November 1, 2017

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