November 1, 2017

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