December 6, 2017

dard dimensions. There were no further questions for Ms. Sciabarasi regarding the Main Entrance Renovation. Chairman Bagoff asked the Public if they had comments on the Applications. Robert Rashkes, 35 Oak Crest Road, was sworn in under oath. There were no further comments from the Public.

Chairman Bagoff closed the public hearing; the Board deliberated. Mr. Weston stated the Applications were ongoing Courtesy Review applications for improvements at the Zoo. He recommended the Board approve the Applications with the following recommendations; the County provide to the Board the updated Zoo Master Plan before any new projects are proposed; new parking be provided to accommodate the lost 26 spaces, possibly with a new level to the parking deck; and the County incorporate in to the Zoo Master Plan the guidelines of the Complete Streets Policy. Chairman Bagoff reiterated his request that Mr. Grygiel send the Township's Complete Street Policy to Mr. Fleder; he also recommended the cage around the ladder be code compliant. Councilwoman McCartney recommended additional directional signage to the overflow parking area on Cherry Lane so visitors did not travel further west on Northfield Avenue. Before the vote, Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Trenk if, in the past three years he had worked for Turtle Back Zoo in any capacity. Mr. Trenk answered not in the past two and half years. Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Trenk if he had worked for the Zip-Line amusement; Mr. Trenk answered yes. Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Trenk if he thought he could make an unbiased decision and vote on the Applications based on the information provided; Mr. Trenk answered yes. The Board voted on the Applications as follows: Motion: Mr. Weston Second: Chairman Bagoff Cardoza: Y Trenk: Y Eben: Y Wegner: Y Ghebremicael:_ Absent Weston: Y Klein: Absent Wilkes: Absent Keigher: Y Bagoff: Y McCartney: Y Chairman Bagoff announced a brief recess at approximately 8:40 P.M.; he reconvened the meeting at approximately 8:46 P.M. PRESENTATION/PUBLIC HEARING Presented by Paul Grygiel, AICP, PP, Phillips Preiss Grygiel, LLC, Planning & Real Estate Consultants & Township Planner Preliminary Investigation Report Proposed Non-Condemnation Area in Need of Redevelopment Essex Green/Executive Drive Area Block 155, Lot 40.02, 100 Executive Drive Block 155, Lot 40.03, Rooney Circle Block 155, Lot 41.02, 10 Rooney Circle Block 155, Lot 42.01, 300 Executive Drive Block 155, Lot 42.02, 200 Executive Drive Block 155.21, Lot 40, Prospect Avenue Carried from the November 1, 2017 meeting.

DISCUSSION Chairman Bagoff stated the Board would be reviewing a request by the Township Council based on New Jersey Redevelopment and Housing Law N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-7 et. seq., to determine whether Block 155, Lots 40.02, 40.03, 41.02, 42.01 and 42.02 and Block 155.21, Lot 40 qualified for designation as a Non Condemnation Area in Need of Redevelopment. He stated Mr. Grygiel had presented the report at the November 1, 2017 meeting. Tonight he would provide further testimony based on questions asked at that meeting. After Mr. Grygiel completed his testimony, the Public would have the opportunity to ask questions based on the new testimony, and then comment on the report. Chairman Bagoff stated he received a letter stating that two members of the Board should recuse themselves, Mr. Trenk and Councilwoman McCartney; one because of a blood relation, and one because of a statement made at a Public meeting. Chairman Bagoff asked Councilwoman McCarthy if she could make a reasonable and unbiased decision on the report based on the previous information provided and new testimony to be presented; Councilwoman McCartney answered yes. Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Trenk if he could make a reasonable and unbiased judgement on the report based on the facts presented by Mr. Grygiel, the Public, and the members of the Board; Mr. Trenk answered yes. Mr. Dwyer stated Councilwoman McCartney and Mr. Trenk had both expressed their ability to objectively hear and decide the presentation. Mr. Grygiel approached the podium. Chairman Bagoff stated Mr. Grygiel had been sworn in previously and remained under oath. Mr. Grygiel stated he had looked in to a few questions that were asked at the previous meeting. He stated his contact for Essex Green Shopping Center was Lauren Holden, Senior Vice President, Clarion Partners; for the Executive Drive office buildings, (West Orange Office Executive Park, LLC), his email contact was Sam Cooperstein. As requested, he asked both representatives if they would appear before the Board to answer questions; they both declined. Mr. Grygiel stated that at the previous meeting he had been asked about the vacancy rates cited in the report. As of late September 2017, Essex Green had 23.5% vacancy rate and 76.5% occupancy rate. Clarion Partners had provided the information in number form, and by a map of the shopping center that showed the vacant

te September 2017, Essex Green had 23.5% vacancy rate and 76.5% occupancy rate. Clarion Partners had provided the information in number form, and by a map of the shopping center that showed the vacant storefronts. Mr. Grygiel stated he had confirmed the vacancies by site visit. He stated that if the Shop Rite building was excluded, the vacancy rate would rise to just under 30%. Regarding the executive park, the vacancy rate given to him by the owner was 57.6%, it was only 40% occupied as of late September 2017. He stated he did not verify the entirety of the buildings, but had made a site visit to tour the office complex and the interior of two of the buildings. He stated he could only accept the numbers provided as reasonable based on the condition of the buildings and his deduction based on the number of tenants listed on the directory boards. Mr. Grygiel stated at the previous meeting, there were questions regarding his role and his firm’s role in the report. He stated his firm, Phillips Preiss Grygiel, had been continuously

representing the Township on a variety of planning matters since 2009. He stated that since 2012 he held the title of Township Planning Director, only because Township ordinances require that someone must hold the position. After the prior Director went out on medical leave, the Township asked him to perform the duties on a part-time basis, through his firm, based on his prior work on the Township Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. His firm currently had a contract with the Township; it was an annual contract with a set fee amount that allowed for additional work on top of that amount. Mr. Grygiel stated he was not, nor had ever been a Township employee. He was an employee of Phillips Preiss Grygiel, the consulting firm. He stated it was common practice throughout the State of New Jersey for a consulting Planner to fulfill the role of Planner for a municipality. He stated it was not unusual for the Planner to perform the duties for the Board and also complete Redevelopment Studies, Redevelopment Plans, and Master Plans. He stated that any assertion that there was a professional conflict was without merit. He stated he had worked with the Board for several years; he opined there was no question regarding his objectivity. He stated he was the primary representative of his firm to the Township. Mr. Grygiel stated the only other item he had to discuss was to summarize the report and his major findings. He stated the Study Area included approximately 70 acres on 6 tax lots with varied conditions. There were existing businesses on both properties; there were a number of issues with both the retail shopping center and the office complex including the high vacancy rates previously cited. He stated there were broader issues including the age of the buildings, their conditions, site layout and their deficiencies, visibility, the obsolete loading arrangement at the shopping center, and building design aspects such as low ceiling heights in shopping center retail spaces and the antiquated layout of the office buildings in vogue during the 1970s and 1980s. He stated there were larger trends in retail and office markets that would impact the Study Area’s future viability. He stated older office buildings and complexes throughout New Jersey were being redeveloped or lying vacant when action was not taken. The Township realized the potential danger of this property becoming

stated older office buildings and complexes throughout New Jersey were being redeveloped or lying vacant when action was not taken. The Township realized the potential danger of this property becoming vacant as far back as 2010; the specific area was discussed in the adopted 2010 Master Plan Update. He stated those reasons warranted consideration to designate the area an Area in Need of Redevelopment; it was for the Board to decide if the criteria was met. He concluded his testimony. Chairman Bagoff asked the Board if they had questions for Mr. Grygiel. Captain Keigher asked Mr. Grygiel to confirm the Board would not be voting on the allocation of any funds or tax abatements; the Board would just be voting on whether the Study Area met the statutory criteria, and it only took one of the conditions to meet the criteria. Mr. Grygiel confirmed only one condition was required; he stated he had cited criteria “b” and “d”; he confirmed that the only task before the Board was to decide if the Study Area met the criteria; there were no other redevelopment issues before the Board. Mr. Trenk asked Mr. Grygiel to confirm the area did not need to be blighted for redevelopment consideration. Mr. Grygiel stated the redevelopment law criteria options went beyond bordered up buildings, broken windows, and contaminated sites. He cited

Princeton, the downtown area was designated an Area in Need of Redevelopment due to obsolete and outdated conditions. Mr. Weston asked Mr. Grygiel to confirm the Resolution from the Township Council had asked the Board to investigate the area; he stated that in essence, Mr. Grygiel as Board Planner, was representing the Board; he had prepared the report for the benefit of the Board as requested by the Township Council. Mr. Grygiel answered yes; the Council Resolution authorized the Board to investigate the area by commissioning a report done by a planner. He stated it was common for a Board to utilize the same consultant; it was efficient to use the consultant already familiar with a municipality. Mr. Weston asked Mr. Grygiel to confirm that his report summarized his professional opinion the two principal properties met criteria “b” and “d”, and Section 3 for the vacant property. Mr. Grygiel answered yes. Mr. Eben asked Mr. Grygiel when was he hired to write the report; was it before September 19, 2017; and when were the report photographs taken. Mr. Grygiel stated his firm had been under contract with the Township continuously since 2012; he had been Municipal Planner since that time. He stated that in his role of Municipal Planner he met regularly with property owners, the administration, and others. He stated there had been some preliminary discussion regarding the area prior to September 19, 2017; he had also visited the site with an associate of his firm prior to that date. He stated the photographs were taken on September 19, 2017. He stated the report was written during the period between September 19, 2017 and October 10, 2017. Mr. Wegner asked Mr. Grygiel to clarify; if before entertaining a redevelopment plan, was not a property owner required to correct identified issues or violations. Mr. Grygiel stated that over the years, the property owners had addressed various building code and property maintenance issues, and performed various renovations; however, the current conditions were beyond the scope of building code or maintenance issues. He stated there was no requirement for a property owner to resolve issues before a redevelopment plan; he specified that there was not a redevelopment plan in place for the Study Area. The Board first had to decide if the area met the criteria for designation. In response to Mr. Wegner’s question; Mr. Grygiel

ified that there was not a redevelopment plan in place for the Study Area. The Board first had to decide if the area met the criteria for designation. In response to Mr. Wegner’s question; Mr. Grygiel stated the shopping center was in a P-C zone; it allowed, but did not mandate, a wide-range of uses. A redevelopment designation would allow the Township more input regarding the use of the property. The Board had no further questions for Mr. Grygiel. Harvey Grossman, Esq., Public Advocate approached the podium. He asked Mr. Grygiel to confirm the basis for his conclusion that the Area in Need of Redevelopment designation was appropriate due to vacancies and the obsolescence of the properties. He asked if Mr. Grygiel had investigated how the owners were marketing the properties. He asked Mr. Grygiel if he knew what “triggered” the Council to request the Planning Board investigate the area. Mr. Grygiel stated his conclusion was based in part on those elements; the report discussed many other elements in detail; the Township Master Plan identified the importance of the Essex Green property as an economic base for the community; and the changing nature of the retail markets. He stated he had not done an in-depth study of how 10

the properties were marketed; he stated the owners were actively seeking tenants. He stated the redevelopment law criteria did not deal with the marketing of - or investment in - property by owner. He stated if the properties were developed today, they would not look anything like they did presently. He reiterated that it was his professional opinion the area suffered from a number of issues that contributed to the current conditions; he recapitulated his report findings; he identified potential benefits and options to the Township should the area be designated. He stated he did not know what “triggered” the Council; however, it was not uncommon for municipalities throughout New Jersey to investigate and consider redeveloping properties like older shopping centers, office complexes, and industrial complexes. Chairman Bagoff asked the Public if they had questions for Mr. Grygiel based only on his new testimony. The following members of the Public approached the podium to question Mr. Grygiel: Kevin Malanga, Ridge Road, West Orange Jennifer Larson, 277 DeRose Court, West Orange Robert Daniel, 2B Buckingham Road, West Orange Lewis Dorf, 4 Hepworth Court, West Orange Sharon Sherman, 7 Lakeview Drive, West Orange Sally Malanga, 57 Ridge Road, West Orange Lee Saul, 47 Carteret Street, West Orange Joyce Rudin, Woodland Avenue, West Orange Clare Silvestri, 23 Grandview Avenue, West Orange Danna Steck, 302 Araneo Drive, West Orange Mark Robertson, Cheshire Terrace, West Orange Irv Schwartzbaum, 10 Lakeview Drive, West Orange Carole Gottlieb, 321 Araneo Drive, West Orange Robert Rashkes, 35 Oak Crest Road, West Orange In response to questions from the Public, Mr. Grygiel confirmed he had visited the sites, he stated the dates and approximate times of visits, and he conveyed his observations. He briefly described the uses associated with the areas currently zoned P-C and OB-1; he gave a brief description of the term “overlay zone”. He discussed the tools available to the Township should the area be designated; he described the steps involved in the process from designation, to redevelopment plan, and then application for site plan approval. He 11

stated that an area did not have to be entirely void of retail or professional businesses to be designated an Area in Need of Redevelopment. He stated the Board had discussed the importance of the area in the 2010 Master Plan Update. At times during public questioning, Chairman Bagoff and Mr. Dwyer advised the Public their question was unrelated to the scope of Mr. Grygiel’s testimony or the scope of the study. Chairman Bagoff announced a brief recess at approximately 11:01 PM.; he reconvened the meeting at approximately 11:07 PM Chairman Bagoff asked the Public if they had comments on the Presentation. Kevin Malanga, Ridge Road, was sworn in under oath. Chairman Bagoff closed the public hearing; the Board deliberated. Mr. Weston stated the Board heard many questions and concerns from the Public; he stated the Board had previously dealt with redevelopment studies; he stated Mr. Grygiel’s report concluded the area met the criteria “b” and “d”. He stated the properties may currently not be a hazard, but for the general welfare of the Public, it was the duty of the Board to identify and avoid further deterioration. He stated the area of the two properties had been identified in the 2010 Master Plan Update as an important economic engine of the Township. He stated many municipalities were using the designation tool; he stated he believed the criteria “b” and “d” had been met. The area was an important and integral part of the Township; he was satisfied with the findings of the report and was prepared to make a motion to recommend to Council the area be designated an Area in Need of Redevelopment. Councilwoman McCartney stated the report was the first step in the process of redevelopment; a vision plan, financial agreements, incentives or tax abatements were not currently being discussed. She believed the area was underperforming economically; she agreed with the findings of the report. Captain Keigher thanked the Public for their participation and stated he shared their concerns for the future of the area. He asked Mr. Dwyer if there had been any changes or updates to the statute of redevelopment law since the date of the report. Mr. Dwyer stated he was not aware of any changes. Mr. Trenk stated Mr. Grygiel’s report and testimony showed the statutory requirements were met. Mr. Eben stated there was some validity to the report. He suggested the Board not