevelopers agreement between the town and the future developer. I don't know if Kevin has any particular details on that. >> Sure. Uh you're correct. It's not part of this plan. Um as part of that redevelopers agreement, which is not executed yet, the redeveloper will be
taking complete ownership and title of the land. the municipality would be stepping away from that and the owner would be the responsible party to the NJ DP and the US EPA in terms of managing the site as
it is a closed super fund site. >> Yeah. And that's all going forward. My question is, is there anything in I mean everything is compartmentalized into different places and yet we still might be owing money on this particular site.
>> So the settlement agreement in our litigation between the township and BFI Republic spells out all of those responsibilities by all those different parties. However, as that settlement agreement discusses, um, and that is
executed and in place for for for quite a bit of time now, there are steps that have to take place in a specific order throughout this process, the designation of the redevelopment area, the redevelopment plan, the redevelopers agreement. And so we are following that
sequence. But there is a signed agreement in place between all parties that the C renewable company will be taking over control of the landfill and the municipality's obligation would be taken away. >> Okay. That that really is because I think that you know this has been a long
time coming and if we still have an obligation. So what you so what I understand is that when this is complete and the process is approved then it will trigger what the financial aspects of this would be and I just want
Monroe to be relieved because we've been promised that Monroe will be relieved of any any taxpayer obligation to this whole situation. And that's I know it's been going on for decades, but that's why this is all well and good and yeah, we're happy and I'm I'm I'm delighted
for for the the direction this is going, but where's the money? And are we obligated as taxpayers to pay anything? So, we've I've heard like a myriad of of different kinds of
arguments or uh statements about but no no one really has said we're no we're no longer obligated for large sums of money in this project. So, but you're saying >> I can say I can say that we're we're no longer obligated for large sums of money in this project. Uh once once the
process is finished, right, there's there's no redevelopment plan as of yet because it has to be adopted and there's no redeveloper agreement, but once all those steps take place, yes, there's no more financial obligation by the township >> and and that document is what is that the document with BFI or is the document
with this company? >> It's the document with BFI. >> Okay. I'm gonna have to take a look at that. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. And uh anyone want to move? Do you wish to be heard?
>> No. Anybody uh move to uh close the public portion of this recommendation? >> Make a motion to close the public portion. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. All in favor? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um again um does someone want to make a motion that this recommendation
is consistent with the master plan and can be uh presented to town council? >> So move, Mr. Chairman. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion? Hearing none. >> Vice Chairman Rothman. >> Yes. M
>> yes. >> Miss Damiani. >> Yes. >> Mr. Slavichek. >> Yes. >> Mr. Butinsky. >> Yes. >> Councilman Markell. >> Yes. Mayor's representative, Mr. Patel. >> Yes. >> Chairman Gaffrey. >> Yes. Thank you. Okay. Um, next on the
agenda is the public portion. Is anybody from the public wish to be heard on any topic? >> Hearing none, we're going to move to close the public portion. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? Yes. >> Okay. There's no correspondence. So, is there a motion to adjurnn?
>> Motion. >> Second. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> All in favor? >> I. They were joined. >> When is our next meeting? >> 27th August. >> August 27th. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> I'll probably get back next year. >> Let's see. 30 minutes. 35 minutes. >> Okay. >> Oh, pleasure again. >> Good to see you. Hope to see you there
next year. [laughter]