BOROUGH OF BOUND BROOK PLANNING BOARD JANUARY 8, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Fazen at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 230 Hamilton Street. ROLL CALL Present were:  Mayor Ryan, Mr. Dietrich, Mr. Gaglia, Mr. Fazen, Mr. Shive, Mr. Krauser, Ms. Ackerman, Mr. Fasanello and Mrs. Pournaras.  Mr. Thompson arrived at 7:55 p.m. Also present were:  Mrs. Malone, Recording 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 2004. SALUTE TO THE FLAG SWEARING IN OF NEW APPOINTEES The oath of office was administered to Mrs. Pournaras, r. Dietrich and Mr. Gaglia by Mr. Rodgers. RE-ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD Chairman:  Motion presented by Mr. Gaglia, seconded by Mr. Dietrich, to nominate Mr. Fazen as Chairman.  Unanimous.                     Vice Chairman:  Motion presented by Mr. Gaglia, seconded by Mr. Shive, to nominate Mr. Krauser as Vice Chairman.  Unanimous. Board Secretary:  Motion presented by Mr. Krauser, seconded by Ms. Ackerman, to nominate Mr. Gaglia as Board Secretary.  Unanimous. Motion presented by Mr. Krauser, seconded by Mr. Shive, to appoint the following: Board Attorney          Michael Rodgers, Esq. Board Engineer          John Cilo, Jr. ]     Board Planner          Scarlett Doyle      Recording Secretary     Barbara Malone Unanimous. Official Newspapers:  Bound Brook Spectator, Star-Ledger, Courier-News Adoption of By-Laws:     Motion to adopt existing by-laws made by Mr. Krauser, seconded by Mr. Dietrich and carried unanimously. 2003 MEETING DATES      January     8, 22                    July          8, 22      February     13*, 26               August     12, 26      March          11, 25                    September     9, 23      April          8, 22                    October     14, 28      May          13, 27                    November     11      June          10, 24                    December     9, 23      January 13, 2005 - Reorganization Meeting *Friday, to avoid Lincoln's birthday MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Motion presented by Mr. Shive, seconded by Mr. Gaglia, to approve the minutes of the December 11, 2003 meeting.  Unanimous. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Fazen noted that a public meeting is scheduled for January 14 at Lafayette regarding the flood plain management plan.  It is a draft plan that requires public hearings.  Rain/snow date is January 21.  Mr. Shive pointed out that most of Main Street is on high ground. The only items on the agenda are Perimeter Properties for completeness and site plan hearing on JFC Technologies. OPEN TO PUBLIC (NON-AGENDA ITEMS) No comments at this time. PUBLIC HEARINGS #17-03, JFC Technologies, 100 W. Main Street, variance (variance) Susan S. Kleiner, Esq. introduced herself as attorney for the applicant.  Scott Frisbie from Tri-State  and Mr. Dobrzynsky are available to answer questions.  She mentioned Scarlett Doyle's January 6 letter; if a stream encroachment permit is required they will apply for it. She feels the site plan addresses the concerns raised at the last meeting.  Exits and entrances are shown on the plans. Mrs. Doyle would like assurance, in flood-prone areas, that levee questions are answered.  She wants assurance from the Army Corps of Engineers.  Mr. Fazen explained that plans in that area are not finalized yet but they might be able to give the applicant such a letter. Mrs. Doyle indicated, for the record, that the silo will not contain materials that would be discharged in a flood and cause a health problem.  Resolution should so state (paragraph 2). Mrs. Doyle noted that the `d' variance can drop down to #6.  Mr. Cilo wanted dimensions to the property line fixed.  It will be approximately 10 feet from the fence line, according to Mr. Dobrzynski, or about 25 feet from the property line.   A DEP permit for stream encroachments will be required.  In #8, they want to be sure the applicant complies with DEP regulations.  A description of the surface material was requested by Mr. Cilo. Referring to the variance resolution, Mr. Rodgers asked about fencing.  Mrs. Doyle asked for it to be identified, though it is shown on the diagram. The line should be labeled as to type of fence.  The planner had asked for a turnaround area to be designated on the plan for the site plan.  Parking is not designated (there is none; a waiver will be requested).  There is a fenced area, and it appears to be totally closed.  The applicant explained that the board is only dealing with the westerly section. The board asked if the final site plan, to be reviewed by Mrs. Doyle, might be more legible (larger).  Mrs. Doyle suggested indicating the easterly side existing entrance, currently shown as a line.  Mrs. Doyle said the colored map is very helpful, and it will be filed with the application.   Mr. Thompson said he has viewed the site and has seen the “tower.”  It appears to be shorter than 39 feet, and it would not be visible except from the other side of the tracks.   Mrs. Pournaras asked if there will be any blacktop; Mrs. Doyle said the DEP might have a problem with blacktop.  The applicant indicated there are no plans to blacktop.  Mrs. Pournaras also asked about the position of the silo on the property.  The exit is onto a dirt road.  She asked if tanker trucks deliver to the silo; they hold 27 tons each.  Mr. Rodgers asked about a triple line on the drawing; Mrs. Doyle indicated it is an existing drainage easement (not proposed, as indicated on the plans).  Mr. Ryan asked if it goes under the track.  Mrs. Doyle said there are pipes that go beneath the track. Mr. Rodgers asked about hours of operation; it was stated at the last meeting that the board wanted to know.  Mr. Frisbie said 8:00 a.m. would be the earliest and 5:00 would be the latest.  Mr. Shive expressed a concern about dust.  He wondered if there should be a stoned area where the trucks enter.  Mr. Dobrzynski said there is about an inch of QP stone there.  Mr. Fazen suggested wording in the resolution “do everything possible to keep the dust down.  Tankers presently come into that site on a daily basis.   Mr. Ryan asked about the structure and asked if a permit has been applied for from the EPA for a permanent structure.  Ms. Kleiner was not aware of the need for such a permit.  The 100 year flood boundary was plotted on the previous plan, according to Mr. Shive.  Mrs. Doyle said that is why they will consult with the Army Corps of Engineers.  If there is a problem it will have to be put in a different location.  The Army Corps will be involved in any application in that area.  The applicant must consult with and get feedback from the Army Corps to ensure that it does not conflict with their plans.  Mrs. Doyle is not familiar with EPA requirements; she said NJDEP will take care of that item.  Mr. Ryan asked about proximity with the Talmage Commons; there are many houses closer to this property. With regard to dust, Mrs. Doyle suggested indicating there can be no dust.  Ms. Kleiner suggested different wording.  Mr. Dobrzynski said the railroad also uses that site, with larger trucks.  Mrs. Doyle pointed out that it would have to be proven that any dust came from this silo.  Mr. Rodgers suggested wording that indicates they will do what is necessary to alleviate a dust condition.  Mr. Thompson suggested indicating a number of feet from the silo.  The majority of the road is railroad right-of-way, ten feet from the tracks, according to the applicant.  Mr. Shive did not feel it would be fair to ask the applicant to take the railroad's responsibility with regard to dust.   Mrs. Pournaras asked if the mixture to be stored would create dust; Mr. Frisbie said there are dust collectors at the top of the silo and it cannot be blown out.  Mr. Shive noted it is listed as a superfund site.  He asked if the contaminates on the site are not in this area; Ms. Kleiner  indicated there is no excavation planned.  Mr. Shive said there are two feet of gravel, 36” from grade.  He felt there should be assurance that the area is not contaminated.  Mrs. Doyle said that was a good point to check with the EPA.  The Army Corps of Engineers can make that assurance as consultants with the EPA.  Mr. Shive explained that the board is not trying to throw roadblocks, but to protect the health and safety of the public. Mr. Rodgers roughly indicated what the resolution will state.  A revised site plan will mention that the silo will not contain material that, when wet, will have a detrimental effect.  Paragraphs 1, 6, 7 and 8 of Mrs. Doyle's letter will be addressed.  Fencing will be labeled and described as to type.  The fact that no parking is intended on the site will be indicated.  The dimensioning on the lot, as to where the silo will be located in relation to lot lines (and fence) should be shown.  The fence line in the middle should be identified with ingress and egress shown on the other side of the fence.  Blacktop intention should be shown (or lack thereof).  Drainage easement to be clearly identified.  Hours of operation to be specified.  There will be a requirement that a stream encroachment is not needed by DEP.  The Army Corps of Engineers should have no objection to anything being done in the area.  Advance and proof of notice to them should be identified.  Mr. Dobrzynski thought the board would notify Advance.  The borough will make that notification.  There will be a notation that the applicant will do what is necessary to alleviate any dust condition that will arise from the trucks exiting the silo.  Access to the lot by the road must be identified.  There will be a letter from EPA or Army Corps indicating there is no objection to the location as a result of any known superfund or pollution issues on the property.  Ms. Kleiner felt it might be difficult to get a response from the Army Corps of Engineers and asked if a registered letter would suffice, indicating “if you have any objection please let me know within x days.”  Mr. Krauser indicated there is an existing map indicating “hot spots.”  Mr. Fazen assured Ms. Kleiner that the local representatives of the Army Corps of Engineers are immediately available.  Waivers can  be obtained, Mr. Rodgers assured her, if any of this becomes problematic.  The site plan is to be a larger size (24x36). Mrs. Pournaras would like to see something from the manufacturer of the product to be stored that in the event of any accident it is not dangerous to anyone's health.  Mr. Frisbie said it will be provided.  Mrs. Doyle said the board of health can do that. Mrs. Doyle asked who will notify Advance.  Mr. Fazen will take care of it when the site plan is received.  The resolution will be signed on January 22, Mr. Rodgers assured Mr. Dobrzynski.  Mr. Shive pointed out that this is an extraordinary way for a planning board to expedite approval.   Mrs. Doyle wants the application to be complete in the file.  She asked for a simple adjustment to the first sheet; it was done by the attorney and will be filed  Mr. Thompson noted Advance only has to be notified if the improvements are over $25,000 but Mr. Fazen will notify them just to keep them in the loop.  Ms. Kleiner asked if they need to come back to the board; they only have to work with Mrs. Doyle from this point.  She will verify that the revised plan conforms to the resolution and the board chairman will sign the plan when he is satisfied. Motion to approve the application made by Mr. Shive, seconded by Mr. Gaglia and carried unanimously. #18-03, Perimeter Properties (completeness) Reference was made to a December 29 letter from Mrs. Doyle with three suggestions for completeness of the application.  Mr. Krauser suggested waiving all three.   Motion presented to deem the application incomplete by Mr. Krauser, seconded by Mr. Gaglia.  Unanimous.  Mrs. Malone will notify the applicant and advise that the first opportunity for a hearing will be February 13.  They will be notified that the application is incomplete pending submission of items #1 and #3, and they need a piece of paper indicating that this is the original tract. Mrs. Doyle noted Scagliotta has not done what he needed to do in a diligent fashion  The applicant should be notified   Mr. Fazen pointed out that the application was dismissed and resubmitted  It is still not complete and fees are not paid.  The applicant was given a citation; he then applied to the board with an application.  Mr. Fazen will draft a letter and run it by Mr. Rodgers.  It is up to the zoning officer, according to Mr. Rodgers.  Mr. Ryan noted the building has been cleaned out.  The zoning officer was waiting to hear from the board. NEW BUSINESS Application forms must be updated and put on the internet to be available.  Audio recordings of meetings may or may not be put on the internet, but agendas, minutes and resolutions will be made available. Ms. Ackerman asked about Financial Disclosure forms; they will be distributed by Mr. Blowback. Mr. Krauser suggested encouraging the professionals to use Adobe Acrobat (print to Adobe Acrobat's full version).  It costs $600-700 or is available at a monthly cost.  People can't alter your documents if you use this program.  Mr. Fazen said funding for this software is in the board's budget.  He said resolutions will be in PDF format with a password so they can be printed out  but not changed Mr. Ryan said the county will be putting out bids to start the final phase of the streetscape and rotary at the end of March.  Mrs. Doyle said we have asked repeatedly and still do not have authorization to advertise.  Mr. Fazen would like to see a draft of the RFP; Mrs. Doyle does have that.   Mr. Gaglia asked if anyone had talked to the state and county about property lines (Efingers).  Mr. Fazen has found that the applicant intends to give money and let the borough work with the state and county.  He is trying to determine the feasibility of the job being completed in five years.  Plans will indicate both the old (before) and new (after road widening).  There will be landscaping in the parking lot, and this will be addressed at the hearing. FUTURE APPLICATION SCHEDULE Continuation of Efingers is scheduled for January 22, 2004. Mr. Fazen told the board that Mr. Shive and Mr. Sabatino have been invited to review architectural plans prior to the meeting.  They will provide insight into the plans.  Mr. Fazen met with them and noted traffic will be discussed.  Mr. Rodgers said Mr. Ryan and Mr. Thompson can act on it if it is no longer a use variance (sign document that they heard or listened to the tapes).  As a zoning board, council representatives are exempted and a super majority (5 of 7) is required; a simple majority (5 of 9) would be required if they sit in.   Mr. Thompson asked when the new land use ordinance will be adopted.  Mrs. Pournaras said there is parking available.  Mrs. Doyle said there might be money available to buy a lot.  Mr. Fazen thinks a deck might also be considered as part of the redevelopment plan.  Mrs. Pournaras said if fees become a big issue (instead of parking) she would like to see a requirement for any new apartment built to require parking.  It's in there, according to Mrs. Doyle.  This would only apply if the business is intensified.  Mrs. Pournaras feels that some businesses could not comply, but they should be required in order to build.  Mr. Fazen said the board could refuse to allow such building without appropriate parking.  In the past, it was required that a landlord rent spaces; Mr. Gaglia noted that he would do it for about a month or so.  Mr. Rodgers said the Compliance Review Committee can address that. Mr. Ryan thanked the board on behalf of the council and the people of Bound Brook for giving their time. Mr. Krauser said the council should put a deadline on the passing of the land use ordinance; Mr. Thompson hopes for the end of February.   Mrs. Pournaras noted a circular driveway that was put in.  Mr. Ryan said they checked with the zoning officer and got it squared away.  Mrs. Pournaras pointed out that front yard parking is not permitted.  Mr. Rodgers suggested checking the ordinance. Mrs. Pournaras noted that on the corner of Somerset and East Street lit appears that the house covers the whole footprint of the lot.  She asked if they need to come to the board to build a new house; they do not if they abide by all requirements.   ADJOURNMENT Motion presented by Mrs. Pournaras, seconded by Mr. Krauser, to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m.  Unanimous.                                    Respectfully submitted,                                    Barbara A. Malone                                    Recording Secretary