Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Township Monroe Planning Board meeting July 23, 2026 at 6.30 PM. Please stand and address the flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, it is hereby announced And Shelby. There we go. In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, it is hereby announced and shall be entered into the minutes of this meeting, the adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by the following. Posted on the bulletin board of the Office of the Township Clerk. Posted on the bulletin boards within the Municipal Complex. Printed in the Home News Tribune and Cranberry Press on December 28, 2025. Posted on the Monroe Township website and sent to those individuals who have requested personal notice. Laura, can you please do the roll?

Vice Chairman Rothman? Here. Ms. Brodsky? Yes. Mr. Manesh Patel? Ms. Damiani? Here. Mr. Slavichek?

Here.

Mr. Wiener? Mr. Butinsky? Here. Councilman Markell? Mayor's representative, Mr. Patel, Chairman Gaffrey.

Here. Okay, Laura circulated the minutes earlier in the week. I'm sure you've all had a chance to review them. I think there was a mistake on Mr. Razumov's last name. But other than that, is there a motion to accept the minutes?

So moved.

Second? Second. All in favor?

Aye. Opposed?

Abstain. Abstain. hearing none um there's no applications tonight so we're going to move on to memorializations we've got uh pb1274-26 king's row developers llc i'll move the resolutions okay um second second is there any discussion this is voice photo

Vice Chairman Rothman?

Yes.

Ms. Brodsky? Yes. Ms. Damiani? Yes. Mr. Gutenski? Yes. Councilman Markell? Yes. Chairman Gaffrey? Yes.

Okay, the second one is PB1275-2630, Abeel Road, SGLLC. Is there a motion to move the resolution?

I make a motion.

Is there a second? Any discussion?

Second.

Any discussion? Okay. Roll call, please.

Vice Chairman Rothman? Yes. Ms. Brodsky? Yes. Ms. Damiani? Yes. Mr. Brzezinski? Yes. Councilman Markell? Yes. Chairman Gaffrey?

Yes. Okay, under discussion items tonight, we have three items, and the first one is under PB 1262-24. It's a reaffirmation of a minor subdivision for Green Vest LLC. Does anyone wish to come forward on that?

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Frank Wisniewski with Flaster and Greenberg, the attorneys for Greenvest. As indicated on your agenda, our request is to re-approve the subdivision that was granted by a vote in December of 24, affirmed in resolution in 2023. Under the law, either a deed or the plan needs to be filed within 192 days of the resolution. A number of items came up along the way, and that 192-day or five-day The time period wasn't met, so we are requesting that the board re-approve the subdivision, and then we can go ahead and file the deeds, working with your attorney on the forms of the deeds and your engineer. The other request is that the resolution had a requirement that in lieu of curb and sidewalk, that a contribution... I'm sorry, you can sit down. Okay, I'm sorry. You can sit down.

You can sit down.

Oh, okay. Microphones still looking me up if I'm sitting down.

You can pull it closer.

Okay, fine. Thank you. The other is that the resolution had a condition in it that in the board waived the installation of curb and sidewalk because of the area out there. This is just a lot line adjustment and so forth. And during the hearing, the engineer had recommended that the contribution not be made either. For some reason, the resolution came through with a request or a requirement that the cash contribution be made. We're asking that that be waived also. In accordance with your attorney's request, we published and served notice of the application tonight.

Thank you.

Do you have any comment?

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So first on the extension, I know we've been going back and forth. I think a property owner had changed and just trying to get the deeds going. So I have no objection to that. With regarding the board waived the requirement for installing curb and sidewalk. Let me back up. So this was a subdivision. uh essentially what it was it's it's preserved land that they're subdividing and uh there's a conservation easement that's going to be put up over this land but the subdivision was actually to clean up uh two or three existing homes that aren't on the frontage of hoffman road uh for this where they had you know over the years over the decades you know encroachments whether it was a shed whether it was a fence line so what this applicant did was he cleaned that all up to give those couple homeowners, you know, the land that their encroachments were on. Uh, so that's what essentially created the subdivision. And, um, and so under the heading that nothing was being built, it's, it's just a subdivision essentially cleaning up those couple homes and, uh, And then the land is in a conservation easement as well. This board waived the sidewalks as well as the contribution. And the resolution, there was a transcript, and the transcript, I believe, had it correctly, but the resolution, there was just a typo in the resolution. So essentially, I have no objection to that as well. Again, the board did grant the waiver of both the contribution and

installing the curb and sidewalks based on the reasons that i just said okay thanks chris anything to add no i have no excuse me no comments on this application right and then any comments or questions david question and i'm i'm going to ask yourself as our legal representative if we is this working good if we as a board routinely require applicants when they come before us who are on come to the curb okay to either put in curbs and sidewalks or in lieu of that the appropriate funding for that if that's what we do standard and this application meets that need or meets similar needs if we Don't require this of this applicant. Does that make it arbitrary and capricious if we then ask of other applicants? I just want it to be standardized so that we'll never be in court where we have to answer, why did you make this one do it, but not that one? So that's my question.

Short answer is each case is judged on its own merits. If you find that there are particular circumstances unique to this particular property and the surrounding properties, you have a basis to depart from your usual standard. This is not, as I understand it, an ordinance requirement. Is that correct?

Chairman, installation of curb and sidewalk, if there's an application here, it is considered required. I mean, it's in our code.

All right. So then basically we're giving relief from an ordinance requirement just as you would give relief with respect to a setback or anything else. So you have to have a basis to do it. But I think your question, Vice Chairman, is more your concern for the future. And I would not have that concern for the same reason I just started the conversation with. Each case is judged on its own merits. Okay.

And Mr. Chairman, I would add that the uniqueness of this is they're not proposing to build. There will never be a house on this property. It's in a conservation easement to preserve this piece of land. And the only reason it was here was for the subdivision to clean up the two or three existing homes that had encroached into this lot over the decades before. It's a wooded lot. And again, the entire lot, I think there's an access easement of maybe 10 feet wide through the middle of it to get to a landlocked parcel, but the rest of it's in a conservation easement, can't be built on. So that was the uniqueness of it. Additionally, it's on Hoffman Road and there's no curve, no sidewalks. And again, there's no construction that will ever be part of this lot. So that was the uniqueness.

I think that based upon those factual points, you would be on very solid ground to find the unique circumstances. Okay.

Thank you.

I would just reiterate what council said. We're just adjusting lot lines so that if in effect somebody else comes in adjusting a lot line, they probably shouldn't have to put in curve either. So I'm comfortable with the controls as it stands.

So with that in mind, do we have a motion with respect to both requests? I'll make the motion.

And I will second it.

Can I interject here? Yes. Since your attorney said there should be a public hearing, I think it ought to be open to the public just for the record.

Okay, that's fine. Then we'll open it up to the public. Anybody wish to be heard? Hearing none, is there a move to close the public portion?

I make a motion to close the public portion.

Thank you.

So does anyone want to make a motion with respect to the two requests?

He did already.

I made a motion. Okay. Is there a second? There was a second for the Vice Chair. Okay. Any further discussion?

Vice Chairman Rothman? Yes. Ms. Baratsky? Yes. Ms. Damiani? Yes. Mr. Slavichek? Yes. Mr. Butensky? Yes. Councilman Markell?

Yes.

Mayor's Representative Mr. Patel? Yes. Chairman Gaffrey?

Yes. Thank you, Councilman. Okay, this evening we have to review and recommendations of ordinance ordinances, and I'm going to turn each 1 over to Mr McGowan to introduce it to the board. The 1st, 1 is number is 0 dash 6 dash 2 026 dash 1 3. Mr.

sure thank you mr chairman so um i just want to give a brief overview summary of why this is in front of the board tonight um as you all know every time there is a requested change to our chapter 108 our land use code it's required by the mlul to come to the planning board as well for a recommendation that it is consistent the change is consistent with our master plan and so That's what's before you tonight. The council introduced an ordinance on June 29th, and it is on their agenda for second reading on August 3rd. And what this does, it essentially creates a clarification in our existing ordinance. As the mayor spoke at the last council meeting, we've gotten a number of questions from residents, understandably, about the issue of data centers in Monroe as that has become a topic of a lot of conversation around the state of New Jersey. The mayor clarified, as I will again tonight, that we don't have any applicants who are proposing to come into the town and construct a data center. And we do not have data centers as a permitted use in any of our zones. That said, in four of our zoning districts throughout town, there is some vague and I would argue arcane language that exists from decades ago that references data processing facilities. In our research, we are confident and comfortable that data processing facilities does not equate to what are being constructed and debated about now in terms of data centers across New Jersey and across the country. That having been said, in order to take away any doubt and create that clarification, all this ordinance does is it strikes those words, data processing facilities, facilities from the four districts where it appears in our ordinance. There are no data processing facilities currently in Monroe Township and this would hopefully clarify that point that it's not a permitted use and under the MLUL if something isn't a permitted use, it is a prohibited use and therefore would not have the ability to come to this board for an application for development. That's the crux of the first ordinance, Mr. Chairman.

And you're seeking the recommendation that it meets with the master plan?

Correct. We'd be seeking that recommendation tonight, and then the council would consider it at its next meeting.

Sure. Chris, you want to be heard?

Sure, I'll be pretty brief. This one's pretty simple. As Kevin just said, it removes data processing facilities as a permitted use in four different districts, and purely so that there's no conflation between a large-scale or hyperscale AI cloud computing data center and what these are. There would always be an option if anybody wanted to do a data center, they'd have to go to the zoning board seeking a use variance. That being said, the purpose you're here tonight is to determine whether it's consistent or not with your master plan. Your master plan, which, what's the date on your master plan? Last adopted in 2022. Of course, does not reference data centers. This is a very new issue that's come up just within the last, not even 12 months, even going back to 2025. We were not talking about this in any of my towns. This is a very 2026 planning issue. So this is not referenced directly at all in your master plan. However, your master plan does throughout its various elements, the land use element as well, talk about a desire for land conservation, energy conservation, not energy conservation, renewable energy, conservation of natural resources, protection of the environment, things of that nature. So under that understanding with the impacts we know that some of these data centers can have in terms of their water usage and energy usage, As well as their land consumption, because some of them are very large, like big warehouses. I think the one being built in Vineland right now is about 200,000 or 300,000 square feet. One being proposed in Utah right now, I don't know where it is in the approvals, it's something like 4 or 5 million square feet of a data center. To some degree, the large-scale data centers would be inconsistent with the goals of your master plan. So removing them as a permitted use or this... tangential potentially could be conflated with a data center or an attorney using chat CPT to write their legal arguments for them could try and say that data processing facility is what a data center is. I think that would be inconsistent with your master plan if somebody were to propose one of those, therefore taking it out of the list of permitted uses I think is consistent with your master plan.

Thank you. Any comments from the board? Hearing none, anybody from the public wish to be heard?

Shell Arminio, 9 Nathaniel Street. It is high. There we go. Okay, yeah, I'm grateful for the changes being made here. I do have a question on the permitted use under the planned office commercial district. That's the first one, 6.16. And when it talks about office type research, can someone explain that? I mean, that's a new use. So first page on the ordinance. We're talking about 013.

I believe that is an existing permitted usage just by deleting B and C, then what used to be D now becomes C. Oh, actually, I think that should be A, then B. I'd be missing a letter there, but that's really not.

There's no new uses in the ordinance. It's a good question. There's no new uses in the ordinance. It's just that all the uses are listed here and the ones that are being deleted are scratched out.

Okay, but it says new text is in, so my mistake thinking that it's a new... Yeah, yeah.

No, no, it's a good question. It's just the lettering of it.

I would say that's probably like an office research and development type of facility, corporate research, if, say, 3M were to want to do a research facility here where they're testing types of Scotch tape, something like that, I guess.

Okay, so that's not going to be misconstrued as a data center or anything like that?

That would be quite a stretch.

Well... And okay, so then all of the numbers and letters in red are not necessarily new uses, they are just changes because of the strikeouts? Yes. Of what we're doing, okay. Let me just see if there's anything else I've added. And yeah, my question is, and the research lab subject to performance standards of Article 5, that's on the last page, that's H under 6.25. And again, you say that that's pre-existing?

Those are all existing uses.

Since I'm here, the research laboratory subject to performance standards, just a quick explanation.

I mean, offhand, I can't speak to what the performance standards are, but we do have a number of research laboratories in the township. We have companies that test pharmaceuticals and off-center drive and probably one or two other areas of town. So that's been in there for several decades.

I don't mean to go off on a tangent on this one. I know the purpose of this public portion. But if we just, since Mr. Rothman brought this up on 6.18, number three, the regional shopping centers, bulk variances. I mean, to your point, Mr. Rothman, When you say that we should, we have standards and we should stick by our standards. I've been to a lot of these meetings where these, especially things like number 3 are really not not. A lot of them have been waived, so I hope that you remember that when we go into some other issues where some of these bulk standards should not be waived. But anyway, that's not for this purpose. Thank you.

I will keep that in mind.

Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else from the public? We should be heard. Hearing none is our motion to close the public portion of this motion. 2nd.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay. Does someone want to make a motion to make a recommendation that is consistent with the master plan?

I would just say that what the resident brought up, Article 5, that's a performance standards of our code. So, you know, it typically applies to most all the uses. It's just our performance standards section. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman?

Yes. I'd like to make a motion of recommendation for ordinance number 0-6-2026-013. Thank you.

Is there a second? Second. Okay. Any discussion? Hearing none.

Vice Chairman Rothman?

Yes.

Ms. Baratsky? Yes. Ms. Damiani? Yes. Mr. Slavichek? Yes. Mr. Putinsky? Yes. Councilman Markell? Yes. Mayor's Representative Mr. Patel? Yes. Chairman Gaffrey?

Yes.

okay the the second recommendation is for ordinance number zero six dash zero i'm sorry zero six dash two zero two six dash zero one four mr mcgowan

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll also just give a brief overview of this. This has to do with the landfill site between Spotswood Gravel Hill Road and Lanny Road. If you remember earlier this year, this board recommended to the council to declare that an area in need of redevelopment so that a potential redeveloper could utilize that landfill site as a solar field, solar farm, solar array. Those words are sort of used interchangeably. So the council went ahead and did that, designated this as an area in need of redevelopment. Our planner then created what is before you tonight, the redevelopment plan, which is essentially the overlay zoning of that site, which would allow for the parameters by which a redevelopment plan an owner could build solar facilities on that property. The only permitted use under the redevelopment plan is for those solar panels. And Chris can get into more details of the specifics here, but it essentially creates the zoning for an applicant to come in under the redevelopment plan and actually construct the solar panels. setbacks buffers height requirements just like just like any other zoning ordinance and so this again would need the recommendation of the planning board in order for the council to uh to take final action and adopt this redevelopment plan um at its next meeting again to be consistent with the master plan that's correct chris

There we go. Thanks. Just a few things to add. So as Kevin said, this is the plus or minus 85 acre former municipal landfill off of Spotsfield Gravel Hill Road. And that was designated by the town just earlier this year as an area in need of redevelopment. And then under the municipal land use law requires that a redevelopment plan be put together. And the plan for this all along has been that this be converted to a solar energy system, essentially utility scale. So not just little solar panels that serve a use on the site, but actually feeds into the grid. It provides that as a permitted use on this site, as well as bulk standards for buffering, landscaping requirements around the perimeter, fencing, things like that, height, some performance standards, as well as a requirement of a, which is not typical for most applications you see, but requires a decommissioning plan that anybody who wants to build the solar array there has to provide a plan for what happens when their useful life cycle is over so they don't just get abandoned there 30 years from whenever it's built. That's really all the plan is, is to take the former landfill and turn it into a solar facility, which is encouraged by state law. And like the last ordinance, the purpose here is to determine whether or not you feel it's consistent with the master plan. I believe it is. Let me find here. I've got the... discussion specifically on your master plan so as he said before your master plan was adopted in 2022 uh within your you have a utilities and infrastructure element of your master plan within that there are very specific goals that are almost directly pointing to a project like this and that is to promote the use of renewable energy sources incorporate community solar projects into monroe's power grid now i don't know if this would be a community solar project or not off the top of my head yes oh it is it is going to be community solar okay community solar means that a portion of the power is given to local residents at a discounted rate if they are lower moderate income so that is directly supported by this promote community-wide implementation of led lights and solar power grids consider alternative energy sources at all public facilities this is former municipal landfill i don't know if the town would retain ownership and lease it or if they'd be selling it but similar similar goal there um need for greater consistency of the power grid, and need to improve electricity to prevent power outages and residential developments and to continue to promote underground utilities. So this would eventually be connected to the grid. So this is directly advancing several specific goals of your master plan. And unlike the data centers, or that's I'm kind of getting hypothetical this, this is very specific that your master plan calls for renewable energy and solar. So I think this is substantially consistent with your master plan.

Thank you. Any discussion? Anybody from the public wish to be heard?

Michele Arminio. Okay, so I looked this up for tonight's meeting and it said something about the clerk has the documentation. I tried to find the documentation. Were they present on the internet, on the website? Because I couldn't find them. Or do I have to go directly to the clerk to read this?

Mr. Chairman, I believe they are on the website connected to that ordinance with the rest of the draft ordinances on the council's website. But I could double check tomorrow. I don't have it in front of me.

I was hoping to have it tonight since it's part of the ordinance tonight. Do you guys have it in your packets? Somebody can give it to me. And secondly, on this ordinance, or is this not the scope of this, is there any talk about the financing on this? I mean, do we still owe money? Did BSAF, or I'm sorry, I don't know the name of the, is this forming? Or do I have to get it back to you?

Thank you. Okay.

Oh, okay. Yeah, I looked for that and I did a search on the website and I actually put municipal landfill redevelopment plan and nothing came up. So, I don't know if I was in there or that's where I got it from. It was under their ordinance. I went. the ordinance. Okay, I might have missed it, but I thank you for this. But my question is, from before this even became something that was considered, we had We still have enough financial obligation on this landfill. Is it is there any place or maybe even in here spelled out what our obligation is? Are we getting paid? Are we selling. Like, this isn't this is important. We were told that the most recent owner was going to take on all the financial burden and I don't think that happened. So.

I can answer that really part of a redevelopment plan that would probably be subject to a redevelopers agreement between the town and the developer. I don't know if Kevin has any particular details on that.

Sure. You're correct. It's not part of this plan. As part of that redevelopers agreement, which is not executed yet, the redeveloper will be taking complete. ownership and title of the land. The municipality would be stepping away from that. And the owner would be the responsible party to the NJDP and the US EPA in terms of managing the site as it is a closed Superfund site.

Yeah. And that's all going forward. My question is, is there anything in, I mean, everything is compartmentalized into different places and yet we still might be owing money on this particular site?

So the settlement agreement in our litigation between the township and BFI Republic spells out all of those responsibilities by all those different parties. However, as that settlement agreement discusses, and that is executed and in place for quite a bit of time now, there are steps that have to take place in a specific order throughout this process. the designation of the redevelopment area, the redevelopment plan, the redevelopers agreement. And so we are following that sequence, but there is a signed agreement in place between all parties that the CEP renewable company will be taking over control of the landfill and the municipality's obligation would be taken away.

Okay, that really is because I think that this has been a long time coming and if we still have an obligation. So what I understand is that when this is complete and the process is approved, then it will trigger what the financial aspects of this would be. And I just want Monroe to be relieved because we've been promised that Monroe will be relieved of any taxpayer obligation to this whole situation. I know it's been going on for decades, but that's why this is all well and good. And yeah, we're happy and I'm delighted for the direction this is going, but where's the money? And are we obligated as taxpayers to pay anything? So I've heard a myriad of different kinds of arguments or statements about, but no one really has said we're no longer obligated for large sums of money in this project. But you're saying. I can say that. We're no longer obligated for large sums of money in this project.

Okay. Once the process is finished, right, there's no redevelopment plan as of yet because it has to be adopted and there's no redeveloper agreement. But once all those steps take place, yes, there's no more financial obligation by the township.

And that document is what? Is that the document with BFI or is that the document with this company?

It's the document with BFI.

Okay.

I'm going to have to. Take a look at that. Thank you so much.

Thank you. And anyone want to move? Do you wish to be heard? No. Anybody move to close the public portion of this recommendation?

I make a motion to close the public portion. I'll second.

Okay. All in favor? Yes. Okay. Okay um again um does someone want to make a motion that this recommendation is consistent with the master plan and can be uh presented to town council so move mr chairman is there a second second any discussion hearing none vice chairman rothman

Yes. Yes. Yes. Mr. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Thank you. Okay, next on the agenda is the public portions. Anybody from the public wish to be heard on any topic. Hearing none, we're going to move to close the public portion. So moved. Second.

Second.

All in favor? Yes. Aye. Okay. There's no correspondence, so is there a motion to adjourn? Motion. Second. Motion to adjourn. All in favor? Aye. They were adjourned.

When is our next meeting?

27 August.

August 27th.

Great. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.

All pleasure again.

Good to see you.

Okay.