CRANFORD — Cranford residents weredeeplyupsetbyadecisionmadeby the Cranford Planning Board to grant permission to adjourn and carry the application hearing for a minor subdivision “c” variance to subdivide the land at the property located at 320 Prospect Avenue into three lots until July 17. The decision was made after legal representation for applicants Anthony and Lisa Carbone requested the extension so that engineering and stormwater-drainage issues could be addressed prior to opening the application for discussion.

The board’s next available date for the hearing was on Wednesday, July 3, but the applicants said they would not be available until the following date, Wednesday, July 17. Several residents objected to the date change and expressed concerns that too many people would be on vacation at this time. Residents requested that the board move the date to September instead, but their request was denied.

“Unfortunately,wecannotchangethe date due to dissatisfaction,” Planning Board Chair Molly Hurley Kellett said in reply. “I understand that residents are disappointedandfrustrated,buttheboard does not have a full set of information to make a decision this evening, and the next available date isn’t until July 17.”

The applicants will be required to submit astormwaterreport,adrainagereport andanengineeringreport21dayspriorto the hearing. The applicants’ legal representation was asked to explain the reason for the adjournment to the residents and what the applicants plan to do in the sixto eight-week period, stating that the applicants need time to address the engineering issues prior to discussing the planning issues with the board.

“This is a three-lot subdivision, and the intent is to save and preserve the existing house and building that’s over 120 years old and we are building two new lots,” the applicant’s attorney, Rick Skolnick, Esq., said. “We fully intended to go forward with the application tonight, but we received the engineer’s review letter last week, which really focuses on the township’s stormwater ordinance and the stormwater and drainage impacts, and we really want a chance to address those concerns in the detail that’s in the engineering review.”

Mr. Skolnick apologized to the residents, adding, “We recognize it’s a matter of significant community interest.”

Several residents spoke out about the decision despite the board’s insistence that the application was not open for discussion.

“I think the public agrees that this is a ghost town in July,” said resident Christopher McKenna. “Are you saying that people need to come home from their vacations? This is a very important issue that impacts property values.”

“I think this was a very clever move on the part of the attorney for the applicants,” resident Richard Rocchini agreed. “I live three or four houses down from this and I want to be heard.”

Anyone who wishes to be heard is encouraged to attend the meeting on July 17 at 7:30 p.m.

Another issue that was raised regarding the application was an anonymous letter that has been circulating throughout the community, which claims that Vice Chair Juan Carlos Nordelo and Planning BoardAttorney Jonathan Drill, Esq., have personal relationships with the applicants.

“We as neighbors have to call all our other neighbors and implore planning board members not to pass this. It will change the landscape of Prospect Avenue forever, and it’s historic property. The Carbones, who want this strictly for profit, are capitalists with deep ties to the planning board and some of its members, specifically Vice Chair Juan Carlos Nordelo and the Board Attorney Jonathan Drill, Esq.,” the letter reads.

Both Board Attorney Drill and Vice Chair Nordelo denied having ever met the applicants.

“Get your facts straight before you start spreading letters like this around,” Mr. Drill said. “I don’t even live in Cranford.”

Mr. Dickerson also briefly spoke about the master plan consistency review of Township Ordinance 2024-10, during which he mentioned the section of the Land Use Law that is typically referred to the planning board when deciding whether or not there are consistencies within the master plan.

He reviewed each item, including resurfacing roads, pedestrian safety improvements at various locations, undertaking of drainage and stormwater drainage at various locations, security improvements, and new information technology equipment. When it came to resurfacing roads, this was found to be consistent. Drainage improvements, which relate to storm water, were also found to be consistent.