August 3, 2016

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.