December 6, 2017

Princeton, the downtown area was designated an Area in Need of Redevelopment due to obsolete and outdated conditions.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