Planning board approves two‑lot subdivision at 127 Bryant Avenue, conditions stormwater revisions

The Cranford Planning Board granted minor‑subdivision approval to Merlin Custom LLC for a two‑lot subdivision at 127 Bryant Avenue and approved two variances, imposing conditions on stormwater calculations and drainage design.

The applicant, represented by attorney Michael Bonner, called Edward Deck (engineer) and Robert Hudak (planner) as expert witnesses. Deck explained the August 21, 2025 plan set showing two proposed lots (Lot 3.01 and Lot 3.02), each roughly 10,200 square feet and with street frontage widths of about 68 feet. Deck said the applicant will record the subdivision by deed and that the revised plans move the proposed houses forward to match a prevailing front‑yard setback (28.75 feet), which reduces rear‑yard intrusions and mitigates 1 of the required variances.

Kevin Boyer, the township/board engineer, testified that his September 8 review found the existing stormwater management calculations insufficient under the state’s updated runoff methodology and NJDEP criteria. Deck testified the applicant will re‑run drainage calculations using the current method, add perforated piping and groundwater‑recharge measures (green‑infrastructure infiltration), and expects only modifications in pipe sizes or basin footprint rather than a wholesale redesign. Boyer indicated the revised calculations would likely increase detention size or pipe capacity and said he would need to review the updated calculations before signing off on resolution compliance.

Planner Robert Hudak testified that two variances remain: a Garden State Parkway setback variance and relief from a Township standard that limits intrusion into an arc measured from habitable‑room windows (section cited in the application). Hudak argued a C‑1 hardship standard applied to the parkway setback because without that variance the lots could not be developed for single‑family uses as intended; he also testified the window‑separation standard would be difficult to meet without effectively precluding one of the proposed houses.

The applicant accepted several conditions requested by board professionals and commissions, including providing street trees to the Shade Tree Commission’s satisfaction, conducting required soil permeability testing, and meeting other technical corrections listed in the board engineer and planner reports. The board took public comment (none present for this application) and asked the applicant to work with the board engineer to finalize the detention design and outlet structure details.

A motion to grant minor‑subdivision approval and the two variances carried by unanimous roll call. The board explicitly made Kevin Boyer’s comment number 1 (requiring drainage recalculation to current DEP/NJDP methodology and demonstration of groundwater recharge/infiltration) a condition of approval; the applicant agreed to submit the revised calculations and to finalize design details with the board engineer before resolution compliance and permits could be issued.