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