BOROUGH OF BOUND BROOK PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 11, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Fazen at 7:36 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 230 Hamilton Street. ROLL CALL Present were:  Mr. Dietrich, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Gaglia, Mr. Fazen, Mr. Shive, Mr. Krauser, Ms. Ackerman and Mrs. Pournaras. Also present were:  Mrs. Malone, recording secretary; Mr. Rodgers, board attorney; and Mrs. Doyle, board planner.  Mr. Cilo, board engineer, arrived at 8:45 p.m. 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 November 13, 2003 meeting.  Approved unanimously. AGENDA #17-03, JFC Technologies, 100 W. Main Street, variance (completeness) #16-03, Efingers, `d' variance and site plan (completeness) #15-03, Scagliotta, East Main Street, variance (completeness) #13-03, Talmage Commons, `d' variance and site plan (completeness) OPEN TO PUBLIC (NON-AGENDA ITEMS) No comments at this time. PUBLIC HEARINGS #17-03, JFC Technologies, 100 W. Main Street, variance (completeness) Mrs. Doyle reported the application is complete for the purpose of a `d' variance. The site plan is not ready to present. Mr. Thompson stepped down. Motion by Mr. Dietrich, seconded by Mr. Shive, to deem the application complete based on Mrs. Doyle's recommendation.  Unanimous.  This finding is subject to review of address list and mailings, which were verified during a five minute break. Mr. Schleck reminded the board that they had an informal hearing previously before the board.  Susan Kleiner, General Counsel, explained plans for a portable cement silo 39 feet high.  There is a 35 foot restriction, and they are requesting a four foot variance for the building height.  The principal, Mr. Schleck, will answer any questions. There were some slight typographical errors on page two of the application, and Ms. Kleiner handed out corrected copies. Mr. James G. Schleck was sworn in as principal.  Mrs. Doyle suggested that the board address the handout and identify the typographical errors.  The lot number is 34 and the original stipulated 34.02.  Ms. Kleiner assured the board that the numbers were correct on the notices that were sent out, as well as on the original application.  The reference that mentioned lot 34 was to contiguous lots, not the one the application represents. Mr. Schleck explained that a variance is being requested for a 39 foot silo.  If it were 38 feet, it would be only ten percent over the allowance and would not require a variance.  Mr. Fazen recalled that it is prefabricated, eliminating the possibility of reducing the height by a foot.  Mr. Fazen pointed out that it is only one foot, in an area that is not generally visible. The drawing does not indicate dimensions.  Mr. Krauser pointed out that if the height is ancillary it might not require a variance.  The building is a chemical silo, Mrs. Doyle pointed out, not a chimney or a cupola.  Mr. Shive felt that the application was appropriate, but it would be of value to the applicant to explain what the top will look like.  The applicant explained that there is a railing.  Mr. Shive felt that the top 3 feet, from the top of the mast to the top of the dust collector, was appended.  When the silo is empty, it can be dropped down and pulled away by a one-ton pickup. Mr. Shive pointed out that when a building permit is applied for, drawings from a PE or an architect must be submitted.  There will be concern at that time regarding the stability of the structure.  Mr. Shive would like to see horizontal dimensions showing the size of the site.  Mr. Fazen pointed out that they will be coming back with a site plan application. Mrs. Pournaras noted that the site is in a 100 year flood plain.  She asked what would happen to the contents of the silo in a flood.  The applicant explained that it is a non-hazardous material.  The cement at the bottom would harden quickly if wet.   Mrs. Doyle asked what the residents on West Main Street would be looking at, if they would see it above the railroad tracks.  It would not be visible from the homes.  At this point, Mr. Scott Frisbie, General Manager and part owner of Tri-State, was sworn in.  He explained that this material is used for Gunite swimming pools.  There would be 5-6 loads delivered per week (approximately one per day), at 27 tons for each load.   Mr. Gaglia asked if the total value would be $25,000, and therefore it would have to be presented to Advance.  The borough would have to notify them.  Mr. Fazen will make sure that notification is made.     Motion presented by Mr. Shive to approve the `d' variance, seconded by Mr. Gaglia.  Mr. Shive feels that the significant height of the structure is about 36 feet above grade, and that is close enough so that the difference would not be discernible.  Mr. Gaglia feels it is out of sight enough.  Passed unanimously. Mrs. Doyle reported that the applicant has requested an abbreviated form of site plan.  She asked which of the hefty requirements for a normal site plan the board would require.   Mr. Shive said this is a reasonable request.  Besides the dimensions and the particulars of the area that will be developed, the board would be interested in where the trucks would enter and maneuver for measurement of any disturbance to adjacent neighbors.  No screening is required.  He feels it could be worked out with Mrs. Doyle and Mr. Cilo.  The board agreed.  Time of operation is another factor to be considered, as well as the actual elevations of the surrounding points. #16-03, Efingers, `d' variance and site plan (completeness) Motion by Mr. Krauser, seconded by Mr. Gaglia, to deem the application complete.  Unanimous. Bob Smith, Esq. introduced himself as representing both Efingers and Eckerds.  He noted this is probably a very familiar site to the board in Bound Brook.  A use variance is being requested, so the zoning board needs to hear it because the height exceeds a 10% increase. A roofline of 33 feet and a parapet of 36 feet (35.25 average) is being requested with a 45' entrance canopy.  One hundred sixty-four parking spaces are required, and 143 are proposed.  Signage variances requested (one wall mounted allowed) are eight on Union Avenue and two on Thompson Avenue.   The site is 2.9 acres.  The existing building (44,000 square feet) will be removed with a new Efingers and a new Eckerd to be constructed on the site.  The construction will be staged, with the new Efingers to be built while the old one is in operation.  Then the original building will be torn down and the Eckerd will be built. Witnesses include Murray Greenberg (Mr. Efingers), Tom Forsythe, Professional Engineer, Reza Marshal, Traffic Engineer, Ted Osborne, Architect, and Ray Liotta, Planner, to justify variances. Murray Greenberg was sworn in to give testimony.  He is a co-owner and Executive Vice President.  Efingers has been in business since 1909.  He explained that the expansion is necessary because the building is old.  They want to beautify their business and the town at the same time.  He feels this is the prime location on West Union Avenue and wants it to be attractive, with a “welcome to Bound Brook” sign. Mr. Smith explained the need to update to compete.  They would have to go out of business if they couldn't stage the construction.  They could not stay closed for 5-6 months, but they will have to close for about 10 days to move merchandise.  Meetings have been held and the vote was 8-0 among the managers to stay in Bound Brook.  Hours of operation will be 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., five days, Saturday from 9 to 5 and Sunday 10-5.  There are a total of 42-48 employees, and at any time there may be 30-33 employees on site. Mr. Fazen asked for an idea of construction time - probably eight months, but other experts will address that.  Mr. Shive asked the area of the existing building - approximately 32,500 total square feet with another five for the mezzanine.  Mr. Krauser asked if they have considered alternate methods of expansion.  Mr. Greenberg said they have had ten plans in the past three years and have been trying to set it up the best way possible.  Mrs. Doyle asked if there would be a cellar; there will not.  She noted that on one of the plans a “shoot range” is indicated.   It is a self-enclosed area to test fire pistols in a soundproof, bulletproof room according to federal and state regulations, and used only for repairs.  This is locked and inaccessible to the public. Mrs. Pournaras asked if any police would use it to qualify; it is definitely not open to the public.  The licensed firearms repairman is the only one allowed to use it.  No new weapons would be tested there.  Mrs. Doyle asked why they couldn't meet the height requirement.  Mr. Greenberg said he really could not answer structurally.  He said a two story building is needed because the entire top floor would be used for storage.  They would need another building for storage if they did not have a second story.  The retail floor will be 16 feet, which is average for a good looking store, and ten feet below the sprinklers for the warehouse.  Mr. Smith had planned to have Mr. Criss from Eckerds in attendance, but he had a family emergency.  The basic statistics for Eckerds would be 24/7 operation, Monday through Saturday 8 to 10 and Sunday 9-6.  Total number of employees on all shifts 17, average 6-7 on a shift.  Employees would drive their own cars to work.  There would be one delivery per week from Langhorne, PA between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.  Outside vendors would deliver once per week, usually in 15 minutes, in beverage and bread trucks between 9 and 5. Mr. Smith submitted as Exhibit A1 Mr. Criss' memo. Mr. Thomas Forsythe was sworn in next.  Mr. Fazen asked if he could make his presentation in PowerPoint if asked.  Mr. Forsythe admitted he is not familiar with it but assured Mr. Fazen his firm could do it.  Mr. Forsythe was sworn in by Mr. Rodgers to give testimony.  He presented his credentials and the board accepted him as an expert witness, a licensed PE.  Mr. Forsythe described the planned building to the board.  Sheet #2 shows existing conditions and was introduced as Exhibit 2. The site is approximately 2.9 acres at West Union Avenue and Thompson Avenue.  There is a 353 foot frontage on West Union and 323 on Thompson.  It currently contains a single building with both retail and warehouse space.  There are two driveways that access the site. The second exhibit,  submitted as a landscaping plan (#6A), was marked A2 and dated 12/11/03.  The proposed site shows Efingers on one side and Eckerd on the other, with a drive-through pharmacy window.  The proposal is to have three driveways, one from West Union and two from Thompson.  The access has been made more controlled, with narrower driveways.  Deliveries will be directed onto the northerly driveway on Thompson Avenue to the loading zones for either store.  The unloading zone for Efingers has a ramp.   Mr. Smith asked about the land, and Mr. Forsythe explained that In preparation for the application the Department of Transportation asked for dedication of land to be used for future road widening.  They do not want the applicants to widen the road but to dedicate property for future widening by the DOT along Thompson Avenue.  The sidewalk configurations have been shown to the county and the DOT.  Mrs. Doyle asked for explanation of public right-of-way as opposed to the applicant's property.  Land will be dedicated to both the state and the county for future road improvements.  She wondered what happens to the landscaping at that point; it appears there will be nothing left.  Mrs. Doyle suggested looking at the plan as though the county had already widened the road so as not to mislead anyone. Mr. Fazen asked why it is planned in this way if it may have to be moved within a short time after completion to widen the road. Mr. Cilo arrived at this time, 8:45 p.m. On Thompson Avenue, eight feet will be dedicated to the county.  It seems to Mr. Fazen that all the trees would have to be removed and there would be no room for sidewalks. Mr. Cilo explained that additional right of way would be requested for a left turn, straight through, and dedicated right turn.  The county, as he recalled, was planning to have the applicant handle the widening.   Mr. Raymond C. Liotta was sworn in.  He is a professional planner and explained his qualifications to the board's satisfaction.  He explained that in discussion with the county and DOT there was one lane northbound and two lanes southbound (with a dedicated right turn southbound).  The curb line would have to move 2-3 feet based on the numbers provided to him.  The sidewalk would be shifted 2-3 feet and it would not impact the landscaped area.  Allowance was made for these changes. The DOT was talking about a four lane section, with a dedicated left, straight/right eastbound, and westbound two through lanes.  This would require about 6 feet, which would be trimmed from the eight foot sidewalk, leaving the eight foot landscaped area essentially in place.  Mr. Shive suggested, as this is confusing, that additional drawings be submitted to clarify.  Mr. Liotta could not pin the county and the DOT down to a design. Mr. Cilo said the big issue was the left turn in/out; the DOT has not acted on it yet, according to Mr. Liotta.  Mr. Fazen said this was the crux of the success of the entire site.  Left turn IN is absolutely necessary - discussion indicated the DOT did not have a problem with that.  Mr. Cilo asked if the application was in the package; Mr. Liotta said it was sent to his office.  Mr. Smith noted that the board could make that a condition of approval if the application is accepted.  They are confident it will happen; Mr. Fazen is equally confident it will not happen.  He would like to see the plans as they will be with the road widening completed.  Mr. Liotta reiterated that the widenings were not to be accomplished by the applicant.  Mr. Smith said they generally don't do it a piece at a time.   Mr. Cilo suggested that all interested parties get together since the board will not be in a position to render a decision this evening.  Mr. Fazen feels this is a horrendous traffic area and the changes need to be done.  Mr. Liotta will generate an exhibit.  Mr. Smith pointed out that the road widening is not under his clients' control. Mrs. Doyle is very concerned about what will be left and viable with the streetscape issue.  The trees will not have a large area once that dedicated area is used.  She would like to see a build-up plan with sidewalks and trees as indicated after the widening is accomplished.  Mr. Cilo asked if the building is the same size as the concept plan; he was told it has not changed. Mrs. Doyle noted that if parking spots are lost along route 28, there are two locations where some additional spaces can be picked up.  She is just concerned that the street vision would be lost.  She had hoped to have the building up front.  Mr. Fazen respects the work that has been done and that it has to be done this way.   Mr. Liotta said the trees are still possible, but Mr. Fazen said the board still needs to see a complete plan.  The DOT and the county will have to be very specific.  The eight foot dedication on Thompson has been okayed.   Mr. Forsythe addressed parking issues.  There will be 143 spaces  of the164 required, as indicated on the drawing.  There is additional parking along Thompson Avenue.  Street trees are located on both (American Elms) streets with shrubs in between the trees.  There are pear and dogwood trees planned in the parking islands.  There is a 6' solid fence along the north property line and the west property line with a small retaining wall in the back corner.  There are two Dumpsters, at the NW corner for Efingers and NE for Eckerd.  No retention is proposed on site; the existing site is 98.5 impervious and that will be reduced slightly.  With regard to lighting, there will be freestanding poles in the parking area and wall-mounted lights.  The poles are 22 feet high and lights on the building will be 14 feet high.  Mr. Smith noted these items will be more specifically outlined by the architect. Mrs. Doyle asked about the traffic pattern for the drive-through.  The headlights will be facing a residential area, and there will be a solid fence on that side.  The new zoning ordinance addresses a buffer against the residential zone.  People on the other side will see a plain fence, no landscaping.  She asked if the refuse pickup truck will come in from the northerly entrance.  They would be front-loading trucks.  The new ordinance would have required internal parking landscaping, and she feels it is very sparse as indicated on the plans/ she is not very impressed.  Mr. Cilo feels that there is too much building.  He thinks angled parking should be a last resort. Mr. Shive asked about elevation of the top of the fence with relation to the lights.  Mr. Osborne will address that.  Mr. Fazen asked about location of air conditioning units; Mr. Osborne will also answer that and deal with the issue of noise. Mr. Reza Marshal was sworn in and described his credentials and expertise in traffic engineering.  The board accepted his qualifications as an expert witness.  Mr. Marshal explained that he had conducted a traffic study at the intersection of West Union Avenue and Thompson Avenue.  These counts established peak hour volumes for each approach:  Route 28, a two lane roadway running east-west, is an urban principal arterial road with a 35 mph posted speed limit.  Thompson Avenue, running north-south, has a 25 mph posted speed limit.  Projected volumes into 2004 included 1.5% annual growth.  It was determined that peak hour volumes would be generated during p.m. and midday Saturday.  Volumes were distributed between the two roadways.  Fifteen percent would come from Thompson, 45% on West Union Avenue from west, 35% from east, and 3% from the south side of Thompson.  The numbers were distributed to the two main driveways. As a result of the study, there would be no change for the intersection.  The timing of the intersection was optimized to come up with eastbound being improved from F to D by optimizing the timing of the signal.  The NJDOT would have to change the timing of the light, taking some time from Thompson Avenue and giving it to West Union Avenue.   Mr. Marshal pointed out that levels of service are B or better on Thompson and D or better on Union Avenue.  The circulation pattern on site was described as the safest on sheet #3.  Direction of driving through the parking lot is designed for safe access and lack of need for maneuvering.  The second driveway on Thompson Avenue would be used to exit from the drive-through.   Mrs. Pournaras asked how far from the intersection the first driveway on Thompson is located.  It is 150 feet away.  She asked if they actually watched traffic, and Mr. Marshal said he did.  She wondered if traffic on Thompson Avenue gets backed up past the driveways; he did notice that it does.  As a solution, there would be a sign at the driveway not to block it.  Mrs. Pournaras asked what the distance is between the two driveways and was told it is about 130 feet.  She wondered if one should be an entrance and the other an exit.  Mr. Marshal did not feel that would be safe or efficient with the current layout.  Mr. Fazen noted that is why the three lanes are essential to the plan.  Mr. Marshal noted that even though the lanes are not striped they are used as two separate southbound lanes.  Mrs. Pournaras pointed out that parking on the west side of Thompson is permitted.  Mr. Marshal suggested asking the county to post “no parking” signs.  Mr. Fazen said there will be no parking on Union Avenue and none north of the property on Thompson. Mrs. Doyle noted the entrance to the apartments on the north.  Just a few feet away is the entrance to the proposed property.  She wondered if the county has evaluated the stacking that will be occurring at this intersection.  Have they considered the potential activity on the north side?  Mrs. Doyle said anyone going north on Thompson would use the northern exit.  Mr. Marshal feels if there is no congestion at the southern driveway people would use that. Mr. Marshal noted that he can get an analysis of right turns, southbound on Thompson.  Mrs. Doyle asked him to also get information on the straight lane.  Mr. Smith referred to a letter from the county dated November 26.  Mr. Krauser asked what the peak hours were considered.  Mr. Marshal indicated that 176 entered and 179 exited, and 282 entered on Saturday and 275 exited.  Fifteen percent was from the north.  Mr. Fazen asked about a left turn from West Union Avenue; Mr. Marshal believes it is safe and that DOT will allow it.  They usually look at whether the site is conforming and if there is an alternative access that can be provided.  There is an alternate access from Thompson.  All that additional traffic would be forced to make a left turn on Thompson. Mr. Harry T. Osborne, the architect, described his licensing and experience and was sworn in to give testimony.  The board accepted his qualifications.  Mr. Osborne presented an overview of the completed project (Exhibit A3, dated 12/11/03).  There is a pediment up to the 45' elevation.  The canopy is much lower.  There is a grade change (3.5') between the two buildings.  The rear of the building (Exhibit A4, 12/11/03) was described as what would be seen from adjacent properties.  There is a screen for Eckerd's two dumpsters and also two for Efingers.  The buildings are masonry and pictures were shown of existing Eckerd buildings.  Mr. Osborne does not represent Eckerd, but they have to be architecturally consistent.  Mr. Greenberg said he has 100% architectural control, and what is being presented is a reasonable similarity to the finished product.  Mr. Smith referred to the memo, indicating the building façade as similar to the Toms River location.   Mr. Osborne said the building will be masonry with brick or block, steel infrastructure, with a warehouse on the second floor.  There will be a canopy across the front that will coordinate with the one on Eckerd.  They will be coordinated, but not exactly the same.  Mr. Shive would like to know, eventually, what the materials will be for both buildings.  Mrs. Doyle said a theme was started with Walgreens property.  Mr. Osborne said Eckerd likes brick, and Efingers prefers block.  Mr. Smith indicated that the additional information will be provided and Mr. Criss will be here at that time. Mrs. Doyle reminded the board that this is supposed to be a quality product, and one that the town can be proud of.  Mr. Osborne said that Efingers would hold them to that as well. Mrs. Doyle asked where handicapped parking would be available for Efingers.  Mr. Osborne pointed it out on the drawing, with five divided into 2 and 3.  According to the topo map, there is a gentle steady slope from the street down to the apartments.  The grading comes from Thompson to the low point at the corner where there is a retaining wall.  Mrs. Doyle asked if there would be any other walls; there will not.  She asked what the cut would be from existing down - it will be a couple feet at the back of the building.   Mrs. Doyle wondered if the HVAC would be seen from the second floor of the apartments.  The units will be at the center of the building and should not be visible from the apartment windows.  Standards of the NJ Noise Control Act will be met (65 day, 50 night).   Mr. Shive asked again about the height of the fence relative to the 14' fixtures along the wall.  They are sharp cut-off lights along the wall.  Mr. Shive said they will substantially illuminate the wall. Mr. Dietrich left at 10:05. The light fixtures will be about 4 feet above the 6' fence and the 4' retaining wall.  Mrs. Doyle asked if Mr. Osborne will address signs.  She feels that will be a big subject.  Mr. Shive asked Mr. Osborne to go to the rear elevation and show the truck ramp.  It starts as a 3' wall.  A “bad truck backer” would hit the wall instead of falling off the ramp Mr. Osborne described a number of signs   There is a sign on the Union Avenue entrance as described on Exhibit A3.  This sign is 14 feet wide and 24 feet high at the peak.  Across the top it says “Efingers Plaza” and below “Welcome to Bound Brook.”   Below that it says Efingers Sporting Goods and under that there is an electronic sign that can be changed on a daily basis; it does not move and does not flash.  The lettering will be whatever color the borough would like, according the applicant.  Below that is the Eckerd sign.  These dimensions are on Sheet 10, indicating “freestanding sign.” On the building, there will be an Efingers sign above the canopy.  On the canopy it will say “Sporting Goods since 1909.”  There are a number of Eckerd signs around their parapet, 3 on West Union Avenue and 2 on Thompson.  A clock is indicated on the drawing that sits on the corner of Thompson and West Union.   Mr. Shive suggested that in the future the color rendering be done on a scale that will make it clearer.  Mr. Krauser asked if any of the signs are backlit.  Efingers will be front lit, but the Eckerd large sign will be backlit.  Mr. Fazen wondered if the signage would be too colorful.  Mr. Smith, having represented Eckerd in the past, explained that the signs are designed to let customers know what is available.  Mr. Shive said this is why he is interested in the materials, so the board could get an overall picture.  Mrs. Doyle pointed out some of the various combinations of colors.  Mrs. Doyle said it looks disorganized.  She suggested that there is too much information on the freestanding sign.  The name Efingers can stand by itself, as well as Eckerd.   Mr. Greenberg commented that the “Welcome to Bound Brook” had been discussed but could be removed.   Mr. Krauser asked about the poster-type signs on the building.  Mr. Osborne said they may not be permanent.  Mr. Smith pointed out that the new signs are extremely subdued compared to current signs.  Ms. Ackerman wondered if logos might possibly be altered to be consistent with the design.   Mr. Fazen noted that the Historic Preservation Ordinance for Bound Brook was just passed on Tuesday.  The sensitivity toward a historic look is important.  Ms. Ackerman asked if there are ways to capitalize on a look for which this could be an anchor.  She wondered if there were some latitude that could be explored with regard to design elements. Mr. Marshall was recalled to lay the foundation for the parking variance.  He noted there are 164 parking spaces required.  The drug store requirement would be 57, Efingers 84 and the warehouse 23.  He calculated a need for 130, consisting of 41 for Eckerd, 75 for Efingers and 14 for the warehouse by ITE standards.  Mr. Shive asked if actual numbers of cars were counted at any given time.  There was a survey based on sales at Efingers, and calculations for the existing Efingers indicated a total of 49 spaces were needed on the average.  Mr. Greenberg counted 189 parking spaces; but between 75 and 85 are useless.  Some employees walk to work, and some carpool.  Daily records have been submitted to the borough, and high peak is 43-45 cars (not including employees).  Mr. Cilo suggested coming up with 90-degree parking if at all possible, seconded by Mr. Shive. Mr. Marshal pointed out that the parking will be shared and that the drive-through is also a consideration.  If the board is willing to consider a greater parking variance with fewer spaces, they will be willing to go back to the drawing board and try to design 90-degree spaces.  They can do it at a conceptual level without going to the expense of altering plans.  Mrs. Doyle pointed out the relationship to the roadway effect on parking spaces. Mr. Liotta gave an overview on the zoning.  The use is permitted in the district.  The use variance is related to the average height of the building.  This district may be modified, resulting in only a 4” overage in height under the proposed ordinance. Codrington Apartments are located to the north and west of this property.  The apartments are not a permitted use in this zone.  Across the highway are more businesses.  Parking and signs are the only other variances requested.  Impervious coverage will be reduced by 5%.  Mr. Liotta agrees that historical data supports parking as proposed.   With regard to signage, Mr. Liotta noted that eight signs are proposed on one side - for information, identification and direction.  These are standard in the industry.  The drive-through sign directs people to the appropriate location.  He does not feel the signs overwhelm the façade, and overall square footage does meet the ordinance.  On the canopy of the drive-through there are more directional signs.  Efingers is proposing less than the permitted square footage in signage.   The freestanding sign meets setback requirements but should be 15 feet from the right-of-way and is only five feet back after dedication.  It is 25 feet from the existing curb.  He feels this is consistent with modern shopping centers and retail centers.  He believes the variances can be justified.  He feels there is no negative effect on the neighborhood.  He feels this is a significant upgrade and an improvement to the neighborhood in general.  Proposed landscaping can occur in light of the road widening, and that will be shown at the continuation of this hearing.   With regard to detriment to the zoning ordinance, there is none.  This is a permitted use and a design that is consistent with standards.  Safe, efficient parking is provided.  Mr. Fazen asked for a copy of Mr. Liotta's notes, as they are efficient and easily understood; he will have them typed. Mr. Gaglia asked about the landscaping, and Mrs. Pournaras asked for a firm plan from the county and the DOT.  Mr. Smith indicated that everyone is hopeful, but they are two separate governments.  Mr. Fazen suggested discussing what the board would like to see at the next meeting, whether or not they prove feasible. Mr. Shive asked if a gas station is an allowable use in this zone, and noted that they could have a free-standing pylon sign not more than 25 feet high.  Therefore, if this were a gas station it would not require a variance for the sign.  Mr. Cilo would like to see the effect of right-angle parking; possibly the plantings will fall into place.  He would like assurance from the DOT that this traffic pattern is what they want to do.  He would like to meet with Mr. Greenberg and the county to find out which story represents their plans.  We are not looking for a detention basin, or any contributions to the TID program.  Any dollars will be spent on this site.  The DOT has drainage problems in its system on Route 28.  Mr. Cilo suggested making the Efingers sign stand out in some way. Mrs. Doyle feels the applicant should reconsider aesthetics (sidewalk type, landscaping, and façade more compatible, signs that are too disjointed). Mrs. Pournaras is concerned about the traffic on Union Avenue, but even more on Thompson Avenue and parking permitted on that street.  She also mentioned the impact of the widening of the road and possible elimination of parking on that street. Mr. Gaglia has reservations about reducing the number of required spaces.  If Efingers should move out and another popular retail business move in, the required spaces won't be available.  He would also like to see the spaces wider.   Mr. Rodgers wants to be able to cite specific plans if approval is granted.  In the resolution he would like to be able to cite plans rather than exhibits. Mr. Fazen referred to Mr. Cilo's comment that this building is too big.  He would like to see it appear smaller if possible, as well as a little historic (i.e. shutters, window types).  He also would like to see specific sidewalk plans.  He noted this will definitely be a (or possibly the) landmark site for Bound Brook.  He does not want to see a glitzy panorama of colors; it needs to fit in with Bound Brook.  He is also worried about the landscaping.  He feels it is critical to meet with the county and the DOT.   Mr. Liotta pointed out that the right-of-way drawings do not mean the curb line would be right at the new dedicated line.  Mr. Fazen said he cannot imagine not doing the road work while the construction is done. Mr. Krauser added that when Eckerd's representatives come before the board they will need to defend the double drive-through or get rid of it. Mr. Shive agreed that Efingers is Bound Brook and Bound Brook is Efingers and said we want to see it bigger, better and more successful.  He does agree that at some time in the future a retail use might have a problem with the lack of parking (or, Mr. Fazen pointed out, Efingers may become so successful they need more).  His big issue is not within the control of the applicant or the board - the county and state roadwork, especially on Thompson Avenue.  As far as colors and textures - he will reserve judgment until he sees what is proposed.  He thinks the signs are okay, but planting is a problem.  He does feel it can be worked out. Ms. Ackerman indicated that her logistical concerns have been addressed.  She said it has been jarring to learn that some of the items we assumed would be fait accompli are not.  She feels this is a great opportunity, both for Efingers and for Bound Brook.  The aesthetics are subjective, but it needs to be a signature building capitalizing on the proud history of the company and setting a standard.   Mr. Greenberg commented that some good suggestions were made after an upsetting first half of the discussion.   Linda Brnicevic agreed with Ms. Ackerman about aesthetics.  She is not impressed with a “strip mall” look.  She feels logos can be changed to conform.  She also wonders why another drug store would be built with Walgreens, Union Avenue and Shop-Rite in such close proximity. #15-03, Scagliotta, East Main Street, variance (completeness) Mrs. Doyle said there are four items that have not been provided, but fees are paid.  Parking, floor plans and elevations, as well as roof and area ratio have not been submitted.   Mr. Fazen suggested that the application be deemed incomplete.  Mr. Shive made a motion, seconded by Mr. Krauser, that the application be deemed incomplete at this point.  Mrs. Malone will send a letter to the applicant.  Carried unanimously. #13-03, Talmage Commons, `d' variance and site plan (completeness) They are seeking a `d' variance and a site plan.  The application seems to be relatively in order, but fees have not been paid, according to Mrs. Doyle.   Mr. Fazen recommended deeming it incomplete. Mrs. Doyle spoke with the applicant's counsel, who feels a `d' variance should be obtained before a site plan is pursued.  These would be the only fees that need to be paid Motion presented by Mr. Shive and seconded by Mr. Gaglia to declare the application incomplete.  Unanimous.   Mrs. Malone will notify the applicant of the board's finding. FUTURE APPLICATION SCHEDULE Continuation of Efingers on January 22, 2004. RESOLUTION #12-03, Somerset County Cultural Arts Center Motion by Mrs. Pournaras, seconded by Mr. Shive, to approve the resolution. Unanimous. ADJOURNMENT Motion presented by Mr. Shive, seconded by Mr. Krauser, to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 p.m.  Unanimous.                                    Respectfully submitted,                                    Barbara A. Malone                                    Recording Secretary