Cranford Planning Board continues hearing on sports-training facility after park­ing and plan gaps

The Cranford Planning Board on June 4 continued a hearing on an application by Cranford Performance Institute LLC to convert a one‑story commercial building at 140 Bridal/Bryant Avenue into an indoor sports training facility, after board members and professionals flagged multiple outstanding items including a major parking shortfall, missing full‑size plan sheets and incomplete lighting and ADA documentation.

The board set a continuation for 7:30 p.m. on July 16, 2025, and directed the applicant to submit full‑size architectural sheets and revised site plans addressing Development Review Committee items, lighting, accessible routes and landscaping before the continued hearing. Chair Miss Kellett, chair of the Cranford Planning Board, announced the continuance at the meeting.

Why it matters: The project proposes an indoor training center for youth sports that the applicant says will operate from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. and serve Cranford residents. The facility design and operational plan are central to whether the board will grant vehicle‑parking relief and site exceptions; neighbors raised safety and traffic concerns during the hearing.

Applicant testimony and operations Attorney Matt Gilson, representing the applicant, described the proposal as a minor site plan with C(2) variance relief and said the applicant is seeking interior renovations to create a recreational facility. Gilson also identified witnesses the applicant planned to call, including the operator and owner, Greg Wofsy; project manager/designer Brian Petrucci; and engineer John Dunlea.

Greg Wofsy, who testified as a fact witness and identified himself as the managing member of the applicant LLC, said Cranford Performance Institute is intended for individualized training in baseball, softball and golf. Wofsy said hours would be 9 a.m.–9 p.m., seven days a week, and that the business would employ four people, including his wife. "Cranford Performance Institute was designed, really for individualized training," Wofsy said, adding that sessions would be coached and often used as drop‑offs rather than spectator events.

Wofsy described the interior layout presented on the applicant's plans as two pitching tunnels, three batting cages, a stretching/warm‑up area and two golf simulators. He estimated typical concurrent customers in the facility (not including parents) at roughly 11 in one scenario, with additional parents or observers raising potential occupancy substantially; on questioning he and the board discussed worst‑case counts up to roughly 40 people in the building when observers were included.

Parking, plan and code concerns Board staff introduced the central technical problem: the application materials on file list a large parking deficiency. The board recorded that, as stated at the hearing, the minimum off‑street parking required (citing the local ordinance language in the application) is 70 spaces and the plan on file proposed nine. The applicant later said the rear area could provide 11 spaces and that an existing loading driveway could be striped for up to six employee tandem spaces (the applicant’s testimony yielded a working figure of 11 + 6), but both board professionals and several commissioners said the claimed loading‑dock parking did not appear dimensionally feasible without plan revisions.

Board planner Nick Dickerson and board engineer Kevin Boyer flagged multiple specific items that must be resolved before the board can proceed to deliberation on the variances: full‑size architectural sheets (the applicant had provided smaller sheets and supplemental drawings that were not in the board file), clear stall dimensions (the town ordinance requires a minimum stall of 10 by 18 feet or 180 square feet), an ADA van‑accessible space, a site lighting plan (to determine compliance or the need for an exception), and landscaping/streetscape notes. Dickerson noted the Development Review Committee (DRC) memos (May 12) and his May 30 review raised these items and that some changed sheets dated June 2 had not been submitted within the timing required for board review.

Gilson and the applicant said they have been in preliminary discussions with a neighboring commercial property owner about overflow parking; Wofsy said he had an "agreement in principle" that the neighboring lot owner would allow off‑hour parking and that a formal written license or agreement could be provided. The board said any off‑site parking agreement relied on as a condition of approval must be documented in writing and available to the board; the applicant agreed that a signed agreement could be provided on a short timetable if needed.

Engineering testimony and conditions Civil engineer and planner John Dunlea (Neglia Group) testified about the existing site: setbacks would be unchanged and most on‑site elements are existing conditions. Dunlea confirmed several items the board professionals had requested would be addressed in revised plans, including dimensioning of parking stalls, the addition of an ADA space and an EV stall added on the updated plan the applicant referenced. On lighting, Dunlea said the applicant would provide a site lighting survey and a lighting plan to show compliance or identify the need for a variance.

Boyer and Dickerson pressed for concrete answers on whether the applicant would re‑stripe stalls to meet the 10x18 requirement or apply for a stall‑size exception; Dunlea and Gilson said they would confer with the client and provide revised sheets. Boyer noted the board would need grading spot elevations and accessible‑route detail if ADA compliance is to be shown on the site plan rather than deferred to post‑approval permitting.

Public safety and neighborhood concerns Several residents spoke during the public‑question portion. Resident Andrew Feniak (119 Deed Street) asked about staffing and professional qualifications; resident Frank Longo (122 Deeds Street) raised traffic and child‑safety concerns at nearby streets and asked whether the police department’s traffic review had included an observational study. Board counsel and the applicant noted that Cranford Police Traffic and Safety Officer James Knight reviewed the application and stated there were "no negative impacts apparent from my review of this application as it affects my area of review," and the applicant said it would coordinate with police on any speed‑mitigation suggestions. The board also discussed refuse and how deliveries would be handled; the applicant said no regular commercial truck deliveries are planned and that refuse would be handled by a local hauler.

Board direction and next steps After testimony and public questions, the board concluded the application could not be fully decided at the June 4 session because required information and corrected, full‑size plans were not in the board’s file and key technical issues (parking dimensions, lighting, ADA access, landscaping and any off‑site parking agreement) remained open. The board continued the hearing to July 16, 2025 at 7:30 p.m. and instructed the applicant to: - Submit 12 full‑size copies of all architectural sheets and the revised site plan no later than 21 days before the continued hearing (for the July 16 session, that deadline corresponds to June 25, 2025); - Provide a lighting plan and a site lighting survey, show ADA accessible routes and any proposed grading/elevations related to accessibility, and update landscaping notes to address Shade Tree and Environmental Commission comments (including a note about street‑tree protections and the permit requirement if trees of specified size are removed); - Provide a signed, documented parking license or lease if relying on off‑site spaces as a condition of approval (the board noted a written agreement should specify the number of spaces and hours of availability); and - Clarify whether loading bay doors would be used for periodic equipment deliveries or would remain closed in normal operation (the board suggested a condition limiting commercial deliveries if the bays remain part of the site plan).

The board will accept and review the revised materials and DRC responses before reconsidering the relief requested. The applicant acknowledged the need for notice that includes any additional exceptions sought (lighting, landscaping, stall sizes) and the board repeatedly advised that matters on which the public was put on notice by the DRC memos should be included in any revised notice.

What’s next The hearing was continued to July 16, 2025 at 7:30 p.m. in the same meeting room. The applicant agreed to submit revised full‑size plans and any required legal documentation for off‑site parking in advance of the continued hearing so board professionals can review and report back. The board made no decision on the variances at the June 4 meeting.