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