BOROUGH OF BOUND BROOK PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 23, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by chairman Robert Fazen at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were:  Mr. Dietrich, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Gaglia, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fazen, Mr. Shive, Mr. Krauser, Ms. Ackerman and Mrs. Pournaras. Also present were:  Mrs. Malone, Recording Secretary; Mr. Rodgers, Board Attorney; and Nancy Weaver, Planner, representing Mrs. Doyle. 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. Gaglia, seconded by Mr. Sabatino, to approve the minutes of the October 9, 2003 meeting.  Unanimous. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Fazen announced that a Route 28 Needs Assessment report was distributed on September 9.  He attended the meeting.  The New Jersey Department of Transportation revealed that Bound Brook has been designated as a Transit Village.   A letter was sent to Mr. Vastola regarding the Scagliotta application.  The board had rejected the request for reinstatement of the application and requested resubmission.   On November 19 the Somerset County Planning Board will hold a meeting in the large conference room.  Mr. Fazen cannot attend; he will e-mail the membership in hopes of finding a substitute.   The Planner was distributed to members.   Deeds were received, and Mr. Rodgers has asked Mr. Spengler to revise them.  Mr. Fazen announced that the Planning Board is at 93.7% of its budgeted expenditures. AGENDA: Somerset County Cultural Arts is the only hearing to be conducted this evening. The applicant for 420 East Main Street (nail salon) was promised a spot on this agenda, but they did not get the proper paperwork in. An informal discussion was to be held on Talmage Avenue - Mr. Fazen will check for the application (formerly Brass Rail) and put it on an agenda soon. OPEN TO PUBLIC (NON-AGENDA ITEMS): No comments at this time. PUBLIC HEARINGS #12-03, Somerset County Cultural Arts Center John Sullivan, representing the applicant, explained that the application is for site plan approval since the subdivision and variances were already obtained.  The plans prepared by Fisk dated 6/30/03 and revised 9/12/03 were presented, as well as architectural plans (5 sheets). Witnesses will include Gerry Appel, Paul Fisk (licensed engineer) and Paul Gifford (licensed architect). Mr. Fazen noted the application must first be deemed complete.  He addressed the October 6 letter from Mrs. Doyle, noting obstacles to completeness.  A copy of the application indicates that the zoning officer has now completed his section by hand.   Bound Brook Investors, Inc. was listed as the owner.  The applicant has become the owner, and there are no interest holders.  Page 3 requires a listing of all waivers requested; it was filled out in general requesting whatever the board deems appropriate.  Mr. Sullivan is not sure but will address it during the hearing. Paul Fisk is a land surveyor; his partner is a licensed engineer who will sign the plans.  A letter to the board secretary enclosed copies of the deed.  Mr. Fazen said he signed the deed and gave it to Mr. Spengler.  The deed is dated October 7 and has been signed.  Mr. Fazen will also look for the deed in the construction office. Mr. Appel assured the board that the taxes have been paid; it was required for the subdivision.  Due to the recent subdivision, there will be a new tax bill generated but it has not yet been issued.  The county application indicated it has been submitted to the county.  Mr. Sullivan noted Mr. Sasso's October 15 letter, with return receipt, indicating that has been complied with. There was a portion of the checklist that was not completed, and since the subdivision was already granted it should indicate “n/a.”  Ms. Weaver said the items should also be listed on this application.  Mr. Sullivan said Mr. Fisk will address these relatively standard items during his testimony. Solid waste location has now been identified on the drawing.  With regard to Mrs. Doyle's recommendation to resubmit the site plan - the revised site plan prepared by Fisk delineates all adjacent properties (June 30, rev. September 12).  Mr. Krauser noted that all plans previously submitted are not dated.   Mr. Sullivan explained the reference to future development that was on the first architectural drawing.  He indicated there is no such reference on the new plans, but it was found to be on the new plans.  Mr. Sullivan explained that it refers to the smaller building, which is designated for storage only.  The applicant understands that if its use is changed it would have to come before the board, but it is not part of the application being presented this evening. Mrs. Doyle asked for submission of the missing information and indicated additional fees would be required.  Both preliminary and site plan approval are not usually granted at the same time. The October 23 letter asked if anyone responded to Mrs. Doyle.  They did not respond directly, but did address several of the items mentioned.  Mr. Shive pointed out that these procedural issues have to be cleared up before approval is granted, but he suggested that the application process can move on.  Mr. Fazen said it has to be declared complete first. Ms. Weaver indicated her letter is in response to reviewing the file and Mrs. Doyle's October 6 letter.  Mr. Sullivan believes the issues have been addressed.  Mr. Fazen felt it would have been appropriate to respond formally to the letter.  He feels the application is very important, but it is being rushed and is highly irregular.  He does not feel the application is complete but will look in the office. Mr. Bill Kraus noted the letter was addressed to the previous owner of the property.  It was received on October 8 by Mr. Petracca, who gave it to Mr. Kraus in order to deal with the issues.  He called Mrs. Doyle within an hour of receiving the letter.  Mr. Cilo spoke with him from his home and expressed his regret that the letter was late and had been addressed to the previous owner.  The application was postponed for two weeks.  Mr. Kraus feels it was handled immediately and wants the board to know that the issues have been addressed by him personally with the appropriate people.  Mr. Cilo supposedly assured him that there would be no problem at the meeting.  He came to borough hall to make sure all appropriate payments were made before the meeting. With regard to item #2, Mr. Fazen asked for clarification.  Ms. Weaver explained that it was not specific, but it should be explained during the hearing.  The remaining issues will be addressed during the hearing.   Mr. Fazen adjourned the meeting for five minutes to look through the office for some of the documents mentioned above. The meeting was reconvened at 8:05 p.m.   Mr. Fazen called for a motion on completeness.  Mr. Shive made a motion to deem the application complete, seconded by Mr. Thompson.  Unanimous. Gerry Appel was sworn in to give testimony.  He is Executive Director of the non-profit (501C3) organization.  Goals are to become an arts incubator as well as a school for the arts, using the 1927 Brook Theater.  Plays have been presented in the lobby, but preparations are being made for construction.  Dance, theater, film festivals and classes are planned for the main building.   The other building on the property has office space on the second floor; otherwise, it will be used for storage.  There will be dressing rooms on the first floor.  The theater may employ about 12 people themselves and there may be additional people employed.  Friday and Saturday nights and Sunday matinees will be held.  There may be classes at other times, as well as rehearsals.  Seating will be for 475.   There are only 3 parking spaces on the site.  Some parking is available off-site within a reasonable distance.  Next to the theater is a lot with 110 spaces, and within a ¼ mile radius there are approximately 300 metered parking spots.  The municipal lot, two blocks west, has another 230 spaces.  They are talking to private owners of lots in the area to provide additional alternatives. Mr. Fisk will describe the site and planning reports, ad Mr. Gifford (architect) will explain proposed renovations. Mr. Appel went to other theaters to ask how they arrange for parking  They use church, municipal, street and business parking.  His parking plans were introduced as Exhibit A.  Valet parking will also be available.  There are 145 metered spaces in front of the train station.  They are also trying to arrange to use other lots in the neighborhood. Several grants have been received, $2.4 million from the USEDA as well as a $200,000 local match from Somerset County freeholders.  A $600,000 low interest loan was secured for acquisition of the property from the NJEDA.  All available funds are expected to be expended for the renovations.  With regard to time constraints, the deadline has already been extended to January 2004 to start construction. The overall time frame is estimated to be about a year.  During that period, some programming is expected to happen, possibly in other venues.  Mr. Appel explained that a theater is a great economic driver in any neighborhood.  For every $1 in ticket revenue, another $2.50 is spent locally In other local businesses.   Exterior renovations are planned in future phases. Mr. Shive asked about valet parking, and where these cars will be parked.  Parking can be up to a half mile away (even at the ball park).  His preference would be to have spaces within a half mile, in order to be kept secure.  Shuttles will bring drivers back. Mr. Fazen wanted to clearly identify the use:  Mr. Appel said it is to be used as a performing arts center, arts incubator, school of the arts and office space.   Mr. Shive suggested adding, for ancillary spaces, “and other uses necessary to support the performing arts.”  The other building is approximately 3,200 square feet. Mr. Sullivan then introduced Paul Fisk, who was sworn in to give testimony.  Mr. Fisk was qualified as an expert witness during the previous phase.  He described the site and planned improvements.  The minor subdivision and bulk variances were previously granted. An existing warehouse building and five story theater are on the property.  No exterior modifications (no expansion) are planned for this time.  An existing wall behind the theater is to be removed to permit pedestrian egress for safety reasons.  The wall is 12 feet high and the theater property is 3 feet higher.  There will be steps as shown on the site plan.   Mr. Fisk said the September12 revision is the site plan.  The second sheet is attached and contains a survey.  Mr. Sullivan asked, with regard to the listing of all requested waivers, to list them. For the existing site, there is nothing new proposed.   In regard to the checklist, fees have been remitted.  On the minor subdivision checklist, they comply with all listed items if they are applicable.  The address of this building (in response to Mr. Fazen's question) is 10 Hamilton Street.  Name and address of owner was not completed because it was changing.  Mr. Fisk went through all questions and made sure they were either addressed or marked “not applicable.”. Revised plans will have both the surveyor and engineer Fisks' signatures on them.  No construction was proposed except for removal of the wall. With regard to Ms. Weaver's letter, Mr. Fisk addressed item #5.  The theater's property line extends almost to the building face in the alley.  There is a stone area behind the buildings.  Some of the lots have no access to Hamilton Street.  They have been using that area for access forever.  The present site allows the dump truck to come in, unload and leave.  He feels relocation is not practical. Ms. Weaver asked if it had to be catty-cornered.  The contractor needs it that way to be able to access it to lift it.  It actually moves around.  There is a double staircase, to the cellar and the first floor mezzanine.  Mr. Sabatino asked if they are used for egress and was told that they are not used by the public.  It is used as a fire exit from the mezzanine area.  There is a concrete area, and Mr. Gaglia wondered if it could be used for a dumpster; Mr. Fisk did not think it was an accessible area. Mr. Fisk asked Mr. Appel about the dumpster; he indicated the neighboring buildings use it.  Mr. Sabatino noted it is a means of egress, and the potential for blocking egress suggests that it should be moved.   Mr. Appel addressed Item 6 regarding paving the alleyway; he indicated he would be willing to do so.  Mrs. Pournaras asked if the owner of 8 Hamilton Street shares the alleyway and suggested that he might be willing to share the cost of the paving.   Mr. Fisk indicated they will comply with Item 7.  The pole mentioned in #8 is not part of this site plan.  The pole is not in the middle of the driveway, and there is also a fire hydrant near that site.   Mr. Sullivan next introduced Mr. Gifford, who was sworn in and had been qualified at the previous meeting.  He explained that the applicant is attempting to take a little money and make it go a long way.  There will not be much in the way of visible changes.  The roof will be replaced and the building will be sprinklered, air conditioned and get new boilers.  The warehouse building will have reinforcement and a new roof.  There will be dressing rooms and toilet rooms on the first floor and office space on the second floor. There are a couple of changes; in removing the wall there is a change of grade of about 4 feet.  The earth will be removed and a steel platform and stair will be installed.  Mr. Dietrich asked if it will be lit, and Mr. Gifford said it will. Mr. Sabatino asked about the alleyway where the dumpster is shown.  That door is not used for general egress.  There is a drop-down fire escape that has no application for egress but is for the projection booth.  Mr. Shive indicated it is In the public view now, which is another reason to move it.  He asked if it could go in the corner.  Mr. Gifford feels that makes sense.  There are a number of locations it could be moved to.  Mr. Appel indicated two potential sites - at the rear of the building near the air conditioning unit (near the 3 parking spaces) or  in the corner, which would be preferable.  The applicants will comply with the move to the corner. Mr. Shive asked Mr. Gifford about a ramp to gain access from dressing rooms to the stage; he suggested erecting a canopy over that.  Mr. Gifford agreed it would be a good idea, but they are trying to cut costs.  Mr. Appel agreed it was a good idea but it is not in the current budget.  They are trying to find donors to provide such items.   Mr. Shive also asked about exiting from the handicapped spaces.  Not every exit is accessible, so handicapped people would more likely leave by the front entrance rather than the stairs.  The procedure involves a locked gate that is open during performances.  Mr. Shive suggested the gate swing the other way and have a sign indicating it must be open during building use.   With regard to the fire suppression, it is only required in the theater building.  There are openings in the walls that will be closed up in the alleyway.  Mr. Shive indicated it is a building code issue.  If the building is used for storage (primary use is for dressing rooms) they must say so now.  The site plan must instruct the building inspector as to what he looks for.  Mr. Shive asked if this space would be an assembly area without chairs.  There is no way to see the stage from there.  Mr. Shive asked if you could have a reception in this area; Mr. Gifford said yes.  Mr. Shive suggested looking at the head count for egress.  The original egress was planned for almost 1,000 people.   Mr. Shive asked if the marquee will be restored -- not in this phase.  A sample section of the outer lobby will be renovated as a teaser. Mr. Fazen summarized, for the resolution, the changes to the original site plan.  The back building will be used as dressing rooms and support space for the theater.  The gate on the southeastern fence should open out and have a sign indicating that it must be opened during use of the building.  The dumpster will be moved to the indicated location.   Mr. Fazen asked what will be done with the back of the stage where old dressing rooms existed.  The first level will be taken out.  The structural engineer suggested leaving the upper levels.  Mr. Fazen asked how the budget was determined.  Mr. Appel explained that it was based on the money available.  Mr. Gifford said a complete breakdown and project budget was designed.  Contractors gave estimates for some aspects.  There is $2.6 million for construction; donation will be solicited from private donors for other items. Nothing has been submitted to the building inspector.  Plans will have to be signed by Mr. Fazen when revised.  Mr. Rodgers said the site plan consists of two sheets to be re-submitted with the minor changes made tonight.  Six sheets will be submitted and, along with the signed resolution, will be given to the building inspector. Mr. Rodgers summarized the resolution to approve the site plan (dated in June and revised in September), adding a professional engineer's signature.  He noted that no pre-approval of intended development is approved, alleyway development, party wall to be identified, dumpster to be moved to southeast corner adjacent to ancillary building and note that the gate will open out with a sign and re-label the ancillary building.  They will add the possibility of corporate use of the large space, which would not threaten the funding according to the applicants (conference and exposition to the extent permitted by the zoning ordinance).  Mrs. Pournaras asked if food will be brought in; Mr. Fisk said the wording might address this.  A concession stand exists now.  “Support services related thereto, including food services,” will be added. Motion presented by Mr. Thompson, seconded by Mr. Sabatino, to approve the application.  Approved unanimously. Mr. Sullivan asked when memorialization can be expected; Mr. Fazen told him at the next board meeting in two weeks FUTURE APPLICATION SCHEDULE Mrs. Pournaras noted a chiropractor moved into the Atlantis Travel site.  She will remind Mr. Fazen to deal with it.  Mr. Rodgers said the committee must prepare a letter to be approved by the board and sent to the office. Mr. Fazen will address the list of incomplete applications and come back to the board with his recommendations. ADJOURNMENT      Motion presented by Mr. Dietrich, seconded by Mr. Shive, to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m.  Carried unanimously.                                    Respectfully submitted,                                    Barbara Malone                                    Recording Secretary