Planning Minutes | December 1, 2021
TOWNSHIP OF MONROE
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
December 1, 2021
Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Marc Gaffrey who led the salute to the Flag.
Chairman Marc Gaffrey read the Sunshine Law as follows: In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, it is hereby announced and shall be entered into the minutes of this meeting that 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 Cranbury Press on January 1, 2021;
Posted on the Monroe Township website; and
Sent to those individuals who have requested personal notice.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Marc Gaffrey, Vice Chairman John Riggs, Mr. David Rothman, Mr. Kevin McGowan, and Mayor’s Representative Mr. Terence Van Dzura. Also present for the Board were Attorney Jerome Convery, Planner Mika Apte, Engineer Mark Rasimowicz and Director of Planning Mr. Joe Stroin.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Andy Paluri, Mrs. Karen Polidoro, Ms. Roslyn Brodsky, Alternate #1 Mr. Michael Markel and Councilwoman Elizabeth Schneider
A motion to approve the October 28, 2021 Minutes made by Mr. David Rothman and seconded by Mr. Kevin McGowan and passed unanimously by all members present.
PB-1230-20 Stratford Developers, LLC; Request for Final Major Subdivision with Bulk Variance; Blocks 13 / 13.01 / 13.02, Lots 84 / 20 / 61; Located on Halsey Reed Road in the PRD-AH Zone
Jared Pape, attorney with the law firm of Heilbrunn Pape was present. Their firm represents Stratford Developers, LLC. They originally noticed for this application in the late summer or early fall. This application had been carried a couple of times. He believes each time it was carried with no requirement to re-notice. So, he would like to confirm on the record that their notices are adequate. The board attorney holds in his hand the public notice that was provided by the applicant. He reviewed it. It appears to be acceptable and in accordance with state law. The subsequent meetings, we had no additional notices required. So, the public notice is acceptable.
This is the final section of the Stratford at Monroe project. This is part of a larger project that had received preliminary subdivision approval back in 1999. This is the final section 7B. There was a typo early on one of the application plans as to the number of lots. He just wants to clarify. It’s 73 lots, all of which are single family lots. They are seeking final major subdivision for that last final section. There are some technical variances that are required as part of this approval. We have only one witness this evening. It is Sharif Ali. He will be testifying as professional engineer and professional planner. If it is acceptable, he would like to have him sworn in and qualify him. There is one question. You just said there is 73 lots. It’s 73 lots but it’s 71 residential. Correct? Sharif will confirm but it is 73 lots, all of which are single family lots.
Mr. Aly was sworn in. He provided his credentials for the Board to qualify him as a professional engineer. He is a professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. He has been appearing before the Board since 1989 and he has had so many applications here. The Board accepted his qualifications as a professional engineer and a professional planner.
The first thing to do is confirm the number of lots and the use for each for lot since there is a discrepancy. As stated, 7B (east of 7A), the number that was carried on from 7A is the confusing number. But what we have here in 7B, 73 single family lots that meet the R3 requirement. 100 x 100. No open space, no conservation area related to wetlands or flood hazards. This is strictly 73. He was asked to briefly identify the location of the overall project, where it is in Monroe. He replied he is pretty sure Stratford at Monroe on Cranbury Station Road all the way to Halsey Reed Road or Federal Road and goes all the way to coming back to Applegarth Road. So it’s a very, very large area. This particular section is the last section. It’s been here since 1989 when they got the first application. This particular section where it anchors the roadway patterns in that particular section is Section 7. So, all you’re doing is filling in the gaps based on lots within the roadways, the right-of-way, the paper street. The reason for that was that the township was challenged by Stratford at Monroe about eight years ago when we were thinking about doing a fire station and the senior building and asked Stratford to extend the sewer all the way from Cranbury Station Road into all the sections through the fire house as well as the senior. That’s the reason all these right-of-ways were created as paper streets. There are some technical variances that are required. Mr. Aly was asked to briefly identify what those variances are. He replied that there is a history there, they went through this year. Go over the planning as a planner for the board. He agrees with him. He looks at it a little bit different. He doesn’t want to leave any open argument with some unclear line. So, he went through that in section 5, section 6, and section 7A, not with 7B. Every time you see a little cul-de-sac and you see a little let’s say a sideline a distance from the cul-de-sac to the side line or the property line. He looks at it as a right-of-way which is fine. We might as well ask for guidance. That’s what we have. If you look at the map, we have you have meaning that you have 4 lots. Each lot has one common property line. As a matter of fact, bridges, trees and cul-de-sac, we have to have it come closer to the property line. Fire station as well as the senior center so you’ll see there is a long sideline that goes not a right-of-way.
There’s been some professional reports. A professional planner report dated September 14, 2021 and an Engineer report dated January 6, 2021 and August 3, 2021. Can you confirm that you agree to all comments in those letters. Absolutely. As they always do, they comply with all the items in the engineer’s reports. There are a couple items that make a reference to stormwater as indicated, we don’t have a detention basin located in 7A and they were already taken care of. Other than that, all the items are acceptable. There were no further questions for Mr. Aly. He is available if the board has any questions. As mentioned, this is the final section of part of a larger project. It is our direct testimony. The applicant should put on the record the lot and block and the discrepancies regarding the bulk variances. The lot and block that we have do not appear on the tax map but the tax maps lists all of the final now block 84 in block 13, block 40 in block 13.1 and lot 61 in 13.02. that will give you a total of about three acres. The variances we are seeking are for regular shade lots that front on the cul-de-sac. That is lot 33 and 34 in block 13.
Mark Rasimowicz indicated the comments in his review letter some minor stuff in the final plat. The big item was, there was some discrepancy in the lot number. The final plat is clear that this is 73 single family lots divided in the final plat.
Someone questioned one of the professionals. He just addressed page 6, item 11. It talks about the final plat after that and the site plan and the street trees and wanted to know if he can address that. He said he would be consistent with everything in the report but this comment just asks for a little bit of clarification just to insure he will in fact be doing that and final site plan. The confusion is that the office received the subdivision plans. They probably have just the final plat. Can you say the street trees since they don’t appear on the final plat, maybe we don’t have the rest. Is that what you’re saying? Yes, the subdivision plans show all the street trees and all the landscaping plans. They wanted to make sure. He was asked to give a little justification for the variances besides just the sizing, the reasons for addressing the C1 and C2 aspects of that. Planned residential community, affordable housing, all of the affordable housing units, bulk variances, they are all C1 variances. Purposes of municipal land use by granting these variances. Don’t see any substantial detriment. This is a final plat that is a preliminary application as approved. Meeting all the requirements, being in the zone with respect to the area, a lot of frontage. As a matter of fact, some of these lots are one and a half of what’s required. Granting the variances will not substantially impair the intended purposes of the municipal land use law as well as the zoning board. And that’s what we have, single family homes.
This is adjacent to the municipal senior center and the fire house. This approval took place long before their buffer ordinances took place. They are totally not addressing at this stage, any buffering between the commercial, which is a heavy commercial use and your residential use. Is there something that can be accommodated in that? You’re right on. Our buffer, the piece to the town as an open space, the buffering along Applegarth Road transferred to the town now left the lots the back yard kind of open.
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
Mika Apte stated in the CME report on page 4, the put the and on page 5 based on this it’s difficult to ascertain 73 proposed lots in this final subdivision granted assuming, based upon 7,500 square feet and seven and a half side yard. All the lots that were mentioned with respect to 7,500 and 7.5’ side yard are all in Section 4 and maybe 5 along Halsey Reed. So, none of these lots here has any 7,500 square feet. They are all 10,000 square feet.
Any questions from the public? Hearing none, we will have a motion to close public portion. All Ayes.
Motion to approve made by Mr. Terence Van Dzura and seconded by Mr. Kevin McGowan and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.
Mr. Convery stated the typical procedure for a resolution to be adopted and to memorialize and there is an opportunity to do so, that would be the applicant’s request. This reading has been carried on multiple occasions. If the board would accommodate that request, they would greatly appreciate it. I had prepared a resolution in advance it was included in your packets. 3 minor typos, one was they name of the legal counsel for this evening. That changed from Peter Klouser. There was a typo where it said a subdivision for Phase 3, that was a typo from a previous document. He would note in the draft plan, there’s paragraph 11 that says applicant agrees to and shall comply with all representations made by or on behalf of the applicant at the public hearing. So, any information that was discussed regarding landscaping of buffering would be included in the resolution. He noted that we don’t meet again until the fourth Thursday of January. Under state law, you’re supposed to approve a resolution memorializing the vote of the board within 45 days, so if the board is satisfied with the draft resolution, with the corrections, it would put us within the time frame required by state law.
Motion to adopt resolution made by Mr. David Rothman and seconded by Mr. Kevin McGowan and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.
No comments were offered for the public portion.
MEMORIALIZATION
No resolutions to be adopted.
A motion to adjourn at 8:00 p.m. made by Mr. Terence Van Dzura and seconded by Mr. David Rothman and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.
Respectfully submitted,
LAURA ZALEWSKI
PLANNING BOARD SECRETARY