Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Route 27 Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves Route 27 redevelopment with archaeology condition and rear‑façade refinements
Summary
At 3017–3021 Route 27 the commission praised a redesigned multi‑tenant plan, required investigation of a ground‑penetrating‑radar anomaly before major excavation, and approved the application with conditions to soften rear elevations and preserve interpretive elements tied to the Somerset County courthouse site.
The Franklin Township Historic Preservation Advisory Commission approved the revised architectural design for the proposed multi‑tenant redevelopment at 3017–3021 Route 27, subject to two conditions: the applicant must investigate a ground‑penetrating radar (GPR) anomaly flagged in prior surveys and must revise or soften the rear (back) façade treatment to break up a large blank wall.
Attorney Justin Wigman (Schulman Wigman & Associates) and the project architect presented materials and a response to prior commission comments. Wigman emphasized that post‑demolition approvals and subsequent archaeological surveys had been provided to the commission and said fines tied to earlier, unapproved demolition had been paid; he asked that the commission move past the demolition dispute and focus on the current certificate of appropriateness application.
Architect Bill Feinberg showed substantial design changes to reduce the previous ‘strip‑mall’ aesthetic and add traditional elements: a cast‑stone water table roughly 3 feet high, darker brick covering large façade areas, gabled shingle roof elements under the 30‑foot height limit, pilasters and crown/dental moldings, smoother shiplap siding choices, and a small interpretive plaza proposed for the site to recognize the location of the Somerset County’s first courthouse. Feinberg also presented a lighting plan and signage exhibit showing tenant signage limits per the township code.
Commissioner S7 pressed for clarity about an orange‑hatched anomaly shown in the 2022 GPR report; Feinberg and Wigman agreed that a targeted archaeological check or excavation of that anomaly should be a condition if the site requires significant excavation. The commission accepted that approach: preserving potential archaeological resources and ensuring the applicant documents any subsurface finds before irreversible site disturbance.
The commission then moved to approve the application as presented with conditions to (1) investigate and report on the GPR anomaly before major disturbance and (2) address the rear wall treatment so the back elevation is visually softened. The motion carried by voice vote.
Next steps: The applicant will provide the commission with the results of any additional archaeological investigation and submit revised rear‑wall details for administrative review; the approvals allow the project to proceed toward planning‑board review and permitting, subject to compliance with the stated conditions.
