0:00The most pressing discussion centered on the review and potential revision of Cranbury’s sign ordinance, particularly in relation to warehouse developments along the Turnpike. The conversation was prompted by recommendations from Dynamic Engineering. The board recognized that the current ordinance might not adequately address the needs of ever-expanding warehouse facilities, which has led to frequent requests for variances. A proposal was made to create a more standardized approach that aligns with planning decisions and provides a rationale for future applications.

Debate arose over whether to extend revised signage standards beyond the Turnpike, especially to roads like Route 130. Concerns were expressed about the potential impact of larger signs near the town’s downtown area, indicating that while larger signs might be suitable for the Turnpike, they could be inappropriate for other areas. The board ultimately leaned towards initially limiting new standards to the Turnpike to allow for evaluation before considering broader applications.

19:10Complementing the signage discussion was a focus on past sign approvals along the Turnpike. There was a consensus on the need for a historical review to inform future decisions. This review would help avoid unnecessary variances and align Cranbury’s standards more closely with neighboring areas, like Robbinsville, which might have more lenient regulations.

In tandem with these discussions, the board considered the development of comprehensive design guidelines, particularly for the Cedarbrook area. Such guidelines aim to streamline the application process by clearly outlining the board’s expectations regarding aesthetics, landscaping, and mechanical screening. A proposal was made to incorporate these guidelines into a checklist, potentially making them part of a binding ordinance. This would ensure compliance and reduce repetitive discussions during meetings.

The idea of tailored guidelines was also contemplated, with a suggestion to differentiate standards for areas visible to the public versus those seen only by workers. This approach could manage expectations and ensure that guidelines are applied judiciously across different zones. However, concerns were raised about the risk of creating complexity or perceptions of spot zoning if guidelines were applied inconsistently.

35:22The meeting also addressed the procedural aspects of the Planning Board’s operations. Acknowledging issues with applicants’ presentation quality, members emphasized the importance of engaging with the Design Review Committee (DRC) before formal hearings. It was noted that applicants familiar with the DRC process tend to present better-prepared proposals, reducing frustration and inefficiency.

To enhance the preparation process, a comprehensive checklist for applicants was proposed. This checklist would emphasize thoroughness in applications, encouraging complete and contextual submissions and minimizing back-and-forth during meetings. Technological improvements were also suggested to enhance meeting experiences, such as better screen visibility and allowing applicants to control presentations directly.

0:00In another discussion, the board deliberated on the future of public notices, given the impending cessation of the Trenton Times’ print publication. While the board decided to continue using the Trenton Times and Cranbury Press for agenda notices, it agreed to revisit this decision in March to ensure compliance with new regulations. This prompted a broader conversation about the transition to digital formats for public notices, particularly for residents lacking internet access.

The board also undertook routine organizational tasks, electing Evelyn Spann as chair and Wayne Wittman as vice-chair for the year. The appointment of professional consultants was confirmed, with Sharon Dragan, Esq., continuing as the board attorney, and Elizabeth Leheny, PP, as the board planner.