BOROUGH OF BOUND BROOK PLANNING BOARD JANUARY 23, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by chairman Robert Fazen at 7:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 230 Hamilton Street. ROLL CALL Present were:  Mayor Ryan, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Gaglia, Mr. Fazen, Mr. Shive, Mr. Krauser, Mr. Fasanello and Mrs. Pournaras. Also present were Mr. Rodgers, board attorney; Mr. Cilo, board engineer; and Mrs. Malone, recording secretary. COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This meeting is being held in compliance with the “Open Public Meetings Law.”   The requirements of the Law have been met.  The Annual Meeting Notice has been posted in the Municipal Building, filed with the Municipal Clerk, and forwarded to the Bound Brook Chronicle in January, 2003. SALUTE TO THE FLAG MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING      Motion presented by Mr. Gaglia, seconded by Mr. Ryan, to approve the minutes of the January 9, 2003 meeting.  Unanimous. ANNOUNCEMENTS REMINDER:  Comments on Master Plan are due to Mr. Fazen on February 20. Financial Disclosure forms to be returned to Mr. Brodbeck by April 1. Mr. Fazen met with the Finance Committee and has modified the board's budget.  A new sound system and a new computer will hopefully be purchased.  New software has been purchased for the zoning office.   The Big Map from the DEP in red, green and yellow is very critical; it involves Smart Growth.  The colors determine whether growth is acceptable or not (red no, green yes).  Above Route 22 is the only red section of Bound Brook. New Storm Water regulations are being constructed.  It is really restricting runoff requirements in construction (post-construction runoff cannot exceed pre-construction runoff).   AGENDA Mr. Fazen announced that the Bound Brook Theater hearing has been postponed until February 27. OPEN TO PUBLIC          NON-AGENDA ITEMS No comments at this time. PUBLIC HEARINGS #20-02, Morelli, 418 Talmage Avenue, Use Variance Mr. Morelli was presented with a letter regarding completeness of his application.  He was informed that his application is incomplete at this time.  Mr. Morelli asked if he could be advised as to the allowable use before he purchases the property.  Mr. Fazen assured him he could find out in two weeks.  Mr. Fazen suggested Mr. Morelli call either himself or Mr. Cilo if he has questions and gave him phone numbers. Valley National Bank Bob Smith was introduced as representing Valley National Bank.  The revised resolution was faxed to his office this morning.  Mr. Rodgers explained the only two changes that were made to the resolution Mr. Smith has seen. The only issues are the time the lights will go off; they have requested midnight for the logo signs.  To fill in the blanks, Mr. Smith asked that the logo signs be required to be turned off at midnight (one on the building and one on street).  Closing will be 7:00 on Thursday, so the lights will go out at 8:00 on that night (one hour after closing).  Mr. Smith suggested that 9:00 be indicated as the latest time for the safety of employees (security issue).   Mr. Gaglia suggested an as-built determination on the light issue.  A brightness review will take place after opening.  Mrs. Pournaras noted that all the lights on Union Avenue are on at least until 9:00. Motion presented by Mr. Shive, seconded by Mrs. Pournaras, to indicate that logo signs may be on until midnight and other lights until 9:00 at the latest.  MOTION CARRIED 7-0-1 (Mr. Fasanello abstained, since he had not attended the meeting when the application was heard). #07-02, Springkey Enterprises, 314 Winsor Street, Variance (Mr. Thompson and Mr. Ryan stepped down for this hearing.) Mr. Fazen ascertained that the appropriate notices had been sent.  Bob Spengler introduced himself and explained the use variance that is being applied for (office to residential use for part of the building).  He introduced Mr. Templin, a licensed engineer and surveyor, to give testimony.  Mr. Templin explained his experience and Mr. Cilo vouched for his credentials.  The first floor of the subject property  is currently office space.  November 1, 2002 plans were revised from the February 18 original.  The revised floor plan shows the second floor, the existing residential apartment, and indicates flood maps were reviewed to determine whether the property was in the flood zone.  In the original submission, the only modifications were on the first floor. Now the top floor is residential and the first floor is an office.  The back lower floor is designated to become residential.  The variance they are seeking is to modify the first floor to include 896 square feet of office and 616 square feet (rear) of residential area.  There is sufficient area for parking (8 spaces).  There is a macadam driveway off Winsor Street that adjoins another driveway.   The property is in the OB zone, which does permit residential use on the second floor.  The apartment would be a one-bedroom efficiency apartment.  The office area would have an office, reception area and conference room, to be used by the current owner, Springkey Enterprises.  The lower floor is below grade in the front, with the back at grade.  Mr. Shive said the code would consider it a habitable area at grade, as opposed to a basement. Mr. Rodgers noted the ordinance says new structures may not contain mixed uses.  One dwelling unit on the second or third floor is allowed; hence, the need for a use variance for a second apartment.  They are not proposing any site improvements at this time.  Mr. Cilo suggested sticking to the variance issue first since the application is bifurcated.   Mr. Brian Schnepf, owner of Springkey Enterprises, was sworn in to give testimony.  He described to the board what is currently located in the area to be converted.  The three rooms in the back are currently empty, but there is an existing full bathroom.  The property was purchased from Mrs. Schindler and she thought there was a two-story apartment at one time.  The first floor front is below grade, but only for about five feet.  There was a lab in the front and a large printing machine was in another room.   The front will remain as it is.  The doorway is to be closed off to create the residential space.  The full bathroom already exists, so all the applicant has to do is put in a kitchen.  There is a bathroom in the front also. Mr. Fazen asked why the zone should be changed.  Mr. Schnepf had no problem renting the upstairs, but he was unable to rent the back office.  He feels the apartment would be for a single person, since it is not large.  Mr. Spengler said there is a need in the borough for small apartments, which would help avoid overcrowding.  Also, there would not be an absentee landlord, but Mr. Shive pointed out that Mr. Schnepf could move out at any time.   Mr. Fazen asked again what would be the benefit to the community.  Mr. Schnepf has tried to rent the property without success.  It adds an apartment in a residential area and Mr. Spengler does not feel there would be any negative impact.  Mr. Rodgers explained to the board that two positive criteria and one negative have to be met:  (1) there has to be a special reason to deviate from the ordinance and (2) if the board agrees, they have to show a compelling reason why here instead of where it is permitted.  Assuming both affirmative criteria are met, they have to convince the board that there will be no negative impact to the town or the zoning scheme (possibly the neighborhood has changed since the adoption of the ordinance). Mr. Spengler feels the neighborhood has shifted to a more residential area.  There is a need for additional housing in Bound Brook, and a one bedroom unit would be preferable for the town.   Dr. Roy Henderson has an office at 60 West Union Avenue, adjacent to this property.  He questioned the validity of the mailing of notices, but they were found to be appropriately sent.  He also feels the ground apartment is a basement apartment as determined by frontage, and they are not allowed in Bound Brook.  Mr. Shive explained that this is not true; the ordinance does not prohibit a rear entrance.  Dr. Henderson has never seen any office activity in the building, though there is a sign in front, and there is no phone number listed for the occupant or for Springkey Enterprises.  He has seen children and bicycles.  He would question how many people are living there, and he found that there are two residential phones at the address with different names.  He feels Bound Brook is getting a handle on their overcrowding problem, but another apartment in a crowded situation is not the answer. Mr. Schnepf explained that the upstairs has four bedrooms occupied by two parents and three grown children.  They don't drive and so use bicycles, for which the landlord has purchased a shed.  Mr. Schnepf explained that a grandchild was present most of the summer. Mr. Cilo asked about access, noting that there is a connection to Union Avenue through another property.  There is a chain across the driveway now.  Mr. Cilo does not know if there is an easement because he has not seen the deed.  He also noted that there has been water in the back yard after two floods.  Mr. Schnepf acknowledged that it is a low grade.  Mr. Cilo suggested running elevations on the FEMA data, noting the Lutheran church did flood.   Mr. Shive explained that he will not vote in favor of the application because of lack of adequate reason to grant the variance.  He fee3ls the building would be predominantly residential in a business area.  He does not feel this is the right area for a new apartment.  Mrs. Pournaras commented that it is an unfortunate fact of life that businesses cannot be attracted to Bound Brook.  Her concern for this property is strictly flooding. Some of the high school teachers live close by in small apartments and travel home on weekends, or it might be attractive for a senior citizen alone.  Transportation and businesses are within easy walking distance and this is a benefit to the borough. Mrs. Pournaras made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fasanello, to approve the variance.  Mr. Fasanello lives a couple of houses down and has a hard time believing it will not flood.  His house is up high on Franklin Street, and the water came uncomfortably close to his home during Hurricane Floyd.  Mrs. Pournaras suggested waiting to find out if it flooded to make a decision.  Mr. Fazen explained it is the realtor's responsibility to give that information if they know.  When the property was purchased, it was found not to be in a flood zone and flood insurance was not required.  Mr. Fasanello is not convinced of the special reasons.  Mr. Krauser agreed with Mr. Shive that the burden of special reasons has not been met to his satisfaction.  Mr. Gaglia acknowledged that there is a demand for such apartments, but he did not feel it would help the borough to approve this application.  Mr. Fazen did not feel that strong enough special reasons were presented, and he did not feel it is a good place for an apartment.  Possibly when flood proofing is complete the situation may change.   Ayes:  Mrs. Pournaras Nays:  Mr. Gaglia, Mr. Fazen, Mr. Shive, Mr. Krauser and Mr. Fasanello. MOTION DENIED, 1-5-0 FUTURE APPLICATION SCHEDULE February 13:     Mr. Fazen will ask Bound Brook Board of Education to attend.           #20-02, Morelli, 418 Talmage Avenue February 27:     Holubowicz RESOLUTIONS Mrs. Pournaras made a motion, seconded by Mr. Krauser, to approve the  Valley Bank resolution.  Mr. Cilo presented a drawing clarifying the different materials to be used.  The roof will be earth tone instead of blue.  The board felt the east side should be brick, and the economic impact would be nominal.  The resolution could designate it, but Mr. Fazen would rather make it a strong recommendation than a requirement since they have been so accommodating.  Mr. Thompson asked if changing what is called for in the resolution might be a problem for the applicant.  Mr. Shive said the resolution could be amended.  The site plan was changed in the resolution.  Mr. Rodgers suggested that they come in for a design waiver, which does not require formal action of the board, or they could formally come to Mr. Cilo ad Mrs. Doyle to make the change.  They will need board approval to make any changes.  MOTION CARRIED unanimously. Mrs. Pournaras pointed out that the board keeps delaying the Master Plan.  The date was set in December; Mr. Fazen referred her to the minutes.  The South Bound Brook plan seems to be coming to fruition, and she feels Bound Brook will be left behind.  She feels modern office space is in such abundance in surrounding buildings; why would someone come to Bound Brook and rent an old building?  She is concerned with buildings staying empty.   Mr. Fasanello asked about Hamilton Street Café.  Mr. Fazen said the Compliance Review Board needs discussion.  All the owner had to do was request a variance, and he refused to do it.  He has been asked to appear before the board.  Mr. Fasanello wanted to know what the board can do.  Mr. Fazen asked Mrs. Pournaras to have her committee make a presentation at the next meeting.  Mr. Shive said the forms are not that complicated. ADJOURNMENT:           Mr. Shive made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Pournaras, to adjourn at 9:05 p.m.  Carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Barbara A. Malone Recording Secretary.