BOROUGH OF BOUND BROOK PLANNING BOARD MAY 8, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by chairman Robert Fazen at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were:  Mr. Thompson, Mr. Gaglia, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fazen, Mr. Shive, Mr. Krauser, Ms. Ackerman and Mrs. Pournaras.  Mr. Hal Dietrich, who will be installed as a new member replacing Mr. Ruscetta, was also in attendance. Also present were:  Mrs. Malone, secretary; Mr. Rodgers, board attorney; and Mrs. Doyle planner. COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This meeting is being held in compliance with the “Open Public Meetings Law.”   The requirements of the Law have been met.  The 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. Shive, seconded by Mr. Gaglia, to approve the minutes of the April 3, 2003 meeting.  Approved unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Fazen received a letter from Mrs. DeLong (pool in back yard).  She was invited for an informal hearing, but she will be unable to put the pool in and so is not in attendance.  He listed the other applications that might be heard this evening.  Messrs. Holubowicz were present.  The other item on the agenda is review and comment on the Off Street Parking Resolution, a major issue. OPEN TO PUBLIC (NON-AGENDA ITEMS) None PUBLIC HEARINGS DeLong (informal hearing) - Installation of above ground pool. Canceled. Revised Borough Parking Ordinance The e-mail Mr. Fazen sent contained the borough's proposed ordinance as well as a summary of the area in our Master Plan that addresses this subject.  Mr. Sabatino reported several people have called him - one said that the ordinance was put on the books in the 1980's.  The reason, at that time, was that the town was a little rundown and boats were beginning to appear.  The council at that time intended to stop that.  Things have improved since then, and it was this person's feeling that liberalizing the ordinance would be turning back the clock and going backwards instead of forward.  Mr. Sabatino clarified that these are not his comments, but are being repeated to the board. Mr. Fazen reminded the board that three hearings were held on this subject.  Through e-mails and public comment the planning board revised it and tightened it up.  It became a very blunt ordinance with very little by the way of definition. Mr. Fazen was asked to comment and found that the borough council had changed it, i.e. defining specific vehicles.  This ordinance is exceeded by an existing vehicle, Mr. Fazen noted.  Such commercial vehicles may be stored in a garage.   Mr. Shive has a concern about “vehicles engaged in public service work” in section 21.  He can understand this if the service vehicle is working on a project there, but not storing such vehicle at home.  Mr. Gaglia would make an exception if someone happened to be on call. Mr. Fazen explained that the council may recognize exceptions or allow licensing.  There are some legitimate exceptions, but the planning board has no authority over that.  Mr. Shive is concerned that parking of boats would be allowed in side yards six feet from the property line.  In some zones, there is a potential for a 30' boat. Mr. Fazen noted that the planning board disagrees with the council's revision of the ordinance.  He will (after a vote) draft a reply, e-mail or fax it to everyone on the board, and send it to the council.    The planning board will recommend that no commercial vehicles can be parked in a residential zone.  The borough proposes that they may not be parked except for one in a fully enclosed garage if the vehicle is utilized by a resident of the premises.  They then exempt certain vehicles.  Mr. Shive objected to the wording as well as the intent.  There was a discussion of the current ordinance as it relates to commercial vehicles, and the fact that the vehicle has to be 20 feet long, 8 feet high and over 12,000 pounds to be considered a commercial vehicle.  Mr. Krauser suggested changing the definition to “large commercial vehicle” to separate it from a service van.   Mrs. Doyle suggested, under definitions, that a vehicle of 14,000 pounds would be defined as a commercial vehicle even though it is not 20 feet long or 8 feet high.  The word “and” indicates that you have to satisfy all three to be considered commercial.  This vehicle has to be parked in a garage unless the owner is on call for an emergency service.  The board disagrees with this also; they do not want commercial vehicles parked in driveways.  If this ordinance passes, everyone in the borough will be allowed to have a boat or an RV or a trailer, even in a side yard, without any kind of permit.  Mr. Thompson said the borough considered it unconstitutional to require permits.   Mr. Sabatino suggested that this is an isolated part of the ordinance; he wondered how it fits in with the whole intent.  Mr. Fazen, in his coursework, learned that the Master Plan is simply a plan for the borough and not enforceable.  The only way to give it teeth is to pass an ordinance that addresses a certain part of it.  In her professional opinion,  Mrs. Doyle feels that the planning board needs to evaluate whether or not they overlooked something.  In the dialogue, this was discussed more thoroughly than any other part, and the board has come to a conclusion.  The board will be given a referral from the council with a request for their opinion; they must decide (1) does it fit with the Master Plan? and (2) do you approve of it?  If the board does not agree with it and does not recommend it, the council has to pass the ordinance by a “super majority” of two thirds.  There will be no political or economic divisions, and five of seven votes will be required.  Failure to vote on it within 35 days will require the mayor and council to take action.  If voted down, it can still be adopted by a super majority.   Mrs. Pournaras asked Mr. Thompson, as a council member, if there is a reason the ordinance was changed by the council.  Mr. Thompson, as author of the revision, feels residents should be allowed to have recreational vehicles on their property.  Mrs. Pournaras noted that, in the Master Plan, almost every zone permits home based businesses but does not allow large vehicles to be parked.  Mr. Sabatino asked if an ordinance should be written for 50-100 (use 300, or 10% of the households, for argument) families.   Mr. Fazen recalled that this subject has been discussed at length with public input.  The board needs to vote on the council's proposed ordinance.  In the spirit of appropriate cooperation, Mr. Shive suggested that the board should try to come up with a compromise ordinance in conference with the council.  Mr. Sabatino does not feel a compromise is possible.  Mr. Shive feels that, as an appointed body, the board does not represent the town as the council does. Mrs. Pournaras noted that in the R5 zone (i.e. Talmage Avenue) there are garages.  The new ordinance, Mr. Rodgers noted, allows commercial vehicles in garages. Mr. Gaglia made a motion, seconded by Mr. Sabatino, not to adopt the borough's Revised Borough Parking Ordinance.  Motion passed, 7-1-1 (Mrs. Pournaras voted nay, and Mr. Thompson abstained).  MOTION CARRIED Mr. Rodgers swore in Mr. Dietrich as a member of the board after the vote was taken.  His vote remained Yes.   Mr. Sabatino made a motion that the board prefers the off-street parking option set forth in the master plan, seconded by Ms. Ackerman.  Motion passed 7-0-2 (Mrs. Pournaras and Mr. Thompson abstained).  MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Fazen will notify the borough council. #12-02, Holubowicz, 105 Hardy Avenue (discussion only) Mr. Johnson introduced himself as counsel for the applicants.  Mr. Rodgers explained that he has concluded that an informal hearing is appropriate for a subdivision of site plan, possibly with incidental bulk variances.  An informal hearing with no pending variance is allowable without notice.  There is no application pending.  There are two existing houses and such applications will be filed eventually, but they are now looking for information. Mr. Fazen has expressed his personal opinion of this application.  Mr. Johnson explained that the frontage is equal on the two lots, but the rear yard is only 20 feet on the Hardy Avenue house.  This is a “flag lot,” but from the street the frontage is the same and the back yards are different.  The existing house facing Talmage Avenue has been standing for many years.  The lines can be manipulated to make the smaller lot equal 5,000 square feet.  Mr. Rodgers asked if a line could be drawn from Talmage Avenue or if two equal pie-shaped lots could be created.  Mr. Johnson acknowledged that is a possibility.  Mr. Thompson asked if there were any plans to build; that is not the case.  They just want to divide the lots.  The board feels that a straight line would appear better planned for future use.  They would also like to see some kind of back yard with each property.  The consensus of the board is that they are sympathetic, and an acceptable plan can be formulated. 03-02, Bacchus Wine School, Church Street Mrs. Doyle recommended that the application be considered incomplete at this time.  Mr. Gaglia made a motion, seconded by Mr. Shive, to deem the application incomplete.  Unanimous.   #02-03, Imperial Travel Agency, 115 Talmage Avenue This application is for a `d' variance; a butcher shop broken down to a travel agency and a taxi company. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Fazen noted that he will talk to Mr. Brodbeck tomorrow and ask if the budget was approved.  A new computer and a new recording system will be purchased if approved.  The light buzzing is a problem with the sound quality.   The borough still owes the board some job descriptions.   With regard to public notice to neighbors within 200 feet - these neighbors are identified by the code official; Mr. Fazen does not feel that is right.  The tax office should handle that. The Historic Preservation Ordinance is with the council.  Doug Reina reviewed it and asked Mr. Fazen some questions about it.   All planning board members are New Jersey Planning Officials and received ID cards and a certificate. Regarding continuing education, Mr. Fazen noted it is in the budget.  Rutgers gives a number of good planning courses, but no one has expressed an interest.  If anyone is interested, let him know and the borough will pay for it.  Mr. Shive, Mr. Krauser and Mr. Sabatino indicated an interest.   Mr. Fazen reiterated the Master Plan is just a plan, and noted that the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Adjustment should be identified during hearings.  Our Planning Board acts as both, so the line is not always clear.  The Zoning Board grants variances and acts as judge.  There should not be an informal hearing on any type of use variance (just site plans and subdivisions).  A planning board can have an informal hearing, but a zoning board cannot.  If there is an application pending that requires public notice, an informal hearing is not appropriate.  If the zoning officer states that a project cannot proceed because it is not authorized within that zone, the applicant can appeal that decision to the zoning board.  A citizen can object to an approval and bring it to the board of adjustment to overturn it.  The citizens usually have no knowledge of such approval.   Mr. Fazen will ask that the construction office give the board a copy of every construction permit issued (informal notice).   FUTURE APPLICATION SCHEDULE June 12:     #03-03, Jeff Neary, Bacchus School of Wine, Church Street           #02-03, Rafael Rosario, Imperial Travel, 115 Talmage Avenue OLD BUSINESS Compliance Review Board:  Mrs. Pournaras called and asked Charlie to check on a couple of things.  He put stickers on trucks that have been parked for several months.  He talked to the new owners of Lilaine's about the sign and also talked to the Salvation Army about the 23 parking spaces.  Mr. Thompson heard that the laundromat is sending ice cream; Mr. Fazen will check.   Hamilton Street Café:  Mr. Fazen said inspectors went in and found multiple violations and closed it down.   Mrs. Pournaras asked if there is any way, when a new business opens, that they can be required to show the board some indication that they have garbage pickup.  Mr. Fazen said that if there is a change in use, the ordinance requires a site plan which would show such things.  They can request a waiver, however, and the board is still authorized to ask for this information.   Mr. Rodgers said the town could require a dumpster for each business under a property maintenance ordinance.  Mrs. Pournaras said it has been required since 1990 but it is not enforced.  If there is a change in use and the applicant comes before the board they can address it in the form of the resolution. FORMS - Mr. Thompson will dust off his revised forms and Mr. Fazen will distribute them for approval at the next meeting. JOINT AESTHETIC REVIEW COMMITTEE (with South Bound Brook) - Mr. Sabatino suggested this will be a subcommittee of each planning board that will make non-binding recommendations. Linda Brnicevic will send Mr. Fazen a printout of an overview from NJ Transit with photographs and maps of the area. Mrs. Doyle asked about an annual report to the council.  Mr. Fazen will be sure it is sent in the form of our application log.  A developer was planning to sue the board, but the suit was headed off by the board's COAH resolution.  Approval of the resolution will be recommended.  Because it was duly submitted, COAH will represent us if necessary. ADJOURNMENT Motion presented by Mrs. Pournaras, seconded by Mr. Shive, to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m.  Unanimous.                                    Respectfully submitted,                                    Barbara Malone                                    Recording Secretary