[00:00:01]
          ON THE 23RD. I THINK ONE EVENING THIS IS THE MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING. IT'S 7 P.M, MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP, SOMERSET COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AND IT'S THE PLANNING BOARD'S INTENTION TO CONCLUDE THIS MEETING NO LATER THAN 10 P.M, NOVEMBER 25TH. THAT'S. AND IT'S 7 P.M. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT. NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF 
          [I. ROLL CALL]
THIS MEETING HAS BEEN POSTED AND SENT TO THE OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED NEWSPAPERS. ROLL CALL PLEASE. VAMPIRES. MONEY HERE. BATTLE HERE. BLODGETT. HERE. HAMILTON. HERE. KEENAN. HERE. 
          MATTHEWS. HERE. ROBERTS HERE. SINGH, HERE. LOCKLEAR HERE. KHAN, HERE. CASEY, HERE. 
          STRACUZZI HERE. SULLIVAN. HERE. BARTOLO, HERE. THANK YOU. SALUTE TO THE FLAG. DON! I ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC OF WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. OKAY. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. SUBJECT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO LIMIT THEIR COMMENTS AND OR QUESTION AND ANSWERS TO FIVE MINUTES. ANY ITEMS? CLOSE. OKAY. CASE RESOLUTION. THIRD ITEM. CASE. PB DASH ZERO FOUR. DASH 24. 
          [IV. RESOLUTION]
APPLICANT IS MONTGOMERY PLACE, LLC. CASSIA MARKET BLOCK 5023. LOT 2.01 2311 US HIGHWAY 206. 
          NORTH. AMENDED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN WITH BULK VARIANCES TO PERMIT CASSIA MARKET TO HAVE A 71.66FT■!S ELIMINATED FACADE SIGN AND A 3.9FT■!S NON ELIMINATED TAGLINE SIGN. DO YOU WANT TO REFRESH CASEY? OH, SURE. ALSO, THE BOARD WILL RECALL, I BELIEVE, AT YOUR AUGUST 12TH MEETING, YOU CONSIDERED THIS AMENDMENT TO THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN AND VARIANCES WERE GRANTED WITH RESPECT TO SIGNAGE. SO THIS RESOLUTION NOW MEMORIALIZES THE APPROVAL THAT YOU GAVE THAT EVENING. IT'S NO QUESTIONS. DO I HAVE SOMEBODY. MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RESOLUTION. HE'S LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO MEMORIALIZE. MEMORIALIZE? I'LL SECOND. I CAN'T OKAY. ROLL CALL. YES. ROLL CALL PLEASE. HAMILTON. YES. ABSTAIN. MONEY. YES. MATTHEWS. 
          SING. ABSTAIN. LOFFLER. YES. KHAN. YES. CAMP. YES. OH, HE'S NOT HERE. THANK YOU. ITEM FOUR. 
          [V. EXTENSION REQUEST]
EXTINCTION REQUEST CASE. PB DASH ZERO SEVEN. DASH 20. THE APPLICANT IS THE HAVEN AT PRINCETON, LLC. BLOCK 37003, LOT SEVEN, DASH 460 RIVER ROAD. EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL MAJOR SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO NOVEMBER 1ST, 2025. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION. 
          YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, RICHARD JOHNSON, AN ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT. THIS IS THE TOWNHOUSE APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT ON RIVER ROAD. THAT'S PART OF YOUR THIRD ROUND OBLIGATION UNDER MOUNT LAUREL. WE RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN APPROVAL, DESIGN WAIVERS. AND SEE, WE SEE SEE VARIANCES ON NOVEMBER FIRST, 2202 ONE. THAT WAS GOOD FOR TWO YEARS. LAST YEAR WE HAVE A RESOLUTION THAT GRANTED US VESTED RIGHTS UNTIL NOVEMBER 1ST. 2024. WE'RE HERE FOR ANOTHER ONE YEAR EXTENSION, WHICH WE CAN ASK FOR. WHERE ARE WE NOW? WHY ARE WE TAKING THIS TIME? AS PER LAST YEAR, WHEN I WAS HERE, I TOLD YOU THAT THE DEP WAS HAVING PROBLEMS WITH OUR STORMWATER. WELL, WHAT HAPPENED WAS. IS THAT THE DEP DECIDED TO 
          [00:05:08]
REFER THIS CASE TO THE HISTORIC COMMISSION OF THE DEP BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT THERE WERE INDIAN ARTIFACTS IN THE PROPERTY. AND SO WE HIRED RICHARD GRUBB OF CRANBURY, WHO'S AN ARCHEOLOGIST WHO TALKING WITH MARK HERMAN, THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTGOMERY USES. SO AFTER 350 DIGS, THEY FOUND SOME ARTIFACTS NEXT TO WHERE SALISBURY ROAD IS GOING. AND THEY APPROVED OUR WHAT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO A EASEMENT FOR NON-DEVELOPMENT. BUT THIS WAS THIS ONE THAT I DREW FOR ARCHEOLOGICAL, YOU KNO, NON TOUCHING, YOU KNOW, AND SO WE FILED THAT AND WE GOT APPROVED. AND SO THE DEP THEN GAVE US ORAL APPROVAL FOR OUR STORMWATER. AND NOW DAVID SCHMIDT, OUR ENGINEER, SAID PLANS FOR COMPLIANCE FOR ALL THE OTHER CONDITIONS IN THE RESOLUTION OF MEMORIALIZATION TO YOUR PROFESSIONALS, TO MR. SULLIVAN'S OFFICE AND MR. KRUSE'S OFFICE. AND THAT WAS DONE ON SEPTEMBER 8TH, AND WE'RE STILL WAITING TO HEAR THAT WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. IS THAT THE LOT IN QUESTION ONLY IS PARTIALLY IN THE 2008 PLAN. WE ARE SEWERED OR SANITARY SEWER IS BEING. GOING TO THE STAGE TWO PLAN RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET AND THE ROAD RATHER. AND BUT AND THERE'S CAPACITY AND WE HAVE PAID OUR FEES BUT THEY HAVE TO SHIFT AROUND WHERE THE 2008 PLAN IS OR THE WASTEWATER, YOU KNOW, PLAN IS. AND SO WE'RE WAITING ON THAT. WE NEED TO GET A PWA, WHICH HAS TO WAIT UNTIL THE DEP APPROVES THE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. WE GOT AN EXTENSION OF OUR LIE AND NOW THAT'S GOOD. THAT WAS REISSUED ON MAY 23RD, 2002 FOR. THE TRANSITION AND GP APPROVALS ARE NOW BEING REVIEWED BY THE NJDEP. 
          WE MET WITH LAURA ZULAWSKI ABOUT THE BIKE PATHS AND THE PROPERTY. THAT'S NOT BEING THAT'S NOT BEING DEVELOPED AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE DEP TO GO ALONG WITH THAT. AND THE OTHER, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT LAST THING YOU SAID YOU MET WITH ZALESKI TO DO WHAT? AND THEN YOU'RE BIKE PATHS, BIKE PATH, PEDESTRIAN PATHS, BIKE PATHS, AND THE PROPERTY THAT'S DEDICATED TO TOWNSHIP. OKAY. THE DEP IS THEY DON'T WANT ANYTHING THERE. THEY WANT A WOODS PERIOD. 
          AND WE'RE TRYING TO CONVINCE THEM THAT THE TOWNSHIP REALLY WANTS THIS FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES. SO WE'RE WORKING ON THAT. HOPEFULLY WE'LL CONVINCE THEM. SINCE THE TOWN, ALTHOUGH SPEAKING WITH MARK HARMON, THE DEP DOESN'T CARE WHAT THE TOWN WANTS. THEY CARE. THEY CARE WHAT THEY WANT. THAT'S THEIR ATTITUD. AND WE DON'T NEED FLOOD HAZARD AREA AREA APPROVAL. AND WE NEED TO GET THE APPROVAL FOR THE WATER LINES. SO WE RESUBMITTED. NOW THAT WE HAVE A APPROVAL FOR OUR STORMWATER UNDER THE NEW REGULATIONS, WE SUBMITTED ALSO NOT ONLY TO YOUR PROFESSIONALS BUT TO SOMERSET COUNTY PLANNING BOARD, THE DELAWARE ART AND CANAL COMMISSION, AND THE SOMERSET UNION WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR THEIR REVIEW OF THE NEW PLANS. 
          COMMENTS BACK. WE'RE MINOR. SO ONCE WE GET THE FINAL SIGN OFF OF THE DEP, INCLUDING THE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, WE'LL BE READY TO ROLL. AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. I MEAN, THE TIME FOR WHICH WE HAD TO DO OUR ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION WAS A LONG TIME AND IT HAD TO COMPLY WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR REGULATIONS. SO THAT'S 
          [00:10:05]
WHERE WE ARE. AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET EVERYTHING DONE BY THE SPRING. SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. 
          WE NEED AN EXTENSION. CAN I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS THE RESULTS OF THE ARCHEOLOGICAL. 
          THEY FOUND A SMALL LITTLE MIDDEN OR SOMETHING. YEAH. YEAH. SO I FILED A. WOULD BE WOULD BE AKIN TO A CONSERVATION EASEMENT. BUT THE DEP HAS THEIR OWN. SO I FILED IN THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE ON AUGUST 9TH. AUGUST 19TH, 2024. AND WHAT IT DOES, IT PRESERVES A SMALL LITTLE POINT, 4.75 ACRES OF LAND THAT HAS THE ARTIFACT. NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE TO DO THAT, BUT DAVID SCHMIDT, OUR ENGINEER, HAD APPROVED TO THE HISTORICAL PART OF THE DEP THAT WE COULD BUILD SALISBURY ROAD, WHICH, IF YOU REMEMBER, IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS YOUR MASTER PLAN ROAD WILL NOT THE BUILDING OF THAT WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE ARCHEOLOGICAL FINDING THAT WAS DISCOVERED ON THE ONE OF THE 350 DIGS THAT WE HAD TO DO. OKAY. SO THE ONLY REAL THING THAT WE'RE ARGUING WITH THE DEP IS, IS THE PATHS AND THE SECTION. IF YOU REMEMBER 20, THE PROPERTY IS 70 ACRES WITH ABOUT 20 IN THE MIDDLE. THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED WITH THE TOWNHOUSES AND THE APARTMENTS AND THE OTHER 50 ON EACH SIDE, 25 EACH SIDE IS FOR OPEN SPACE, AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET THEM TO GO ALONG WITH PATHS, BUT THEY THEY DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE EASEMENT SHOULD CONTAIN THEM OR EXCLUDE THEM OR WHAT TO DO. AND WE'VE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH. SO THAT'S WHERE WE. HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM OUR PROFESSIONALS? IT'S WE HAVEN'T BEEN SITTING DOING NOTHING ON THIS ONE. WE'VE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY ON IT. AND IT'S JUST THE DEP TAKING ITS TIME ON GETTING STUFF DONE. THEY SHOULD. WHO'S GOING TO SPEAK ON ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS AT THIS STAGE? NO MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. WE'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. SECOND. I DO JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. OKAY. WILL THERE BE ANY BASED ON THE ISSUES YOU'VE BEEN DEALING WITH, WILL THERE BE ANY BE ANY MATERIAL CHANGES TO THE PLANS THEMSELVES THAT WOULD REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL PLANNING BOARD ACTION? OKAY. THAT HAS TO BE DETERMINED BY MR. DARGIE'S OFFICE AND YOUR OFFICE. BUT ACCORDING TO DAVID SCHMIDT. AND THE ANSWER IS NO. OKAY. IT'S JUST THE SIZE OF THE DETENTION BASINS AND THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE DETENTION BASINS AND THAT SORT OF THING. IT'S MORE ENGINEERING THAN PLANNING. NO PLANNING. THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO PLANNING ISSUES. SO THE ENGINEERING ISSUES. SO NONE OF THE CHANGES TO THE BASINS ARE GOING TO MAKE ANY MATERIAL CHANGES IN THE LAYOUT OF ANY PLAY AREAS, PARKING CIRCULATION. 
          NOTHING LIKE THAT. NO, NO. SAME LAYOUT. OKAY. YEAH. ANY MORE DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT OR. WE ARE WAITING FOR THE OUTCOME. ONCE EVERYTHING WE NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE. YEAH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION. EXTENSION. I'LL SECOND. ROLL CALL, PLEASE. CAROL. YES. 
          BLODGETT. YES. HAMILTON. YES. KEENAN. YES. MONEY. YES. MATTHEWS. YES. ROBERTS. YES. 
          SINGH. YES. AND GLOCKLER. YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT ITEM. CAPITAL REVIEW. 
          [VI. CAPITAL REVIEW]
THE APPLICANT IS MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP SECTOR SITE NUMBER 20001, LOT 10.05 100 COMMUNITY DRIVE. THE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER. YES. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN. FRANK FERRARO WITH THE FIRM OF 
          [00:15:08]
FERRARO AND STAMOS HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT SECTOR SITE. TOWER ASSETS LLC. MR. CHAIRMAN, AS YOU INDICATED, THIS IS A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT REVIEW. SECTOR SITE BID FOR THE RIGHT. 
          YOU MAY SIT. REAL QUICK. SECTOR SITE WAS THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER WITH RESPECT TO THE BID FOR THE COMMUNICATION TOWER AT THIS VERY PROPERTY. THE BID WAS AWARDED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL ON MARCH 21ST. THE LEASE WAS SIGNED BETWEEN MY CLIENT AND THE TOWNSHIP ON JULY 22ND, 20 FOR ONE OF THE TERMS OF THE LEASE WAS THAT THE PROJECT WOULD GO BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THIS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT REVIEW. AND SO WE'RE HERE I DO HAVE MY PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER TO REVIEW THE PLANS WITH THE BOARD AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. AND I DO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE. MR. RICH KOMISAR FROM SECTOR SITE. IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICANT'S OPERATIONS. SO UNLESS THERE'S ANY INITIAL COMMENTS MR. CHAIRMAN, I CAN CALL UP MY ENGINEER. HAVE HIM SWORN AND LET HIM GO THROUGH THE PLANS. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. 
          WE'LL CALL JOHN FERRANTE, WHO IS OUR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. GOOD EVENING, MR. FERRANTE. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM YOUR TESTIMONY? THIS EVENING WILL BE TRUTHFUL. I DO, THANK YOU. OKAY. MR. FERRANTE, COULD YOU PLEASE REVIEW YOUR BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE BOARD IN PUBLIC? YES, I AM. I HAVE A BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING. ENGINEERING FROM NEWARK, NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND A MASTER OF SCIENCE FROM THE SAME INSTITUTION. BEEN PRACTICING OVER 40 YEARS AND BEEN A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER FOR OVER 40 YEARS. I'VE APPEARED IN HUNDREDS OF BOARDS SIMILAR TO THIS, AND AS WELL AS MONTGOMERY ON A TELECOMMUNICATION APPLICATION. A FEW YEARS AGO, AND MY LICENSE IS CURRENT. WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, ANY QUESTIONS TO MR. FERRANTE? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MR. FERRANTE, IF YOU CAN JUST REFER TO THE SHEET THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE TESTIFYING TO AS YOU MOVE THROUGH THE PACKET, FIRST OF ALL, THE PLANS YOU'RE ABOUT TO TESTIFY TO WERE EITHER PREPARED BY YOU OR UNDER YOUR SUPERVISION. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. YES, SIR. FOR THE RECORD, THE DRAWING THAT I ON THE SCREEN AND THAT I'LL BE PRESENTING ARE REVISION ZERO DATED SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2024. AND THESE ARE THE DRAWINGS THAT ARE PREPARED BY US. AND OUR FIRST SHEET, WHICH IS Z1, HAS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE OF THE SITE OF THE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX AS ALSO INDICATED. WE ARE IN THE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX REDEVELOPMENT ZONE. THE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX APPEARS AT THE CENTER OF THE AERIAL AND THE LOCATION OF OUR PROPOSED COMMUNICATION FACILITY IS AS I'M ZOOMING IN. THERE'S AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY, A PAVED DRIVEWAY THAT BRINGS US TO THE TO THIS AREA OF THE SITE, AND WE'LL BE LOCATING THE TELECOMMUNICATION COMPOUND, WHICH IS DESIGNED FOR FOUR CARRIERS. VERIZON WILL BE TAKING UP THE TOP SPOT, AND THEY ALSO PART OF THE APPLICATION IS DISH, WHICH IS A SECOND TELECOMMUNICATION CARRIER WHICH IS LOCATED TWO LEVELS BELOW THE VERIZON. BUT I'LL SHOW THAT WHEN I PRESENT THE ELEVATION OF THE OF THE PLAN. WITH THAT, I WILL GO TO OUR NEXT SHEET, WHICH IS Z2, WHICH PRIMARILY IS THE TAX MAP. THE ZONING MAP, BUT THE IN GENERAL, THOUGH THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION DRAWINGS ACTUALLY START WITH SB1, WHICH INDICATES THAT THE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, THE ENTIRE PROPERTY THAT IS SHOWN AS THE OUTLINE WE ARE TO THE TO THE WEST, THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL TO THE WEST, BUT AS INDICATED, THE. I'LL ZOOM IN TO THE ACTUAL TELECOMMUNICATION COMPOUND, WHICH IS A 60 BY 40 COMPOUND WITH THE WITH THE 130 FOOT MONOPOLE LOCATED AT THE CENTER. THE VERIZON COMPOUND IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH TO THE SOUTHEAST, AS SHOWN, AND THE REST OF THE. THE COMPOUND WILL IS SIZE FOR CO-LOCATING ADDITIONAL CARRIERS. 
          THE POLE JUST TO FOR THE BOARD IS INDICATED AS 135 FOOT MONOPOLE, BUT IT'S EXTENDABLE TO 150 TO ALLOW EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT. THE TOWNSHIP CARRIER, AND OTHER CARRIERS TO CO-LOCATE IF REQUIRED. IT'S DESIGNED TO BE EXTENDABLE TO 150. WITH THAT, I'LL GO TO THE 
          [00:20:05]
NEXT SHEET, WHICH IS SORT OF ZOOM IN ON THE ACTUAL SITE PLAN COMPOUND. IS INDICATED EARLIER. 
          THERE IS AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT COMES FROM THE ACCESS DRIV. ACCESS DRIVE. I APOLOGIZE, I HAVE A LITTLE COLD AND THE COMPOUND IS LOCATED AT THE END OF THE EXISTING ACCESS DRIVE. 
          IT'S A PAVED AREA AND THE COMPOUND WILL BE A GRAVEL SURFACE, PAVED AND A EIGHT FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE WILL SURROUND THE COMPOUND. BUT THE VERIZON, THE EQUIPMENT AS SHOWN THERE IS PRIMARILY THREE THREE RADIO CABINETS WITH ALL THE REQUIRED UTILITIES PRIMARILY ELECTRICAL AND TELECOMMUNICATION WILL BE BROUGHT TO THE COMPOUND. AND WE DO HAVE A AN EMERGENCY GENERATOR AT 30 KILOWATT. THE EMERGENCY GENERATOR THAT WILL BE LOCATED IN IN THE VERIZON COMPOUND. AS FAR AS THE ELEVATION OF THE TOWER, YOU SEE HERE ON OUR SHEE. SP THREE AS INDICATED, IS THE VERIZON WILL OCCUPY THE UPPER THE TOP SLOT AT 135 FOOT TOWER MONOPOLE, AND WE HAVE SIZED IT FOR TELECOMMUNICATION CARRIERS. AND THE OTHER APPLICANT THAT'S JOINING OUR APPLICATION, WHICH IS THE DISH ANTENNA IS LOCATED AT CENTER LINE 112, WHICH IS TWO TWO LEVELS BELOW THE VERIZON COMPOUND. AND 135 IS THE TOP OF THE MONOPOLE. AS I INDICATED, IT'S EXTENDABLE. THE OTHER OTHER ELEMENTS, AS FAR AS ACCESS TO THE COMPOUND IS FROM THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY. THE EXISTING SHED THAT'S ON THE CURRENTLY THERE WILL WILL REMAIN IT'S NOT TOUCHED. BUT AS AS ALSO INDICATED THE SITE IS PROPOSED. IT'S ALMOST 500FT TO THE FROM THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE AND 300 FOOT TO THE TO THE NEAREST BUILDING. THE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX. SO IT'S SET QUITE A WAYS BACK AND ALSO OVER 555FT FROM THE FROM THE ORCHARD, ORCHARD LANE, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE VERIZON IS PROPOSING A 12 BY 12 SQUARE PLATFORM FOR THEIR ANTENNAS, AND THEY'RE PROPOSING NINE ANTENNAS ON THREE SECTORS, AS SHOWN BY THIS, BY THIS DRAWING, 132 AT AN ELEVATION OF 132. THE ANTENNA PLATFORM IS 12FT BY 12FT SQUARE AND OBVIOUSLY THE A GRADE, AS SHOWN HERE ARE THE RADIO CABINETS AT GRADE SUPPORTED ON THE CONCRETE SLAB. THE SURROUNDING OF A CHAINLINK FENCE. IT'S TYPICAL FOUNDATION FOR THE FENCE AS WELL AS THE TELECOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT, THE GENERATOR AND THE UTILITY CABLE BRIDGES ARE SHOWN AS WELL. SO IT'S A STANDARD TELECOMMUNICATION COMPOUND THAT THE TOWNSHIP IS FAMILIAR FROM OTHER APPLICATIONS. WE ARE PROVIDING THE ENTIRE AREA OF DISRUPTION WILL REQUIRE A SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PERMIT. AND THIS DRAWING SHOWN HERE PROVIDES THAT INFORMATION. IT'S SC ONE. AND WE'RE ALSO PROVIDED A LANDSCAPING PLAN WHICH IS L ONE WHICH INDICATES WE'RE WE'RE BUFFERING THE TELECOMMUNICATION COMPOUND WITH LANDSCAPING. WE'RE PROVIDING JUNIPER EVERGREENS AS WELL AS FOUR, SORRY, SIX TREES WHICH ARE INDICATED HERE, WHICH ARE THE PICEA GLAUCA TREES, WHITE SPRUCE AND THE EASTERN RED RED CEDAR. 19 DRAWING. THERE WAS A COMMENT FROM THE YOUR THE TOWNSHIP LANDSCAPING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND WHICH NOTED THAT THERE WAS A AN ERROR IN THE IN THE NUMBER OF TREES AND BUT THE TABLE IS CORRECT. THE PLAN WILL BE REVISED TO REFLECT THAT MINOR MINOR DISCREPANCY 1111 TREES VERSUS NINE NOTED ON THE PLAN. THAT'S OVERALL IS MY PRESENTATION OF THE OF THE GLAD TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. WE DID HAVE ONE COMMENT LETTER, WHICH IS 
          [00:25:04]
FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, WHICH IS DATED OCTOBER 11TH, AND THERE WERE THREE COMMENTS AND COMMENT. NUMBER ONE HAD TO DO WITH THE CONCERN THAT THE UTILITY TRENCHES COMING UP FROM ORCHARD OR ARE CLOSE. AND I'LL GO BACK TO OUR SP ONE. I'LL ZOOM IN TO INDICATE WHAT THE CONCERN WAS, WHERE WE'RE SHOWING THE ELECTRICAL CONDUITS COMING FROM AN EXISTING UTILITY POLE ON ORCHARD. THE OBVIOUSLY THE POWER AND TELECOMMUNICATION, THE FINAL ROUTING WILL IT'S REALLY ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE UTILITY COMPANY. BUT WE'LL BE GLAD TO TAKE THE COMMENT AND MAKE SURE THAT THE ELECTRICAL TRENCHES ARE LOCATED SO THAT THE, THE ROOTS OF THE THOSE EXISTING TREES ALONG THE COMMUNITY DRIVE ARE PROTECTED AND REVISE THE DRAWING TO, TO INDICATE THAT THE SECOND COMMENT INDICATED THAT UNDER SOIL EROSION OR SOIL EROSION, FENCE IS CLOSE TO THIS TREE, WHICH IS I THINK IT'S THIS ONE. AND AGAIN, WE'RE WE'LL BE GLAD TO REVISE THAT THE LOCATION OF THE SOIL EROSION SO THAT THE TREE, THE ROOT, THE ROOT ZONE OF THE TREES IS PROTECTED. SO THOSE WERE THE THREE COMMENTS. AND WE WILL BE GLAD TO ADDRESS AND REVISE THE DRAWINGS ACCORDINGLY. 
          MR. FERREIRA, DO YOU WANT THIS COLLECTIVELY MARKED AS AN EXHIBIT? IT'S WE CAN YEAH, WE CAN COLLECTIVELY. MARK. OKAY. THAT'D BE FINE. THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU. A1 GREAT. SO, MR. FERRANTE, THAT CONCLUDES YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY ON ON THE PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED. CORRECT. 
          OKAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MEMBERS OR COMMENTS. 
          SO I HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE YOU SAID I JUST HEARD THIS APPLICATION DIDN'T GO TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION OR THE TREE COMMITTEE. IS THERE A REASON FOR THAT? IS IT BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PLAN? YEAH, BECAUSE IT'S A CAPITAL REVIEW. SO ALL THEY REALLY ARE HERE FOR IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BOARD. IT'S NOT EVEN REALLY AN APPROVAL. OKAY. HOW FAR IS THE POLE FROM THE NEAREST DWELLING. YEAH IT'S A GOOD WE IF THE DRAWING INDICATES THAT THE ACTUAL UTILITY THE MONOPOLE FOR THE TELECOMMUNICATION IS 500FT TO THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE WES, WHICH ARE IN, WE ARE LOOKING AT THE AERIAL AERIAL VIEW ARE THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS YOU CAN SEE THERE. SO IN ESSENCE, IF I ZOOM IN ON THE, THE LOT SIZES ARE 212. SO FIGURE THAT THE HOUSE IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT. THAT ADDS ANOTHER 100FT. SO ABOUT 650FT. BUT BUT WE'RE BUILDING AN APARTMENT BUILDING THERE TOO. HOW FAR WILL IT BE FROM THE PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AND GETS THE FIRST PART? THE APARTMENT BUILDING THAT'S BEING BUILT THERE. HOW FAR WILL IT BE FROM THAT APARTMENT BUILDING? OH, THE APARTMENT BUILDING? YES. THE APARTMENT BUILDING. I NOW WILL ZOOM INTO OUR OVER A SHEET HERE, AS YOU CAN SEE, JUST JUDGING BY THE SCALE AND THE LOCATION IN THIS AREA, IT'S ALSO ABOUT FIVE, 3 TO 400FT AWAY. WE HAVE WE DO NOT SHOW THE APARTMENT BUILDING OUTLINE ON THIS DRAWING DURING OPERATION. IS THERE ANY SOUND? THE GENERATOR, THE 30 KILOWATT GENERATED BASED ON OUR EXPERIENCE AND THE DISTANCE THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, THERE'LL BE NO IT WILL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR A DECIBEL AS FAR AS NIGHTTIME AND PRIMARILY NIGHTTIME. BUT BASED ON THE DISTANCES WE DON'T. PLUS THE GENERATOR WILL BE HOUSED IN A SOUND ENCLOSURE, WHICH WILL REDUCE THE SOUND. BUT BASED ON ON OUR EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER WITH HUNDREDS OF APPLICATION, THIS 30 KV GENERATOR WILL NOT IMPACT BASED ON THE DISTANCES WILL MEET THE SOUND ATTENUATION REQUIREMENTS IS THE GENERATOR IN REGULAR USE OR JUST IN EMERGENCY USE? IT'S PRIMARILY IN EMERGENCY USE. IT DOES GET EXERCISED DURING THE DAYTIME. ROUGHLY ONCE A ONCE A MONTH FOR A FEW. YOU KNOW, TEN 15 MINUTES A TESTING. 
          ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU PLANNING ON DOING ANY RF ANALYSIS HERE OR OR PRESENTING THAT TO THE TOWNSHIP 
          [00:30:09]
WHEN YOU ACTUALLY PRESENT THIS? OR ARE YOU GOING TO PLAN TO DO THIS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD? THERE'S BEEN NO RF EMISSIONS SUBMISSION AS PART OF THE APPLICATION. IT WASN'T REQUIRED AS PART OF I'M NOT NO, I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE EMISSION. I'M I WAS CONCERNED WITH LIKE THE IMPROVEMENT TO THE CELL PHONE SIGNALS AROUND THE TOWNSHIP. SURE. YEAH. NO, THERE'S NO SUBMISSION TO THAT EFFECT. QUITE HONESTLY, THIS THIS BID CAME ABOUT AS A RESULT. 
          SECTOR SITE HAS A PENDING USE VARIANCE APPLICATION. WELL THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION. CORRECT. 
          SO YEAH. SO YOU'RE GETTING TO YOUR POINT. THIS TOWER AT THE MUNICIPAL CENTER WOULD BE A REPLACEMENT FOR THAT TOWER. SO ESSENTIALLY ONCE THIS TOWER IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, THAT APPLICATION WOULD BE WITHDRAWN. AND THIS WOULD BE THE STRUCTURE THAT WOULD PROVIDE THE COVERAGE THAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY YOU WOULD HAVE GOTTEN FROM THE JOHNSON. I MEAN, IF I WERE IF I RECALL, YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE JOHNSON FARM SITE. CORRECT. RIGHT. THERE'S ANOTHER APPLICATION THAT WAS APPROVED AS WELL BY THE TOWNSHIP THAT'S STILL, WELL, WHAT WAS APPROVED. 
          BUT NEVER BUILT. CORRECT. THAT'S THE NASSAU TENNIS CLUB SITE. NO, THE STOTT'S FARM ROAD. OH, SCOTTS FARM ROAD AND RIVER ROAD, RIGHT. THAT'S NOT THEM THOUGH. YEAH, I KNOW THAT. BUT I'M JUST THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHY I'M WONDERING. YES. YEAH. SO WHAT DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE STATUS OF THAT APPLICATION. NO. WE'VE REACHED OUT TO THEIR ATTORNEY AND THEY HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THEM. SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE STATUS IS. RIGHT. OKAY, GREAT. YEAH. I JUST I MEAN, I THINK ALL IN ALL, I THINK THIS IS AN ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE SITE FOR A CELL TOWER. IT'S PROBABLY THE BEST ONE. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO KNOW. SO THERE'S NO INTENTION TO DOING A DB LIKE THE DECIBELS OF SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO ACHIEVE WITH THIS OR. NO, BECAUSE IT'S THIS, IS THIS IS ESSENTIALLY NOT A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, RIGHT? IT IS A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT REALLY. IT'S ALL THE CARRIERS. WELL, I SHOULDN'T I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ALL OF THEM. I'LL SPEAK TO THE ONES THAT I WORK WITH. SO T-MOBILE, VERIZON DISH OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY SECURED A LOCATION ON THIS POLE. THIS IS THIS HAS BEEN AN AREA OF CONCERN IN MULTIPLE CARRIERS NETWORKS FOR YEARS. RIGHT. SO MY UNDERSTANDING, AT LEAST FROM VERIZON AND SECTOR SIDE'S PERSPECTIVE IS THIS IS GOING TO BE THE ALTERNATIVE TO THE JOHNSON FARM SITE. GREAT. GIVEN THE FACT THAT THERE ARE NOT A LOT OF EXISTING TALL STRUCTURES IN THIS AREA, THE CARRIER'S COVERAGE FOOTPRINTS TEND TO BE PRETTY SIMILAR IN THIS AREA, SO WE'RE EXPECTING THAT ALL THE MAJOR CARRIERS WILL WILL BE ON THIS POLE. BUT DO YOU ALREADY HAVE TWO CARRIERS LINED UP RIGHT ON THIS? WE HAVE TWO. AND THERE'S A THIRD ONE THAT'S BEING THAT'S IT'S PRETTY IMMINENT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE TAKING THE SPOT ON THE POLE. IN FACT, IF YOU IF YOU LOOK AT THE ELEVATION VIEW THAT WE SHOWED YOU, VERIZON IS ON THE TOP DISH IS ACTUALLY NOT THE SECOND ONE. IT'S THE THIRD ONE. SO THE THIRD THIS THE SECOND HIGHEST SPOT IS VERY CLOSE TO BEING SECURED AS WELL. 
          OKAY. AND THIS IS YEAH I'M POINTING TO THE DISH. YEAH. SO THE ONE IN BETWEEN DISH AND VERIZON IS THE NEXT ONE. WE EXPECT TO BE OCCUPIED IS THE ONE AT THE JOHNSON FARM THE SAME HEIGHT OR THE ONE AT THE JOHNSON FARM? I BELIEVE IT WAS 150, 150FT TALL. CAN I ASK ABOUT THE TREES? SO THE IN THE FENCE, I MEAN, THAT'S GOING TO BE A PRETTY UGLY FENCE, ESPECIALLY LOOKING AT FROM THE OTHER SIDE, BECAUSE WE HAVE PEOPLE APPROACHING IT FROM ALL ANGLES. 
          SO IN TERMS OF ADDING MORE COVERAGE TREE COVERAGE TO COVER UP, THAT'S A PRETTY UGLY FENCE JUST IN GENERAL. I MEAN, UNLESS PEOPLE ARE REALLY INTO CHAIN LINK FENCES, BUT I DON'T THINK SO. SO CAN IS THERE. WE CAN IN TERMS OF ON THE WEST SIDE, ON THE OTHER SIDE, DO YOU MEAN. 
          YEAH, I MEAN JUST THE WEST SIDE. I MEAN ALL AROUND THE THING PRETTY MUCH IT'S GOING TO BE A PRETTY APPARENT THING, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE YOU CAN KIND OF SEE DOWN AS YOU'RE DRIVING. 
          SO WHO WHAT OPPORTUNITIES DO WE HAVE. AND I'M LOOKING AT YOU RICH OVER THERE IN TERMS OF ADDING A LOT MORE TREES AROUND THE WHOLE THING TO JUST PRETTY MUCH HIDE AT LEAST THE BOTTOM AS MUCH AS WE CAN. I THINK THE TIME ON THAT IS THAT'S FOR THE YEAH. HAVE YOU DONE ANYTHING LIKE THAT FOR OTHER LOCATIONS WHERE YOU WOULD PUT SOME? I GUESS, EVERGREENS OR SOMETHING AROUND IT? YEAH. WELL, WE, WE CERTAINLY CAN, WE CAN ADD THEM AS LONG AS THE TOWNSHIP ALLOWS US TO DO IT. 
          [00:35:03]
I JUST DON'T KNOW WHERE THE PARAMETERS OF OUR LEASE AREA IS. SO AS LONG AS AS LONG AS THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL ARE FINE WITH IT AND I'M, I'M SURE THEY WILL BE AND JUDGING BY THE QUESTION. 
          BUT YEAH, WE CAN ALWAYS ADD SOME ADDITIONAL TREES ALONG THE BACKSIDE OF THE COMPOUND. THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. I THINK WE'RE STRONGLY ENCOURAGING THAT BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK IT IS CERTAINLY GOING TO BE AN EYESORE FOR QUITE A BIT, AND WE ARE ADDING A LOT MORE TREES, NATIVE TREES TO THIS ARE. SO YEAH, WE DEFINITELY NEED MUCH MORE. SO SHOULD WE TALK ABOUT THE NUMBER OF THEM? RICH, DO YOU HAVE SOME IDEAS? AND LOOKING AT THIS PLAN, COULD WE SAY SIMILAR TO THE CONDITIONS ON THE EAST SIDE, DOES THAT SEEM FAIR? OKAY, THAT MAKES SENSE. I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. SO YOU SAID THAT THE SLIDE, THE TOWER HAS A SLOT FOR, FOR CARRIERS, SO TO SPEAK. 
          IS THERE A SEPARATE DEDICATED ONE FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES LIKE FIRST RESPONDER IN A SITUATION THERE IS. SO IN THE BID ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS WAS THAT WE IF THE TOWNSHIP'S MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT WOULD BE INSTALLED ON THE TOWER, I DON'T THINK THE TOWNSHIP SECURED THAT THAT THE EQUIPMENT YET. SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO ENTAIL. BUT THE FACT THAT WE ASSUME THAT THEY BE NEAR THE NEAR THE TOP OF THE TOWER, CORRECT. SO WE'RE WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT IF WE HAD TO PUT LIKE A SMALL EXTENSION ON THE TOP OF THE TOWER TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO INTERFERENCE, THEN WE WOULD DO THAT. BUT WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S A REQUIREMENT. IT'S JUST WE CAN'T SHOW IT ON THE PLANS UNTIL WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE EQUIPMENT IS GOING TO ENTAIL. SO WOULD THE HEIGHT GO UP? YES IT COULD. YEAH. 15FT BECAUSE THE ANTENNAS I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE USING WHIP ANTENNAS. STILL, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE USING OTHER TYPES OF ANTENNAS. IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT THE EQUIPMENT I. AND THEN WE'LL HAVE TO SEE WHAT THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS ARE. SO THE TOWNSHIP CAN SAY WE NEED YOU KNOW, WE NEED AN EXTRA FIVE FEET ON TOP OF THE TOWER. WE NEED AN EXTRA TEN FEET. OR THEY MIGHT SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY THEY CAN MAKE IT WORK AT A LOWER ELEVATION. I'M NOT SURE I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS, BUT IF IT GOES ABOVE 135, ISN'T THAT A ISN'T THAT A ZONING BOARD REQUIREMENT? IS OR. I MEAN, I'M WONDERING HOW THAT WORKS. IF THIS IS A CAPITAL RIGHT, SINCE IT'S A TOWNSHIP PROJECT, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD. IT WOULD GO, THAT'S THAT'S FINE. THAT'S FINE. TOWNSHIP IS EXEMPT FROM THAT. THAT CAPITAL PROJECT, EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT AS A PRIVATE APPLICATION, IT MIGHT TRIGGER A VARIANCE. RIGHT. IN THIS CASE. GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO CURRENTLY THE ALL OF THE COMMUNICATIONS COMES OF COURSE FROM THE COUNTY. RIGHT. AND SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO ALWAYS WE'VE HAD ISSUES WITH BEING STUCK BETWEEN MERCER AND ALL SORTS OF THINGS. SO THERE'S COMMUNICATION ISSUES THAT ARE GOING TO BE IMPROVED WITH A LOT OF THE UPDATES IN THE RADIOS AND SO FORTH. BUT WE WANT TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY IN CASE WE DO NEED TO DO THAT OR HAVE IT MIGHT EVEN HAVE THAT IN TERMS OF KIND OF FOR EMERGENCY BACKUPS. YEAH, YEAH. BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS YET FOR IT. BUT WE'RE LOOKING FOR THAT. BUT YOU'RE KEEPING THEY'RE KEEPING A SPACE. 
          THERE IS SPACE FOR US. YEAH. THERE THERE IS SPACE AND THERE'S AN OBLIGATION IN THE LEASE OKAY. 
          THAT YOU KNOW THAT THERE HAS TO BE ROOM ON THE TOWER FOR. YEAH, BUT POTENTIALLY YOU'RE LOOKING AT ANOTHER COULD BE DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF ANTENNA THEY USE, AT LEAST ANOTHER 10 TO 15FT, 15FT. 
          RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT. RIGHT. AND THERE'S ROOM IN THE GROUND COMPOUND TOO. THAT'S BEING RESERVED FOR THE MUNICIPALITY AS WELL. SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PLANS, THERE'S ACTUALLY FOUR CARRIER LOCATIONS. AND THEN THERE'S DISHES SMALL. THE DISH DOESN'T USE MUCH EQUIPMENT THEY HAVE THERE. THAT SMALL RECTANGLE RIGHT THERE. RIGHT. SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE DISHES EQUIPMENT THERE. YOU HAVE THREE OTHER CARRIER LOCATIONS. AND THEN YOU HAVE AN OPEN LOCATION, WHICH CONCEIVABLY COULD BE THE MUNICIPAL EQUIPMENT. YEAH. AND THE POSITIVE IS THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE DO COMPLAIN EVEN AROUND THIS AREA, THAT THEY DON'T GET ANY SERVICE. SO HOPEFULLY WOULD THAT BE A BIG QUALITY OF LIFE. PLUS FOR PEOPLE, EVEN PEOPLE JUST NEXT TO US IN THE YOGA CENTER OVER THERE, THEY BARELY CAN HEAR EACH OTHER. SO YEAH, IT'S BEEN A PROBLEM AREA FOR ALL THE CARRIERS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. SO WE'RE WE'RE JUST AS HAPPY THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE RECTIFIED. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WHAT DO YOU ANTICIPATE THE TIMING OF YOUR PUTTING THE TOWER THE TOWER UP. WE HOPE TO OBTAIN BUILDING PERMITS MAYBE BY THE END OF NOVEMBER. AND THEN I JUST WANT TO I MEAN, HOW LONG DOES IT TYPICALLY TAKE TO START EROSION? YEAH, FOR THIS, THE AMOUNT OF SOIL, SOIL EROSION REQUIREMENTS HERE ARE SO MINOR THAT OBVIOUSLY SOMERSET COUNTY SOIL SERVICE, DEPENDING ON HOW BUSY THEY ARE. BUT TYPICALLY A MONTH SHOULD BE MORE THAN ENOUGH. AND THEN THE 
          [00:40:06]
CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE FOR A TOWER LIKE THIS TO PUT IT UP LIKE THIS. ONCE THEY ORDERED THE MONOPOLE ABOUT A MONTH, MONTH SIX WEEKS, 4 TO 6 WEEKS. 4 TO 6 WEEKS. OKAY, SO I MEAN, CONCEIVABLY I WOULD IMAGINE A TOWER WOULD BE WOULD HOPEFULLY BE UP BY EARLY EARLY SPRING. THE LATEST SPRING OR SUMMER AT WORST. YEAH, YEAH. THANK YOU. DEPENDING ON THE WEATHER. YEAH. 
          THE WEATHER. EXACTLY. THAT'S. OKAY. YEAH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH. I GUESS IT'S. SO THIS IS BASICALLY A RECOMMENDATION RIGHT. TO THE TOWNSHIP IS NOT OKAY. ANY OTHER BOARD DISCUSSIONS? OKAY. OKAY. YOU ASK FOR A MOTION. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THIS PROJECT TO THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE. I SECOND EXCUSE ME, CAN I JUST ASK A QUESTION, PLEASE? YES. YEAH. OKAY. MY QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH THERE'S AN EXISTING INLET ON THAT PAGE. 
          HAMMER AREA THAT YOU DON'T SHOW ON YOUR PLAN. AND I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE AREA WHERE YOU'RE TO REMOVE YOUR ASPHALT. IT'S KIND OF JUST NEAR THE 20 FOOT. AND THE DEMOLISH EXISTING CURB LINE LIKE IN THAT VICINITY. IT APPEARS RIGHT HERE. WHERE IS THAT GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY ANYTHING THAT YOU'RE DOING OKAY. NO. AND THEN I BELIEVE MR. BLOCKER HAD MENTIONED THE RPM SITE BEFORE THE NEW BUILDING THAT IS GOING IN. WHAT ABOUT ANY OF THE EASEMENTS OR WILL YOUR PROPERTY AND YOUR PROJECT AFFECT ANY OF THE EASEMENTS? WE WELL, THE SURVEY THAT WE HAD DID NOT INDICATE ANY, ANY, ANY EASEMENT PER SE, OTHER THAN POTENTIALLY JUST DRAINAGE, EXISTING DRAINAGE SWALE, THE UTILITY, THE ELECTRICAL THERE ARE EASEMENTS FOR THE WATER AND BUT AS INDICATED BY OUR I GO I'M GOING BACK TO THE OVERALL SITE PLAN. YEAH. THE UTILITIES ARE COMING UP. COMMUNITY DRIVE. WE DON'T ANTICIPATE HAVING ANY ISSUES WITH ANY ANY OTHER EASEMENTS THAT. THERE WERE JUST A LOT OF NEW EASEMENTS THAT CAME ON AS A RESULT OF THE RPM PROJECT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING IN. WE CAN COORDINATE THAT AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT, ADD IT TO THE DRAWINGS. ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. THAT'S ALL I THANK YOU. GO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION TO RECOMMEND THIS PROJEC. AFTER THOSE COMMENTS. SECOND ROLL CALL PLEASE. BARROW. YES. 
          BLODGETT. YES. HAMILTON. YES. KEENAN. YES. MONEY. YES. MATTHEWS. YES. ROBERTS. YES. 
          SINGH. YES AND GLOCKLER. YES. THANK YOU. CAN WE HAVE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AT THIS POINT, PLEASE?HONE AND WENT. HE WENT. HE TOOK HIS PHONE AND WENT. SO I DON'T KNOW. OH, MAYBE WE GOT A 
          [VI. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN]
QUORUM THOUGH, RIGHT? YEAH, WE GOT A QUORUM. LET'S GO, LET'S G, LET'S ROLL. ALL RIGHT. ITEM SIX. 
          REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDED. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF AN AREA IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT. 
          SLASH CONDEMNATION FOR BLOCK 28010. LOTS 59, 61, 62 AND 64. FORMERLY KNOWN AS PHASE TWO GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT. MR. SULLIVAN, WE'LL JUST SWEAR YOU IN. DO YOU SWEAR AND AFFIRM YOUR TESTIMONY THIS EVENING? WILL BE TRUTHFUL. YES. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. FOR THE RECORD, I'M MICHAEL SULLIVAN. I'M WITH CLARK GATE AND HINTS IN TRENTON, NEW JERSEY. I'M THE TOWNSHIP PLANNING CONSULTANT. I'M A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL PLANNER IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY. I'M A MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PLANNERS, AND I'M ALSO A LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. I'M A PRACTICING PLANNING SINCE 1992, AND SOMEDAY I'LL GET IT RIGHT. SO LET'S SEE FOR THE RECORD, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT ALTHOUGH THE TITLE OF THE REPORT, THE INVESTIGATION REPORT INDICATES THAT IT WAS FORMERLY KNOWN AS PHASE TWO OF THE GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT. THIS IS NOT AN AMENDED INVESTIGATION. THIS INVESTIGATION STANDS ON ITS OWN. IT HAS BEEN PREPARED INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS THAT WERE DONE WITHIN THIS OVERALL AREA. SO THE PURPOSE OF TONIGHT'S HEARING IS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE STUDY AREA THAT CONTAINS BLOCK 28 010, LOTS 59, 61, 62 AND 64 SHOULD BE DESIGNATED AS A REDEVELOPMENT 
          [00:45:01]
AREA. THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED BY THE NEW JERSEY LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT HOUSING LAW. THE PROCESS BEGAN WHEN THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE DIRECTED THE PLANNING BOARD VIA RESOLUTION TO CONDUCT THIS PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION, AND THE PLANNING BOARD ASKED MY FIRM TO REVIEW THE INFORMATION AND THE SITE CONDITIONS AND TO PRESENT THIS REPORT BACK TO YOU SO THAT YOU COULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE GOVERNING BODY. FURTHERMORE, WHEN THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE DID AUTHORIZE YOU OR DIRECT THE PLANNING BOARD TO INVESTIGATE THIS AREA, THEY DEEMED IT TO BE A CONDEMNATION REDEVELOPMENT AREA WHEREBY THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN MAY BE USED. SHOULD THIS BE DESIGNATED AS AN AREA IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT. THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN IS JUST ONE OF THE POWERS AND TOOLS THAT ARE AVAILABLE WITHIN THE SPECTRUM OF TOOLS. UNDER THE REDEVELOPMENT STATUTE. HAD THEY SAID IT WAS NON CONDEMNATION, THEN THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE USED. BUT YOU COULD USE ALL THE OTHER POWERS. THE BASIS FOR DETERMINATION OF WHETHER AN AREA IS AN AREA IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT. THERE ARE CRITERIA UNDER THE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING LAW. A REDEVELOPMENT AREA IS DEFINED AS AN AREA DETERMINED TO BE IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION FIVE AND SIX OF THE STATUTE, THE REDEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING LAW. THAT'S THE SECTION THAT CONTAINS THE CRITERIA. IT MAY INCLUDE LANDS, BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH OF THEMSELVES ARE NOT DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE. BUT THE INCLUSION IS NECESSARY FOR THE EFFECTIVE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA OF WHICH THEY ARE IN SECTION FIVE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT, HOUSING LAW CONTAINS THE CRITERIA. THERE ARE EIGHT OF THEM, I BELIEVE. I THINK THEY HAD ONE AND THEY AND THEY LEFT ONE OUT. BUT IN GENERAL THESE CRITERIA REALLY LOOKS AT THE CONDITIONS OF A SITE AND THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THESE SITES, AND IT LOOKS FOR PROPERTIES WITH CONDITIONS IN THE SITE OR THE BUILDING THAT ARE DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE. IF THERE ARE OBSOLESCENT CONDITIONS THAT ARE CAUSING ISSUES OR UNPRODUCTIVE CONDITIONS. AND THAT'S A GENERALITY. I'LL BE MORE SPECIFIC AS WE DEAL WITH THE ACTUAL CRITERIA. THE INVESTIGATION REPORT IS AN ANALYSIS WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO LOOK AT THESE QUESTIONS AND TO IDENTIFY WHETHER OR NOT THE CONDITIONS DO EXIST, TO DECLARE IT AN AREA IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT. THE STUDY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WAS DATED OCTOBER 4TH OF 2024, AND IT'S BEEN ON FILE WITH THE PLANNING BOARD. SO TONIGHT I'M GOING TO PRESENT A SUMMARY OF MY FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE THREE PROPERTIES WHICH CONSTITUTE WHICH ARE FOUR LOTS GENERALLY AND WHAT WHAT THE FINDINGS ARE IN ORDER TO COME TO THE CONCLUSIONS IN THE REPORT, I'VE BEEN TO THE SITE, WE'VE EXAMINED INFORMATION AND DATA RELATED TO THE SITE. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PERMITS, VIOLATION NOTICES, RESOLUTIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTATION TO HELP US. SO LET ME GET INTO IT. THE LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA. BEAR WITH ME. 
          THIS ISN'T MY COMPUTER, BUT I'M GOING TO TRY TO WORK IT. I'M SUCCESSFUL, SO THE LOCATION IS THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROUTE 518 AND US HIGHWAY OR I'M SORRY, NEW JERSEY STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 206, AND IT CONSISTS OF, AS WE SAID, FOUR LOTS, 59, 61, 62 AND 64 BLOCK LOT 59 CONSISTS OF 1.55 ACRES, CONTAINS SOME REMAINS OF A BUILDING THAT WAS DEMOLISHED THERE, INCLUDING FOUNDATION ASPHALT AND GRAVEL PARKING AREA WITH A DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO 518 TRASH ENCLOSURE, PILES OF CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS, SOME BOLLARDS, SOME OLD CONCRETE PAD, SOME DRAINAGE INLETS AND SOME VEGETATION, SOME OF WHICH WAS PLANTED AND SOME OF WHICH IS JUST GROWING UP. IT'S OWNED BY THE CT CORPORATION, LOT 61 AND 62 ARE COMMONLY KNOWN BY MOST PEOPLE AS THE TIGER'S TAIL. IT'S A BAR AND GRILL. IT'S 1.88 81 ACRES, ONE STORY BUILDING WITH PARKING AND COMPOSED OF ASPHALT AND GRAVEL. IT'S GOT SHED TRASH ENCLOSURES, PLANTINGS, BOLLARDS, FLAGPOLE, OUTDOOR DINING TABLES. 
          IT'S GOT ACCESS, GENEROUS ACCESS ONTO ROUTE 206. IT'S OWNED BY AMERICAN REALTY ASSOCIATES. 
          SLASH PRC INNKEEPER. IT'S CLASSIFIED AS COMMERCIAL FOR TAX PURPOSES, BUT ONE OF THE LOTS WHERE THE PARKING IS MOST, WHICH IS WHICH ONLY CONTAINS PARKING, IS LISTED AS VACANT BY THE TAX ASSESSOR. FOR SOME REASON. IF YOU LOOK AT TAX INFORMATION, LOT 64 IS THE FORMER TEXACO STATION. 
          [00:50:05]
I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU HAVE SEEN IT. IT'S AT THE CORNER AND NOBODY'S SEEN THAT. IT'S ABOUT A HALF ACRE. IT WAS FORMERLY USED AS A TEXACO GASOLINE DISPENSER. AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION, SMALL. IT'S A IT'S A BRICK BUILDING WITH CONCRETE, BUT WITH WOODEN ROOF AND OTHER ELEMENTS. 
          THERE ARE SOME OLD PUMP ISLANDS THAT ARE STILL THERE, AND SOME OLD LIGHT STANCHIONS AND A SIGN AND THE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS AND PUMPS WERE REMOVED AROUND 2004. THERE'S NO CONTAMINATION ON SITE. ANY CONTAMINATION HAS BEEN CLEANED UP AND THERE'S BEEN NO FURTHER ACTION LETTERS THERE. IT'S GOT TWO CURB CUTS ON SOUTHBOUND ROUTE 206 AND A DRIVEWAY ON 518, AND IT'S OWNED BY MONTGOMERY 206 REALTY. THE TEXACO SITE IS INTERESTING BECAUSE IT'S BEEN ESSENTIALLY VACANT SINCE 2004, EVEN THOUGH THE BUILDING HAS BEEN THERE AND THE IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED TO SOME EXTEN. BUT IT WAS A SUBJECT OF APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN 2015. THERE WAS A AN APPLICATION TO CREATE A DUNKIN DONUTS OR DUNKIN STORE THERE. AND THROUGH SEVERAL HEARINGS, IT WAS ULTIMATELY APPROVED IN 2015 AND RELIEF WAS GRANTED FOR A D3 VARIANCE, WHICH IS A CONDITIONAL USE VARIANCE. SO IT WAS EFFECTIVELY A HIGH LEVEL VARIANCE BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THERE WERE CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THAT APPROVAL RELATED TO ACCESS AND OF THE DRIVEWAYS AND THE APPLICANT WAS REQUIRED TO THEN GO TO THE DOT AND TO THE COUNTY TO GET PERMISSION FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS, AND THE DOT AND THE COUNTY APPROVED CONDITIONS OF THAT SITE PLAN. BUT THEY WERE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE BOARD APPROVED, AND THEY HAD TO RETURN TO THE BOARD. SO IN 2021, THERE WAS A 2121 APPLICATION. AND BASED ON THE CHANGES THAT WERE REQUIRED BY THE COUNTY AND THE DOT, THE APPLICANT CAME BACK TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REVIEWED THE PLANS. AND THERE NOW THERE WERE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS APPROVED ORIGINALLY, INCLUDING INCREASES IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND LONGER DRIVE THROUGH LANES, WHICH DROVE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER. AND AFTER ALL, THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CHANGES BASED ON THE PERMITS FROM THE OUTSIDE AGENCIES RELATIVE TO ACCESS THE BOARD WAS NOT SATISFIED THAT THEY WOULD GRANT THE VARIANCE, AND THEY DENIED THE VARIANCE, AND THE SITE PLAN FOR THE SECOND TIME. THE APPLICANT THEN FILED A PREROGATIVE LITIGATION AGAINST THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND THAT PERSISTED SINCE 2021, AND IT WAS FINALLY IT WASN'T SETTLED. IT WAS WITHDRAWN IN EARLY 2024. SO AT THIS POINT, THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO REDEVELOP THE SITE. IT WAS APPROVED. TO CONDITIONS THAT THE APPLICANT COULD NOT MEET DUE TO THE ACCESS LIMITATIONS ON THE SITE, AND DESPITE THE LITIGATION THAT WAS PURSUED, THE LITIGATION WAS WITHDRAWN. THE LITIGATION IS DONE AND SO AT THIS TIME THERE ARE NO DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS ON THAT PROPERTY. SO I WANT TO GO THROUGH SOME IMAGES. NOW I KIND OF BLITZED THROUGH THAT BECAUSE I CAN'T DO TWO THINGS AT ONCE, BUT I'M GOING TO TRY. SO NOW ON YOUR SCREEN YOU CAN SEE THE IMAGE. THIS IS THE TAX MAP AND IT SHOWS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTIES RELATIVE TO ROUTE 518 AND ROUTE 206. THEY REALLY OCCUPY THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY THERE, AND THE ACREAGES ARE ALL DERIVED FROM THE TAX INFORMATION. THE MOD FOUR DATA TOTAL AREA OF THE STUDY AREA IS 3.9 ACRES. THE AERIAL THAT YOU'RE SEEING NOW, YOU CAN SEE, YOU CAN START TO SEE THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS. THIS IS A RELATIVELY RECENT MAP IS FROM NEARMAP. I BELIEVE, AND IT'S A COLOR AERIAL AND YOU CAN SEE THE CONDITIONS OF THE SITE IN THIS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH. YOU CAN SEE THE FORMER BUILDING SITE ON LOT 59 AND THE PAVED AREA THAT RUNS AROUND IT. YOU CAN SEE THE REMAINING DEMOLISHED WELL, THE DILAPIDATED IMPROVEMENTS ON LOT 64. AND YOU CAN SEE THE TIGER'S TAIL ON LOT 62 WITH ITS PARKING AND CIRCULATION AND THE BUILDING REALLY TO THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE SITE. AND YOU CAN SEE ROUTE 206 TO THE RIGHT AND COUNTY ROUTE 518 TO THE BOTTOM OF THE 
          [00:55:01]
PAGE. THERE'S SOMETHING CALLED REDDING BOULEVARD ON THERE. IS THAT IS THERE? I'M SORRY, DO YOU SEE REDDING BOULEVARD IS ON THERE. DO WE? THERE'S REALLY A PIECE OF REDDING BOULEVARD THERE, OR IS THAT JUST A DO YOU SEE IT ON LOT 15? ON LOT 59, NORTH OF THE BUILDING, NORTH OF THE PARKING LOT? OH, YEAH. YEAH. WELL THAT'S IT JUST. OKAY. GOOD. YEAH. IT'S NOT A REAL THING, RIGHT. IT'S JUST A MISPRINT OR SOMETHING. YEAH. OH, I'M SORRY, I CAN'T. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ZOOM IN MY MIND. YOU JUST PINCH IT UNLESS YOU THINK THERE'S LIKE A I DON'T THINK. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING THERE. OH, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YEAH. THAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AN ANOMALY IN THE IN THE GRAPHIC. COULD BE A GHOST IN THE GRAPHIC MACHINE. IT'S HALLOWEEN. I'M PRETTY SURE THERE'S NOT A RIGHT OF WAY THERE. YEAH. WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE SLICE BETWEEN 64 AND 62. 
          THAT'S A GORE. THAT'S A SURVEY GORE. SO THAT'S AN AREA THAT'S UNCLEAR AS TO SURVEYING. SO IT'S IDENTIFIED IN THE I BELIEVE IT'S IDENTIFIED IN THE TAX MAP, BUT IT'S NOT ON THE TAX MAP. SOMEHOW WE IDENTIFIED THAT AS A SURVEY. GORE OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THIS SLIDE IS THE 2023 TAX DATA. AND THIS IS WHERE THE TAX ASSESSOR DETERMINES WHAT THE WHAT THE LAND USE IS. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF THE EXACT LAND USE. IT'S JUST THE WAY THE TAX ASSESSMENT OF THE TAX ASSESSOR CLASSIFIES IT. AND IT SHOWS THAT IT'S ALL COMMERCIAL EXCEPT FOR THE PARKING AREA FOR TIGERTAIL, WHICH, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM A PURE LAND USE STANDPOINT, IS A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. SO I'M FIRST GOING TO GO INTO SOME OF THE DETAILS ABOUT LOT 59 AND LOT 59 EXHIBITS. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE AT THE STATUTE, THERE ARE EIGHT CRITERIA AND THEY ARE LETTERED A THROUGH H BLOCK LOT 50, LOT 59 EXHIBITS CONDITIONS THAT WOULD WARRANT A SATISFACTION OF CRITERION D DUE TO DILAPIDATION AND OBSOLESCENCE. AND ON THIS SLIDE ON THE LEFT YOU CAN SEE A ZOOMED IN VERSION OF THE AERIAL. SO YOU GET A BETTER SENSE OF WHAT'S GOING ON ON THE SITE AND THE REASON IS WE'VE GOT THIS DEMOLISHED BUILDING AND THEY DIDN'T. WHOEVER DEMOLISHED THIS DID NOT DEMOLISH THE BUILDING ENTIRELY. THEY LEFT THE VISIBLE BUILDING SLAB. THEY LEFT THE FOUNDATION THAT RIDES AROUND IT. THEY'VE LEFT CONCRETE SLABS OUT THERE. THERE ARE BOLLARDS. THERE'S A DILAPIDATED AND DAMAGED TRASH ENCLOSURE. AND THESE THINGS REALLY ARE DETRIMENTAL TO ANYBODY WHO COULD ACCESS THE SITE. THE SITE IS FULLY ACCESSIBLE. YOU CAN WALK ON THE SITE WE WALKED ON THE SITE. YOU CAN ACCESS THE SITE AND IF YOU ARE ACCESSING THIS SITE, WHICH IS NOT PREPARED FOR PUBLIC OR ANYBODY ELSE, IT REPRESENTS A HAZARD TO FOLKS. YOU CAN SEE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT'S UP ON THE SCREEN. NOW THE SLAB IS ELEVATED ABOVE THE GROUND LEVEL. SO THAT'S AND THERE'S NO RAILINGS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND IT'S ACTUALLY DEGRADING. THE FOUNDATION WALL IS, IS, IS CRUMBLING. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS PERMANENT OF PERMANENCE. AND THIS FOUNDATION WAS, IS OBSOLESCENT BECAUSE IT WAS IT WAS BUILT FOR ANOTHER BUILDING. IT WAS BUILT FOR A BUILDING THAT DOESN'T EXIST THERE ANYMORE. IT'S OBSOLESCENT IN THAT SENSE. YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE BLOCK OF THE FOUNDATION IS EXPOSED AND THE CORE OF THE BLOCK IS WATER IS RUNNING INTO THEM, AND IT'S DEGRADING. THAT ALSO REPRESENTS A HAZARD TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE WALKING THROUGH THERE, WHETHER IT'S AT NIGHT OR IN THE DAYTIME. THE ENTIRE FOUNDATION REMAINS EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS, WHICH WILL CONTINUE TO DEGRADE. THIS SITE OVER TIME. SOME OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS. THERE WAS RUBBLE AND DEBRIS. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE WHEN WE HAVE A SITE LIKE THIS THAT DOESN'T HAVE OCCUPANCY AND IT'S RELATIVELY VACANT, BUT IT'S BEEN DEMOLISHED, IS FOLKS THINK THEY CAN ACCESS IT AND DO WHAT THEY WANT THERE, SO YOU'LL END UP WITH DEBRIS. YOU ALSO HAVE RUBBLE AT THE TOP, WHICH IS LEFT OVER FROM WHENEVER THE DEMOLITION HAPPENED. AND SO THE SITE WAS NOT RESTORED IN A WAY THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFTER DEMOLITION. AND THERE ARE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS FROM THAT. 
          YOU CAN SEE THAT THE TRASH ENCLOSURE, THE DOORS HAVE BEEN THE GATES HAVE BEEN TORN OFF. 
          IT'S SITTING THERE. IT'S BEEN DAMAGED. AND SO THE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS REALLY ARE THE, THE THREATS TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. ANYBODY ACCESSING THE SITE. BUT THERE ARE ALSO VISUAL ASPECTS TO THIS. ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE LAND USE LAW IS TO ENCOURAGE IS TO PROMOTE A 
          [01:00:05]
DESIRABLE VISUAL ENVIRONMENT THROUGH CREATIVE DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES AND GOOD CIVIC DESIGN AND ARRANGEMENT. WELL, GOOD CIVIC DESIGN AND ARRANGEMENT IS NOT HAVING HALF DEMOLISHED BUILDING AND A SITE LIKE THIS. IT'S NOT LIKE THIS IS IN THE IN THE REAR OF SOME BEAUTIFUL AREA. 
          THIS IS RIGHT ON ROUTE 518 AND IT'S VISIBLE FROM 518. SO THAT IS NOT A DESIRABLE VISUAL ENVIRONMENT. AND THAT IS A DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE. IN MY OPINION. SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I THINK CRITERION D DOES APPLY TO LOT 59. OKAY. THE SECOND PROPERTY I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS LOT 64. THIS IS THE FORMER TEXACO STATION AT THE CORNER OF 518 AND 206. 
          INFAMOUSLY, IT'S BEEN THERE FOR 20 YEARS IN A STEADILY DEGRADED AND DETERIORATING CONDITION. 
          CRITERION B OF THE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING LAW SECTION FIVE SAYS THAT CRITERION B IS MET IF YOU ABANDON A COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND IT HAS BECOME UNTENABLE. AND I'LL READ THE STATUTE. CRITERION B SAYS YOU CAN MEET THE CRITERION IF THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE USE OF BUILDINGS PREVIOUSLY USED FOR COMMERCIAL, WHICH THIS IS MANUFACTURING OR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES, THE ABANDONMENT OF SUCH BUILDINGS, OR THE SAME BEING ALLOWED TO FALL INTO SUCH A GREAT STATE OF DISREPAIR AS TO BE UNTENABLE. WELL, THIS BUILDING, FIRST OF ALL, HAS BEEN ABANDONED. THE USE HAS BEEN ABANDONED. IT WAS A TEXACO FILLING STATION. NO LONGER THERE, CEASED OPERATIONS IN 2004, 20 YEARS SINCE IT CEASED OPERATIONS. THE FUEL TANKS AND PUMPS HAVE BEEN REMOVED. THE SIGN HAS BEEN REMOVED. THE SIGN STRUCTURE IS RUSTED AND IT'S QUESTIONABLE WHETHER YOU COULD USE THAT SIGN STRUCTURE AGAIN. IT'S BEEN THE SUBJECT OF TWO DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN MY TIME HERE. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN ANOTHER ONE, BUT I DON'T KNOW OF IT FOR THE DUNKIN DONUTS. BOTH HAVE FAILED AND SO THERE WAS NO INTENT TO RESTART THIS AS A FUELING STATION. AND IN FACT, IN THE 2015 AND 2021 APPLICATIONS, THE EXISTING BUILDING WAS NOT USED IN THOSE. IT WAS A NEW BUILDING. SO THE SO IN MY OPINION, THE USE HAS BEEN ABANDONED. THE BUILDING HAS BEEN EMPTY. AND THE OTHER PIECE OF THIS IS IT UNTENABLE? IN MY OPINION, IT IS. THE PROPERTY IS NOT UNTENABLE, MEANS NOT FIT FOR AN OCCUPANT, NOT IN PROPER REPAIR, AND IS NOT LIVABLE. SO LET'S START TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WE HAVE OF THIS. SO HERE'S HERE YOU HAVE A VIEW FROM 518 LOOKING INTO THE SITE TO THE NORTH. YOU CAN SEE THE OLD LIGHTS THAT ARE THERE. THE BUILDING TO THE LEFT, THE BUILDING HAS A TREE THAT'S GROWN INTO IT. IT'S ACTUALLY LEANING ON IT AND IT'S FURTHERING AND EXACERBATING THE DILAPIDATION. 
          THAT'S OCCURRING THERE. YOU CAN ALSO SEE IN THIS PICTURE THERE'S A IT'S A CLOTHING DROP THAT'S NOT LEGAL. THERE'S NO PERMIT FOR THAT THERE. SO YOU KNOW, THAT'S THAT'S ALSO WHAT'S GOING ON. 
          THIS SITE IS ALSO OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. THERE'S NO FENCING. IT'S NOT LIMITED ACCESS. AND IT'S CLEAR WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT FOLKS ARE THERE. AND WHEN WE SEE PEOPLE PARKING, THEIR TRUCKS ARE PARKING THERE. PEOPLE ARE MAKING TURNING MANEUVERS. WE HAVE A POLICE REPORT WHERE SOMEBODY BROKE THEIR CAR IN A POTHOLE TRYING TO TURN AROUND THERE BECAUSE THERE WAS A TRAFFIC JAM OR SOMETHING. SO BUT BACK TO THE BUILDING. THE BUILDING IS NOT SECURE. IT'S BEEN BOARDED UP WITH PLYWOOD. IT'S GOT NO VENTILATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. MECHANICAL VENTILATION. IT'S GOT MISSING SHINGLES AND LOOSE SHINGLES. THE GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS ARE NOT FUNCTIONING. YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY ARE MISSING THE SOFFITS AND FASCIA BOARDS ARE MISSING AND SOME OF THE TRIM IS MISSING ALONG THE TOP. HERE'S THIS IS A CLOSER LOOK. YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT SIDE HERE WHERE THE FASCIA AND THE AND THE SOFFIT IS DAMAGED AND PULLED APART. THERE'S NO GUTTER ON IT TO PULL THE WATER AWAY. AND WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS CONNECTED, YOU'RE GETTING WATER DAMAGE. AND THAT WATER DAMAGE CONTINUES. THE ROOF TRUSSES ARE STARTING TO ROT AND IT'S AND THE ROOF ITSELF, THE SPACE IS OPEN TO THE ELEMENTS BECAUSE OF THE REMOVAL OF THE FASCIA. AND YOU HAVE ANIMALS ACCESSING THE BUILDING INTERIOR. I TALKED ABOUT THE OVERGROWN TREE BRANCHES. THERE'S ALSO CLIMBING VINES ON THE SIDE. I THINK THAT'S SOME SORT OF TRUMPET CREEPER OR SOMETHING. AND I ALSO SAW VIRGINIA CREEPER OUT THERE. THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED. THERE'S A WIRE 
          [01:05:07]
HANGING OFF OF IT, AND THERE'S ALSO IT'S NOT JUST MY OFFICE LOOKING AT THIS. HERE'S A GOOD PICTURE OF THE SOFFIT AND THE ROOF. YOU CAN SEE THE DOWNSPOUT HAS NO GUTTER LEADING TO IT. AND THE WATER DAMAGE IS GETTING BAD. AND AS I SAID, PEOPLE ARE ACCESSING THE SITE. THERE'S GRAFFITI THAT'S VANDALISM, THAT'S CRIME. THERE'S GARBAGE. AND YOU CAN SEE IT LOOKS LIKE PEOPLE HANG OUT THERE. OR MAYBE THERE'S COFFEE CUPS AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT LOOK LIKE PEOPLE MIGHT, MIGHT HANG AROUND THERE IN THE BACK. SO IT'S NOT A GOOD PLACE AND IT'S AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE. BUT THERE ARE VIOLATION NOTICES. WE DID GET INFORMATION FROM THE BOARD OF HEALTH. THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS NOTIFIED JUST SPECIFIC TO THE BUILDING WITH RESPECT TO RODENT ACTIVITY, THAT THERE WAS RATS ON THE SITE AND THAT THE BUILDING ON THE SITE IS OPEN TO THE RATS. 
          THEY HAD. THEY HAVE RAT TRAPS OR BAITS OUT THERE AND THAT AND THEY WERE NOTIFIED THAT THEY DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE WORKING PROPERLY OR THEY HADN'T BEEN SET UP PROPERLY. AND IN OCTOBER OF THIS YEAR, THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS AGAIN NOTIFIED THAT THERE'S GRAFFITI. I GUESS THE GRAFFITI IS PRETTY NEW. I CAN'T TELL WHOSE NAME THAT IS, BUT EVIDENCE OF TRESPASS, PROJECTIONS, OBSTRUCTIONS, DEAD AND DYING TREES. BUT THINGS RELATED TO THE BUILDING AND ADDITIONALLY THE SAME VIOLATION STATES THAT THE BUILDING IS IN A DETERIORATED STATE AND IS INADEQUATELY MAINTAINED. SO IT IS AN ABANDONED BUILDING, AND IT IS UNTENABLE. IN MY OPINION. 
          ADDITIONALLY, THIS SITE MEETS CRITERION D, WHICH IS, AS WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, AREAS WITH BUILDINGS OR IMPROVEMENTS WHICH BY REASON OF DILAPIDATION OR OBSOLESCENCE OR DETRIMENTAL TO THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY, NOT NOT JUST THE BUILDING ON THIS SITE IS DILAPIDATED AND FALLING APART. THE SITE IS TO THE PARKING FACILITIES. THE PAVEMENT EXHIBITS WIDESPREAD DEGRADATION, CRACKING, POTHOLES AND THAT'S CONTINUING WITH RUBBLE AND GRAVEL BEING SLOUGHED OFF THE PONDING DUE TO SOME OF THE POTHOLES AND THINGS YOU CAN CAUSE CAN GIVE YOU AREAS FOR MOSQUITOES TO BREED. THERE'S LEFTOVER CONCRETE ELEMENTS. SOME LOOK LIKE A SIGN BASE OUT THERE THAT'S A TRIPPING HAZARD. AND THE EXISTING LIGHT STANCHIONS THAT ARE THERE WHICH DON'T DO ANYTHING. THERE'S AN OVERGROWTH OF VEGETATION, THERE'S RAT BURROWS, WHICH WE HAVE DOCUMENTATION OF FROM THE TOWNSHIP. AND SPEAKING TO THE TOWNSHIP, THERE ARE MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS STARTING IN 2008. IT SEEMS LIKE AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR OR FOR SEVERAL YEARS SINCE 2008, THAT THE OWNER WAS NOTIFIED OF OVERGROWTH AND TO MAINTAIN THE LAWN. AND IN EACH ONE OF THOSE CASES, I THINK IN EACH ONE, MAYBE NOT ALL, THERE WAS A NOTE IN THE FILE SAYING, YES, THEY DID. THEY DID GO OUT AND THEY AND THEY TOOK CARE OF IT. BUT THEY HAD TO TELL THEM EVERY YEAR. SO THERE WAS A PERSISTENT, PERSISTENT PATTERN OF LACK OF MAINTENANCE OUT THERE AND DEBRI. SO THERE'S A DILAPIDATION AND OBSOLESCENCE REALLY IS MOSTLY RELATED TO THE SITE ITSELF. IT WAS BUILT FOR A FUEL STATION, AND A LONG TIME AGO WE GOT A REPORT. WE INCLUDED IT IN OUR STUDY FROM BROADVIEW ENGINEERING. YOUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER OR TOWNSHIP'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER. HE SAID THAT THE SITE, FROM AN ACCESS PERSPECTIVE, IS NON-CONFORMING AS IT RELATES TO THE DDOT ACCESS, AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT IF YOU CHANGE THE USE, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT AS THE PREVIOUS SITE PLAN WAS, TO STRICTER REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO TRIPS. VEHICLE TRIPS COMING OFF THE SITE AND I THINK THAT THAT STATUS HAS REALLY STYMIED ITS ABILITY TO REDEVELOP. ACCESS IS A BIG PART OF WHY IT HASN'T REDEVELOPED, AND THAT'S CLEAR WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CONDITIONS OF THE BOARD, WHAT THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE IMPLEMENTED OR BY THE DOT AND THE COUNTY AND THAT THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO BE SATISFIED ALTOGETHER. SO THAT'S AN ISSUE OUT THERE. THERE'S NO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. IT'S OBSOLETE IN TERMS OF THE CHAPTER SEVEN COLON EIGHT, WHICH GOVERNS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, WHICH HAS BEEN UPDATED AT LEAST, I DON'T KNOW, THREE TIMES SINCE IN THE LAST 20 YEARS. AND SO THERE'S NO RETENTION OR DETENTION OR TREATMENT OF STORMWATER ON THE SITE. IT JUST RUNS OFF. AND SO THAT'S THAT'S OBSOLESCENT AS WELL. AND THE DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC IS THE RUNOFF AND THE DETRIMENT TO WATER QUALITY THAT CARRIES WITH IT. WHEN YOU HAVE DEGRADED PAVEMENT AND YOU HAVE DEBRIS THAT'S GETTING CARRIED 
          [01:10:05]
INTO YOUR STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, WHETHER IT'S THE TOWNSHIPS OR IT'S THE STATE OR THE COUNTY OWNED, YOU'VE ALSO GOT UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR GOING ON THERE. THE GRAFFITI, THAT'S A DETRIMENT TO THE WELFARE YOU'VE GOT A RODENT POPULATION THAT'S BEING HARBORED THERE. BOTH BOTH. WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM THE MUNICIPAL REPORTS IS WITHIN THE BUILDING AND ON SITE. AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS A COMPLAINT. I THINK THAT COMPLAINT MAY HAVE COME FROM THE TIGER'S TALE ABOUT THE RATS, BUT I'M NOT SURE IT'S A IT'S AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I THINK THAT THE TEXACO SITE, LOT 64 MEETS THE CRITERIA. I'M SORRY, I LOOK THERE'S A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE OF THE PAVEMENT, THE GRADED PAVEMENT. SO LOT 61 AND 62, THE TIGER'S TAIL. AS I SAID BEFORE, THE DEFINITION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AREA ALLOWS A MUNICIPALITY TO DESIGNATE A PORTION OF AN AREA THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEET THE CRITERIA AS PART OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA, BECAUSE IT'S NECESSARY FOR THE EFFECTIVE REDEVELOPMENT. AND IN MY MIND, THE TIGER'S TAIL FITS THAT DEFINITION. NOW, I WILL SAY, I WILL SAY THAT THE TIGER'S TAIL IS NO PERFECT SITE. OKAY, IT'S BEEN AROUND A LONG TIME. IT'S EVOLVED AND IT DOES WHAT IT DOE. 
          BUT THERE IS IT'S GOT VERY WIDE DRIVEWAYS AND WE'VE LOOKED INTO IT. WE WANTED TO KNOW IF THERE WAS A PERSISTENT PATTERN OF ACCIDENTS RELATED TO ITS CIRCULATION. AND WHAT WE FOUND WAS THAT THERE ARE SOME ACCIDENTS RELATED TO HOW THE DRIVEWAYS ARE CONFIGURED THERE, BUT IT'S NOT THAT IT HAPPENS EVERY WEEK. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN EVERY MONTH. BUT IT'S CLEAR THAT FOLKS HAVE A LOT MORE FREEDOM TO LEAVE THE TIGER'S TAIL AND GO EITHER NORTH OR SOUTH, WHETHER THEY SHOULD OR NOT, AND SOME OF THE ACCIDENTS RELATE TO THAT. SO IT'S GOT EXTRA WIDE, NON-CONFORMING ACCESS POINTS ALONG 206. IT ALSO AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLAN VIEW HERE, IT ALSO DOESN'T HAVE ANY SCREENING. THE CURRENT STANDARDS REQUIRE BUFFERING OF PARKING. IF YOU LOOK AT THE MONTGOMERY SHOPPING CENTER, IT'S GOT THIS BEAUTIFUL GREEN BUFFER ALONG IT WITH A SIDEWALK AND TREES. TIGER STILL DOESN'T OKAY. DOES THAT MAKE IT A REDEVELOPMENT AREA? I DON'T I DON'T KNOW, BUT I WILL SAY THAT ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE WITHIN WHAT IS THE PLANNED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT. AND THIS WAS DONE AS AN OVERLAY AND IT ENCOMPASSED PART OF THE HCA ZONE. THE UNDERLYING ZONING HERE IS HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL. BUT WHEN WE DID THE ZONING FOR THE PLANNED MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT, THIS WAS DESIGNATED AS AREA C AND AREA C WAS ENVISIONED AS A PLACE WHERE WE COULD DEVELOP THE INNER LOOP ROAD, WHICH IS NOW BRACKNELL WAY, AND THAT WE COULD SOLVE THE ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO THE TIGER'S TAILS ACCESS AND THE ACCESS TO OTHER AREAS IN AREA C, BY BRINGING ACCESS OFF THAT INNER LOOP ROAD AND ALSO TRYING TO CONSOLIDATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND ACCESS PARKING, PARKING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE ORIGINAL PMD WELL ACTUALLY EXIST RIGHT NOW IN THE PMD RIGHT NOW, AREA C INCLUDED LOTS 57 AND 58, TWO, AND IT REQUIRED THAT IF YOU WERE GOING TO DEVELOP USING THE PMD STANDARDS, LOT 57, 58, 59, 61 AND 62 ALL HAD TO BE PART OF IT. SIX LOT 64 WAS EXCLUDED BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING APPROVAL FOR THE DUNKIN DONUTS. AND SO THAT WE THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT THEY COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF, BUT THEY COULDN'T THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO USE THAT THAT SITE. BUT THERE WAS A THERE WAS A REAL THOUGHT THAT WE COULD GET EVERYBODY, ALL THE OWNERS TOGETHER. AND THERE COULD BE THIS COMPREHENSIVE MIXED USE. AND THE MIXED USE ISN'T JUST COMMERCIAL. IT ENVISIONS RESIDENTIAL. AND YOU CAN HAVE TALLER BUILDINGS. AND IT WAS PART OF THE OVERALL PMD MIXED USE, HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENTS TO IT, AS WELL. SO THERE WAS A REAL CONCEPT FOR THIS AND THIS IS A CONCEPT PLAN. IT'S NOT THE EXACT PLAN, BUT THIS WAS THE IDEA OF CONSOLIDATING THESE USES OR THESE PROPERTIES TO MAKE A COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT. WELL, SINCE THAT TIME YOU CAN SEE THAT LOTS 57 AND 58 NOW IN THIS IMAGE ARE JUST BLANK. THAT'S THE MALVERN SCHOOL. MALVERN SCHOOL GOT APPROVAL THERE ONCE THE MALVERN SCHOOL GOT APPROVAL, THE PMD ZONING GOES AWAY FOR THIS ENTIRE AREA BECAUSE YOU CAN'T USE THOSE PIECES. SO NOW THERE'S NOBODY HAS ACCESS TO THAT USE. BUT WITH THE REMAINING LOTS, 
          [01:15:05]
TIGER'S TAIL, LOT 64, LOT 59. THIS CONCEPT SHOWS HOW THE PRINCIPLES OF MORE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS CORNER AND SOLVING SOME OF THOSE ACCESS ISSUES CAN HAPPEN. RIGHT. AND SO FOR THOSE REASONS, IT'S MY OPINION THAT EVEN THOUGH TIGER'S TALE HAS SOME DEFICIENCIES WITH RESPECT TO ACCESS, THAT WE'D LIKE TO CURE, AND IT'S GOT SOME BUFFERING ISSUES AND THEN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH CURRENT STANDARDS THAT IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED. AND IT CAN PLAY A ROLE IN CONSOLIDATING ACCESS FROM THE INNER LOOP ROAD AND MAKE LOT 64 AND LOT 59 MORE DEVELOPABLE AND THAT THROUGH THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS, WE CAN COME TO AN ALTERNATIVE THAT IS VERY MUCH LIKE THE PMD ZONING AND FIND A WAY TO ACTIVATE THESE SITES THAT ARE UNDERUTILIZED RIGHT NOW AND THAT ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE TOWNSHIP. SO IN SUMMARY, LOT 59 MEETS THE CRITERIA. LOT 64 MEET THE CRITERIA. TIGER STILL DOES NOT, BUT IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS AREA REDEVELOPED IN AN EFFECTIVE MANNER. THAT SOLVES SOME OF THE EXISTING PROBLEMS WE HAVE THE ACCESS PROBLEM AND THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROBLEM, AND SO AND FULFILLMENT OF THE PMD IN SOME FORM SINCE IT'S BEEN REALLY DERAILED ONCE THE MALVERN SCHOOL WAS APPROVED. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE REPORT. AND YOU HAVE THE REPORT OR WHAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT. SO TIGER STYLE IS INCLUDED. THAT WOULD JUST OBVIOUSLY MEAN FOR THE CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE? WE CAN HEAR YOU. THE IF TIGER CELL IS INCLUDED THAT WOULD MEAN WE'D NEED TO CREATE THE BUFFERS ALONG THE 206 AND SHORTEN THE DRIVEWA, THE ACCESS AND THEN ADD IT TO THE TO THE OVERALL ROAD THAT THAT LOOPS OUT INTO THE LOOP ROAD. IF THAT IS, IF THAT'S IF THAT'S APPROVED, THE PMD WOULD STILL ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 64 AND 59 ALONG 518. OR IS THAT ALL THAT? ALL THAT'S ALL GONE? NO, NO. THE ONLY WAY THAT THE PMD WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BE USED IF IT WAS USED WITH 57 AND 58. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO WHAT WOULD BE THE PLAN NOW? WOULD THERE BE ANY POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THAT CORNER AT ALL? RIGHT NOW, THE ONLY ZONING THAT EXISTS THERE IS THE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE, HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL. RIGHT? I MEAN, THE PMD DOES EXIST THERE, BUT YOU CAN'T USE IT. YOU CAN'T MEET THE CONDITIONS OF IT. SO COULD YOU GO BACK IN HISTORY LIKE WE APPROVED THIS AND NOT THIS ONE, BUT WE APPROVED THE PREVIOUS VERSION OF THIS THAT INCLUDED 57 AND 58 BACK IN 2022. WHY IS THAT NOT STILL VALID NOW? IS IT BECAUSE THOSE TWO PROPERTIES ARE TAKEN OUT? SO YOU HAVE TO START THE PROCESS OVER THE AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE PLANNING BOARD MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE GOVERNING BODY. THE GOVERNING BODY NEVER DESIGNATED THE PROPERTIES AS REDEVELOPMENT AREAS. YEAH. BUT I MEAN THAT'S REPORTS ARE STILL OUT THERE AND WE MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION. SO COULD THEY NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS BASED ON THAT RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PREVIOUS ONE THAT HAD THOSE OTHER PROPERTIES IN IT? DO WE HAVE IS IT WE HAVE TO START OVER BECAUSE THOSE PROPERTIES ARE NO LONGER PART OF THIS? WELL, IT WAS AS WE REVIEWED THIS INTERNALLY WITH THE ATTORNEYS, THEY FELT LIKE, WELL, THERE WAS CHANGED CONDITIONS TO TWO YEAR OLD STUDY NEEDED TO BE UPDATED. AND IN PARTICULAR LOT 59 OKAY, LOT 59 HAD A BUILDING ON IT AT THAT TIME. AND SO I GUESS THEN SPECIFICALLY I'LL GO BACK TO, YOU KNOW, THE TESTIMONY AT THAT TIME WAS WE HAVE TO OR WE INCLUDED THE HOROWITZ PROPERTIES, WHICH I THINK ARE LOTS 57, 58 AS WELL AS THE TIGER TALE. THEY DON'T NECESSARILY MEET THE CRITERIA, BUT THESE WERE NECESSARY. BUT NOW WE FIND THAT THEY WERE NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT GOING ON WITH TWO OF THE PROPERTIES WHICH AT THE TIME WERE SAYING NECESSARY. SO TO ME, I MEAN, THEY WEREN'T NECESSARY. RIGHT? BECAUSE WE'RE DEVELOPING THEM NOW. SO I THINK THE SAME THING CAN BE SAID OF THE TIGER TAIL RIGHT NOW. SO IF YOU GO BY STRICTLY, BY THE, THE, THE LAW, THESE ARE TIGER TAIL IS NOT NECESSARY TO REDEVELOP THESE. 
          IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT'S CONVENIENT TO THROW IN THERE. IT SAYS NECESSARY FOR THE EFFECTIVE REDEVELOPMENT. THAT'S THE STATUTE. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. SO IN MY OPINION I THINK THE TIGER STILL IS NECESSARY FOR THE EFFECTIVE REDEVELOPMENT. BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID THE LAST TIME WITH 57 AND 58. AND THEY WEREN'T I DON'T THINK THEY'RE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. I MEAN, I 
          [01:20:07]
DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST SAYING THAT LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WHAT SO HAS ANYONE PRESENTED A PLAN THAT ONLY INCLUDED THE TWO LOTS THAT ARE THE DILAPIDATED LOTS? NO. I MEAN, WE DIDN'T EVEN ASK SOMEONE TO TRY AND DEVELOP THAT, BUT POD BE POSSIBLE. THE. AND SO. SO I GUESS I ALSO WANTED TO ASK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE STORMWATER RUNOFF THAT HAD BEEN MENTIONED HERE FROM SOME OF THE OTHER APPLICATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD. IF, IF, IF I'M CORRECT, LIKE STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM EXISTING PERVIOUS, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE MITIGATED WHEN YOU DEVELOP THE PROPERTY. RIGHT. BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE PARKING LOT IN THE IN THE TOWNSHIP AND THE TOWNSHIP PROPERTY WHERE THEY'RE BUILDING AN APARTMENT BUILDING, THAT THAT PARKING LOT ALREADY EXISTED. SO THAT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE MITIGATED. RIGHT. AND SO EVEN IF WE DEVELOP THIS, AREN'T THEY GOING TO GET ISN'T ANY DEVELOPER GOING TO SAY, WELL, THOSE PARKING LOTS ALREADY EXIST. WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE STORMWATER RUNOFF REQUIREMENTS WITH UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF REDEVELOPMENT, YOU GET THE CHANCE TO HOW DO I SAY THIS? YOU CAN HAVE HEIGHTENED REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTANCE, YOU MAY DECIDE IF THIS IS IF THIS IS DESIGNATED. AND THEN THE GOVERNING BODY SAYS, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO DO A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. THAT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WILL MOST LIKELY HAVE ENHANCED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. OKAY. THAT'S THE IDEA. IS THAT YOU WANT TO CREATE INCENTIVES AND YOU WANT TO CREATE INCENTIVES THAT ARE BENEFICIAL TO BOTH THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO DO DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO THE PUBLIC. AND PART OF THAT COULD CERTAINLY BE THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU MAY HAVE RIGHTS TO IN TERMS OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, THE FACT THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO LET IT KEEP DISCHARGING DOES NOT MEAN THAT'S A GOOD THING. AND IT'S A BENEFI. AND REDEVELOPMENT PLANS THAT I DO. WE ARE LOOKING AT EVERY WAY TO SOAK UP AND SPONGE UP STORMWATER. AND SO THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY THIS ISN'T REDEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO GIVE YOU RIGHTS THAT ARE CONDITIONAL, RIGHT. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE OBLIGATIONS. AND WE CAN WRITE THOSE RIGHTS IN THERE. OR THERE'S OBLIGATIONS IN THERE SO THAT THE STORMWATER IS MADE BETTER. AND THAT'S THE BENEFIT. 
          AND WHEN YOU HAVE A LARGER AREA AND YOU CONSOLIDATE PROPERTIES, YOU HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY AS TO HOW YOU ARRANGE THEM, BECAUSE EACH INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY ISN'T JUST PUTTING THEIR LITTLE TUB ON THE ON THE LOT, YOU KNOW, FOR STORMWATER, THEY COULD HAVE IT CENTRALIZED AND THEY CAN HAVE EASEMENTS AND YOU CAN REQUIRE THAT KIND OF THING SO THAT YOU CAN MAXIMIZE HOW IT RELATES TO THE PUBLIC REALM IN A BETTER WAY, AND HOW YOU CAN GET MORE DENSITY THERE IF YOU WANT TO HAVE, FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU WANTED TO HAVE SOME APARTMENTS THERE, WHICH IS WHAT THE PMUD WOULD ALLOW IT ALLOWS YOU TO DO THOSE THINGS. SO YOU TRY TO MAKE THINGS BETTER THROUGH THIS, THROUGH EFFECTIVELY GIVING HIGHER LEVELS OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, BUT ALSO OBLIGATIONS TO MAKE THINGS BETTER IN A WAY. SO IT'S NOT IT'S NOT JUST LIKE REGULAR ZONING, UNDERSTAND? BUT I GUESS I'M A LITTLE DISTURBED BECAUSE WHEN WE WERE DEVELOPING THE APARTMENT BUILDING, THE APARTMENT BUILDING THERE WAS A INITIALLY A PLAN TO CONVERT IT TO A BIORETENTION BASIN, WHICH DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THE END. YOU KNOW, AFTER THE PLANS WERE AGREED, EVERYTHING WAS FINE AND THEN IT WAS TOO EXPENSIVE. AND SO AT THE LAST MINUTE IT WAS CHANGED RIGHT. SO THE SAME THING COULD HAPPEN HERE, RIGHT? LIKE IN THEORY, YES. YOU CAN SAY WE CAN MAKE THIS A CONDITION. WE CAN TRY TO GET EVERYONE TO AGREE TO, TO NOT USE THE FACT THAT THERE'S ALREADY EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO HAVE THAT, THAT TO OPT OUT OF BUILDING. BUT BUT BUT YOU'RE BUT THIS IS THE FIRST STEP. WE DON'T EVEN GET TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS UNTIL WE GET TO THE NEXT STEP. RIGHT? RIGHT. 
          EXACTLY. BUT IT COULD BE. BUT WE MAY NOT. THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY AND THE EVIDENCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE SEPARATE AND APART FROM WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. THIS IS THIS IS WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WE MEET THESE, MEET THE CRITERIA AND ARE NECESSARY FOR THE EFFECT OF REDEVELOPMENT. AND I'VE SPELLED OUT THE REASONS WHY, RIGHT. IF THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IF THE BOARD SAYS, YEAH, WE WANT TO RECOMMEND THIS, THEN THEN WE AND THE AND THE GOVERNING BODY AGREES AND THEY DESIGNATE IT, THEN WE HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS BECAUSE WHAT'S EFFECTIVELY HAPPENED IS THE PMD HAS BEEN LIKE KNOCKED OFF OF THE SITE. AND THAT WAS A REALLY WELL THOUGHT OUT AWARD WINNING CONCEPT. I SUPPOSE THE THING THAT I'M REALLY WORRIED ABOUT WITH THIS IS, YOU KNOW, BY BY CONSOLIDATING THESE SITES, IT'S REALLY TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO DEVELOP THESE THAT MAXIMIZES THE COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC. AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THAT TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE, BECAUSE 
          [01:25:07]
THE WAY THIS IS DESIGNED, I DON'T SEE HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO EFFECTIVELY ACCESS THE SITE. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, AND MAYBE IF WE CAN GO BACK TO YOUR YOUR OVERVIEW OF THE SITE, THE MAP, CAN WE JUST TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEONE'S TRAVELING ON 518 EAST, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO GET TO THIS SITE IN A LOGICAL WAY, IF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LEAVE THE SITE AND WANT TO GET TO 518 EAST, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO DO THAT? BECAUSE WHAT I'M SEEING SO FAR AND, YOU KNOW, I HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED DEVELOPING THIS. THERE ARE LEGAL TERMS ON BRECKNELL WAY LEFTS ON BRECKNELL WAY, LEFTS ON TO 518 FROM BRECKNELL WAY. SO I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WANT TO COMBINE ALL OF THESE IN A WAY TO MAXIMIZE THE COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC THERE. GIVEN THAT IT'S NOT REALLY VERY EASY FOR PEOPLE TO GET IN AND OUT ONTO 518 EAST AND IN AND OUT ONTO 206 NORTH. WELL, I'M NOT SAYING I HAVE THE SOLUTION FOR THIS YET, BUT WITHOUT THE REDEVELOPMENT DESIGNATION THAT ALLOWS US TO LOOK AT ALTERNATIVES. AND I THINK THAT THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISE ABOUT ACCESS AND HOW IT'S GOING TO WORK, THOSE ARE ALL REALLY VALID. BUT THOSE WOULD COME IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN STAGE. YOU'RE THE MUNICIPAL TRAFFIC ENGINEER WOULD BE INVOLVED AND WE WOULD FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A FULL LOT CONSOLIDATION OR WHETHER THERE WAS AN EASEMENT THAT WAS REQUIRED OR HOW THAT WORKS. THERE'S LOTS OF PERMUTATIONS OF IT, AND I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT. I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. SO AND I'M AND THAT'S WHAT BOTHERS ME BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE, MAYBE SOMEONE CONSOLIDATES ALL THESE LOTS AND SAYS, WE'RE GOING TO PUT A CONVENIENCE STATION WITH, WITH A, WITH A STORE THERE. AND IT'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC AND THEN NONE OF THOSE TRAFFIC UPDATES EVER REALLY QUITE HAPPENED. YOU KNOW, THE ONE THING. SO WHY CAN'T WE JUST KEEP IT AS THE TWO LOTS THAT ACTUALLY ARE THE TWO PROBLEM? LOTS ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT REALLY SHOULD BE DESIGNATED AS AREAS IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT QUALIFY. BUT BUT THE STATUTE ALLOWS YOU TO INCLUDE MORE THAN THAT BECAUSE THERE MAY BE A BENEFIT TO DOING SO. AND IN MY OPINION, I THINK I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING, BUT I'D RATHER I'D RATHER HAVE. IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS AND NO. AND UNDER THE REDEVELOPMENT LAW, NOT YOU DON'T JUST HAVE ANY DEVELOPER COME IN, THERE'S REDEVELOPER DESIGNATIONS, THERE'S REDEVELOPER AGREEMENTS. IT'S A MUCH DIFFERENT IT'S A MUCH DIFFERENT, MUCH MORE CONTROLLED PROCESS WHERE THE, THE TOWN CALLS THE TOMB AND YOU ARE GOING TO GET TO DRIVE THE TRUCK AND TELL PEOPLE, HERE'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, AND SET THE CRITERIA FOR ANY DEVELOPERS TO EVEN COME IN HERE. SO BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THE OPTIONS, IF YOU DO NOT INCLUDE THE TIGER'S TAIL IN THIS, ARE SEVERELY LIMITED, AND YOU'RE FACED WITH THE SAME ISSUES THAT YOU MAY BE FACED WITH, THE SAME ISSUES THAT THE TEXACO SITE IS FACED FOR THE LAST, I DON'T KNOW, SINCE 2015, AND I'VE BEEN WORKING HERE TRYING TO GET SOME SOMETHING APPROVED. THERE. IT'S A TINY SITE. THE ACCESS IS TERRIBLE. THE ENGINEER SAYS IT DOESN'T CONFORM. IT'S SEVERELY LIMITED. HOW DO YOU FIX THAT? BUT TECHNICALLY, YOU YOU COULD DESIGNATE THAT SITE AND THE OTHER SITE AS AN AREA NEEDING, NEEDING REDEVELOPMENT ALONE. OF COURSE YOU COULD. YOU COULD. OF COURSE YOU COULD. AND NO, THERE'S NO THERE'S NO RESTRICTION ON ON LIKE, YOU KNOW, LIKE. TARGETING A SINGLE SINGLE PROPERTY. RIGHT. I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THE LAW WOULD, WOULD CONTEMPLATE A PROTECTION OVER REDEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE PROPERTY. THIS IS NOT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. NO. WELL, I'LL LET I'LL LET KAREN TALK. NO, YOU COULD DO THAT, PAUL. YEAH, SURE. YEAH. IF YOU HAD A IF YOU HAD A SINGLE PROPERTY AND, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE HAD ONE ACROSS THE STREET, THE GAMETECH SITE. RIGHT. YOU KNOW, IT WAS A SINGLE PROPERTY, RIGHT. BUT BUT, YOU KNOW, HAVING THE ABILITY I'M NOT AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT ULTIMATELY ALL THESE PROPERTIES WOULD BE CONSOLIDATED, BUT IT GIVES YOU THE OPTION TO FIGURE IT OUT. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. WELL, AGAIN, I MEAN, I JUST DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE GIVING THE FLEXIBILITY TO POTENTIALLY HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S DEVELOPED WITH ALL OF THESE, COMBINED WITH A LOT OF TRAFFIC, WITH NO ASSURANCES THAT REALLY THE TRAFFIC FLOW REALLY MAKES SENSE. 
          LIKE I SAID, I MEAN, IF YOU COULD BRING UP THE OVERVIEW SLIDE OF THE, OF THE, OF THE AREA. YEAH, THIS THE. NO. YOU PASSED IT THE AERIAL. YEAH. THE NOT THE AERIAL. THE MAP, THE MAP THAT THIS ONE. THIS ONE. SO HOW HOW IS SOMEONE GOING TO WHO'S TRAVELING ON 518 EAST GOING TO GET TO THESE PROPERTIES WITH NO WITH NO LEFT TURNS INTO THEM. AND WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO. 
          WELL THEY COULD THEY COULD TURN LEFT ON RESEARCH ROAD AND THEN COME OUT AT THE, AT THE LIGHT 
          [01:30:04]
BECAUSE WE, THE PLANNING BOARD WAS EFFECTIVELY REQUIRED AREA BE. SO YOU'RE TRAPPED. SO YOU'RE MAKING THEM TRAVEL FROM A FROM A COUNTY HIGHWAY INTO A RESIDENTIAL AREA. SO YOU'RE ROUTING ROUTING A WHOLE BUNCH OF TRAFFIC THROUGH A RESIDENTIAL AREA. I MADE THE MISTAKE OF ENGAGING THIS MY I THINK, I THINK THE, THE POINT IS, IS THAT THERE IS FLEXIBILITY. THERE'S AND WHICH WE DON'T HAVE RIGHT NOW. RIGHT. THE, THE IDEA FOR REDEVELOPMENT IS TO ALLOW FOR THESE QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED AS OUR, AS OUR PLANNER SAID. BUT BUT I DO THINK YOU STILL HAVE FLEXIBILITY IF YOU COMBINE THE TWO PROPERTIES THAT ARE ACTUALLY THE ONES THAT ARE A PROBLEM AND FIGURE OUT A USE FOR THOSE TWO PROPERTIES THAT THAT WORKS, AND I THINK IT WOULD END UP BEING LESS TRAFFIC THAN IF YOU TRIED TO COMBINE ALL OF THESE AND MAXIMIZE. I MEAN, IT'S ESSENTIALLY, AS YOU SAID, LIKE IT'S ESSENTIALLY TRYING TO MAXIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. YOU SAID THAT. NO, NO, IT'S IT SAYS IT IN THE IN THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING REPORT. RIGHT. BY BY WE HAVE LIMITATIONS ON LOT 64 BECAUSE IT'S NONCONFORMING LOT. SO YOU HAVE THE LIMITED NUMBER OF TRAFFIC TRIPS THAT CAN BE MADE. SO BY COMBINING IT YOU CAN REMOVE THAT RESTRICTION FROM IT. SO IT'S A WAY TO TRY TO MAXIMIZE COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC ON THESE LOTS I THINK I THINK WHEN YOU SAY MAXIMIZING COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC THAT THAT ASSUMES A FACT. NOT IN EVIDENCE. I MEAN, THIS IS LAND USE DEPENDENT, RIGHT? IT'S NOT LOT SIZE DEPENDENT. AND THE FLEXIBILITY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LIKE WHAT'S SO IMPORTANT ABOUT REDEVELOPMENT IS THAT THESE QUESTIONS WILL ALL BE ANSWERED BEFORE ANY DEVELOPER GETS TO TOUCH A PROPERTY IN A REDEVELOPMENT AREA, BECAUSE A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CAN HAVE A UTILITY PLAN, IT CAN HAVE CIRCULATION PLAN REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS. ALL THESE THINGS GET FIGURED OUT BEFORE YOU EVEN HAVE ANYBODY APPLYING TO THE PLANNING BOARD. AND IT'S BUILT INTO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND IT BECOMES AN OBLIGATION THROUGH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT ARE IN PLACE. SO, I MEAN, IN MY WORLD, AS A AS A PLANNER AND AS A, AS A COMMUNITY DESIGNER, I WANT AS MUCH FLEXIBILITY AS POSSIBLE TO FIGURE OUT THAT SOLUTION. AND I'M NOT SAYING IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER, BUT I HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER FOR THE FOR THE TOWNSHIP, AS IF WE WERE WORKING THROUGH A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, WOULD GIVE US HOW THIS WOULD WORK AND NOT JUST SAY, HERE'S THE HERE IT IS, IT'S WORKED OUT AND IT'S A KNOWN THING. IT'S NOT AN UNKNOWN THING. I HAVE A QUESTION. DID AM I UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S HAPPENING TO WHERE WE'RE TALKING? WE'RE DISCUSSING REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AS THEY GO FORWARD TO DO SOMETHING WITH THESE PROPERTIES. THE CONCERN IS THAT THE RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU OFFERED AS A PART OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WOULD BE A TRAFFIC PATTERN CHANGE, AND IT WOULD CONSOLIDATE ALL OF THE PROPERTIES OR THREE OF THE PROPERTIES. THAT'S NOT WE DON'T KNOW THAT YET. RIGHT. AND THAT'S AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO SO THAT WHATEVER IS INCLUDED IN THIS REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IS NOT SET IN STONE. IT'S TO RECOMMEND IT'S A SORT OF AN IDEA OR A RECOMMENDATION EVEN NOT EVEN A RECOMMENDATION. TO BE CLEAR, THERE IS NO PLAN, RIGHT? WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE DESIGNATION OF THIS, JUST A DESIGNATION PLAN YET. YEAH. SO IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY THINK OF A PLAN, YOU HAVE TO GET TO THE NEXT STEP. YOU GOT TO GET TO THE NEXT STAGE. AND WE'RE JUST SAYING AND THE GOVERNING BODY WILL DEVELOP THAT PRESUMABLY WITH THE PLANNING BOARD. SO WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT THESE PROPERTIES ARE PRETTY MUCH STUCK RIGHT NOW UNTIL WE HAVE SOME SORT OF DESIGNATION THAT SAYS THIS IS HOW WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. AND I THINK, LET ME JUST SEE IF I CAN CLARIFY WHAT'S IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD. TONIGHT IS A CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT THAT'S BEEN PREPARED BY CLARK CAYTON. CORRECT. AND THAT'S AN INVESTIGATION OF THESE FOUR PROPERTIES AND A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNER THAT THEY MEET THE CRITERIA UNDER THE REDEVELOPMENT LAW FOR DESIGNATION AS AN AREA IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT WITH THE AND THE GOVERNING BODY HAS PRESENTED THIS TO YOU FOR CONSIDERATION, INDICATING THEY ALSO WANT TO USE A TOOL OF CONDEMNATION. IF YOU KNOW IF THAT BECOMES NECESSARY. SO IF THE PLANNING BOARD TONIGHT RECOMMENDED THAT THEY ACCEPT MR. SULLIVAN'S STUDY, THIS GOES BACK TO THE GOVERNING BODY, UP TO THE GOVERNING BODY. WHAT THEY DO IF THE PLANNING BOARD HAS OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS THEY MAKE, IT STILL GOES BACK TO THE GOVERNING 
          [01:35:06]
BODY. IT'S THEIR ULTIMATE DECISION. WHAT HAPPENS HERE. SO THERE IS NO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN YET. THERE CAN'T BE UNTIL THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES ITS RECOMMENDATION AND THE GOVERNING BODY MAKES MOST IMPORTANTLY, THEY MAKE THEIR DECISION IF THEY WANT TO MOVE AHEAD WITH REDEVELOPMENT, THEY WILL HAVE THE BOARD PLANNERS ASSIST THEM AND PREPARE A REDEVELOPMENT PLA. 
          BUT THAT'S ALL DOWN THE ROAD RIGHT NOW. THERE'S NOTHING IN FRONT OF YOU IN TERMS OF WHAT COULD BE DONE OUT THERE. AND IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING, THEN IT JUST STAYS. IT'S LIKE SORT OF LIKE IN THIS, IF IT'S IF WE DON'T TAKE ANY ACTION HERE, THEN THE TOWNSHIP CANNOT DO ANYTHING WITH IT. NO, IT STAYS IN THIS, IN THIS, IN THIS, THIS STATE, WHICH IS REALLY CONCERNING THE ENTIRE TOWNSHIP. WELL, REMEMBER, YOU NEED TO MAKE SOME RESPONSE. THE GOVERNING BODY HAS SENT THIS TO YOU. SO WHETHER YOUR RESPONSE BACK IS YEAH, WE RECOMMEND THIS DESIGNATION FOR REDEVELOPMENT OR YOU DON'T RECOMMEND IT, IT STILL STAYS WITH THE GOVERNING BODY. THEY CAN MOVE AHEAD. I'M SURE THEY WOULD. YOU KNOW, THEY WANT TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT THE STATUTE GIVES THEM THE FINAL RIGHT TO DECIDE. SO CAN THEY MOVE AHEAD ANYWAY? YES, THEY COULD, BUT THE LAW REQUIRES IT TO COME TO YOU FIRST FOR THIS HEARING TONIGHT. AND TO LISTEN TO THE INVESTIGATIVE STUDY. WAS WAS I'M SORRY, JUST A QUESTION. WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION TO INCLUDE LOT 61 AND NOT INCLUDE LOT 62? LOT 61 IS THE NORTHERN SEPARATED LOT. WE KEEP REFERRING TO THE TIGER'S TAIL, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY TWO DIFFERENT LOTS RIGHT IN IN A IN A POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. I KNOW THAT THE TIGER TAIL OWNS BOTH OF THEM. NO, IT WAS LOOKED AT AS ONE PROPERTY AND WAS THERE ANY REASON FOR THAT? BECAUSE IT FUNCTIONS AS ONE PROPERTY. IT'S A PARKING LOT AND IT'S AND IT'S GOT IT'S GOT LARGE THE MOST FRONTAGE OF THE AREA ON BRECKNELL WAY. I, I REALLY BELIEVE THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE HAS TO BE THE START ON THIS BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ANSWER TO IT IN THE END. SO GOING BACK TO WHAT OUR CONSULTANT SAID, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING. WE SHOULD BE LETTING THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE START THIS PROCESS. BUT BUT WE ACTUALLY AGREED TO THIS TWO YEARS AGO. WE PASSED THIS OR MADE A RECOMMENDATION TWO YEARS AGO THAT INCLUDED THESE LOTS PLUS A COUPLE OTHERS. 
          SO BUT NOTHING HAS HAPPENED SINCE THEN. BUT BUT IT'S ALSO, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE TO APPROVE ALL OF THE LOTS, RIGHT. IT'S UP TO US OR NOT APPROVED. WE DON'T HAVE TO RECOMMEND ALL OF THE LOTS. WE CAN RECOMMEND WHICH ONES WE THINK ARE SUPPORTED. ANYTHING YOU DO THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT SOMETHING ELSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST A TIGHT PLACE AND SOMEBODY'S GOING TO GET NOT EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BENEFIT FROM IT. SO THERE'S GOING TO BE NOISE. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. I SHOULD THINK THE TOWNSHIP SHOULD COMMITTEE SHOULD HEAR THE SAME THING ARGUMENT THAT WE'RE GIVING. AND SEE WHAT THEY COME UP WITH. AND WORK WITH THEM. AND WE HAVE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEEMAN ON THE PLANNING BOARD, ON THE ON THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE. I MEAN, WE HAVE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS. SO US TO SIT HERE AND FIGHT THIS OUT AND HAND IT TO TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE AND SAY, FORGET IT. WE'RE NOT APPROVING THAT. AND THAT WOULD BE RIDICULOUS. I DON'T THINK IT'S LIKE THAT. I DON'T THINK IT'S A MATTER OF APPROVING OR NOT APPROVING. WE CAN ALSO DESIGNATE WHICH PROPERTIES. TO ME, I THINK THE ONLY ONE THAT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR 59 AND 64, AND I WOULD BE I WOULD VOTE YES TO HAVE THOSE DESIGNATED AS AREAS IN REDEVELOPMENT, BUT NOT THE WHOLE PARCEL. ALL ALL FOUR PARCELS. THAT'S A THAT'S A PRETTY THAT'S A PRETTY DIFFICULT I HAVE TO SAY THAT RIGHT NOW HAS BEEN UP FOR A LONG TIME. AND TO, TO THESE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE GOING TO WANT SOMETHING OUT OF THIS. SO THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF NOISE THROUGH THIS DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. SO TO ME, THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE HAS TO BE INVOLVED SOMEWHAT TO THIS MORE THAN WHAT WE ARE. WELL, WHY DON'T WE ALL KEEP IN MIND, THOUGH, THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT STATUTE, THIS IS A PROCESS THAT'S LAID OUT IN THE STATUTE. SO THE GOVERNING BODY HAS ASKED 
          [01:40:05]
YOU TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THEM. YOU HAVE THE STUDY THAT'S BEEN PREPARED BY MR. SULLIVAN. 
          SO IT'S FOR YOU TO SAY, YES, WE RECOMMEND, IN ACCORDANCE WITH MR. SULLIVAN'S STUDY OR WE DON'T WE DON'T RECOMMEND IT. BUT EITHER WAY, WE CAN RECOMMEND SPECIFIC LOTS, THOUGH, RIGHT? IT'S NOT JUST ACCEPT IT ALL OR NOT. AND I THINK THE STATUTE OR THE ORDINANCE IS EVEN OR THE TOWNSHIP, WHATEVER THEY PASSED THE. YES. BECAUSE YOU CAN YOU CAN MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS YOU DEEM APPROPRIATE. IF YOU FEEL A CRITERIA IS NOT BEING MET UNDER THE REDEVELOPMENT STATUTE, YOU CAN MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION. ULTIMATELY, THOUGH, THIS LAW IS WITH THE GOVERNING BODY, SO IT'S NOT A MATTER OF THAT. YOU HAVE THE CHOICE NOT TO DO ANYTHING WITH THIS. YOU DO NEED TO RESPOND, BUT ULTIMATELY WHEN IT GOES BACK TO THE GOVERNING BODY, THEY WILL DECIDE. SO THAT'S SO BASICALLY THEY DO HAVE VETO RIGHTS. YES. OKAY. THEY DO. IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT THAT CORNER IS GOING TO BE IT'S A MESS NOW AND IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO MAKE IT ATTRACTIVE FOR, FOR DEVELOPERS AND FOR THE TOWNSHIP, FOR THE CITIZENS OF MONTGOMERY. 
          IT'S A TOUGH IT'S A TOUGH DEVELOPMENT PROBLEM. I THINK YOUR CHANCES OF GETTING SOMETHING ATTRACTIVE THERE ARE BETTER IF YOU CONSIDER ALL FOUR LOTS INSTEAD OF ONLY TWO LOTS. I THINK YOU DEFINITELY HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF GETTING SOMETHING WITH HIGHER COMMERCIAL VOLUME, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT DEVELOPERS WANT TO DEVELOP. THAT'S WHAT DEVELOPERS WANT TO DEVELOP. BUT THE RULES THAT THE DEVELOPERS HAVE TO PLAY BY ARE GOING TO BE SET BY THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE. AFTER THIS IS DETERMINED TO BE A REDEVELOPMENT ZONE, AND IT DEPENDS ON WHAT KIND OF RULES THEY ESTABLISH, HOW MUCH COMMERCIAL, HOW INTENSE THE COMMERCIAL USE IS. AND ISN'T THAT THAT'S ALREADY DONE BY THE ZONING THOUGH, RIGHT? I MEAN, NO, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. YEAH, WE'RE CHANGING THE ZONING. RIGHT. NO, I WELL, THE PURPOSE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT LAW IS TO GIVE MUNICIPALITIES THIS EXTRA FLEXIBILITY. SO WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE ZONING. NO, NOT NOT IN THIS PROCESS. OKAY. BUT IN THE PROCESS OF REDEVELOPMENT, IT WILL CHANGE THE OVERLAYING ZONING. YES. THAT. YES. CORRECT. OKAY. ONCE THEY IT COULD THEY COULD. YEAH. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO DOES NOT HAVE TO ONE OF THE JUST AS A REMINDER AND MAYBE I HAVEN'T I KNOW I DIDN'T SAY IT TONIGHT BUT I SAY THIS USUALLY ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT LAW IS TO TAKE PROPERTIES THAT ARE UNPRODUCTIVE OR UNDERDEVELOPED TO GET THEM PRODUCTIVE. IN TERMS OF THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THIS WAS TO GET MORE TAX REVENUE FOR MUNICIPALITIES AND THERE'S A REAL WEAKNESS ON THIS CORNER IN TERMS OF GETTING THOSE REVENUES. I WAS I WAS SHOCKED WHEN I LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY TAX CARDS THAT THERE'S ANY, ANY VALUE IN THE IN THE STRUCTURES OR IMPROVEMENTS ON THESE TWO PROPERTIES. BUT THERE IS BUT SURE ENOUGH, THEY'LL BE TAX APPEALS AT SOME POINT. RIGHT. 
          WELL I BUT I, I WISH YOU HADN'T SAID THAT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE'S PRIMARY CRITERION TO BE MAXIMIZING TAX DOLLARS. OKAY, I KNOW THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID. ONE OF THE REASONS. BUT HERE MAYBE YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP IT IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T MAXIMIZE TAX DOLLARS. BUT IS ATTRACTIVE AND BENEFICIAL. THANK YOU. YEAH. WHATEVER DEVELOPMENT WILL TAKE PLACE, IF IT DOES TAKE PLACE WILL BE STILL BETTER THAN WHAT IT IS TODAY, RIGHT? RIGHT. YEAH. 
          BUT GIVEN THE RELATIVE SIZES OF THE THREE SETS OF LOTS 59, 61 AND 62 AND THEN 64, KEEPING JUST TWO OF THEM, 59 AND 64, I DON'T THINK WILL HELP, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THEY ARE REALLY ON THAT 518, WHICH CAN CAUSE FURTHER TRAFFIC ISSUES FURTHER DOWN THE LINE. CROSSING 518 IS A IS A PROBLEM WHETHER THE TIGER'S TAIL IS INCLUDED IN THERE OR NOT. RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I WAS RAISING. YOU MITIGATE IT TO A GREAT NOT TO A GREAT EXTENT. YOU MITIGATE IT SUBSTANTIALLY, NOT WHOLLY, BUT SUBSTANTIALLY. HOW HOW DOES HOW DOES ADDING TIGER'S TAIL DO ANYTHING FOR GETTING TO 
          [01:45:04]
518 EAST AND ONE NOTHING? YEAH, NOTHING. NOTHING. BUT YOU PUT THIS PROPERTY RIGHT IN IT. YEAH. 
          OKAY. I MEAN, YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE TYRANNY OF GEOGRAPHY THAT'S THERE UNLESS YOU ARE TRYING TO REDO 588. NO, THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE. BUT THERE COULD BE OTHER SOLUTIONS ONCE IF THEY ARE TAKEN TOGETHER. RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING. AND I GUESS THAT'S WHAT MY CONCERN IS BECAUSE AS, AS MR. SULLIVAN SAID, I MEAN, REALLY, WHAT THE IDEA IS HERE IS LET'S MAXIMIZE TAX REVENUE, LET'S MAXIMIZE DEVELOPMENT. LET'S FIND DEVELOPERS WHO WOULD DEVELOP THIS, WHICH MEANS MAXIMUM TRAFFIC. I JUST DON'T I DON'T THINK HE SAID EITHER TO MAXIMIZE DEVELOPMENT. YEAH. JUST JUST TO BE JUST TO BE CLEAR, I NEVER SAID MAXIMIZE AND BELIEVE ME, TO MR. CLOCKER'S POINT, THIS HAS TO BE A WIN FOR EVERYBODY. AND THAT INCLUDES THE MUNICIPALITY, NOT JUST IN TERMS OF REVENUE, IN TERMS OF GOOD DEVELOPMENT. RIGHT. THIS, YOU KNOW, FROM AN URBAN DESIGN OR COMMUNITY DESIGN STANDPOINT, THIS HAS TO BE SUCCESSFUL, RIGHT? THAT'S THE PRIMARY THING. AND A AND OF THAT THERE WILL BE TAX REVENUE. I NEVER SAID MAXIMIZE. AND I GUESS I'LL STILL GO BACK TO LIKE AGAIN, THE STATUTE ITSELF. IS IT NECESSARY? I DON'T THINK SO. 
          RIGHT. LIKE IT'S CONVENIENT FOR A PLANNER TO SAY THAT IT'S NECESSARY BECAUSE I WANT TO DO THIS BECAUSE IT JUST IT I CAN THEN TIE IT ALL TOGETHER. BUT I DON'T THINK WE'VE REALLY PROVEN THAT IT'S NECESSARY. AND I THINK THE FACT THAT WE DID A SIMILAR PLAN TWO YEARS AGO AND EVERYTHING WAS NECESSARY, BUT NOW TWO OF THOSE PROPERTIES ARE ACTUALLY BEING DEVELOPED, HAVING NOT ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, BEEN PROVEN TO BE NECESSARY KIND OF GIVES ME PAUSE TO SAY, NO, I DON'T THINK I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY. THAT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN HERE AS WELL. WE COULD THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. AND THEN A PURCHASER OF LOT 59 COULD COME ALONG AND SAY, I WANT TO DEVELOP THAT LOT AS IS. YEAH, I DON'T CARE ABOUT REDEVELOPMENT, BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT. SO IT DOESN'T NEGATE IT DOESN'T NEGATE THE FACT THAT WE, WE DID THE, THE PREVIOUS ACTION. THE PREVIOUS ACTION HAS NO BEARING ON THIS DECISION BECAUSE WE INCLUDED THOSE TWO OTHER PROPERTIES. WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE DECIDED NOT TO ACT BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THAT WAS THE REASONABLE COURSE OF ACTION. AND THEN A DEVELOPER OF THE MALVERN SCHOOL SAID, WE LIKE THIS PROPERTY THE WAY IT IS. NO, EXACTLY. BUT I'M SAYING THAT I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT IT IT IS, IS BASED ON THAT, THAT WE SHOULDN'T DO THIS IN THIS CASE. I'M JUST SAYING THAT IT IT'S NOT NECESSARY. THAT'S WHAT THE LAW SAYS, RIGHT. IS IT NECESSARY? NO, IT'S NOT NECESSARY. BUT YOU COULD DEVELOP THESE WITHOUT HAVING INCLUDING 61 AND 62, WHETHER IT WOULD BE IDEAL FOR A DEVELOPER? MAYBE NOT. BUT YOU COULD DEVELOP THOSE WITHOUT WITHOUT INCLUDING 61 AND 62 WAS NOT LANDLOCKED, RIGHT? YOU COULD. BUT THE QUESTION IS, DO WE AGREE WITH OUR CHOSEN PLANNER? RIGHT. THAT'S DO WE AGREE WITH OUR PLANNER? THAT'S WHAT HE IS SAYING IS THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION. DO WE AGREE OR DO WE NOT AGREE. BUT BUT THE LAW IS NOT THE BEST. THE LAW IS ISN'T NECESSARY. JUST JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE LAW SAYS NECESSARY FOR THE EFFECTIVE REDEVELOPMENT. 
          IT DOESN'T SAY NECESSARY. IT SAYS NECESSARY FOR THE EFFECTIVE REDEVELOPMENT. RIGHT. WHICH IS FOR EVERYBODY. I WOULD I MEAN ARE WE WE'RE WE HAVE THAT WE'VE HAD PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS YET SO YES YES YES. YEAH. GOOD POINT. SO LET'S ANYBODY HAS ANY PUBLIC COMMENT. I'M SURE. IT'S VERY SIMPLE. ALL. COULD YOU BRING COREY WINGERTER AMERICAN REALTY ASSOCIATES. COULD YOU BRING UP THAT THE ONE WITH THE HOROWITZ'S PROPERTY DEVELOPED AND MR. WINGER, WE'LL JUST SWEAR YOU IN. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM YOUR TESTIMONY THIS EVENING? WE'LL BE TRUTHFUL. YES. THANK YOU. THE GRAPHIC. YEAH. YES. ALL RIGHT. YOU WANT THE WHOLE THING? NOPE. JUST ANOTHER ONE. ONE MORE UP. THAT ONE. RIGHT THERE. SO, JUST A LITTLE HISTORY. ONCE AGAIN. YOU KNOW, WHEN THIS FIRST ONE WAS APPROVED, WE SPOKE ABOUT WE WERE IN MANY MEETINGS WITH THE TOWNSHIP WHEN LORI WAS THE WAS THE PLANNING PERSON. AND WE ALL TRIED TO WORK WELL TOGETHER. IT WAS THE EVERYBODY ACCEPTED DUNKIN DONUTS. SO WE HAD TOOLS INVOLVED. WE HAD US INVOLVED. AND PARDON ME, WE HAD MRS. HOROWITZ AND ALL INVOLVED, AND WE REALLY TRIED TO GET A PLAN TOGETHER TO HAVE EVERYBODY WORKING TOGETHER. AND OBVIOUSLY IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO HERD CATS. EVERYBODY HAD THEIR OWN THING. THE TOWN HAS BEEN TRYING TO BUY TOOLS FOR THE PAST 35 YEARS, AND WE JUST COULDN'T GET ANYWHERE WITH THEM. APPARENTLY IT'S SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE ESTATE. BUT ANYHOW, AFTER ALL THOSE MEETINGS, YOU KNOW, WE KIND OF DRIFTED APART WHEN NOTHING COULD GET TOGETHER. 
          [01:50:05]
WE COULDN'T GET TOGETHER ON ANYTHING. AND MRS. HOROWITZ, YOU KNOW, GOD BLESS HER, DID HER THING AND PULLED OUT AND GOT HER PLACED ON HER. HER PROPERTY DEVELOPED. AS YOU ALL KNOW, WAWA IS INTERESTED IN THE PROPERTY. WE HAD OUR INFORMAL MEETING WITH THE VARIOUS PEOPLE THAT HERE. 
          YOU KNOW, THESE THESE THESE PROJECTS AS A FORMER MAYOR AND PLANNING BOARD MEMBER, YOU KNOW, I WAS NEVER FOR THOSE MEETINGS. BUT NOW THAT I'M ON THE OTHER SIDE, I WAS KIND OF FOR THOSE MEETINGS. SO IT WAS A GOOD MEETING AND BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, AS I, AS I TOOK IT WAS OUR MARCHING ORDERS WAS TO GET ALL THREE PEOPLE WORKING TOGETHER. SO, YOU KNOW, WE WERE WORKING WITH THE WAWA PEOPLE AND WE WEREN'T GOING TO LEAVE TOWN. WE HAD PLANS, YOU KNOW. YOU KNOW, THEY DIDN'T WORK OUT SO WELL, YOU KNOW, TO MOVE THE TIGER'S TAIL AND WORK WITH ANOTHER RESTAURANT COMPANY AND IT DIDN'T WORK OUT. SO ANYHOW, YOU KNOW, WAWA IS MY UNDERSTANDING, HAS BEEN IN TALKS WITH THE DUNKIN DONUTS PEOPLE. AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THEY'VE BEEN POSITIVE TALKS, BUT WE'VE GOTTEN NOWHERE WITH THE TOOLS. THEY HAVE THE SAME DEVELOPER THAT THEY HAD 35 YEARS AGO, AND WE JUST HAVE NOT GOTTEN ANYWHERE. WE SPOKE TO THE DEVELOPER WHO'S REPRESENTING THEM TWO MONTHS AGO. THEY DID TELL US THAT. HE DID TELL US THAT HE HAS TWO VERY GOOD CLIENTS, AND HE WOULD GIVE US THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION, AND WE HAVE NOT HEARD BACK FROM HIM AT ALL. SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE NOT WE'RE TRYING TO PUT THE DEAL TOGETHER TO CLEAN UP THAT WHOLE THREE LOT AREA. AND THAT'S REALLY WHERE WE STAND. YOU KNOW, HONESTLY, WE GET CONTACTED AN AWFUL LOT, YOU KNOW, FOR THE PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, I'M 70. MY PARTNER IS A LITTLE BIT YOUNGER. HE'S DOWN IN FLORIDA. BUT YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED WE'RE NOT GOING ANYWHERE. BUT YOU KNOW, IN THE RESTAURANT BUSINESS, EVERYBODY'S FOR SALE. AND IF WE HAVE THE RIGHT, YOU KNOW, OPPORTUNITY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT IT ANYHOW, GETTING TO THE TO YOUR DISCUSSION. AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED THAT THAT PARTICULAR MAP SHOWN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A ROCKET SCIENTIST TO KNOW THAT THE WASTEWATER FOR THE PROPERTY IS PRETTY MUCH ON OUR PROPERTY. 
          AND OBVIOUSLY THIS IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOME TYPE OF COMPENSATION. IT REALLY, YOU KNOW, CUTS BACK ON WHAT WE COULD DEVELOP. SO I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO FIGURE THAT ALL OUT, BUT LIKE I SAID, IF YOU LOOK AT THE WASTEWATER BASIN, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH 25% OF OUR PROPERTY. THAT'S THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY ELSE'S WASTEWATER IS GOING TO GO ON. I KNOW WITH THE NEW IMPROVEMENTS, I THINK VINCE DID IT NEXT DOOR. A LOT OF UNDERGROUND WASTEWATER, STORMWATER, WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER. STORMWATER, STORMWATER CAN BE HANDLED THAT WAY. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU JUST DID INCLUDE THE TWO PROPERTIES, ONCE AGAIN, WE PLAYED NICE WITH WITH THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPER WHERE WE ALLOWED EASEMENTS FOR THEIR SEWER, WHICH IS NO LONGER THERE ANYMORE. THEIR SEWER LINES. BUT WE WOULD DEFINITELY, YOU KNOW, WORK WITH, YOU KNOW, IF THERE IS JUST THE TWO, THE TOOLS AND THE DUNKIN DONUTS PEOPLE. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE WORK WITH THEM ON ACCESS AND SO FORTH AND SO ON. JUST AS LONG AS WE DIDN'T GIVE UP TOO MUCH OF OUR PROPERTY. SO WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU GUYS. OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, CONDEMNATION, YOU KNO, IS NOT A PRETTY WORD. YOU KNOW, NOBODY REALLY APPRECIATES THAT IN TOWN. AND, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THAT PLAN RIGHT NOW, I FEEL THAT THAT DEFINITELY HURTS THE TIGER'S TAIL. USING ALL THAT STORMWATER BASIN. YOU KNOW, 25% OF OUR PROPERTY. SO ANY QUESTIONS. SO CAN YOU COREY, ARE YOU ARE YOU SAYING YOU YOU DON'T WANT US TO USE THE CONDEMNATION WORD OR, YOU KNOW, ONCE AGAIN, I'M KIND OF CONFLICTED. YOU KNOW, IT'S WE'RE THE LAST ONES IN. SO WE'RE GETTING REALLY SCRUTINIZED AND, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE ARE THE LAST ONES IN, WE'RE GETTING, YOU KNOW, THE REALLY THE UNDER THE MICROSCOPE. WE ARE TRYING TO WORK WITH TOOL. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S THERE HERE TODAY. OH VERY GOOD OKAY. SO MAYBE WE'LL HEAR. YEAH. SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. MAYBE IT WAS THE CONDEMNATION WORD THAT GOT PEOPLE HERE. I'M JUST SAYING THAT GOT HIM HERE, YOU MEAN. 
          YEAH. I'M I'M JUST THINKING I MEAN, IT'S NOT A GOOD WORD, BUT LOOKING AT WHAT, WHAT PEOPLE SEE ON THE CORNER WHEN THEY COME INTO MONTGOMERY ON 518 AND 206. IT'S NOT FOR YOUR PROPERTY. YOUR PROPERTY IS DOING WELL, BUT THERE IS THERE IS A PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING. AND DON'T YOU GUYS HAVE YOU PASS AN ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO TAKE ACTION ON THAT PROPERTY? WE'VE BEEN WE'VE BEEN DOING IT. I MEAN, THERE'S POISON IVY. YOU FORGOT TO SAY 
          [01:55:02]
THAT A LONG TIME. POISON IVY THERE, TOO. THERE'S RATS. WE HAVE THE TOOLS RIGHT NOW TO FIX THAT PROPERTY. MY UNDERSTANDING. YEAH, NOT AS MANY QUESTIONS. YES. SO LET ME JUST ASK. SO YOU WANT TO BE INCLUDED IN REDEVELOPMENT? WHAT DO YOU THINK FROM YOUR OR NOT. IS IT BETTER TO REDEVELOP AROUND YOU AND THEN YOU BE? WELL, OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO MAXIMIZE OUR PROPERTY REDEVELOPMENT. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW A 20 STORY APARTMENT BUILDING ON OUR PROPERTY, WE'D PROBABLY LIKE THAT. NO, THE VALUE OF OUR PROPERTY. NO NO NO NO NO NO, NOT IN MONTGOMERY. NO. WE GOT TO HEAR WHAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO DO. BUT THAT WAS A GOOD ASK. BUT NOT HAPPENING. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. FIRE DEPARTMENT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME CATCHING UP TO DO. OH, YEAH. AGREED. OKAY. GOOD EVENING, RYAN KENNEDY FROM STEVENS AND LEE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CT CORPORATION. I DIDN'T THINK I WAS GOING TO SPEAK TONIGHT, BUT FOLLOWING THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER, I THOUGHT IT WOULD GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF INSIGHT. THIS IS HAPPENING QUITE QUICKLY. YOU NOTICE THE DATE OF THE REPORT IS THE FOURTH, AND HERE WE ARE. YOU KNOW, ABOUT ALMOST TEN DAYS LATER, LOOKING AT IT TO THE MAYOR'S POINT, CERTAINLY DID GET OUR ATTENTION. BUT ULTIMATELY TO THE TIGERS TAILS POINT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE REPORT AND THOSE OF YOU REMEMBER THE REPORT FROM TWO YEARS AGO, IT IS VERY MUCH THE ORDINANCE THAT THE TOWNSHIP DID THAT CAUSED THE PROPERTY TO BE TO HAVE THE IMPROVEMENTS REMOVED. SO THERE IS MAYBE NOT A FULL SUCCESS STORY IN EVERYONE'S MIND, BUT THERE ARE TOOLS BEYOND CONDEMNATION THAT WORK. AND I WILL SAY ON BEHALF OF CT CORPORATION, CERTAINLY BE WILLING TO TALK FURTHER ABOUT THE PROPERTY. WE WERE, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY THE ORDINANCE ASKED HIM TO REMOVE THE IMPROVEMENTS. 
          HE WASN'T VERY HAPPY ABOUT IT, BUT ULTIMATELY DID. AND TO THE EXTENT IT WASN'T DONE PERFECTLY, OBVIOUSLY A WILLING TO CONTINUE THAT CONVERSATION GOING FORWARD. THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE, AND PARTICULARLY FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE LOOKING AT THIS, MAYBE NOT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MAXIMIZING THINGS, IT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT TOOLS AND THE CONDEMNATION TOOL. AS THE OWNERS OF LET ME GET IT RIGHT, 59 HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH WITH MANY SUITORS WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED UNDER THE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL IN DOING A DEVELOPMENT THERE. AND AS YOU HEARD FROM YOUR PLANNER AND YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE OVERLAY THAT WAS DONE, YOU KNOW, AWARD WINNING REQUIRED EVERYONE TO WORK TOGETHER. AND, YOU KNOW, I'M NEW HERE TO THE PROJECT. BUT THERE HAD BEEN DISCUSSIONS FOR A WHILE. BUT ULTIMATELY YOU NEED YOU NEEDED UNDER THE OVERLAY TO GET THOSE TOOLS. EVERYONE INVOLVED, BOTH THE CORNER AND NOW THE MALVERN SCHOOL. AND ONE WAS UNDER LITIGATION UNTIL VERY RECENTLY. SO THEY THAT COULDN'T BE THEY COULDN'T PARTICIPATE IN GETTING EVERYONE INVOLVED AND THAT'S FREED UP. BUT ULTIMATELY, NOW THAT NOW THAT THE MALVERN SCHOOL HAS GOTTEN THEIR SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THOSE TOOLS ARE OFF THE TABLE. SO THE POINT THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ACTUAL CRITERIA, WHICH I PERHAPS HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH BUT NOT GOING TO GET INTO TONIGHT, IS THAT IT'S THE COUPLING OF THE CONDEMNATION TOOLS THAT ULTIMATELY WILL PUT THE FREEZE ON ANY POSSIBLE INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT ON THESE SITES. SOMEONE LOOKING TO WORK WITH AN INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPER UNDER THE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE IS GOING TO HAVE A TOUGH TIME GOING FORWARD WITH A SUITOR OR DEVELOPER WHO KNOWS THAT PERHAPS THE TOWNSHIP HAS A BIGGER PICTURE INVOLVED AND COULD PULL THE PROPERTY OUT OF THE PROCESS REALLY AT ANY TIME. SO MY SOMEWHERE BETWEEN REQUEST AND THE IDEA TO PLANT WITH YOU ALL AND ULTIMATELY REALLY THE GOVERNING BODY, I MEAN, YOU'RE YOU'RE AS YOUR PLANNER SAID AND ATTORNEY TONIGHT, YOUR YOUR FOCUS IS REALLY ON ON THIS REPORT AND THE CRITERIA. BUT I'M HERE TO SPEAK BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME VERY ASTUTE POINTS ABOUT THE ASSEMBLAGE HERE AND WHAT THAT WILL ULTIMATELY RESULT. AND DUE TO THE PROPERTIES IN THE INTERIM PERIOD AND TO AS YOU CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THAT, BECAUSE THERE ARE TOOLS AVAILABLE BETWEEN THE NUCLEAR BUTTON ESSENTIALLY, WHICH IS THE CONDEMNATION AND WHAT IS NOW PERHAPS AVAILABLE WITH REDEVELOPMENT IN THE SITE OR EVEN UNDER THE UNDERLYING ZONING. UNFORTUNATELY, THE OVERLAY IS REALLY OFF THE TABLE UNLESS IT'S AMENDED DRASTICALLY NOT TO REQUIRE THE ENTIRETY OF THE PARTICIPATION, BUT THERE ARE THINGS IN BETWEEN, NOT NECESSARILY FOR I WOULD SAY NORMALLY, NOT NECESSARILY FOR THIS BODY TO THINK THROUGH, BUT TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. MR. MR. HAMILTON, YOUR POINTS ABOUT THE INCLUSION OF ALL THE SITES, I 
          [02:00:02]
THINK ARE ASTUTE ONES THAT THAT BRING THOSE KIND OF THOUGHTS INTO PLAY A BIT AS YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD ARE AND JUST AGAIN, TO SAY, CERTAINLY PROPERTY OWNER VERY MUCH WILLING AND HAS THROUGH ITS REPRESENTATION ON THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE, HAD SEVERAL RECENT SUITORS AND ULTIMATELY I THINK WAS A I GUESS, A SUCCESS STORY TO ULTIMATELY TO ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS, INCLUDING THE DEMOLITION ORDINANCE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT I'M NOT SURE SPECIFICALLY WHY THAT HASN'T BEEN USED ON OTHER SITES, BUT IT CERTAINLY GOT THE MESSAGE ACROSS AND GOT THE BUILDING DEMOLISHED ON LOT 59. 
          AND THAT AGAIN, BY CONTINUING WITH CONDEMNATION AUTHORITY FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE PARCEL, REALLY WILL FREEZE AND STOP ANY INDIVIDUAL POSSIBILITY ON A LOT BY LOT BASIS GOING FORWARD. SO WITH THAT, THANK YOU SO MUCH. CAN I ASK A QUESTION, HOW LONG HAS THAT TOOL PROPERTY BEEN VACANT? YOUR PLANNER PROBABLY HAS A BETTER IDEA THAN I DO, RIGHT? SO I MEAN, IT'S BEEN OPEN FOR DEVELOPMENT FOR MANY YEARS AND NOTHING. SO I MEAN, YEAH, IT WOULD CLOSE A DOOR, BUT THAT DOOR HAS BEEN OPEN FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND NOTHING HAS HAPPENED. IN FACT, YOU KNOW, WE HAD TO DO PUT ORDINANCES IN PLACE. JUST HAVE THEM SEMI CLEAN IT UP. SO I, I UNDERSTAND SOME OF YOUR POINTS, BUT THIS IDEA OF CLOSING THE DOOR ON A DEVELOPMENT OF A SITE THAT HAS BEEN SITTING THERE WAITING FOR DEVELOPMENT FOR MANY, MANY YEARS DOESN'T REALLY LIKE I HEAR IT, BUT NO. AGAIN, I WOULD SAY IT'S BEEN OPEN FOR A VERY LONG TIME. AT SOME POINT. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO MOVE THINGS FORWARD TOO. SO UNDERSTOOD. I JUST AGAIN, THE AWESOME POWER OF CONDEMNATION IS GOING TO STOP ANYONE FROM ATTEMPTING THAT AND UP UNTIL JUST A FEW SHORT MONTHS AGO, THERE WAS NOT THE OPPORTUNITY TO. THE FOLKS HAVE BEEN IN AN OVERLAY AND THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE, JUST BECAME AVAILABLE AGAIN. BUT MALVERN AND THE PROPERTY IN THE CORNER TAKING OFF. SO THE UNDERLYING ZONING WAS REALLY ALL THAT WAS THERE. I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT UNDER CRITERIA D, FRANKLY, THE CURRENT REPORT SEEMS TO SUGGEST ACTUALLY YOU KNOW, THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE TOWN'S ORDINANCE IS REALLY WHAT DRIVES THE ONLY FACTS HERE THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO POSSIBLY DESIGNATE IT. SO I'LL NOT REALLY FOR TONIGHT, BUT ULTIMATELY DO TAKE ISSUE WITH THAT AS WELL. SO THANK YOU. OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS, THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE I WANTED TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION. THIS AFTERNOON. I, I AND MR. SULLIVAN RECEIVED A COMMUNICATION FROM THE ATTORNEY FOR LOT OF ON LOT 6464 OH. THEY ADVISED THEY WERE NOT ATTENDING TONIGHT AND THEY PROVIDED A MEMO. LETTER RAISING SOME COMMENTS. ORDINARILY, THE BOARD WOULD NOT ACCEPT THIS DOCUMENT IN LIEU OF TESTIMONY BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS OR OR INTERACT WITH THE OBJECTOR. HOWEVER, MORE CAREFUL REVIEW OF THE REDEVELOPMENT LAW INDICATES THAT WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED. IN THIS TYPE OF A FORUM. IN CONNECTION WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT, AND BE MADE PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. SO WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS I DID FORWARD IT TO SHERRY AND MY SUGGESTION IS I CAN SUMMARIZE FOR YOU WHAT IS BEING COMMENTED ON BY THEIR ATTORNEY. SO INDICATES THEY'VE TRIED TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH DUNKIN DONUTS. YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE PLANNER. YOU KNOW WHAT THEY TRIED TO DO WITH THAT. THEY CLAIM THEY RECEIVED SEVERAL OFFERS TO DEVELOP THE SITE, AND THAT THEY'RE NEGOTIATING WITH AN URGENT CARE ORGANIZATION TO LEASE THE PROPERTY. SO WHILE I WHICH SITE IS THIS? WHICH LOT IS THIS? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT 64 DUNKIN DONUTS, WHICH IS DUNKIN DONUTS, AN URGENT CARE ON THE ABANDONED GAS STATION, GAS STATION? YEAH. SO WHILE IT DOESN'T APPEAR THEY OBJECT TO BEING IN A REDEVELOPMENT AREA, THEY DO OBJECT TO BEING CONSIDERED FOR CONDEMNATION. SO YES, THEY DO. SO THAT'S THE GIST OF THEIR LETTER BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND THE REDEVELOPMENT STATUTE. AS I SAID, SHERRY HAS IT, IT WILL BE PUT IN THEIR FILE. SO I THOUGHT I NEEDED TO RAISE IT WITH YOU 
          [02:05:07]
TONIGHT SO THAT YOU'RE SIMPLY AWARE THEY'RE NOT HERE TONIGHT. SO YOU CAN'T ASK THEM QUESTIONS OR INQUIRE FURTHER AS TO WHAT EFFORTS THEY'VE BEEN MAKING. I EXCUSE ME, WOULDN'T THE DOT HAVE THE SAME OBJECTIONS TO AN URGENT CARE SITE? THEY'RE NOT. WE'RE NOT I MEAN, NOT EVALUATING THAT URGENT CARE. YEAH. I THINK THIS IS A CONCERN THAT MICHAEL SULLIVAN HAD BROUGHT UP ONCE THE LAWSUIT WAS DONE, THAT IF WE DON'T AS AS A TOWNSHIP TAKE CHARGE, OTHER PEOPLE WILL COME IN AND START. YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT CAN EVER BE APPROVED BECAUSE IT'S COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY ZONE. HOW CAN YOU PUT AN ASSISTANT OR WHATEVER, WHATEVER IT IS, IT'S URGENT CARE THERE. 
          BUT AT THE SAME TIME AS A TOWNSHIP, WE HAVE TO BE AWARE THAT THERE ARE DEVELOPERS WHO'D BE LOOKING AT US, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT THE LAWSUIT WAS WITHDRAWN. SO I THINK THE ONUS IS UPON US AS THE PLANNING BOARD, AS THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE, TO BE AWARE OF WHAT THESE PROPERTIES ARE AND TO BE PROACTIVE AND NOT COME TO IT LATER AND SAY, OH, WE COULD HAVE DONE THIS SO THAT THAT'S MY $0.02. SO AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF OPTIONS. IF YOU FEEL YOU NEED TO GIVE THIS FURTHER CONSIDERATION, YOU'RE NOT READY TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT. IT CAN GET CARRIED TO THE NEXT BOARD MEETING WHICH IS NOVEMBER 25TH. RIGHT. IF THE MAJORITY OF YOU ARE READY TO DO SOMETHING TONIGHT, MAYBE ONE WAY TO MOVE IT FORWARD WOULD BE TO YOU COULD GO THROUGH EACH LOT SEPARATELY TO ASSESS THAT AND ASSESS WHETHER YOU AGREE THE CRITERIA IS MET. OR LASTLY, IF SOMEONE HAS A MOTION THEY WANT TO MAKE TO RECOMMEND TO THE GOVERNING BODY THAT THEY DESIGNATE THIS AN AREA, NEED A REDEVELOPMENT WITH THE CONDEMNATION TOOL, YOU COULD DO THAT TOO. MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO GO LOT BY LOT. WHEN YOU SAY GO BY LOT, JUST ASK LIKE WE VOTE ON THIS INCLUDED THAT NOT INCLUDED. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, ARE YOU DONE WITH THE DISCUSSION? ARE YOU READY FOR A MOTION? IF SOMEBODY IF OTHERS IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANYTHING TO SAY. EXACTLY. SO IF YOU WANT TO GO LOT BY LOT, IF ANYBODY HAS ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE, YOU COULD DO THAT. 
          WELL, I MEAN, SO IF WE IF WE COULD VOTE ON IT, CAN CAN WE ALSO VOTE TO ADHERE TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNER WITHOUT CONDEMNATION, AUTHORITY. BUT IN ITS ENTIRETY, I, I BELIEVE YOU CAN DO THAT. WHAT THAT DOES TO I SUPPOSE, THE OVERALL ABILITY TO EFFECTUATE THIS, THIS GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT THAT I CAN'T SPEAK TO. BUT YOU COULD RECOMMEND THAT I BELIEVE. 
          BUT OF COURSE, YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY. YEAH, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY WHY. WHY WOULD THAT BE SO IS A TOOL THAT CAN MOVE THINGS OTHERWISE PEOPLE I MEAN, I'M WILLING TO LISTEN. I GET WHY. I MEAN, MY I THINK THAT MR. KENNEDY, IS THAT WHAT YOUR NAME WAS? KENNEDY. YEAH. SPOKE TO THE FACT THAT, LIKE, YOU KNOW, THAT IT'S A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE DEVELOPED? I KNOW, YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION WAS RAISED, WHY HASN'T IT BEFORE? WELL, THINGS HAVE CHANGED IN THE TOWNSHIP. THE INNER LOOP ROAD THERE, THE BRECKNELL WAY, HAS NOW BEEN DEVELOPED. IT DOES HAVE AN ACCESS POINT TO THAT. I COULD SEE THAT BEING A MUCH MORE INTERESTING PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED INDEPENDENTLY. I WHETHER OR NOT WHAT THE TOWN WANTS THAT OR NOT, IT'S SOMEWHAT IMMATERIAL. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONDEMN THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY, PARTICULARLY SINCE THERE WERE GOOD CITIZENS AND ADHERED TO THE DEMOLITION AND CLEANED UP THE PROPERTY. SO COULD WE DO CONDEMNATION ON JUST ONE PROPERTY, OR IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS. I DON'T I DON'T 
          [02:10:04]
UNDERSTAND THE TOOLS THAT ARE BEING THAT THAT BOTH MR. WINGERTER AND MR. KENNEDY REFERENCED THAT THAT THE TOWN HAS THE ABILITY TO TAKE DOWN THAT PROPERTY WITH THE EXISTING TOOLS. I TRUST THAT THEY'RE PROBABLY RIGHT, BECAUSE THEY DID THAT IN ONE CASE. I DON'T KNOW. 
          NO, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE TOOLS. WHAT WOULD THAT EVEN MEA? SO WE WOULD SAY IT'S AN AREA NEED TO REDEVELOPMENT, BUT YOU CAN'T CONDEMN IT. WELL KEEP IN MIND YOU'RE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMEND. WE RECOMMEND. IT'S AN AREA I GUESS WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND NOT I BELIEVE YOU CAN I GUESS WHAT I'LL POINT OUT THAT. WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN THOUGH? LIKE WHAT WOULD THEY DO. WHAT. WELL, THE GOVERNING BODY COULD DECIDE WHETHER THEY WANT TO ACCEPT THAT RECOMMENDATION OR NOT. NO, BUT BUT WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN? IF IT'S AN AREA IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT. BUT WE RECOMMEND YOU DON'T CONDEMN IT. WHAT IS AN AREA REDEVELOPMENT THAT DOESN'T ACTUALLY GET CONDEMNED? ARE WE OKAY? KEEP IN MIND THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT LAW. REQUIRES THE GOVERNING BODY TO LET YOU KNOW. AND IT'S REALLY ALSO FOR THE BENEFIT OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES TO LET THEM KNOW THAT CONDEMNATION MAY BE USED. SO THE COURTS AND THE LEGISLATURE CREATED THIS LAW SO THAT SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WOULD KNOW THAT POSSIBLY, POSSIBLY CONDEMNATION IS ON THE HORIZON. AND LEGISLATORS FELT THAT THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO LET SURROUNDING PROPERTIES KNOW, BECAUSE YOU MIGHT JUST SAY AREA NEED A REDEVELOPMENT. I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT THAT MEANS. I'M NOT SO CONCERNED, BUT THAT IF YOU UNDERSTOOD THE CONDEMNATION TOOL MIGHT BE USED, THEN YOU WOULD GET YOUR ATTENTION AND YOU KNOW YOU WOULD BE MORE ENGAGED. I GUESS IN THIS PROCESS. KEEP IN MIND, THOUGH, THAT THE TOWN CAN CONDEMN A PROPERTY, ANY PROPERT, IF THERE'S A PUBLIC PURPOSE. WHAT THE REDEVELOPMENT LAW DOES IS BY BUILDING THIS TOOL INTO THE LAW, IT ESSENTIALLY STREAMLINES, STREAMLINES IT FOR THE TOWN. IT IDENTIFIES THE REDEVELOPMENT AS AN ADEQUATE PURPOSE FOR CONDEMNATION, WHEREAS IF THEY HAD TO DO EACH ONE SEPARATELY, WELL, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO JUSTIFY EACH CONDEMNATION. SO THAT'S THE POINT OF THAT, THAT THE LEGISLATURE FELT, OKAY, WELL, THIS THIS COULD BE VERY HELPFUL, THAT IT'S A TOOL DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE GOING TO CONDEMN ANYTHING. BUT THEY COULD. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT COMPLETELY ANSWERS THE QUESTION BECAUSE THE SANS, THE CONDEMNATION AUTHORITY THAT IF WE IF WE PASS THIS WITH REDEVELOPMENT AS AN AREA IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT, THEN THE CURRENT ZONING COULD BE AMENDED, IT COULD TO PROMOTE GROWTH IN IN THIS AREA A THE PROPER DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE TOWN WOULD WANT. RIGHT. THE CONDEMNATION SEEMS TO AFFECT TWO OTHER PROPERTIES NEGATIVELY TO COMPEL ANOTHER PROPERTY THAT SHOULD BE CONDEMNED IN THE FIRST PLACE. IN MY OPINION. YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE ANY LEGAL BASIS FOR SAYING THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD APPLY THIS VERY STRICT. YOU KNOW, TOOL, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S GOING TO NEGATIVELY AFFECT TWO OTHER PEOPLE TO DO THIS. I THINK, AGAIN, IT'S A TOOL AND IT BRINGS PEOPLE I WOULD SUPPORT RECOMMENDING WE ACCEPT THE PLANNERS PLAN WITHOUT WITHOUT CONDEMNATION. I, I HAVE A COMMENT TO MAKE. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF WE RECOMMEND AND THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE ACCEPTS OUR RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE THIS A REDEVELOPMENT AREA WITHOUT CONDEMNATION, THEN THE ONLY TOOL THAT THE TOWNSHIP GOVERNMENT HAS TO ENCOURAGE REDEVELOPMENT IS TO OFFER BENEFITS. MORE DEVELOPMENT PER ACRE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS, WHEREAS IF THEY HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF USING CONDEMNATION, THEN THEY CAN PERHAPS PERSUADE THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHOUT GIVING AWAY TOO MUCH. YEAH, I THINK JUST SAYING IT BENEFITS THE TOWNSHIP MORE THAN. YEAH. AND OUR RESIDENTS, LET ME SAY THAT. AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO USE CONDEMNATION AND 
          [02:15:09]
THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO PASS WHAT WE RECOMMEND. THANK YOU SARAH, THAT WAS HELPFUL. IT'S BEEN 20 YEARS. AGREED. AND PEOPLE DO ASK US, WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING FOR 20 YEARS? THEY CERTAINLY DO. I DON'T THINK. I I'M NOT I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF ANY CONDEMNATION. I'M NOT EITHER. NOT AT ALL. SO JUST JUST SO YOU ALL KNOW, I YOU DON'T DO THAT UNLESS YOU HAVE TO DO IT AND FIND ANOTHER SOME OTHER WAY. DOES IT MEAN IF WE SAY THAT NO CONDEMNATION. IF I UNDERSTOOD YOU CORRECTLY, THE TOWNSHIP STILL HAS THE VETO? OF COURSE THEY CAN'T. JUST BECAUSE YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS WE AGREE THAT EVERYTHING SHOULD BE REDEVELOPMENT. BUT WE'RE VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH WITHOUT CONDEMNATION, THE ASPECT OF CONDEMNATION. THE GOVERNING BODY DOESN'T HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT RECOMMENDATION. THEY CAN SAY, WELL, WE'VE THOUGHT ABOUT IT SOME MORE, AND WE SAY WE NEED TO USE THAT TOOL AND WE SEND IT TO YOU WITH THAT CONSIDERATION, WE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO. SO YOU'VE COME BACK AND SAID, WELL, WE'LL RECOMMEND TO YOU EVERYTHING ELSE, BUT NOT THAT. SO THAT FALLS ON THEM. NOW TO DECIDE IF THEY FEEL IT IS NOT EFFECTIVE FOR THEM, IF THEY FEEL THEY NEED CONDEMNATION TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE, THEN THAT'S THEIR RIGHT TO DO THAT. OF COURSE. BUT JUST SO I'M CLEAR, IF THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD, IF THAT'S A CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD NOW. THE REASON YOU FEEL THAT WAY, IF SOMEBODY WOULD BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE THAT, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. I'LL EXPRESS THAT. THE REASON I FEEL THAT WAY IS BECAUSE IT IT DOESN'T APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL OF THE CURRENT OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. SO PROPERTY. WELL, I THINK I THINK THE REPORT MAKES QUITE CLEAR THAT TWO OF THEM MEET THE CRITERIA. TWO DON'T. RIGHT. AND THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE CAN FOLLOW THROUGH ON THE TWO THAT I WOULD VOTE FOR AS MEETING THE CRITERIA FOR AN AREA REDEVELOPMENT. AND IF THAT LEADS TO THEM CHOOSING TO GO DOWN THE CONDEMNATION ROUTE, THAT'S UP TO THEM. I WOULDN'T MAKE IT IN OUR RECOMMENDATION. WHETHER THEY DO OR DON'T, THEY CAN FIGURE THAT OUT. BUT I THINK 59 AND 64 ARE THE ONLY TWO THAT MEET THE CRITERIA. YEAH. SO TO BE CLEAR, I THINK THAT WAS THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT CONDEMNATION APPLIED TO WHAT WE WERE RECOMMENDING. SO I, I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THAT IS A COURSE OF ACTION. BUT I DON'T I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE THE QUESTION THAT WAS BEING ASKED AT THAT AT THE TIME. YEAH, I DISAGREE THE CONDEMNATION. SO THE ONE OF THE THOUGHT PROCESS IS CONDEMNATION FOR THE TWO LOTS OR NO CONDEMNATION AT ALL. SEE, I THINK THIS IS IT'S JUST GETTING CONFUSING TO SAY WHETHER WE SHOULD BE RECOMMENDING CONDEMNATION OR NOT. 
          CONDEMNATION. I MEAN, AS I READ THE REPORT AND THE LAW, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE WE'RE JUST DESIGNATING THIS AS AN AREA AND IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT OR NOT. AND WHATEVER COMES OUT AFTER THAT IS UP TO THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE, NOT US. RIGHT. WELL, I MEAN, I WOULD PUT CRITERIA ON. 
          WELL, YEAH, THIS IS AN AREA REDEVELOPMENT. BUT DON'T CONDEMN IT OR THIS IS AN AREA REDEVELOPMENT AND YOU CAN CONDEMN IT. RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD MAKE THAT DISTINCTION. WELL, BRIAN, I GUESS I GUESS WHAT THE BOARD IS GRAPPLING WITH IS THAT UNDER THE REDEVELOPMENT LAW, IT REQUIRES THE GOVERNING BODY, WHEN THEY SEND IT OVER TO THE BOARD FOR REVIEW, IT REQUIRES THEM TO INDICATE WHETHER THEY MAY USE CONDEMNATION. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BUILT INTO THE STATUTE. AS I SAID, I THINK ITS PURPOSE WAS AND MANY TOWNS MIGHT SAY, WE'RE SENDING TO YOU FOR A RECOMMENDATION. WE DON'T PLAN TO USE CONDEMNATION. SO IT'S NON CONDEMNATION. BUT THE GOVERNING BODY'S GOT THE RIGHT TO USE THAT TOOL. AND THE REDEVELOPMENT STATUTES REQUIRES THEM TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WHEN IT COMES TO YOU, THEY HAVE TO TELL YOU AND WE PLAN TO USE THAT. AND THAT'S NOT JUST FOR YOUR BENEFIT. IT'S FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE IN THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA. THAT WAY THEY KNOW BECAUSE THEY GOT A NOTICE ABOUT TONIGHT'S MEETING AND IT SPELLS OUT, HERE'S WHAT'S BEING CONSIDERED. IF I DON'T KNOW, THEN IF WE NEED TO GO LOT BY LOT, BECAUSE THERE'S A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS TO WHETHER THE BOARD IS WILLING TO 
          [02:20:04]
RECOMMEND REDEVELOPMENT FOR ALL FOUR LOTS. BUT YOU HAVE CONCERN ABOUT THE CONDEMNATION TOOL, AND THAT'S BASICALLY UP TO THE GOVERNING BODY. NOW, WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO, WHETHER YOU FEEL IT DOESN'T WELL, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. SOME PEOPLE HAVE SAID THEY HAVE CONCERN ABOUT THE CONDEMNATION, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYONE I DON'T HAVE CONDEMN PORTION. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYONE'S WEIGHED IN ON THAT. OKAY. WELL, MY RECOMMENDATION THAT THEN TO THE TO THE BOARD WOULD BE TO, TO VOTE TO EITHER APPROVE OR DENY OR TO APPROVE OR NOT RECOMMEND, AS IT STANDS. 
          YES, I THINK WE SHOULD IF WE AND THEN IF WE DON'T, THEN WE CAN SAY WHAT WE DO. WHY DON'T YOU MAKE THAT MOTION AND WE CAN VOTE ON IT? I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT. NO, I IF I MAKE THE MOTION, I'M GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION TO DENY THE REPORT. ALL RIGHT. SO YOUR MOTION IS TO NOT TO RECOMMEND. DESIGNATION AS AN AREA. AND REDEVELOP AS AN AREA IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT WITH CONDEMNATION. OKAY. SO THAT'S YOUR MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND. IS THIS GOING TO BE THE LAST. IS THIS IS IT. THIS IS GOING TO BE THE LAST VOTE OR NOT? OR ARE WE DOING. NO, NO OKAY. I THINK WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE. SO WE HAVE TO SEE WHERE IT GOES. RIGHT? I DON'T KNOW I'LL SECOND IT. I'M SORRY. SECOND. I'LL SECOND. YOU DID OKAY. EXPLAIN THE MOTION WITH. A ROLL CALL. YEP. YOU READY? BATTLE. SO JUST TO MAKE CLEAR, IF YOU IF YOU WANT TO RECOMMEND REDEVELOPMENT, THEN YOU HAVE TO VOTE NO TO THIS MOTION. OKAY? IT DOES CONFUSE THE MATTER. AND CONFUSING. SO CONFUSING. YEAH. IF YOU WANT TO DENY, YOU SAY YES. IF YOU WANT TO APPROVE, YOU SAY NO. WHAT HAVE I HEARD? NO. HOLD ON, HOLD ON. CAN YOU SAY THAT THE MOTION IS NOT TO RECOMMEND, NOT TO RECOMMEND, RECOMMEND. SO IF YOU SUPPORT THAT, THEN YOU CAN SAY. YOU CAN SAY YES TO THAT. IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT IT, SAY NO. OH, HOLD ON A SECOND. YES YES YES. BLODGETT. 
          YES. HAMILTON. YES. KEENAN. NO MONEY. NO. MATTHEWS. NO. ROBERTS. NO. SINGH. NO. AND GLOCKLER. NO. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT MOTION HAS FAILED. OKAY. SO NOW DO WE HAVE ANOTHER MOTION? YEAH. 
          ON THIS SAME TOPIC, I'LL MOVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE REPORT. SECOND. PERFECT. SO ACCEPT REPORT. GOT IT. OKAY. THAT WAS YOUR MOTION. I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T HEAR IT. WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE MOTIONING THE MOTION AND A SECOND THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE REPORT RECOMMENDATION. 
          RECOMMEND THE RECOMMENDATION. ACCEPTANCE. YEAH. WHO? SECONDED. I'M SORRY. SARAH. SARAH. THANK YOU. OKAY. READY FOR THIS? ROLL CALL? YEAH. BATTLE. NO NO NO. TO APPROVE. OH, IF I VOTED YES, IT WAS SHOT DOWN. AND SO NOW I'M VOTING. WE'RE WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A ROLL CALL. SORRY. 
          YEAH. NO. HAMILTON. DON, ARE YOU CONFUSED? HE'S CONFUSED NOW. YES. NOW YOU'RE VOTING TO RECOMMEND IT? YEAH. SO THAT WAS A YES. OKAY, SO BATTLE SAID NO. BLODGETT SAID NO. HAMILTON. NO. 
          KEENAN. THEY SAID YES. CAN WE CAN WE DO THAT AGAIN? I THINK MR. BATTLE DIDN'T. OKAY, OKAY. 
          LET'S APPROVE THE APPROVE AS IS. THIS IS A MOTION. YES. THIS IS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE GOVERNING BODY THAT THAT THEY ACCEPT THIS STUDY. OKAY. AND I SAID NO. OKAY. GOT IT. RIGHT. 
          AND BLODGETT. NO. AND HAMILTON HAMILTON. NO. OKAY. KEENAN. YES. MONEY. YES. MATTHEWS I DON'T KNOW WHY I'M VOTING FOR I'M SORRY TO APPROVE THE STUDY. THE STUDY, THE STUDY THAT WILL RECOMMEND TO THE TOWNSHIP THAT THIS IS AN AREA IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT WITH CONDEMNATION ON ALL FOUR BLOCKS. OKAY. GOT I. YES. ROBERTS. YES. SINGH. YES. AND GLOCKLER. YES. WELL, OKAY. 
          THERE YOU GO. YEAH. THAT'S. THAT'S GOOD. OKAY. NOW, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT MINUTES FROM 
          [VII. MINUTES - February 12, 2024 – Regular Meeting]
          [02:25:11]
FEBRUARY 12TH, 2020 FOR REGULAR MEETING. THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. SO MOVED SECOND. OKAY. ROLL CALL PLEASE. BATTLE. YES. BLODGETT. YES. GLOCKLER. YES. HAMILTON. YES. 
          KEENAN. YES. MONEY. YES. ROBERTS. YES. SINGH. YES. AND. KHAN. YES. FUTURE MEETINGS NOVEMBER 5TH. THAT'S THE SITE PLAN. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING THAT'S BEEN CANCELED. 
          AND NOVEMBER 25TH. PLANNING BOARD, 7 P.M. I THINK WE CAN. IT WILL BE ON CALENDAR. RIGHT. 
          THAT'S THE THANKSGIVING WEEK. YEAH. THAT IS AFTER. YEAH. IT'S THE WEEK AFTER, I THINK DECEMBER 3RD. SITE PLAN SUBDIVISION MEETING AT 8:30 A.M. THAT GOES FORWARD DECEMBER NINE PLANNING BOARD MEETING THAT GOES FORWARD DECEMBER 23RD. I THINK THAT'S THE WEEK OF CHRISTMAS. IT'S THE YEAH, IT'S THE WEEK OF CHRISTMAS. TOO MANY PEOPLE. DO YOU GUYS WANT TO CANCEL THAT MEETING OR CANCEL? I THINK SO. IS THAT UNANIMOUS? EVERYBODY'S IN FAVOR OF CANCELING. 
          CANCELING? OKAY. SO THE 23RD, WE CANCEL DECEMBER 23RD. SO MOVE. SECOND. SECOND. YEAH. WE HAVE TWO APPLICATIONS ON THE 25TH. OKAY. SO THAT WILL BE HELD THANKSGIVING AT 9:35 P.M. 
          MEETING CLOSED. OKAY
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.