A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to ensuring compliance with public noticing requirements for hearings related to local redevelopment as dictated by the New Jersey Local Redevelopment and Housing Law. Specific attention was given to NJSA 40A:12A-6, subsection B3, which mandates that notices must be published in a local newspaper for two consecutive weeks and sent via certified mail to property owners within the study area. The board expressed confidence that these notices had been properly issued, allowing the hearing to proceed.

Public comments included input from Aubrey Webb, who addressed concerns regarding statements about the local Rite Aid store. Webb, an employee of the store, clarified that the empty shelves were due to Rite Aid’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in October of the previous year, which had disrupted supply chains until the company successfully exited bankruptcy in June. Webb emphasized that the stock issues were improving with weekly replenishments, countering claims that the store’s layout was the primary problem.

Following Webb’s comments, a board member questioned the disparity in stock levels between Webb’s Rite Aid and others in South Jersey, which remained fully stocked. This led to a broader discussion about the necessity of redevelopment and the power of condemnation as a tool for the borough, emphasizing that recommending an area for redevelopment would not obligate the borough to act but would provide options for future actions.

In the context of redevelopment, the board reviewed a report on the conditions of various properties in Block 107, located between Franklin Turnpike and Harrison Avenue. The report, presented by planner Paul GLE, detailed the zoning, tax maps, property records, and consultations with borough departments. The study area covered over three acres and included properties with varying conditions, some of which were deemed to meet the criteria for redevelopment due to issues such as structural deterioration, unsanitary conditions, and non-conformance with current zoning regulations.

Detailed assessments of individual properties were discussed, highlighting specific concerns. For instance, Lot 1 on Harrison Avenue was noted for its fair to poor condition, with structural problems and mold issues, meeting multiple criteria for redevelopment. Similarly, Lot 7 on Harrison Avenue faced drainage problems and general neglect, impacting community health and safety. Other properties, such as Lot 9 and Lot 10, were used for parking and storage but did not meet the standards for a functional parking lot, qualifying them for redevelopment consideration due to their negative aesthetic and safety impacts.

The board members expressed a general consensus on the need for redevelopment in the area, particularly properties close to the railroad. One member, with extensive local knowledge, emphasized the historical significance of these properties and the importance of revitalizing them. The lack of public opposition at the meeting was noted, with only Aubrey Webb voicing concerns.

The discussion also touched on the legal framework surrounding redevelopment designations. It was explained that state law, originally aimed at addressing urban blight, now allows municipalities to designate areas that have lost market favor, even if they are not physically decayed. This designation could lead to the creation of a redevelopment plan, potentially involving changes to zoning, new permitted uses, and tax abatements for property owners.

An attorney representing a neighboring property owner raised concerns about the implications of condemnation powers, questioning the necessity of such measures for well-maintained properties. The attorney pointed out that their property on Harrison Avenue did not meet any criteria for condemnation and suggested that the borough lacked a public purpose to take the property under the current plan.