Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cranford board: engineer finds key site-plan numbers unreliable; applicant told to resubmit
Summary
At a June hearing, the applicant's civil engineer told the Cranford Board of Adjustment that impervious-coverage, building-coverage and some grade/height figures on the submitted plans could not be certified; the board said corrected, certified plans must be filed before the application proceeds.
At a June 26 meeting of the Cranford Board of Adjustment, civil engineer Thomas Quinn told the board he could not certify several pivotal site-plan numbers on the application and that the applicant must return with corrected, certified materials.
Quinn, accepted by the board as an expert, displayed a revised site plan dated 06/26/2025 and said the building footprint has been moved forward so the nearest setback is now about 26.13 feet from the rear property line (previously about 6.72 feet). He also gave measurements of side-yard distances and the closest point to the public park path (85.42 feet).
But Quinn said he found inconsistencies in the submitted figures: the zoning impervious-coverage numbers, building-coverage and certain grade/height calculations differed between the plan set and the stormwater report. "These numbers are not exact," he said, and told the board he would not certify the application until EKA (the engineer of record) supplied reconciled numbers.
The engineer described the drainage design as conservative and said the detention basin and updated stormwater calculations generally err on the safe side, but he underscored that the zoning and stormwater outputs must match. Quinn also noted the revised plan adds a small banked parking area that would remove roughly 2,400 square feet of impervious surface, but cautioned that the zoning sheet and stormwater report currently reflect inconsistent assumptions about that banked parking.
Board members and professionals repeatedly stressed accuracy. The chair told the applicant the board's professionals and the applicant's team must meet for a technical review and that the application should not be voted on until the corrected documents are filed and reviewed. The board and applicant agreed the matter will be continued to a later hearing (the board scheduled a continuation for November 3) and warned that substantially different resubmissions could require renewed public notice.
What the board asked for: certified, reconciled numbers for impervious coverage, building coverage and grade/height; a clarified stormwater report consistent with the final plan; and any plan revisions (banked parking or not) clearly shown so the board's professionals can complete their reviews.
Next steps: the applicant's team agreed to meet with the town professionals, correct the plan set and resubmit. The board will review the revised package and determine whether renotice is required before the continued hearing.
