The primary focus of the meeting was the amended final preliminary site plan approval for phase two of the Cranbury Commons development. The application, presented by Michael Butler, proposed changes to lighting and landscaping due to the placement of utilities. The board engaged in a discussion about these changes, emphasizing the importance of mitigating their impact on adjacent properties and the streetscape. Concerns were raised about the lighting levels, the removal of trees, and the need for adding screening to address light trespass and maintain the aesthetic integrity of the area.

Board Engineer David Hoder expressed concerns about the potential public objections due to lighting issues and suggested adding house-side shields to the plans. He also recommended revising the zoning schedule to reflect redevelopment zoning. Board Planner Elizabeth Leheny highlighted the importance of screening along the townhomes, particularly in the southwestern portion, and suggested that there must be an opportunity to enhance the landscaping.

The board discussed the installation of lights that were not included in the original plans and the removal of 13 trees that were tagged by the town engineer. The board ultimately decided that these matters required board approval rather than administrative handling. The conversation revolved around whether the removed trees, originally intended to screen headlights, could be replanted elsewhere. The board stressed the necessity of finalizing the landscaping plan, especially considering the sparseness of trees along the townhomes and the unfinished appearance of the building’s front.

The debate extended to the potential impact of tree removal on light intrusion, acknowledging that the absence of the evergreen trees would have a slight effect. The planning members suggested that final approval for the project should not be granted until these landscaping issues were addressed. They debated the possibility of relocating the 13 trees per the planner’s approval and adding the condition that the trees would be planted as approved by the planner in phase two.

The issue of the 53 trees proposed for both phases was also a point of contention, as phase three may never occur. The board agreed to a motion that the 13 trees should not be removed but planted elsewhere on the property as suitable screening. The specific wording of the motion was discussed to ensure appropriate screening.

Moreover, the board addressed the status of the certificate of occupancy (CFO) and the conditions for closing out phase two. The discussions touched upon the potential delay in tree planting and the implications of approving phase two without the immediate planting of the trees. A member underscored the significance of the commitment to plant the trees in phase two, with the board expressing willingness to consider allowing the applicant to work with the planner on this matter.

Outdoor lighting was another topic of interest. The board decided that the lights would be turned off when the connected business is closed, and that shielding would be added if future complaints arise. The board confirmed the property owner’s responsibility for ensuring the installation of plantings across the street.

The meeting also included the appointment of Wayne Wittman to the Design Review Committee (DRC) as an alternate. Furthermore, the Land Use Administrator reported on the research regarding different municipalities’ stormwater ordinances and recent changes made by the Watershed Institute.

The discussion on stormwater management focused on proposed changes by the Watershed Institute intending to grant more authority to municipalities. The debate centered on whether the town should adopt the Watershed standard, higher than the state standards, and its potential impact on redevelopment projects. The board considered forming a subcommittee to work on the issues and agreed to propose changes to the ordinance.