November 1, 2017

lot had been paved the previous summer: he fagade had been painted from Panera to the former Macys; it looked well maintained. Mr. Grygiel stated that cosmetically it might look good in parts; however, inside the HVAC system and wiring were obsolete; all would have to be redone meet current standards including internet service. Mr. Eben asked if Mr. Grygiel had met with the new owner of the shopping center; what had the owner done since purchasing the property and what were the owner's plans. Mr. Grygiel stated he had met with the on-site property manager and representative of the property owner: they did not discuss specific design plans for the property. Mr. Eben asked Mr. Grygiel to recapitulate his testimony regarding the issues related to the vacant property. Chairman Bagoff announced a recess at approximately 8:30 P.M; he reconvened the meeting at approximately 8:45 P.M. He stated the hearing of testimony and questions would continue but the Board would not be voting this evening due to administrative reasons. Mr. Eben and Mr. Grygiel continued; Mr. Grygiel identified the issues related to the vacant property. Mr. Eben asked how the property had been created; Mr. Grygiel stated he did not research its history. Mr. Eben stated he had visited the office park during the middle of the day and observed all but one parking lot filled with cars; he asked where Mr. Grygiel obtained the 60% vacancy number. Mr. Grygiel stated the property owner had provided the number. Mr. Eben asked if the Municipal offices would be a good use for the office buildings; Mr. Grygiel stated the question was beyond the scope of Study, but anything was possible. Mr. Cardoza asked for clarification regarding the number of property owners for the six lots in the Study Area; Mr. Grygiel stated there were two owners. Regarding the office buildings, Mr. Cardoza asked Mr. Grygiel to confirm he met with the owner's architect. Mr. Grygiel stated he met with the architect and property owner; he stated he met with the on- site property manager and property owner representative of the shopping center. Mr. Cardoza asked if the retail units’ two entrances should be looked at primarily as an inconvenience to the retailers or primarily a safety issue. Mr. Grygiel stated part of the issue was safety. Mr. Cardoza asked what was the width of the foot bay tunnels; how were the tunnels lit; and the

nvenience to the retailers or primarily a safety issue. Mr. Grygiel stated part of the issue was safety. Mr. Cardoza asked what was the width of the foot bay tunnels; how were the tunnels lit; and the condition of the tunnel stairs. Mr. Grygiel stated the tunnels were approximately 15 ft. in width; the tunnels were dimly lit; the stairs were standard. Harvey Grossman, Esq., Public Advocate, asked if it was correct that any of the six properties identified in the Study Area could be removed from redevelopment. Mr. Grygiel stated yes, if the Board so determined. Mr. Grossman asked if it was correct that the Board could designate the office buildings but not the shopping center as an Area in Need of Redevelopment. Mr. Grygiel answered correct. Mr. Grossman asked if any tax appeals had been filed for the lots. Mr. Grygiel stated he thought it was the case for the office buildings; but did not know the status. Mr. Grossman asked if tax appeals had been filed for the shopping center. Mr. Grygiel stated he had not looked in to the matter. Chairman Bagoff asked the Public if they had questions for Mr. Grygiel. Kevin Malanga, Ridge Road, asked Mr. Grygiel if the report was the first one he had presented to the Board. Mr. Grygiel stated he had presented other reports including the Master Plan Update in 2010; the report was the first redevelopment study the Township had retained his firm to prepare. Mr. Malanga asked if the object of the redevelopment law was 7

to fight blight. Mr. Grygiel stated that was among the various purposes. Mr. Malanga asked, for an area to be designated an Area in Need of Redevelopment it was a shorthand way of saying the area was blighted. Mr. Grygiel stated the designation came out of the old Urban Renewal Law that talked about blight; the law had changed several years ago; it was expanded to include the nine conditions that could be addressed; it was no longer just inner city, run-down buildings. Mr. Malanga asked Mr. Grygiel several questions related to his criteria “b” determination. He asked if Mr. Grygiel had observed broken or boarded up windows, graffiti, or trash strewn throughout the premises. Mr. Grygiel stated there was partial discontinuance of use; there were formerly occupied spaces that were vacant; the buildings were in disrepair; he described the outdated retail units and mechanical systems. He stated he did not recall seeing any broken/boarded up windows; there may have been some graffiti in the tunnels; he had observed trash. Mr. Malanga asked Mr. Grygiel to explain how the properties were untenantable. Mr. Grygiel stated the issue was based on the market industry. Mr. Malanga asked if Mr. Grygiel had inspected tenant leases; Mr. Grygiel answered no. Mr. Malanga asked if he had inspected any financial statements or tax returns; Mr. Grygiel stated it was not his obligation for the redevelopment study. Referring to criteria “d”, Mr. Malanga asked Mr. Grygiel to clarify where in the report he had defined the factors that were detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community. Mr. Grygiel stated the report spoke generally about the Township’s objectives for the area; that it would be an economic driver for the Township. If the current conditions persisted and vacancies continued, the area would no longer serve that purpose. Mr. Malanga asked if the area was currently detrimental; not ten years in the future. Mr. Grygiel stated he did not believe so. Mr. Malanga asked if Mr. Grygiel was familiar with the sale and purchase history of the Essex Green Shopping Center; did he know the most recent purchase price. Mr. Grygiel stated generally. Mr. Malanga stated the purchase price of the property had increased over the last several years; he stated that Mr. Grygiel could not give an opinion on whether the shopping center was a blighted property because it

ted the purchase price of the property had increased over the last several years; he stated that Mr. Grygiel could not give an opinion on whether the shopping center was a blighted property because it was going up in value. Mr. Grygiel stated in general, blighted properties decrease in value; however, the statute stated the proof was not blight; any of the other conditions could be met. Mr. Malanga asked if redevelopment area bonds and tax abatements were important reasons for a developer or property owner to seek designation. Mr. Grygiel stated they could be reasons. Mr. Malanga asked if the principle reason for the study was to provide the developers of the shopping center and office buildings with redevelopment area bonds and tax abatements. Mr. Grygiel stated no; not to his knowledge. Mark Meyerowitz, 19 Howell Drive, asked if it would be possible for the Township to move the Public Works garage to the area; would Mr. Grygiel as Township Planner recommend moving the garage to the area. Mr. Grygiel stated the Township had the power to move a building or buildings functions; he had no current recommendation for the garage. In response to question from Mr. Meyerowitz, Mr. Grygiel clarified that if there were a designation, it would be a Non-Condemnation Area in Need of Redevelopment. Sally Malanga, 57 Ridge Road, asked Mr. Grygiel if he was paid separately for the report. Mr. Grygiel stated his firm had a different contract; the report was above the scope of his typical Township engagement. Ms. Malanga asked on what date was he contracted for the report. Mr. Grygiel stated he did not have the exact date. Ms. Malanga stated Mr. Grygiel had testified he was hired to create the designation for the Township; she asked Mr. Grygiel what exactly was he instructed to do by the administration. Mr. Grygiel stated he was hired 8

to investigate the six properties, all or in part, to determine if they met the criteria for an Area in Need of Redevelopment designation. Ms. Malanga asked Mr. Grygiel who had instructed him to create the report. Mr. Grygiel stated by Council Resolution. Ms. Malanga asked why in his Planner’s Report for a previous application he did not comment on the lack of Complete Streets; yet the Study Area report stated it was a severe detriment to the area. Mr. Grygiel stated he had referenced the Complete Streets policy in the previous application; for the Study Area he had evaluated the condition of 70 acres including safety and circulation. Ms. Malanga asked why Mr. Grygiel had not discussed the Public Works garage and Animal Shelter. Mr. Grygiel stated they were not an existing condition. Ms. Malanga asked if the current owners of the vacant lot were obligated to landscape their property. Mr. Grygiel stated he did not believe so. Ms. Malanga asked if the property could be considered a zoning maintenance violation. Mr. Grygiel stated it could be a property maintenance violation. Ms. Malanga stated the report indicated that public intervention in the form of a redevelopment area designation would serve to ameliorate the current conditions. She asked why there was no discussion for the option of the property owners to update their premises. Mr. Grygiel stated the owners could update their properties at any time. Ms. Malanga asked Mr. Grygiel if he was recommending the issuance of redevelopment bonds and tax abatements. Mr. Grygiel stated he was not making any recommendations. Ms. Malanga asked if a 1950s residential neighborhood could be designated an Area in Need of Redevelopment. Mr. Grygiel stated it was possible. Ms. Malanga asked Mr. Grygiel if he was recommending the possibility of residential development. Mr. Grygiel stated it was not a new recommendation; it had been written seven years ago as part of the 2010 Master Plan Update. Ms. Malanga asked if Mr. Grygiel would recommend that no more residential be added to the Study Area. Mr. Grygiel stated the question was beyond the scope of the study. Robert Daniel, 2B Buckingham Road, asked who prepared the list of properties described in the legal notice of October 19". Mr. Dwyer stated the Municipal Clerk prepared the legal notice under the law. Chairman Bagoff asked Messrs. Dwyer and Grygiel to confirm if

of properties described in the legal notice of October 19". Mr. Dwyer stated the Municipal Clerk prepared the legal notice under the law. Chairman Bagoff asked Messrs. Dwyer and Grygiel to confirm if the legal notice was valid. Mr. Daniel asked Mr. Grygiel who was his liaison within the administration. Mr. Grygiel stated Mr. Moon from the Township attorney's office. Mr. Daniel asked Mr. Grygiel if he agreed that he had a conflict of interest preparing the report and being the Township Planner. Mr. Grygiel answered no. Mr. Daniel asked why did the area need redevelopment tax abatements. Mr. Grygiel stated that was not his testimony. Mr. Daniel asked why should the Township subsidize the area’s redevelopment. Chairman Bagoff stated the questions were for the Township Council. Adam Kraemer, 40 Moran Road, asked if the purpose of a redevelopment designation was to help economically challenged properties, not ones that were currently economically viable. Mr. Grygiel stated he did not think that was the purpose. Mr. Kraemer asked if the property was one of the biggest taxpayer in West Orange. Mr. Grygiel stated it was two properties; but it was fair to say that combined they were (biggest taxpayer). Mr. Kraemer asked that other than aiding the property owner, what would be the benefit of designation to the residents of West Orange. Mr. Grygiel stated the designation would help ensure the properties continued to be economically viable to the community. Rosary Morelli, Ralph Road, asked for clarification regarding the process for designation of an Area in Need of Redevelopment. Chairman Bagoff stated it was for the Board to make

the determination; it was for the Council to decide if there would or would not be any economic incentives. Mr. Dwyer stated the process included a Redevelopment Plan then be prepared by the Board; then adopted by Council ordinance. A developer could then submit an application for development to the Board for approval. Ms. Morelli asked how long was the process. Chairman Bagoff stated the timeframe varied; it depended on the scope of the plan. Mr. Weston stated at least many months. Rene Tiesh, 10 Ridge Road, asked for clarification regarding the safety of the roads for bicyclists and pedestrians; had any studies been done for the area. Mr.Grygiel stated the shopping center roadways were not pedestrian or bicycle friendly. He had not conducted a study but relied on his professional opinion based on twenty years of practice as to the appropriate layout of a shopping center. Lewis Dorf, 4 Hepworth Court, asked Mr. Grygiel if he knew of any other 70-acre properties that were almost vacant within 30-60 minutes of Manhattan. Mr. Grygiel stated the question was beyond the scope of the study. Mr. Dorf asked if Mr.Grygiel knew the current asking price for warehouse space in the area. Mr. Grygiel answered no. Tal Ben-Zvi, 5 Allsop Court, stated Mr. Grygiel had written the shopping center could not compete with modern shopping centers. He asked Mr. Grygiel if he had prepared any foot traffic or vehicular traffic studies or sales per square footage to come to that conclusion. Mr. Grygiel stated his conclusion was based on his observations, the current vacancy rate, current tenants, and the competition within the marketplace. He stated the 33% vacancy rate was high for a shopping center; especially given its location. Mr. Ben-Zvi asked Mr. Grygiel if he knew if the owner refused to renew certain leases; had substantially increased tenants rent; or refused to make improvements for tenants. Mr. Grygiel stated he did not know if the owner refused to renew leases or raise rents. He stated the discussions he had with the owners indicated they had made some improvements. Mr. Ben-Zvi asked the Board to order a subpoena for the owners to get correct documentation. Chairman Bagoff stated the Board would not order a subpoena. He stated if the information was pertinent for the Board to make its decision; the correct action would be to ask the owner to provide the information.

off stated the Board would not order a subpoena. He stated if the information was pertinent for the Board to make its decision; the correct action would be to ask the owner to provide the information. If the owner did not comply, the Board would not have the information for the vote. Robert Rashkes, 35 Oak Crest Road, asked if representatives of Shop Rite, AMC Theatres and others located in the redevelopment area had been notified about the hearing. Mr. Grygiel stated the property owners had been notified; he did not know if they had notified their tenants. Loren Svetvilas, 699 Prospect Avenue, asked Mr. Grygiel, when the plan he did for the developers moved forward, would it come back to the Board. Mr. Grygiel stated currently, there was no plan; it was a study. If the study were adopted as an Area in Need of Redevelopment, he would then advise the Board on the Redevelopment Plan. He stated he did not work for the developer; he worked for the Township. Mr. Svetvilas asked Mr. Grygiel if he was a West Orange resident. Chairman Bagoff stated the question was not relevant. The Public had no further questions for Mr. Grygiel. Chairman Bagoff asked the Public if they had comments on the presentation. 10

Sally Malanga, 57 Ridge Road, was sworn in under oath. She stated she was in favor of modernizing Essex Green and Executive Drive but not with the help of the West Orange taxpayers. She stated the properties did not meet the criteria for redevelopment; it would be a blatant misrepresentation to declare it so. The Board was not just voting on the designation; but also on whether the Council would be issuing tax abatements and redevelopment bonds. It would be a tremendous burden on the taxpayers of West Orange. It was a shameless request for taxpayer dollars. The developers were wealthy; they needed to step up and repair their own properties. The Township needed to take responsibility for the fact they sold the Public Works and Animal Control facilities to yet another developer for which the taxpayers were already footing the bill. Adam Kraemer, 20 Moran Road, was sworn in under oath. He stated he believed the redevelopment was a mistake. The Township had a very small commercial tax base. The properties were large commercial taxpayers and economically viable. He requested the Board vote no. Kevin Malanga, Ridge Road, was sworn in under oath. He stated the area did not need to be declared an Area in Need of Redevelopment. He stated redevelopment meant blight; Essex Green was not blighted. He stated nothing in the report indicated blight. He stated the matter was all about redevelopment bonds and tax abatements. He urged the Board to say no. Rosary Morelli, Ralph Road, was sworn in under oath. She stated the Board should consider tabling the vote to consider if there was a legal issue regarding Mr. Grygiel wearing two hats. Harvey Grossman, Esq., Public Advocate, did not believe the area was an Area in Need of Redevelopment. He stated the report was without merit and should be denied. Loren Svetvilas, 699 Prospect Avenue, was sworn in under oath. He stated it was not the taxpayers fault the area needed updating. He urged the Board to vote no. Roz Moskovitz Bielski, 11 Wedgewood Drive, was sworn in under oath. She stated the area was unsafe for bicyclists. She stated that in 2012, the commercial property she owned with her brother had an approximately 33% vacancy rate and needed upgrading. They spent approximately two-million dollars to renovate and upgrade their investment property; and attracted new and better tenants. She stated it never would have

vacancy rate and needed upgrading. They spent approximately two-million dollars to renovate and upgrade their investment property; and attracted new and better tenants. She stated it never would have occurred to her to approach the Board or Council to designate her properties as an Area in Need of Redevelopment. The Public had no further comments on the presentation. Chairman Bagoff stated the Board would deliberate at the next meeting. He asked Messrs. Dwyer and Grygiel to decide if the financial issues raised were significant and in need of further discussion. He asked the Board if they thought further discussion regarding the finances was required. Mr. Weston suggested some more concrete information other than that obtained by conversations; and also clarification regarding the issue of the Public Notice. Mr. Wilkes stated he would like to hear testimony from the property owners. Chairman Bagoff stated the Board was to email him to request any other information they thought Mr. Grygiel should provide before the next meeting. Mr. Weston stated he was 11