November 1, 2017

TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES November 1, 2017 The Township of West Orange Planning Board held a regular meeting on November 1, 2017 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber, 66 Main Street, West Orange, New Jersey. Chairman Bagoff called the meeting to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. He announced that notification of the meeting was given to the Township Clerk, and posted on the Township Bulletin Board, sent to the West Orange Chronicle and the Star Ledger, and posted on the Township’s website calendar. This meeting has been properly noticed to the public in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. No new matters will start after 10:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Bagoff requested all persons stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. ANNOUNCEMENTS The next Planning Board regular meeting will be December 6, 2017 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chairman Robert Bagoff, John Cardoza, Jerome Eben, Michael Keigher, Councilwoman Susan McCartney, Andrew Trenk, Ron Weston, William Wilkes II ABSENT: Tekeste Ghebremicael, Vice Chairman Lee Klein, Gary Wegner ALSO PRESENT: Paul Grygiel, Township Planning Director Eric Keller, Township Consulting Engineer Patrick J. Dwyer, Esq., Board Attorney Robin Miller, Board Secretary (left at approximately 8:30 P.M.) Harvey Grossman, Esq., Public Advocate ADOPT MINUTES The minutes of the May 3, 2017 and October 4, 2017 Planning Board meetings were unanimously adopted. ADOPT MEETING DATES The 2018 Planning Board meeting dates were unanimously adopted. SWEARING IN Township Professionals: Paul Grygiel, AICP, PP, Township Planner and Eric Keller, PE, PP, Township Consulting Engineer.

RESOLUTION PB-17-08/Crestmont Country Club Block: 174, Lots: 1 & 1.01, Zone: R-2 750 Eagle Rock Avenue Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan with “C” variances. Approved 10/4/17 The Board voted on the Resolution as follows: Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Councilwoman McCartne' Cardoza: Yes Trenk: : Eben: Yes Wegner: Absent Ghebremicael: Absent Weston: Yes Klein: - Wilkes: - Keigher: Yes Bagoff: Yes McCartney: Yes PRESENTATION/PUBLIC HEARING Presented by Paul Grygiel, AICP, PP, Phillips Preiss Grygiel, LLC, Planning & Real Estate Consultants & Township Planner Preliminary Investigation Report Proposed Non-Condemnation Area in Need of Redevelopment Essex Green/Executive Drive Area Block 155, Lot 40.02, 100 Executive Drive Block 155, Lot 40.03, Rooney Circle Block 155, Lot 41.02, 10 Rooney Circle Block 155, Lot 42.01, 300 Executive Drive Block 155, Lot 42.02, 200 Executive Drive Block 155.21, Lot 40, Prospect Avenue EXHIBIT A-1: Reprint of Figure 2; Aerial Context, Area in Need of Redevelopment Study, Block 155, Lots 40.02, 40.03, 41.02, 42.01, & 42.02 and Block 155.21, Lot 40, West Orange, NJ, Phillips Preiss Grygiel LLC, 2017 DISCUSSION Chairman Bagoff stated the presentation was based on a Council Resolution (212-17 dated 9/19/17) sent down to by the Council authorizing the Planning Board to undertake a preliminary investigation to determine whether Block 155, Lots 40.02, 40.03, 41.02, 42.01 and 42.02 and Block 155.21, Lot 40 qualifies for designation as a Non Condemnation Area in Need of Redevelopment pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 et. seq. Mr. Grygiel approached the podium. For the benefit of the Public, he gave a brief description of his professional credentials; he described his firm and stated the firm had prepared dozens of redevelopment studies for municipalities throughout New Jersey. His

Essex County clients included Maplewood, Montclair and Newark. He stated that local redevelopment law did not apply to just older urban areas; it was a tool that could be utilized in various settings like older office parks and retail shopping centers to older industrial buildings and vacant properties in inner cities. The focus of the presentation was to give an overview of the study he had prepared for the Essex Green/Executive Drive Area dated October 2017. He stated the scope of work for the study included review of surveys of land use and property conditions; multiple site visits; occupancy and ownership status within the Study Area and nearby areas; review of municipal tax maps; review of the official tax records of the Township; review of various Police, Fire, and Building Department records; review of the 2004 West Orange Reexamination Report and the 2010 Master Plan Update. He stated that for multiple reasons, the overall conclusion was the Study Area did meet the statutory criteria for designation as an Area in Need of Redevelopment. He gave a brief summary of the findings. The Study Area contained an approximately 403,000 sq. ft. office complex with a vacancy rate of 58%; and an approximately 330,000 sq. ft. shopping center with a vacancy rate of 33%. Both properties were examples of markets within New Jersey that were currently challenged — outmoded suburban office and retail developments. He stated existing conditions were counter to the Township’s planning objectives for the area as discussed in the 2010 Master Plan Update. Mr. Grygiel stated for the benefit of the Public he would go over key points of the Study. Referring to Exhibit A-1, he stated the Study Area was comprised of approximately 70 acres. He stated it was an interesting area due to its shape and arrangement. Despite the fact that it was next to Route 280 and other major roadways, it had a very unique road arrangement to get in to the shopping center and office building area on Executive Drive. The land uses surrounding the Study Area was varied; there was a wide use of commercial and professional offices uses. The Study Area was zoned P-C (Planned Shopping Center) and OB-1 (Office Buildings). He stated that the 2010 Master Plan update specifically noted with regard to the Essex Green shopping center and vicinity that “a key for this area is to maintain a balance of land uses,

e Buildings). He stated that the 2010 Master Plan update specifically noted with regard to the Essex Green shopping center and vicinity that “a key for this area is to maintain a balance of land uses, which will have benefits with regard to traffic as well as fiscal impacts.” He stated the Master Plan did talk about plans for future redevelopment of the area. It specifically did not propose an expansion of the retail zoning in the area, as there was sufficient land zoned for retail and service uses including the Whole Foods shopping area. It also did not recommend additional residential development; however, an exception for residential development could be considered for mixed-use development as part of a future redevelopment of the shopping center or another large property. Mr. Grygiel stated the Study Area consisted of lands developed with and office park, a shopping center and also Block 155, Lot 40.03, a vacant lot owned by Essex Green. He opined the Township had appropriately identified the Study Area boundaries; the Study Area was surrounded by development that was in generally good condition, including residential development and operational businesses and offices along Rooney Circle, Prospect Avenue, and Mt. Pleasant Avenue including a new hotel and gym. He stated that under the regulations of the Local Redevelopment Housing Law (LRHL) there was a list of one or more potential criteria that had to be met for an area to be considered an area in need of redevelopment. He stated it was his professional opinion that within the Study Area all but one property, the vacant property (Block 155, Lot 40.03), met criteria “b” and “d”, the vacant property met the provision of “Section 3”. He stated that within the delineated area

criteria “b” would be defined as “The discontinuance of the use of buildings previously used for commercial, manufacturing, or industrial purposes; the abandonment of such buildings; or the same being allowed to fall into so great a state of disrepair as to be untenantable. Criteria “d” would be defined as “Areas with building or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community. Mr. Grygiel stated that in a Study Area with multiple parcels, individual properties or blocks that did not meet any of the statutory conditions might still be included within an area in need of redevelopment provided that within the Study Area as a whole, one or more of the expressed conditions were prevalent. This provision was referred to as “Section 3”. He stated that his research indicated that the 5-acre parcel that was surrounded by Essex Green on one side and Executive Drive on anther was currently vacant and had been since at least 2002; and did not have a reasonable chance of being redeveloped without being included in an overall redevelopment area. Mr. Grygiel gave a brief recapitulation of the individual property evaluations within the Study Area. He stated the properties were aggregated into three assemblages based on common use and/or common ownership. They were evaluated based on surveys of land usage, property conditions, occupancy and ownership status. Referring to Block 155.21, Lot 40, Essex Green Shopping Center (CLPF Essex Green LLC), Mr. Grygiel stated the property was delimited from its eastern frontage along Prospect Avenue and along Rooney Circle to the north, west, and south inclusive of the AMC Movie Theatre and Shop Rite. The property measured 33.60 acres and was irregular in shape. Vehicular access to the site was challenged due to its proximity to the Route 280 exit ramp. The main driveway into the shopping center was located along Prospect Avenue and did not provide direct access into the shopping center parking area; there was also access from Rooney Drive to the north and south. He stated pedestrian and bike access to the shopping center and the overall Study

e direct access into the shopping center parking area; there was also access from Rooney Drive to the north and south. He stated pedestrian and bike access to the shopping center and the overall Study Area were extremely limited. The shopping center was built in 1957 and the last major renovation was done in 1991. He listed some of the current tenants; he stated the total square footage of the commercial space was 330,000 sq. ft.; the current occupancy was 77%. He stated he visited the shopping center and the interior retail units; the center’s unique layout and the interior retail units were obsolete by modern retail standards. The retail units were long and awkwardly laid out; many were designed with two “main entrances” located at either end of the units, and the units were characterized by low ceiling heights. The shopping center’s loading system consisted of a single loading dock on the lower level that connected to a system of tunnels where merchandise was unloaded and then distributed throughout the shopping center via a system of underground tunnels and stairways. There were no elevators connecting the basement and ground floor retail units; most tenants did not utilize the central loading dock, they relied on trucks pulling up to the front entrance of their stores which was not the original design, nor was it safe. Additionally, the shopping center was designed with a large central courtyard that was not used and was wasted space. He stated that for those reasons and for others cited in the report, he believed the property met criteria “b” and “d”. The shopping center was functionally obsolete; the main shopping center building was at least 60 years old; the retail space had

little functional value in the current marketplace. Referring to Block 155, Lot 40.03, (CLPF Essex Green LLC), the vacant piece of property to the west of the shopping center, Mr. Grygiel stated the property was essentially undevelopable without assemblage with another property. It had topographical and access restraints, it was separated from the rest of the shopping center; it was located at the top of the hill above the office buildings. The property had been vacant for at least 15 years, possibly much longer. He opined the property qualified met criteria “Section 3”; it would be integral to the effective redevelopment of the overall redevelopment area. Referring to the office buildings, Block 155, Lots 40.02, 41.02, and 42.02, (West Orange Office Executive Park, LLC), Mr. Grygiel stated these properties were all located to the north and west of Rooney Circle. The properties were under common ownership and shared common issues. The properties measured 32.26 acres; the total square footage of office space was 403,000 sq. ft.; the current vacancy rate was nearly 60%. He stated the issues with the office complex were numerous; but not unique to West Orange. He stated suburban office space in New Jersey has experienced a fundamental change over the past decade; most new office development was occurring in urban or mixed-use locations where retail and other amenities were within walking distance. He stated the office buildings were disconnected from main roads; there was no direct vehicular or pedestrian access into the office park. He stated the office buildings were designed in the 1970's; office ceilings were low; window space on a number of the buildings was small; the spaces did not get a lot of light and air. He stated the architect for the property owner had indicated the buildings were considered “Class C’” office space in real estate; there was currently no real market for this this type of office space in New Jersey; they could not compete in the current market place. He opined that for those reasons the properties met criteria “b” and “d”. He cited the obsolete arrangement, dated aesthetics, large amounts of unused parking areas, and high vacancy rate. He stated that for the properties to become an economic driver for the Township, they must introduce upgrades including more on-site amenities and a mix of uses. He stated that throughout New

cy rate. He stated that for the properties to become an economic driver for the Township, they must introduce upgrades including more on-site amenities and a mix of uses. He stated that throughout New Jersey, the only older office buildings/retail centers that seemed to survive were the ones that adapt to a mixture of uses or substantially upgrade their facilities. Referring to the overall Study Area, Mr. Grygiel opined that all but one of the properties qualified for redevelopment designation under criteria “b” and “d’, which was 93% of the land area within the Study Area; he stated 65.86 acres out of the total land area of 70.58 acres met the designation criteria. The remaining property which in and of itself did not meet any of the statutory criteria could be included in accordance with “Section 3”. Mr. Grygiel concluded his presentation. Chairman Bagoff asked the Board if they had questions for Mr. Grygiel. Mr. Wilkes asked if the Study Area was zoned for commercial use only, not residential. Mr. Grygiel stated the shopping center was in the P-C zone which was strictly commercial, the office buildings were in the OB-1 zone which did allow for a one-family, detached dwelling, although he would not recommend it for the area. Mr. Wilkes asked if Mr. Grygiel knew the current occupancy of the three office buildings; Mr. Grygiel stated they were approximately 60% vacant. Mr. Wilkes asked if redevelopment would include Shop Rite; Mr. Grygiel answered yes. He said that was a good question because while the property was included 5

in the Study Area, it did not automatically mean a property would be replaced. Mr. Wilkes asked for clarification regarding the Study Area Report; Mr. Grygiel stated the current hearing was for the Planning Board to determine if the report met the criteria to designate the Study Area an Area in Need of Redevelopment. He stated that in the future, if there were a Redevelopment Plan, it would be adopted by the Council; any subsequent site plan (application) would be heard by the Planning Board. Councilwoman McCartney asked if the Study Area were to be designated, what would happen to the existing tenants in the interim. Mr. Grygiel stated the designation alone did not change anything; it was a landlord/tenant issue. The current zoning would not change until such time as there was a Redevelopment Plan. The zone might not change with a plan. Councilwoman McCartney asked if it would be the responsibility of the property owner to relocate a tenant; Mr. Grygiel stated that was a private owner/tenant matter. Captain Keigher asked Mr. Grygiel to confirm that to meet the statutory criteria, only one the conditions “a” though “h” had to be determined within the Study Area. Mr. Grygiel answered yes. Mr. Trenk asked if the vacant lot (Block 155, Lot 40.03) was currently zoned for commercial use. Mr. Grygiel stated it was zoned P-C, the same as the shopping center; but given the layout and current zoning, the property was essentially useless. Mr. Trenk asked if there were studies regarding the shopping center's vacancy increases or decreases over the past few years. Mr. Grygiel stated he had the current statistics; he opined that with online competition and changing spending habits, traditional retail models had changed forever. Mr. Weston stated that Mr. Grygiel skipped category “h”, “The designation of the delineated area is consistent with smart growth planning principles adopted pursuant to law or regulation.” He asked why the category was not included. Mr. Grygiel stated his firm did not generally include the category; for this Study Area he opined the stated criteria were stronger. Mr. Weston stated that in the past the Board had reviewed redevelopment zones in typically blighted, distressed areas; he knew the law had evolved in recent years. He asked Mr. Grygiel, what, other than the ability to plan the area comprehensively, would be the benefits of a

es in typically blighted, distressed areas; he knew the law had evolved in recent years. He asked Mr. Grygiel, what, other than the ability to plan the area comprehensively, would be the benefits of a Non-Condemnation Area in Need of Redevelopment; what were the benefits to the Township. He stated the Area was not one of those distressed areas where the designation would be an easy decision. Mr. Grygiel stated Redevelopment designation allowed for greater control on the regulatory side specific to uses, design, building materials and timing; the Township would have the ability to stipulate deadlines to a developer. For a developer there would be the opportunity for tax abatements, PILOTS. Mr. Eben asked when Mr. Grygiel was retained to do the report; he stated he was concerned Mr. Grygiel had prepared the report and was also the Township Planner. Mr. Grygiel stated he did not have the specific date. Mr. Dwyer stated that Redevelopment Law allowed for the Township Planner to conduct the report; there was no conflict. The Planner’s interest was the same as the Township and the Board's interest. Mr. Eben stated the Short Hills Mall had the same exact tunnel design/loading system as the shopping center; why did the shopping center have a problem. Mr. Grygiel stated he was not familiar with the Short Hills Mall layout; however, he did not think they had only one loading bay; he described the shopping center layout in greater detail. Mr. Eben stated he did not observe anything “falling-apart’ from the outside shopping center building; he stated the front parking 6