August 3, 2016

Councilwoman McCartney stated that at the conclusion of the previous hearing in June, she was still unclear of the designation process; at the last hearing she had asked several times if the area would be re-zoned and Mr. Janota had answered no. However, she stated that any designation would have to discuss re-zoning; the area could become an overlay zone; there would have to be a decision regarding the criteria for an overlay zone. Mr. Janota answered that when there is a designation; that area could become an overlay zone or a completely new zone. If the area was entirely re-zoned, the property owner would be required to submit a new development application that either adhered to the new zoning criteria or request variance relief. If an overlay zone were adopted, the underlying pre-existing zone would remain; the property owner would retain their right to develop based on the underlying zone criteria. An overlay zone would essentially create two zones for the area. If the area were determined to be a redevelopment area, the next step in the process would include stakeholders (Council, Planning Board, property owners, developers and Public), have hearings to determine a redevelopment plan. Mr. Wilkes asked if Mr. Janota would be making any zoning recommendations for either an overlay or entirely new zone; Mr. Janota said he would not be making recommendations; it was for the municipality to determine. For the benefit of the Public, Vice Chairman Bagoff gave a brief recapitulation of the redevelopment study, which included eighteen non-contiguous properties in the same area of the Township. Of the original eighteen properties, the study had determined that seven properties met one or more of the statutory criterion for redevelopment. Subsequent to study, one of the properties had been approved for new development by the Zoning Board and was currently under construction. He gave a brief description of each criterion (a, b, c, d, e). He stated the presentation included buildings that were currently in use; all but one were in heavy use. He opined that the current condition some sites may or may not result in increased police activity; he noted some sites did have poor drive isles; however, none of the sites was a tax burden to the Township. He stated he had been previously been heard the study for Downtown redevelopment, which did indeed have many issues and

e poor drive isles; however, none of the sites was a tax burden to the Township. He stated he had been previously been heard the study for Downtown redevelopment, which did indeed have many issues and met the criteria. He stated he would need more information before making a determination; the Board should be able to send a detailed recommendation to the Council. Mr. Klein asked for clarification regarding the non-contiguous properties; could a group of area property owners submit their own redevelopment plan. Mr. Janota said the properties would still be required to meet the redevelopment criteria. Councilwoman McCartney stated that since the last hearing she had spoken with Verizon engineers who had indicated that although there was a significant decrease in on-site personnel, there had been significant upgrades in equipment, the property was highly utilized. Mr. Janota said the Verizon property met Section 3 criteria; it was included because of its location. He said that when writing the report, he had reviewed the Township’s Master plan and thought to capitalize on the park (Crystal Lake property). Should the business close or move, the municipality could acquire the parcel. Councilwoman McCartney asked if the Board could update the 2010 Master Plan to include and overlay zone for the area instead of going through the process of adopting a redevelopment plan. Mr. Grygiel answered in the affirmative, the Board could update the Master Plan at any time; however, the current hearing was for the Board to evaluate if the area was in need of redevelopment; did the seven properties meet the criteria. The Council had charged the Board with determining if the area was in need of redevelopment; if there was to be a redevelopment plan, it