The most pressing topic revolved around the extensive investigation into the Ethicon site, identified as blocks 11 lot 39 and block 408 lot 67, located on Route 22. The primary focus was to determine if the properties met statutory criteria for redevelopment, as outlined in state law. The site, previously used for manufacturing and research, now largely unoccupied, was scrutinized for its potential designation as an area in need of redevelopment. The planner assigned to the study reviewed various documents, including property surveys and environmental assessments, noting the site’s condition and its history of contamination issues.

Detailed descriptions of the site’s numerous buildings highlighted their varying conditions and functions. Noted architect John Hatch provided an overview, beginning with Building 5, used as a Family Center, and extending to the original structures dating back to 1956, such as Building 10, which includes specialized laboratory and office spaces. The presentation underscored that many buildings, despite their age, still possessed functional attributes, though they faced environmental challenges, particularly groundwater contamination.

Environmental contamination was a critical concern, with reports of lead, asbestos, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) within the buildings. The estimated remediation costs for groundwater and asbestos alone were projected to exceed $5 million. These issues, coupled with the site’s historical use of hazardous substances, contributed to the characterization of the property as potentially blighted.

Community members voiced their concerns during the meeting. Resident Mary Gallagher emphasized the potential disturbance to groundwater quality, particularly as many locals rely on well water. Kathy Franco questioned the rationale behind the purchase of property by ADB Pile without prior zoning or redevelopment plans. Howard Clark sought clarity on the ownership and funding for the environmental studies, learning that the study was publicly funded as part of the township’s operations. Richard D’Angelus, representing Somerset Corporate Center, requested an extended opportunity to question the planner and make comments, emphasizing the importance of creating a formal record during the public hearing.

The debate extended to the interpretation of the criteria for declaring the area in need of redevelopment. The planner and board members discussed the statutory definitions and the relevance of contamination to the redevelopment designation. It was highlighted that the properties met Criterion B due to the discontinuation of prior commercial and industrial uses. Some board members argued that the site’s obsolescence aligned with the objectives of the Redevelopment statute, which aims to provide municipalities with tools for revitalization.

Concerns were raised about the financial implications of addressing the contamination, with costs potentially exceeding one million dollars. The necessity of protecting monitoring and injection wells was emphasized, given their role in ongoing groundwater remediation efforts. The board attorney stressed the need for public comments and questions, highlighting the lengthy and complex nature of the redevelopment process.

The discussion also touched on the historical context and current status of the Ethicon property, with references to market assessments and the functional obsolescence of the site’s buildings. The property, assessed at $51 million, was sold for $21 million, raising questions about its valuation and redevelopment potential. The debate included whether the site’s condition and market value justified its designation as an area in need of redevelopment.

One participant expressed skepticism about the redevelopment designation. Others emphasized the importance of redeveloping the site to serve community interests better and prevent potential negative impacts, such as increased truck traffic and congestion.

As the meeting progressed, the board discussed the procedural aspects of adopting the minutes from previous meetings. A motion was ultimately put forth to recommend that the property be designated as an area in need of redevelopment, which garnered support from several members. The meeting adjourned after confirming no other business required immediate attention, leaving open the possibility for future discussions as the redevelopment process moved forward.