September 7, 2016

support development in this area is also encouraged.” He stated that was another key master plan objective taken in to consideration for the purpose of the study. Referring to Exhibit A-2, slide entitled “Statutory Criteria”; Mr. Van den Kooy gave a brief recapitulation of the statutory criteria needed to be satisfied in determining an area in need of redevelopment. He stated that an area may be determined only if it is found to meet one or more of the criteria as set forth in the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law. Referring to “Table 2: Summary of Local Redevelopment & Housing Law Criteria Applicability”, Mr. Van den Kooy listed each individual property, described the site issues, and the applicable criteria met. Block 9, Lot 32: criteria A, D, E, and H; Block 9, Lot 36: criteria A, B, D, E, and H; Block 7, Lot 22: criteria C, E, and H; Block 9, Lot 11.01: criteria H and Section 3; Block 9, Lot 11.02: criteria H and Section 3; and Block 9, Lot 11.03; criteria H and Section 3. Mr. Van den Kooy identified study area properties currently in the Central Valley Brownfield Development Area (CVBDA). He stated that properties the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) identified for Brownsfield remediation qualified for additional funding under the Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Program. He said Block 9, Lot 32 (“Selecto Flash”), was a known contaminated site; and Block 9, Lot 36 (“Biddleman”) was previously subjected to Industrial Site Recovery Act (“ISRA”). He stated that approximately two months ago, the Township had requested the NJDEP include additional study area properties to the CVBDA to spur redevelopment efforts. He stated Block 9, Lots 11.01, 11.02 and 11.03 had potential contamination due to adjacent known contaminated sites to the north; and Block 7, Lot 22 had potential contamination, as the historic use of the site was unknown. In 1995, it was reported that a release had occurred that appeared to be related to an on-site underground storage tank. He stated the properties would be included in the Brownsfield and eligible for funding under the State program; they were currently under review. Mr. Van den Kooy gave a brief recapitulation of the study area violations, deficiencies and other issues based upon research gathered through the Open Public Records Act (OPRA). He stated a detailed description was in the Redevelopment

itulation of the study area violations, deficiencies and other issues based upon research gathered through the Open Public Records Act (OPRA). He stated a detailed description was in the Redevelopment Study Report of July 11, 2016. Mr. Van den Kooy gave a brief recapitulation of his findings based on statutory criteria requirements. Block 9, Lots 32 (“Biddleman”) and (“Selecto Flash) properties satisfied “a” criterion; Block 9, Lot 36 (“Selecto Flash”) satisfied “b” criterion; Block 7, Lot 22 (“Selecto Flash”) satisfied “c” criterion; Block 9, Lots 32 (“Biddleman”) and 36 (“Selecto Flash”) satisfied “d” criterion; Block 9, Lot 32 (“Biddleman’”) satisfied “e” criterion. He said all properties within the study area satisfied “h” criterion; and the Block 9, Lots 11.01, 11.02 and 11.03 properties satisfied Section 3 of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law. In conclusion, Mr. Van den Kooy recommended that the Council and Planning Board take the action necessary as prescribed by the LRHL to declare the parcels noted within the study area as a Condemnation Area in Need of Redevelopment. Once declared as a Condemnation Area in Need of Redevelopment, a Redevelopment Plan could be prepared and implemented to ensure proper utilization and development of property within the study area. Mr. Van den Kooy had no further testimony.