MINUTES OF THE CRANBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD CRANBURY, NEW JERSEY MIDDLESEX COUNTY MINUTES OF MAY 3, 2012 APPROVED ON OCTOBER 18, 2012 TIME AND PLACE OF MEETING The regular meeting of the Cranbury Township Planning Board was held at the Cranbury Township Hall Municipal Building, 23-A North Main Street, Cranbury, New Jersey, Middlesex County on May 3, 2012 at 7:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Allan Kehrt Chairperson of the Cranbury Township Planning Board, and called the meeting to order and acted as the Chairman thereof. STATEMENT OF ADEQUATE NOTICE Pursuant with the Sunshine Law, adequate notice in accordance with the open public meeting act was provided of this meeting s date, time, place and agenda was mailed to the news media, posted on the Township bulletin board, mailed to those requesting personal notice, and filed with the Municipal Clerk. MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE David Cook Thomas Harvey Arthur Hasselbach Daniel Mulligan (arrived @ 7:44 p.m.) Eugene Speer Jason Stewart Dietrich Wahlers Kathleen Wasson (arrived @ 7:40 p.m.) Allan Kehrt PROFESSIONALS IN ATTENDANCE Andrew Feranda, Traffic Consultant David J. Hoder, Board Engineer Valerie Kimson, Planning Board Attorney Josette C. Kratz, Secretary Richard Preiss, Township Planner
Page 2 of 8 RESOLUTION PB214-11 Gordon Stults, Stults Realty Block 7.01, Lot 19, Zone LI 55 Station Road Minor Site Plan Home Realty Occupation MOTIONED: SECONDED: Mr. Steward Mr. Speer VOTE ROLL CALL AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Mr. Cook, Mr. Speer, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Wahlers None Mr. Harvey, Mr. Hasselbach, Mr. Kehrt Mr. Mulligan, Mr. Wasson MOTION CARRIED APPLICATIONS PB 125-06 PB 152-08 Cranbury Station Park (formerly Millstone Park), Corner of Route 130 and Station Road, Block 10, Lot 1, Zone I-LI-S, Preliminary Major Site Plan, At Applicant s Request this Application will be carried to June 7, 2012 Mid-State Filigree System, Block 16, Lot 5, Zone I-LI, Hightstown-Cranbury Station Road, Preliminary & Final Major Site Plan, At the applicant s request this application will be carried to May 17th PB 216-12 Schlumburger Technology Corp, Block 1, Lot 7.03 5 Cedar Brook Amended Preliminary and Final Site Plan for an above ground tank REPRESENTATIVES: Gary S. Forshner, Esquire - Stark & Stark Eric Freeman, Product Line Manager for Schlumberger Keith Redding, Mechanical Engineer Mr. Forshner said because the site is within an industrial park it has been filed as an amendment to the major site plan approval. The Applicant proposes a concrete 8 x 8 pad for an above ground nitrogen
Page 3 of 8 tank located behind the building, bollards and chain-link fence. Tank would be up to 10 in height, industry standard as a vertical tank. This tank will not be visible by the public. Ms. Wasson arrived 7:40 p.m. Mr. Redding was sworn and presented the followings exhibits: EXHIBIT A-1 Site Plan EXHIBIT A-2 Architectural Details EXHIBIT A-3 Cut Sheet EXHIBIT A-4 Ariel EXHIBIT A-5 Photographs Mr. Preiss asked if the trailer with the tank presently on the site a temporary tank.
Page 4 of 8 Mr. Stewart asked if all tanks were vertical. Mr. Freeman gave his credentials and qualified as an expert in his field. He answered that vertical tanks hold much more. Mr. Speer asked about the chain-link fence. Mr. Forshner said it was a 6 -ft high fence with a 4 -ft gate. Mr. Freeman said each tank is double-walled with insulation and relief valves. The nitrogen is used to displace oxygen in their products. Mr. Preiss had a concern with whether the tree in front was going to compromise, branches or roots. Mr. Freeman said the tree would not interfere. Mr. Mulligan arrived at 7:44 p.m. Mr. Hoder said he submitted a review memo dated April 17, Mr. Hoder asked if the applicant agreed to place a few shrubs in front of the tank. Mr. Forshner said they would if the board felt it was important. Mr. Stewart asked what the consequence would be if someone scaled the fence. Mr. Freeman said there would be no safety hazard; the release is at the top. Mr. Stewart asked about vehicles. Mr. Hoder did not see it as a problem being around traffic. Mr. Hoder brought to the attention the letter from the Fire Company asking for a Knox Box. The applicant agreed to comply. Mr. Speer felt it should be mentioned in the resolution for approval that there are shrubs to be installed, approved by the board professionals, no barbed wire at the top of the chain-link fence and a Knox Box to be installed. Mr. Wahlers motioned for approval with the conditions stated by Mr. Speer. MOTIONED: SECONDED: Mr. Wahlers Mr. Hasselbach VOTE ROLL CALL AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Mr. Cook, Mr. Harvey, Mr. Hasselbach, Mr. Speer, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Wahlers, Mr. Kehrt None None None (Mr. Mulligan and Ms. Wasson did not vote due to late arrival)
Page 5 of 8 MOTION CARRIED PB 098-05 Cranbury Brick Yard, LLC (a.k.a Viridian &/or Unexcelled) Block 10, Lot 10, Block 12, Lot 11 Brickyard Road Amendment Preliminary Site Plan REPRESENTATIVES: Richard Goldman, Esquire Richard Burrows, Engineer Ms. Kimson reviewed some history on the issues regarding the amendment before the Board this evening. Ms. Kimson said that Cranbury Brick Yard, LLC, received preliminary major site plan approval from the Planning Board. There were several hearings, the Board approved the application on July 1, 2010, and the resolution was memorialized on August 19, 2010. That approval remains valid. The applicant is here tonight for an amended preliminary approval. The prerogative writ Complaint filed by the applicant has been withdrawn, so there is no pending litigation. Mr. Whalers asked Ms. Kimson to go over the issues. Ms. Kimson said the litigation challenged the four waivers the Board previously denied; importation of fill, height of berms, location of the fence, and placement of building within the stream corridor. There were two conditions the applicant challenged; placement of the wetlands buffer and off-tract improvement contribution. The applicant has publically notice for this hearing date.
Page 6 of 8 Mr. Goldman said this was a significant application for a 2.8 Million SF warehouse development on hundreds of acres. This is a Brownfield Site in that there is a significant amount of munitions (MEC) on site. The project involved identifying the location of this MEC, providing clean up, and providing a cap over the MEC. Mr. Goldman stated that the application was approved but there were the four waivers that were not approved. They did find a solution for the fill that would not need more than 50,000 CY compared to the 550,000 CY formally proposed as dredge material. Mr. Stewart brought to the attention of the Board that there was reference to an original report by Maser Consulting and asked if this was the same Maser. Mr. Hoder said it is the same Maser, but did not know there was a previous report. He said they previously worked for Viridian, but have not worked for them in a number of years and did preliminary plans on this project but nothing went forward and they are not working for them now. Mr. Kehrt asked for clarification. Mr. Hoder said he was not involved directly. Mr. Stewart said he found it referenced in the Fiscal Impact Report. Ms. Kimson asked for a recess to speak with the applicant s counsel. RECESS Mr. Kehrt announced it has been decided this is a conflict and the matter will be carried until May 31, 2012, for the Board to secure a conflict engineer to represent the Board. Ms. Kimson added no further notice would be required by the applicant. Mr. Cook asked about sewer service issue and the history regarding the opposition on the extension of the sewer service area. Mr. Goldman answered that the forces are the NJDEP and County. Mr. Goldman stated that he believed, but admitted he was unsure, the NJDEP has some of their own concerns implications of State-wide sewer facilities. Historically Cranbury built a series of sewer lines, pump stations, and incurred litigation with South Brunswick. He stated that when that system was sized, built, and paid for by the municipality with the potential for the warehouse district zone up to 50% office. Mr. Goldman thought that the reality in the twenty years is that the 50% office is not keeping up with the cost of the system. This project if it does connect with the sewer service program would provide something along the order of $500,000 in pro-rata share fees, $500,000 in connection fees, and ongoing annual usage fee; at no additional expense since the lines are already built. Mr. Goldman said the project is not contingent on the 208 Plan, but the applicant would prefer to have a sewer service. Mr. Goldman said the Township has a very comprehensive formula developed for pro-rata contributions for sewer connections.
Page 7 of 8 Mr. Cook asked for more information. Mr. Goldman felt that while this is a Township decision it is ultimately a NJDEP decision. Mr. Goldman said the Applicant has said the Township is opposed and are not miss stating the positions. The applicant is stating they have designed this compositing toilet system since the Township has been opposed to modifying the 208 Plan. His understanding was the NJDEP has concerns about opening up the composting toilet gate. Mr. Mulligan asked if the original plans showed the sewer plan as it references now. Mr. Goldman said the original plans did show the alternatives, as does the initial Resolution of Approval. Mr. Preiss asked if the application had changed with respect to that. In the Environmental Impact Statement there was deletion of the two options and reference to the extending the sewer. Mr. Goldman restated the original plan has both and the applicant was not changing that. Mr. Kehrt mentioned there are persons of the public that want to talk, but since there is a conflict and the Board must retain a conflicts engineer, it will not make sense to proceed with testimony. Mr. Stewart asked the Applicant to produce a clear, concise sheet of what was the conditions and variances are now proposed as opposed to what was formally approved and disapproved. VOUCHERS Upon a motion made and seconded, the vouchers were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. McGee, Stony Brook Watershed, realizing that these are comments that cannot be considered. She does have a number of questions about completeness. Mr. Dillon, Brickyard Road, asked if the 208 Plan consideration new. Mr. Kehrt answered that there was no plan to consider any changes to the 208 Plan at this time. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING There being no further business, on motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was thereupon adjourned.
Page 8 of 8 CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY I, the undersigned, do hereby certify; That I am duly elected and acting secretary of the Cranbury Township Planning Board and, that the foregoing minutes of the Planning Board, held on May 3, 2012, consisting of 8 pages, constitute a true and correct copy of the minutes of the said meeting. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name of said Planning Board this October 18, 2012. Josette C. Kratz, Secretary /jck