August 3, 2016

would be the next step in the process, after the Board made a determination. Mr. Janota stated a redevelopment plan would be more comprehensive than changing the Master Plan. Mr. Eben stated he did not think designating the properties an area in need of redevelopment would correct the problems discussed in the report; the Township should address the zoning and property maintenance issues rather than deem the properties an area in need of redevelopment. He said there were many dilapidated properties throughout the Township that were not under consideration. He said the gas station at the corner was a viable business; he was concerned the property owner would be forced to redevelop his site. Mr. Janota said a property owner would not be forced to redevelopment if an overlay zone was adopted. Mr. Eben said the report indicated several of the properties were in arrears; the Township should be addressing the matter. He said that if the area was not designated, the Township should enforce the current ordinances as they related to the properties. He said he was not in favor of designating the area in need of redevelopment; he would like to see the Township use the report findings to make the property owners take care of their properties. Mr. Janota opined that having the area designated would provide the property owners incentive to address the issues in a timely manner. Councilwoman McCartney opined that the Township should be addressing violations; any new applications before the Board could address existing issues such as parking; she did not see the area in need of redevelopment; she would like to see a vision for the area before making a determination. Mr. Janota said a designation would be a pro-active approach to addressing the existing deficiencies of some of the sites. Mr. Wegner opined a better action might be for the Township to address the existing violations rather than adopt a redevelopment plan for the area. Mr. Klein asked if the Township had a Tree Fund to address the properties he described as “a sea of asphalt”; Mr. Grygiel said he was unsure if there was a fund; he said he would investigate the matter. Mr. Janota said that there were other infrastructure improvements to be considered such as curbing; sanitary water conditions; and water mains. The Public Advocate had no questions or comments. Vice Chairman Bagoff asked if any members of the

structure improvements to be considered such as curbing; sanitary water conditions; and water mains. The Public Advocate had no questions or comments. Vice Chairman Bagoff asked if any members of the Public had questions for Mr. Janota. Kevin Malanga, Ridge Road, asked Mr. Janota to confirm that he had previously testified visiting each property between five and ten times; Mr. Janota answered in the affirmative. Mr. Malanga asked how many times had he had visited Mayfair Farms; had he ever observed the roof leaking or the basement flooding. Mr. Janota said he made one interior inspection and two exterior; he never observed the roof leaking or basement flooding, however, he did observe high water mark of approximately 5 inches. Mr. Malanga asked if Mr. Horn, owner of Mayfair Farms, appeared to be in favor of the redevelopment; Mr. Janota answered in the affirmative. Mr. Malanga asked if Mayfair Farms was designated, would the value of the property be enhanced; Mr. Janota said it would depend on the use; he said the financial incentives (PILOT) would enhance the value of the property. Mr. Malanga asked who determined which properties include in the study, did Mr. Janota or someone else decide; Mr. Janota said it was a combination, there had been an initial drive through the area, then Mr. Janota made an initial recommendation. Mr. Malanga asked if Mayfair Farms had been included in his initial recommendation; Mr. Janota said no; he explained that

initially he was not aware the property was part of the commercial district. He stated that from the exterior, the Mayfair Farms property looked like a viable business. Mr. Malanga asked if the inclusion of the Mayfair Farms property had been encouraged by a member of the Township administration; Mr. Janota said yes, the property was in the B-2 commercial district; he visited the site and subsequently included the property in the study. Mr. Malanga asked who in the administration had requested the property be included in the study. Vice Chairman Bagoff stated that before Mr. Janota answer, he would like Mr. Dwyer to determine if the question was germane to the discussion. Mr. Dwyer advised that the Board should keep in mind that Mr. Grygiel had testified the scope of the report was to determine if the properties included in the study met the criteria for an area in need of redevelopment or rehabilitation. He opined the question of exactly how the properties had been included was not relevant; the Board was to consider the facts of the study. Chairman Bagoff stated the rules and regulations governing the Planning Board charged the Board to look at municipal land use law; a licensed planner had prepared the report; how the properties were initially determined for inclusion was not germane to the hearing. Mr. Malanga replied the question was relevant because the study had been presented to the Board with certain assertions that those properties were in need of redevelopment. He opined that how they became part of the report, and how they would be designated was germane. He said that how the property became part of the study questioned the integrity of the report. Mr. Janota voiced his offense. Vice Chairman Bagoff reiterated that the Board would make its recommendation to Council based on the facts of the report and the statutory criteria for designation; he advised Mr. Janota to answer if he so wished. Mr. Janota opined the question was not germane; he said there were properties in the area that he had not included, he based the report on his professional opinion; and the Board had the opportunity to question his findings. Vice Chairman Bagoff directed Mr. Malanga to move on from the line of questioning; the Board would determine if the properties met the criteria regardless of how they became part of the study. Mr. Eben stated he did not understand why a

anga to move on from the line of questioning; the Board would determine if the properties met the criteria regardless of how they became part of the study. Mr. Eben stated he did not understand why a redevelopment study had been the prepared for the Eagle Rock commercial area. He said the report erroneously stated the Planning Board had conducted a preliminary investigation and prepared the preliminary report; in fact, the Board had never discussed the study, they had no knowledge of the study until they had received the completed report. Vice Chairman Bagoff replied the Council had initiated the report; and that Mr. Janota had previously testified to the fact at the previous hearing; he requested the final report reflect the correction. Mr. Malanga asked Mr. Janota confirm that in his report, he had described the Mayfair Farms property as unhealthful. Mr. Janota said he had identified the flooding basement as an unhealthful condition. He did not know if a flooded basement was a current condition, he did not know if the condition had been reported to the Health Department. Mr. Malanga had no further questions. Public Comment: Kevin Malanga, Ridge Road, stated the taxpayer should not be paying for improvements to the area; he did not believe the properties were areas in need of redevelopment. He opined the reason for the study was to benefit a developer, not to enhance the quality of life for the community. Joanne Szibdat, 481 Eagle Rock Avenue, stated she was General Manager, Mayfair Farms. She voiced concern that the controversy had a great impact on the facility’s ability to do business. She requested the Board consider all facts when making its determination; and that the Township

enforce all relevant codes, policies and sewer maintenance. She opined a designation would result in a significant change to the Township. She asked the Board to consider making the right changes for the right reasons; she asked the Board to consult other entities such as the Health Department before making its decision. Rosary Morelli, Ralph Road, stated she was not convinced that the properties were an area in need of redevelopment; she opined aesthetics, lack of property maintenance enforcement and code compliance were the issues to address. Cary Heller, 56 Byron Road, Short Hills, stated he was the owner of the bowling alley property within the study area. He opined the designation of the seven properties would give the Township the opportunity to “connect the dots” and create a new uses such as recreation, transit connectivity, Complete Streets implementation, and senior centers. The Board deliberated; Councilwoman McCartney asked for clarification regarding the seven properties identified as meeting the criteria for redevelopment, would all the properties need to be designated; Mr. Dwyer said the Board could recommend all, some, or none of the seven properties as meeting the criteria. Councilwoman McCartney said she concerned about changing the existing zoning without an overlay zone; she was concerned it would be to the detriment of the existing property owners. Mr. Wilkes said he did not understand why there was a need for redevelopment in the area; he said he would prefer a vision plan for the area before making a positive determination for redevelopment. Mr. Gurland asked if there were any time constraints on making a determination; Mr. Dwyer advised that MLUL did not specify a time limit; a determination could be tabled to a later date. Mr. Janota cautioned that if the Board tabled a determination, those properties might further deteriorate. Mr. Eben stated he was unsure how the Township had determined the study area; he would like the Township to prepare a “RUDT”, a Regional Urban Design Team, to prepare a clear vision for the future of the area; he opined the Township needed a full-time planner. Vice Chairman Bagoff opined the Board was given a request without a vision; the report had identified eighteen properties for review; by law, the Board could have chosen other properties for the study and request the Council amend its request. He

n a request without a vision; the report had identified eighteen properties for review; by law, the Board could have chosen other properties for the study and request the Council amend its request. He acknowledged the concerns of the Public. He stated the Board had three options; vote yes, vote no, or recommend that the Township find a solution that would benefit the Township and the Public. He did not want the resources used for the preparation of the study wasted; he made a motion the Board recommend the Council table any action on the properties and revisit the study in one year; and have the Township, stakeholders and Public, submit additional relevant information for the Board to make its determination. Mr. Eben suggested that in the interim, the Township direct the Zoning Department work with the property owners to resolve outstanding violation issues. Mr. Gurland asked for clarification regarding the proposed motion; would a redevelopment entity present a plan within the one-year period; Vice Chairman Bagoff said it would be for the Council would make that determination. Mr. Grygiel gave a brief description of the local redevelopment and housing law process; he stated the Council could accept, reject, or not take action on any recommendation made by the Board. Vice Chairman called for a vote on his motion to recommend including Mr. Eben’s request that during the interim period, the Township work with property owners to address outstanding property issues.

The Board voted on the motion as follows: Motion: Vice Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Klein Bagoff: Yes Carlucci: Absent Eben: Yes Ghebremicael: Absent Gurland: Yes Klein: Yes Lester: Absent McCartney: Yes Wegner: Yes Wilkes: - Weston: Absent MEETING ADJOURNED at approximately 9:40 P.M. “hc Minutes adopted September 7, 2016. Robin Miller, Secretary Township of West Orange Planning Board THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WILL BE WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 5, 2016 AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER. 10