November 1, 2017

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