##VIDEO ID:q_TKsZnbLC8## Mr GLE Mr porro brought up a point and this board never wants to operate in a fashion that's contrary to statute did you have a chance to do a little more research on that question the question he raised yes the questions with regard to the public noticing of a hearing of this type before the planning board and I'm referring to the local Redevelopment Housing law so it's njsa 40a a colon 12 A-6 this is the section of that statute that deals with investigations of this type and in Sub in subsection b b B3 has various requirements for the hearing notice what's required within it and who it's required to be provided to and this is is also based again without reading from the statute there's two things one is noticed in the public in a newspaper so it's published in a newspaper of General circulation in the municipality once each week for two consecutive weeks the second of those has to be at least 10 days before the hearing so you go 10 days back it's that one and the week before so that's one requirement the other one is uh mailing to the property owners uh that are listed on the tax records of each of the properties in the study area so unlike a zoning hearing or others where it's 200 ft from there this is literally just the property owners who are listed in this report uh whatever address is on file they get a certified mail uh there's no requirement I'm aware of in my experience or reviewing the statute to um notify surrounding municipalities or other entities with regard to the study itself again I I will defer to you and and legal council for the burough to double check that but that's based on my practice and experience it's newspaper notice and the property notice the only two that required for the planning board and that is absolutely consistent with the consensus that I was able to find that being said we are proceeding under the understanding that notice was properly given and therefore we're going ahead with this hearing without further delay thank you uh I think we're up to the comments portion and that's right we would ask the board members um for your public first oh sorry public first for comments at this time please again if there's anyone who wishes to comment you need to come forward state your name your address and be sworn hi ma'am would you raise your right hand do you swear the testimony you're about to give she leave the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth s you got yes state your name please Aubrey Webb Miss web could you spell your last Webb and ma'am what's your address 97 Bergen Avenue all right yes Miss web so I wanted to make a comment regarding in the document Pages 23 and then also continuing on page 26 regarding the Right Aid um it the verbiage gives the illusion of the empty shelves and everything gives the um I can't really think of the word I'm looking for get that that the store because of the size of the store and the layout of the store the shelves are empty therefore they're not adequately able to serve the community um I'm sure some of you or all of you are aware that WR Aid itself um filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in October of last year which um you know as you know when you file chapter 11 that cuts you off from your suppliers everything has to be renegotiated they did successfully exit bankruptcy at the end of June so now um all the right AIDS that did not close as a result of because you know during October until earlier this year there were a number of R AIDS in the area and across New Jersey and other states that were closed as a result as a uh part of the bankruptcy deal the right AIDS such as here in Washington Township and um you know the other ones within this you know District that survived you know that is why the shelves are empty um Miss there is replenishment coming and it is being replenished every week you know obviously it's going to take time so I just what's your connection to Right Aid I am an employee there so I am yeah it's dear to my heart fig I I don't and you know I just wanted to make that and put that on the record that because I felt that the verbiage in the document was basically saying because of the size of the store it can't be adequately stocked and therefore it can't serve the community when in the reality is the company itself went through a financial uh issue successfully emerged from it and they are being you know I work there I see it every week now over the past month um the store is getting replenishment every day you know we're aware that there's you know the basic necessities not there but it it is coming slowly but surely and I just wanted to make that comment because again I do work there and I want to make sure that the board is aware um you know when they're taking everything into consideration for the Redevelopment that it's not the store size it's simply the financial um you know planning you know the financial difficulties that the company as a whole had to go through um over the past year so understood thank you Mr attorney can I ask a question of her or no yes you may or I it's more of a statement too um I was Wonder still later oh okay I'll wait wait till later no question okay all right thank thank you Miss W thank you Miss thank you very much thank you any other comments from the public seeing none board members comments um Miss Webb the the uh I just point out that I have a house down the shore down in South Jersey and I have two ride AIDS down there both of those ride AIDS are fully stocked why would this particular one be empty of in its shelves where all the other the two of them they're within a mile of each other and they both are fully stocked do you know that the reason why for that or why some of them are stocked and some aren't stocked obviously since I'm you know I'm an employee of not management so I don't know the extent within our district you know Washington Township you know that are still standing thank you ma'am thank you good board members comments all right members of the board you're going to be asked to vote on whether or not you wish for this board to recommend that the Farrow designate the area noted as an area for redevelopment need of Redevelopment with condemnation Powers again it's important to stress this is a recommendation to the mayor and councel it is not an order in any way shape or form the fact that condemnation powers are recommended does not mean they have to be used either with respect to many Properties or one propert property it simply is a tool that is given to the borrow if you decide it's appropriate we will believe it or not actually have a resolution once you vote when you vote I would appreciate it if for the record you could give some of your thinking some of your reason for voting the way you do um in my experience boards get into trouble and nobody knows what they were thinking and there's no basis for what they did so rather than me having to be creative please help me can I ask you a question of course so by voting yes or no whatever vote we choose to vote is simply a recommendation to take it to the next step ex can stop there they can rejected no action other than it moves to the next step is is happening it moves to the next box right M okay and to make it very clear if you vote no as a board on this kind on this resolution with with condemnation Powers you will then be provided with an opportunity to vote on whether to recommend without condemnation Powers the question is what tools you want to give the borrow if any is that clear yes sir Mr s uh the planning board recommends to go ahead and the council decides can they kick it back to us again when they not unless it's a different designation if there were a recommendation from the planner that said okay let's look at this and either expand the zone or contract The Zone then it would come back to us with a new report make sense anyone else if this does advance to the next level is there any more public hearings absolutely okay absolutely the mayor council can't do anything with this without public hearing Sunshine laws absolutely require it and a a resolution by the burrow would have the force of Law and therefore it would have to be brought before the public and the public would have to have the ability to comment as a matter of fact the last Redevelopment I believe they had their own separate meeting just for that for this Redevelopment situ and had the people invited that so Mr shatz has more experience with it than I mam chairman I had one point just to follow up on Mr singer's point about the public process because I gave an overview of where what things could happen if that was a designation made and the mayor and Council move forward the would next need to adop before they can designate redevelopers need to adopt a Redevelopment plan that is an ordinance that has to be reviewed by this planning board either originate from this planning board as a Redevelopment plan or be reviewed by the planning board and then goes to a first reading second reading that would be setting the new zoning that's has a public hearing as well and on top of that no development of a property happens so whether it's Right Aid or individual properties they have to have site plans come before you to review them as well with a formal public hearing so there's at least two three other steps to get there the public is going to get four cracks at this if you if you listen to that scenario yeah for different things of course In fairness so I'm not trying to minimize it because there's this a big decision to start with but before there's any you know shovels on the ground you have a number of steps and public opportunities to comment U at both the planning board and the mayor and Council level is there any time that the neighbors are alerted to any of this besides just the home owners for the I have to double I don't want to speak off the top of my head I believe for the Well site plans typically of the 200 foot notice for the Redevelopment plan I just don't recall if it's to the area as well it may be I I don't want to each each and every one of these hearings gets public notes yes understood and doesn't mean the public knows it well but then again that's a whole different let's be honest Coconut Telegraph Rings pretty good around any particular properties it's rare that people don't know what's happening across the street and miss it can happen I'm acknowledging that but I'd say more often than not it doesn't anyone else comments yes I just want to comment I thought Mr cell been an excellent overview of the situation um I think it's important to keep an eye on what's going on over there you know especially with Frid a anything can happen and you have that big lot over there so thank you yes thank you thank you s so what you're going to be voting on is whether or not to Grant the burrow the ability to move forward and designate this an area in need of Redevelopment which could set the stage for actual Redevelopment but not simply by virtue of this resolution that we send to them right this one is with condemnation powers that has been recommended by the planner there's an old adage said to a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail I would suggest to you that Philip's price has been this fors planners for a minimum of 20 years probably closer to 30 and in the very last situation like this that they looked at they did not recommend condemnation Powers so it's not something that is being asked for without thought or callously or un cautiously Mr GLE has given you his expertise as he always does you are absolutely entitled to Def refer to that expertise and vote to give the burrow what our planners think they should have as always you don't have to agree and I've been here when you all didn't I understand it's a big deal and yeah it goes to the burrow so people are going to say what did the planning board do and yeah your names are on the planning board sorry that's that's why you get the big bucks to this oh yeah mam chair anyone else um would it be okay that we start or would anybody like to volunteer their vote before we start on the right I will since I'm in the middle um I do vote um with the Assumption and agreement uh that we should move forward with condemnation um I I'm trusting um this board I am trusting the council I am trusting the planner and um it's not an easy place to go and I pray that it will not go there but um I think things need to get done and um I certainly don't want anyone to be um unhoused or um put in a place uh that would be uncomfortable so again I am trusting that we're all doing um what's right for the burrow Madam chair yes it's not my place to pick apart your words I certainly don't mean to but when you state I'm voting in favor of condemnation not the recommendation to the to designate it yes and designated with the power with Commendation not to do it so just know that that's what you're voting on guys I'll go next if you yes thank you John thank you Cliff I would uh also vote in the affirmative to move forward with it uh for the reason that I I believe that the power of con condemnation is just a tool in the tool box that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be used um but it it's a tool and it's the recommendation of the planner therefore he knows better than I I believe as you said his professional experience and expertise um that this is the best path to move it to the next step we're not taking it to the end I'm not voting for the end I'm just voting for it to carry On To The Next Step and that I approve and I agree that we should move forward with all the necessary tools required to execute the plan professionally and properly do it right the first time so you don't have to do it again thank you John and again what this would start at at the on Council level is an inquiry it doesn't start the process other than for them to inquire as to whether this is a way to a way to go that's all you're giving them the power to do I'll I'll my recommendation go right ahead um I recommend that uh yes we uh go forward with the condemnation if necessary I believe it would be be the veteran of the community um that is a central piece of the town that is seen by everybody um we would like it to be um developed um with uh our ideas and our plannings in mind um therefore that's why we get a planning board advice on this um this is a recommendation to the council I believe and they our attorney could confirm this that this is a recommendation to the council and the council can not take our recommendation if they really want to at that point but this is a recommendation and it's another ideas other other people um viewing their points their point of view to the council to let them know how how they're going to go and it is to go to the next step so therefore I to better the betterment of community and if it so be need condemnation then I agree with it um but I'll uh and then we'll go to the next step after to that and we'll discuss it then even if the burrow takes the recommendation of this board and assuming it's a positive one for this form of resolution doesn't mean they're voting for condemnation of anything so again I the description of it being a tool in the tool box is an excellent one anyone else Joe so um I'm going to vote in the affirmative and uh I'd like to thank Paul for your extensive uh work in looking into all these properties down in that area um I've lived in walck for 70 years and I've learned over the years that this whole area down close to the railroad is these air these properties are probably the oldest properties in the town as you know Waldwick was developed in the early 1900s as a railroad town and um I would venture to say that many of these properties are a 100 years old or more um some of them are in good shape some of them are in not so good shape as your research has shown um tonight we haven't I asked you how many people actually are separate owners down there so based on what you told me um there wasn't a lot of input at the microphone of people who object to what we discussed and moving forward um if these areas should be deemed uh redeveloped by the mayor and Council and condemnable um I'm I'm sure they'll act in a a good manner and and look for the best results for the burrow as we move forward and um you know thing progress goes on you know Waldwick is a great town um we all know that um there are parts of this area down by the railroad that because it's so old and the structures are so old uh there may be room for uh private owners to buy and sell and redevelop some of these houses or other areas so I I vote Yes to move forward with uh at their discretion what they think is best for the bar thank you Joe Stan yeah I I also vote Yes I recommend we move forward to the planning board with comination I think it's important I've sent it on a number of meetings and with you know State officials about looking at that area for business and community so to revitalize that area it is a smart growth and I think it's important that we uh we focus on that so I do uh I do vote that we move move move forward thank you Stan Paul Cory I agree um I'm torn but at this point I I wanted to go forward I I feel this does need to be redeveloped and again it sounds like it's going to would come back to us at some point so I'd like that at least see go one more step and see what happens thank you Cory um the need of Redevelopment suggests Improvement and I think that's what everyone would want here the fear that most people uh have is is the government going to do something that that the public doesn't want and I think um uh Mr singer had indicated the public will play an important role as this this process moves forward um I I think the report was excellent he outlined all the statutory criteria for redevelopment um and I think this will be there is a possibility that this could be a good thing for the community and for the residents so I I also will vote in the affirmative thank you so yes you please you're um I will also vote um yes uh I think the area does need to be absolutely uh looked at potentially with the the Redevelopment capabilities um you know out of all the people that were noticed only one person came here objecting to the whole you know proposal and it is going to the May Council to ultimately lose look at the potential of the Redevelopment um I think something does need to be done and I think this is the first step so yes I will be agreeing to to this uh and I concur with a lot of the comments that were made here tonight thank you Jo motion for the board turn resolution with condemnation it's okay Choice could you make copies sure we will be adjourning for five more minutes and thank you for your patience Mr singer will explain um very simply we we already have a resolution drawn and that's not to say that this was in the bag there's another resolution in my folder that I drew denying this that being said because of the schedule of the mayor and Council meetings it is important for this to get the formal resolution vote --------- ##VIDEO ID:AKQKqmI3Fh0## the Waldwick planning board formal session called to order this is a regularly scheduled meeting for which the date time and location is set forth in the annual notice of meetings adopted by the world of playing board and the reorganization meeting of January 2024 in accordance with the open public meeting act said annual notice has been filed with the burrow clerk a copy posted in the vestibule of the Waldwick Administration Building and copies transmitted within 7 days after adoption to the official newspapers of the bureau as designated by the governing body to W the Bergen Record and the Ridgewood news secretary please call the role Mr yes may here Mr sha here Mr Mr Mr Kowalski here Mr MWI here Mr or here Mr basilo here Mr panile here Mr vort here all rise for a moment of Silent prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance please I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America the it stands one nation IND with libery and justice for all than you at this point in the meeting we invite anyone that has business before the board that is not on the agenda to come up for any comments seeing none next item we have the minutes from August 7 each board member does have a copy may I have a motion to accept as written Joe and John thank you all in favor thank you motion carries uh we don't need to call for that no um resolutions are next for H&B Waldwick LLC each member also has a copy motion to approve resolution as written John and Stan thank you all in favor hi hi secretary please call the M yes mayor yes Mr sh yes Mr Kowski yes Mr MWI yes Mr Orit yes Mr pilic abstain Mr pile yes Mr yes thank you uh next up any uh applications there are none tonight next is old business any old business that anyone would like to nope seeing none next up is new business review and consideration of the preliminary area in need of Redevelopment investigation of properties in Block 107 Lots 13578 9 10 11 13 and 17 Madam chair yes uh being the mayor of the burrow and this is going to be coming to me eventually I refuse myself from listening to this very good to be made at the advice of our attorney of the board and also the B ATT very good I'll be down to call me on my phone and I'll come up sounds good and are there any council members that need to um maybe recuse themselves no Cole you're not on Council anymore marking yeah Mark but good okay so my mistake on that one p shs great um Mr GLE should I wherever is comfortable for you you have a choice thank you if if your usual chair feels more comfortable it's been a while since I've been here for anything so I'll take a microphone here if that's all right sure thank you yes would you raise your right hand do you Solly swe to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth s you got I do state your name spell your last belong with your position yes good evening it's Paul GLE g r y g iel licensed professional planner also the planner for this board and the board of adjustment as well as the burough of Waldwick if you could for the benefit of the public and I noticed there is some public could you give us briefly benefit of your qualifications yes I a licensed professional planner in New Jersey I was so licensed in 1999 I'm also a member of americ Institute of certified planners I'm currently a principal of Phillips price GLE Laney Hughes planning and real estate Consultants uh we are based in Hoboken but our practice takes us throughout the northern and Central parts of the state generally and sometimes Beyond I have been uh the Consulting planner for Waldwick for geez some time now a number of years now over a decade our firm has been here since before 2000 I also currently serve as a municipal planner for about a half dozen other municipalities in Bergen County as well as in Somerset County beyond that I represent applicants before boards and I regularly prepare uh Redevelopment studies and plans similar to to the matter being heard by the board this evening thank you thank you're welcome I can just take it away if you like okay thank you uh the board has been provided as well as the public has been provided with the area in need of Redevelopment investigation dated July 2024 it was made available in accordance with applicable statutes uh by the buau and the board I will be reviewing some of the highlights of this study this evening it's a rather lengthy report so I don't intend to read it all into the record but we'll hit some of the main points and on the various requirements that need to be met as well as uh go into detail on the properties that are in the study area and my findings for the record the report will be appended to whatever resolution comes out of this may be helpful is I don't know if the board members all have copies but I do have at least not the entire report but the map that's in included so if any board members need a extra want think P will hand out now just for the record this is figure five area need of Redevelopment criteria directly as is included within that study and I I think it's useful just because it's an aerial of the study area as well as list the potential criteria that are met on each the thank you I have it thank you it's page 30 in the report and I believe this uh figure five is appropriate again to show the location we're dealing with again the board and others I'm sure are familiar with it but for the record thanks uh block 107 is located between Franklin Turnpike uh on the East you have Harrison Avy on the West Frederick Street on the North and West Prospect Street on the south there are 10 tax slots in this area that comprises just over three acres of land just to step back one second with regard to the board's duty this evening uh you've been referred this study by the mayor and Council it's in accordance with the state local Redevelopment and Housing law that's sets forth um the the statuto criteria for redevelopment designation as well as potentially for either these property or others Redevelopment plans or other uh Municipal Powers but this evening the only question before you that you'll be considering is whether or not one or more of the parcels in this study area beats any of the applicable criteria I'll get to those what they are in a little bit and it's your duty under the state law to listen to the testimony review the report and then at the end of the at the end of that have a public hearing to hear from the public and then make a recommendation one way or the other back to the governing body with regard to your findings and again we can get to at the end but you could be that if you agree with me that the entire area is qualified you can report that or you can say certain Lots none of the Lots or make other recommendations as well so that would be the end result of this evening's hearing so I'll go roughly in order of the report just to make it easier if anyone's following along uh again not going through everything in great detail uh but just briefly the uh we we outline in there what steps were taken with regard to the investigation the information that was reviewed uh so once we off authorized to prepare this study we looked through the master plans and Zoning of the municipality uh tax maps property ownership records uh and other documents similar to that as well as made requests of burrow departments for information from the past five years with regard to everything from fire code and building code issues to police records uh and various other items which when we received them we include them in the appendices of the report and also visited the uh study area on multiple occasions and in addition to that what I do cite it in our report is our firm in my own longstanding history in Waldwick as planner so the study area is very familiar to me not just from this most recent work but over the past again let's call it roughly 20 years that we've been working around here so just turning to the next from the first section of the report to chapter two with the study area locational context that lists all the blocks and lots that are included for the record as well as property owners and addresses and the area of the properties as listed on tax records there are maps showing this information report goes into detail on existing zoning and master plan designations for the area I just to put on the record because this may come up later it's the C1 Village commercial District that includes the study area it primarily is intended for various retail and other commercial uses uh they are again all listed in detail in the report just note with regard to the master plan that this will be talked about a little bit later in in the report that for a few years now walck has made a priority of trying to improve its business district as well as the area around the train station so there are some specific recommendations mentioned in there so this is not a study coming out of nowhere but it actually builds upon some master plan uh efforts that have been undertaken previously and as the board in public may recall also a similar effort to this that was undertaken about a year or two ago I foret the exact date for areas to the west of Harrison Avenue I'll turn to you next I don't have the page number the report in front of me but it's chapter 4 so I apologize but uh for the exact number but this list the statutory criteria under state law that are being considered here page 11 thank you yes I have a truncated version so I don't have the No Ex page number so page 11 chapter 4 as noted uh the state local Redevelopment and Housing law has eight different criteria that are listed and if any one or of these or more are found on a property or an area you can make a recommendation it qualifies as in need of Redevelopment uh three of these are relevant in this study they're listed as letters a d and H so talk about those in the context of the various properties also discussed here is a concept in Redevelopment planning known as section three where essentially if a parcel doesn't meet any of these criteria but is necessary for the overall Redevelopment of the area uh the law allows you to recommend including it in that overall area so this is commonly a case when you have a number of properties or a large property that surrounds a smaller one and it's kind of the hole in the donut or the missing tooth that type of thing to try to fill in a larger area so that would be dealt with as well and I'll just say at the outset there are 10 Lots included in the study area six of them meet one or more of the criteria again they're all listed in there I'll go into detail uh they comprise over two-thirds of the land area of the overall study area so I'll just continue into chapter five in order just to try to put briefly on the record some information on each of the properties again there's 10 of them I don't want to take too much of your time in in the Public's time with regard to details but just hit some the high points and findings and if you're following along the map I'm going to go through the lot and block number so we're starting at the top left corner lot one in Block 107 that's 49 Harrison uh this is a uh property at the corner of Harrison and Frederick uh has a two and a half story single family dwelling I did note that c the C1 Zone does not permit single family residential it only allows mixed use so commercial and residential together on properties and this property is generally in Fair to poor condition uh both internally and externally uh we did actually do an internal investigation of the the dwelling to look at conditions inside the house as well as on the property um they are listed in here but essentially there were a number of things that were concerning to me with regard to the condition of some of the inter internal fixtures uh with regard to you know the attic uh the seller the attic and seller both having you know issues with structural conditions and just the overall condition of the interior of the property not to mention the exterior had some issues as well uh because of the conditions listed in the report I do believe that three criteria are met here uh a and d a is with regard to essentially that a building is substandard unsafe uh unsanitary or dilapidated or has any of those characteristics to make it UNH wholesome living or working conditions and in this case due to um both interior and exterior uh concerns with regard to the structure and the property uh the the walls the mold dirty uh you know dirty conditions generally but also uh some of the building systems and the interior fun uh excuse me um fixtures I do believe that it would be an it's considered an obsolete dwelling that has some conditions that certainly are detrimental to the safety health and morals of the community uh likewise condition uh Criterion D excuse me deals more with the general property areas with buildings or improvements that have dilapidation obsolescence again they're all listed in here but a various a variety of factors including things such as lack of light ventilation um sanitary facilities excessive land coverage it's really a catch all for when you see a property that has some you know glaring deficiencies or potential problems that could be detrimental to the health safety and Welfare again they are all listed in detail uh so I do believe those two are in addition there's one more broad Criterion which I cite here and a number of other properties as well so I won't repeat it but it's criteria H dealing with smart growth principles uh the law was changed a few years ago to allow for uh Parcels that um you know area that would be consistent with smart growth planning principles adopted to a law or regulation in this case New Jersey does have various planning statutes and plans uh with that promote smart growth which is basically developing around train stations in downtown areas places where you have infrastructure and Roads and Utilities in place already here we're dealing with a property that's one block from the passenger rail station for Waldwick um it essentially would allow for its Redevelopment would allow for more appropriate type of development to take place in the area that is the downtown of municipality and the train station near major uh Transportation routes uh the next parcel is lot three 47 Harrison Avenue it's just to the South this is another um residential structure you have a number of residential structures along Harrison in this case I can cut to the chase that I don't believe it meets any of the individual criteria there are some conditions with regard to its you know the the fact that is a non-conforming use in the zone as a residential use uh and there's some you know some minor maintenance type issues but in general the property is in good condition um so it does not individually meet any of the criteria but it will be one that I do recommend including through that section three because it's as we'll see is surrounded by other properties that do meet criteria turning to lot five continuing South down Harrison we have the same issue with a um single family dwelling that's not a permitted use but it's generally in good shape it's wellmaintained nothing jumped out as being um deficient and rising to a level of it being designated under any criteria so I do not believe that you have any criteria met on that property as well yeah moving again through the report and then to the next property further down the street uh we're at lot 7 now that's 43 Harrison Avenue roughly in the middle of the block if you're following along on the map this is a uh twostory single family dwelling with a three card detached garage in the rear uh this property has a number of issues that are evident by looking at it we do a photograph showing these conditions uh one of the most glaring ones is a tree growing out of the foundation of the dwelling um literally there's a photo of that um there the entire rear yard area is essentially paved you do have a garage that seems more appropriate for commercial use which I guess makes sense it's a commercial Zone but it's a single family dwelling um there's some other issues with regard to just some the external improvements on the property uh both within the yard the building itself in terms of um its siding and and other portions of the foundation being covered in Moss or mold um again just one of these things when you look at it you do see a number of characteristics that show either neglect or other problems that potentially could lead to public health safety and general welfare concerns in addition in the front the property there's a when we are there in June at a site inspection there's a large area of ponding the street adjacent to the front property line even though it hadn't rained for a few days so there appears to be issues with drainage on the property or at least on the street directly adjacent to it um so for those reasons and the others cite in the report I do believe this property meets Criterion d uh due to the condition of the dwelling and the garage fencing and the overall property uh that do um talk to its essentially dilapidated obsolete condition and some potential health and safety issues with regard to the condition condition of the structure as well as the potential issues with um drainage and other issues uh from the overall overdevelopment of the property in terms of coverage Criterion H is met in my opinion as well that's the smart growth one uh next is lot eight we're going down to 41 Harrison Avenue this property is also residential uh and has a four card detached garage in the rear so we have another large garage structure on this property uh um the dwelling appears generally in good condition but the garage itself is in pretty poor condition number of broken windows uh the padlock doors uh the there's patching of the with untreated wood and other materials on the garage doors and there's actually a satellite dish on the roof of the garage which is an interesting touch if it's not supposed to be used for habitation um so you overall the the rear yard also has a number of just condition has a you know a look of being a bit um less than wellmaintained uh with some of the furniture that's out in the yard and other goods and materials on the property uh you know couch dining chairs that type of thing in the rear yard um piles of cinder blocks unsecured bicycles it's all listed in here but just a variety of items even though the property is being inhabit inhabited it be appears to have a number of um things that either don't relate to that or for some reason are there that just don't make makees Sense on typical residential property uh so for those reasons I do believe um criteria D is met for this property as well given the condition of the garage structure uh the excessive pavement on the overall property and again under various other reasons listed in the report going down now to the the last couple of lots along Harrison they're uh dealt with together because they're in common ownership their Lots N9 and 10 uh they were formerly developed but in 2015 uh the improvements on the property were demolished so for 9 years now it's been unimproved you can picture it being used as a parking and storage area along uh the corner of uh West Prospect and Harrison um even though it's being used for that purpose it's not really designed as a parking lot per se it does not have any real formal striping or other features that you would have in a in an actual parking area uh there's some asphalt that's severely damaged uh it's both gravel and Lawn area that kind of com Mingle um other than some chain link fencing there's really no separation from the sidewalk and and the street in some areas so you have a a concern about the ability for you know cars either being parked on there driving on or off the property in places where they shouldn't be uh but just more generally the fact that it's um being used for surface parking in a downtown area a block from a train station that's been sitting in this condition for some time you now this gets into a um a detailed theory if you will in the report which I can go into a little bit because I talk about this on this property on R Aid the fact that in a in an area where you have Smart growth being promoted good planning being promoted to take advantage of a train station to enhance it downtown uh surface parking especially when not in good condition is not an appropriate use of land that you would want to promote that actually there is case law dealing with this issue talking about parking areas being actually qualifying under Criterion D of the statute because of the fact that it's really is contrary to what you're trying to do to improve the streetcape to try to promote vibrancy and activity you know it's a more effect more um appropriate when we're talking about the right a lot which we'll get to in a second but if you picture that area instead of having an expansive asphalt and cars parked haphazardly and you know you name it no drainage facilities that type of thing instead having a well planned uh mix of uses or use that is actually designed in accordance with your zoning and your master plan for the burrow so in this case Lots 9 and 10 are ser Ser of an interim purpose as parking even though again this would be better utilized in probably for more for permitted use one that could take advantage of having a train station and walking distance uh one that would um be better maintained again there's some maintenance issues on this property as well it's a I believe has negative aesthetic impacts on the surrounding area and certainly does not help the streetscape to have 130 ft of Frontage on West Prospect 100 ft on Harrison that are just wide open for parking of cars uh no buildings no improvements minimal Landscaping fronting the street so I think criteria D is met in that in this case as well as criteria H for the smart growth next we're turning the corner onto West Prospect to lot 11 so this is a uh mixed use building U at 13 West Prospect now again jump to the conclusion here that I don't believe any criteria are met uh this is a actually the type of building like to see potentially on the adjacent properties with you know ground floor commercial Upper Floor residential generally wellmaintained you know there were some minor issues here and there but nothing that rises to the level of saying it qualifies under any the criteria uh the issue is though it's surrounded Again by other properties that do meet one or more criteria so I do believe it can be included under that section three okay second to last year but the largest property by far is lot 13 this is what's currently the Right Aid property I believe was geneves at some point before that geneves I I I actually grew up not too far from here so I remember that as well and I probably before that maybe you could help me was that a grocery store there before that yes it looks like it would have been right so we're going back some 50 not to date anyone but we're going back a number of decades here this is a property that was developed for yeah it used to be a path mark I believe it wasn't there you go so still a path mark in the 80s late 80s we mentioned that here that it appears that I couldn't find Historical records I didn't dig too deep on on that but I just by looking at it the way it's laid out appeared to be a grocery store so as a path Market became geneves It's Right Aid essentially you're dealing with a lot that is at a key location within the burrow at what we call the 100% Corner typically in planning circles that's kind of jargon for at your two main your main intersection Franklin Turnpike Prospect Street that's where you normally would like to have you know impressive buildings you do have a small Park area there but it's you know surrounded by asphalt and parking um you have about a 20,000 ft building with way more parking than is necessary for it and that's evident again from my visits over the years just going out there tonight you see a lot of cars park down on the end towards Clos train station yes yes we have well that's a trend we're trying to you know you're shorten parking in some areas other places you have too much here you have a lot that um unfortunately just it's it doesn't have any drainage facilities um in terms of modern lighting there's one light pole out in the entire lot it's got two two heads off it that's it so that doesn't meet modern standards certainly wouldn't meet current site planner zoning standards um the Lots the lot striping to the extent you can see it is somewhat halfhazard uh you have some aisle widths that are deficient in terms of width um I did go into some calculations that if it was we used a more appropriate parking standard for the building that exists there you'd probably need about 80 parking spaces that's based on one space for every 250 square feet there's 131 by my count so about 50 additional spaces over what I think even there's conservatives standered for parking one for 250 probably can get away with even a lower number but let's just call it you know again 50 or so spaces over what you need um in addition unfortunately this documented by the police reports that parking lot because is a somewhat of a magnet for criminal activity some of it minor but other cases where it's cars that are parked there people sleeping in vehicles um suspicious activity being reported um a variety of things I mean we have a whole page Page Plus of sum of the summary of police reports some of these do relate to the Right Aid use and fairness you know lost wallets um for all activity shop liting Etc in there as well but there are actually a number of of reports in here dealing with the parking area itself likewise the building department has a a a laundry list of issues with regard to um potential violations with regard to certain issues uh within the building itself as well as the exterior of the property and its maintenance uh snow shoveling or snow plowing something not happening in time things such as that um on top of that you also have the property has Frontage on Frederick Street where there are some dumpsters so that was where the loading area was for Pathmark and for the other stores but it's not up to current standards it's um these are dumpsters are sitting out there in the asphalt pav paved area there's no screening uh trucks that want to do any deliveries there and need to utilize the street to kurn there's not nearly enough space to provide provide for current um you know loading standards with regard to a commercial use there's a lot more information here but those are some of the main points with regard to this property and really the last one comes back to the argument I talked about before uh for the neighboring proper a couple Lots away where you have the parking lot that this is a main location within the burrow it's in a smart growth you know Transit oriented area and you're instead devoting you over an acre of land to parking area uh pavement uh that's not even being utilized necessarily by the businesses that's on the property um yes it might be helpful I'm sure for other businesses certainly maybe for commuters maybe people that need to park a car for that's great but unfortunately from a planning point of view this is a prime property and a prime location that is contrary to what wal's trying to do with its downtown and at station area it's contrary to good planning principles uh and I do believe for those reasons and a variety of other reasons listed here this property does meet uh Criterion d of the local Redevelopment and Housing law uh it's detrimental to the health safety and general welfare due to the fact that again it's a an obsolete outdated solution for a downtown area such as this with an obsolete outdated building on the property it also again meets that smart growth Criterion H given its location in the downtown at a main intersection uh close to the train station and just lastly there's one other parcel at the corner uh almost across the street from where we are tonight uh lot 17 62 Franklin Turnpike this is the mixed use building with a deli hair cutter some upstairs Apartments uh none of criteria are met it was a close call on this one you do have you know some conditions with regard to outdoor storage and trash that type of thing and it's overall condition but nothing jumped out to say this is appropriate you know in and of itself qualifies but it does um qualify my opinion to be included under that section three because it's a again surrounded by other properties that meet criteria uh it's you know part of a larger area that would benefit from a Redevelopment area designation okay with that I give you a lot of information over the 10 properties I can summarize the report now and then go back to answer any questions on specifics uh to go into detail if you want I'm sure members of the public might have comments or questions as well when we get to that they be happy to answer them uh but just the overall evaluation that's what this map uh figure five shows just a recap we have 10 properties six of them beet one more of the criteria in my opinion uh the other four that do not are again bounded by other properties that do meet the criteria for redevelopment uh so I do believe that the area would qualify overall either through the designations of the a or H that are listed there or for those that don't have any individual designations uh by the section three inclusion in the overall Redevelopment area so that's the summary and conclusion of my findings uh I'd be glad to answer any questions from the board at this time we're going into more detail thank you folks Paul could you go into exactly what it means to have an area it's so designated in terms of what can and can't happen yes so the state law was enacted you know many years ago to deal with traditionally you know just going through a little history here it was more in urban areas and it was you know blight in the the sense of you have you know vacant burned out buildings that type of thing it's evolved a lot over the years the law has changed to change the wording in fact to get away from so-called blight but to the again instead give municipalities a tool to say okay if you have an area that uh for whatever reason has fallen out of favor with the market that has been abandoned in some cases you know met uh its fate through natural disaster or fire that type of thing through any one of these criteria it allows IP ality or burrow such as this to designate it that's just one step what that means is then the if it's the designation is um essentially enacted upon by the governing body the mayor and Council in this case a Redevelopment plan can be undertaken and adopted that would set new Zoning for an area that could change the particular uses that permitted in some cases you allow you allow the existing uses stay it's overlay zoning that allows additional uses that's one of the tools um and another one is with regard to tax abatements or payments in L of taxes so it's the ability for long-term abatements under this under the statute that allows for property owns to take advantage of that in some cases and in this one where it's a condemnation Redevelopment area the municipality does have the ability to condemn property to use eminent domain of course there's a whole procedure for that uh that involves you know fair market value it's just not just they come and say we're taking your land and there's nothing beyond that but that is one a municipality can go in either Direction with condemnation or non- condemnation Paul in a condemnation in where condemnation is permitted the municipality does not have to condemn all the properties does not condemn any properties it doesn't it can or not can all none some it's just one of the tools that's in there it's not necessarily a bulk solution right and that's yeah that's why it's it's it's it's a it's a rather drastic tool certainly we it's acknowledged that's why there's notice given to the property owners there's notice given in the newspaper twice in a row you know two weeks in a row that's literally the way the statute's written nowadays um but again it's a whole series of procedures that would need to be followed if if and when it gets to that point and then for that matter there are also procedures with regard to relocation of existing tenants or businesses that's again there's a lot of detail that needs to be addressed with regard to any before anything can happen where people are you know certainly not they're not being forcibly moved out of a property it's it's again it's a long procedure that involves the you know potentially condemning property and then dealing with whatever is on that property as a practical matter if a property is worrisome for some reason there's still an opportunity for the property owner to negotiate and discuss the ultimate outcome of that property with the Burrows they're not yes yeah again it's not it's not precluded no this is um again it's a long process here and this is just First Step this board again is only focused on this evening at least you know the main priority is looking at whether criteria met or not but that then allows you to make a recommendation which then the mayor and Council have to take seriously and say okay do we agree with you or not and then they take the next step as far as whether or not that is designated with or without condemnation powers and beyond that then the other steps again don't even need to that's the other thing is for example the other Redevelopment area there's no big plan written there's no plan whatsoever currently um for that area again wal is moving slowly methodically you know there's no plan in place you know that's behind the scenes trying to you know take take over this whole area and again just so that we make sure the record is clear the first Redevelopment area was without condemnation Powers was it not you don't have in front of me that that's my recollection that's my recollection however again to be very very transparent this one seeks condemnation Powers has yes by law it needs to be stated right in the resolution authorizing it uh looking at the introduction at the report uh says that that right there the state law was adjusted a few years back to make you have to make it clear you're choosing one path of the other again that said you could the municipality can always move off the path if it determines you know does not want to go in that direction it's just you can't later on if you do the non-c condemnation like across the street can't come back later and try to take property without going through the whole process again it simply gives the burrow an option yes thank you and that happens here not at B at Council correct the designation would be here yeah the initial design well the recommendation you're just only again as plan board you're statutory making a recommendation there would then then need to be essentially a resolution adopted after that by the mayor and Council to say we you know based upon the pl W's recommendation we designate this area so there's multiple steps in yeah there's a whole set of steps in the process they can say we agree we disagree one property eight properties 10 properties and no properties right this is one of those things where it's a multi-step process and you can stop at any one of the steps yes that's why I mentioned even if there's a designation there's no guarantee there's no requirement to go forward to say okay now we're going to adopt a plan or enter to Redevelopment agreements or do tax abatements or anything those are possibilities but you nothing happens without the first steps being taken but nothing guarantees you know you don't have to move down the road and guarantee that it thanks any board members have questions comments questions questions right now actually no uh I'll ask the public if they have question ladies and gentlemen of the public this matter is about to be opened up for your questions not your comments anyone who wishes to speak has to come to the microphone be sworn because almost all questions involve giving information and identify yourself and where you live saying that CH anyone from the public have comments at this point no not questions question questions pardon me pardon me chairman board uh my name is Ken porro uh I'm attorney with Chas and larell and uh a neighbor of yours in white uh I represent Mr Mrs uh p Galis at 45 Harrison Avenue that's block 107 lot 5 45 Harrison and uh if I could uh ask Mr uh greel a couple questions certainly Mr great thank you Mr GLE thank you for your uh cander as to lot five in your report which is Page 15 and 16 uh you had said that the property is in good condition and is uh fairly wellmaintained is that correct yes and in fact uh you concluded that there was no criteria in the Redevelopment statute that would mandate that the municipality could take that property but for this Redevelopment well there you just be clear there's no criteria that I believe were met um for the designation of itself correct so but for this Redevelopment plan walw wouldn't have a basis on condemnation they wouldn't have a public purpose to take this single family homeall not in of itself no that's correct is if it was isolated there's nothing the criteria that's met uh that would allow for that and and all cander uh ladies and gentlemen of the board the power of condemnation is what gives my client pause and I would say just think of yourselves if you property I know I'm I'm going a little off if you give me a little leeway because I'll be quick then okay the the board does have the power to recommend that condemnation not be utilized so as far as you had said Mr greel there are other Concepts such as an overlay uh zoning is that correct yes well I mentioned that in the context of a Redevelopment plan but that certainly is a zoning concept that could be utilized outside of the Redevelopment uh framework and as as far as uh when was discussed here by way of the negotiations in fact the negotiations are not made by the burrow isn't in fact that the designated developer is the person who is negotiating The Taking of the property it depends on uh you know what Redevelopment agreements entered into you need to read about you need a designation first then a plan and then a burrow or municipality would enter into Redevelopment agreement that allows a property a developer to excuse me to uh enter negotiations are you aware as far as the pascalis property that a developer did approach my client and they were not able to amicably come up with a uh purchase of my client's property are you aware of that the only reason I'm aware it's just just be in full cander here before the meeting uh you actually mentioned that to me prior to that I was not aware of that fact fair enough M far for the record what developer uh I I'll provide that to you I'll provide the name of my client is in Greece right now God bless them and uh their husband and wife uh as far as and I'm wrapping up you had said in your presentation the power of condemnation your words is a drastic measure is that the term that you had used I'd have to look back and say but I I did I do acknowledge that it's something for the reason you were here it is something not taken lightly but it sometimes is necessary and as far again in my clients uh and I believe in your report again thank you for your cander uh there is no imminent danger uh associated with my client's property there's nothing that based on our investigation from police records you know Property Maintenance records uh site visits that jumped out as being a imminent health safety welfare issue uh my last uh point for the record uh council is that I had gone to the website thank you and got the report I did not see as required by the law that notice was given to the adjacent Burrows that would be woff hocus Saddlebrook Allendale Midland Park and Ridgewood I could be wrong I didn't see it on the website but respectfully if that notice is improper the uh the hearing would be so I would ask that you carry this to make sure that you notice is proper because if you notice is not proper the uh the uh not comply with the St store requirements thank you very much I appreciate you thank you anyone else have questions at this time seeing none I just have one question Paul yes um are any of these properties uh Lots one through 10 uh commonly owned by more than than one individual or are they separately owned by different individuals there's actually a listing which I can refer to on it's page two and what I'm referring to so there are a few that are common okay but it's not an overall um you know one owner at this time at least according to tax records yeah so you have you know the pest gas properties is individually owned next there's the Doyle syracusa on the other way there are two lot seven and eight owned by the same individual okay and then Lots nine and 10 that parking area one I talked about those are both wal development Corp thank you but the other ones are all different owners yes okay thank you um IAM chair could we adj for about five minutes sure thank you we are adjourned for five minutes do I set the timer