WEST WINDSOR TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING July 24, 2019 The regular meeting of the Planning Board was called to order at 7:03 pm on Wednesday, July 24, 2019 by Chair O'Brien in Meeting Room A of the Municipal Building. Chair O'Brien announced that Kevin McManimon is serving as counsel tonight. ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM Sue Appelget Linda Geevers Curtis Hoberman Michael Huey Andrea Mandel Simon Pankove Hemant Marathe Michael Karp Gene O'Brien Allen Schectel-AltI Anis Baig-AltII There were no public comments on non-agenda items. [portion(s) omitted] PUBLIC HEARING: Chair O'Brien explained that on April 15, 2019, West Windsor Township Council adopted Resolution 2019-R090. The Planning Board was directed to make a recommendation back to Council as to whether a study area should or should not be determined to be a condemnation development area. David Novak, PP, AICP, Burgis Associates Inc., discussed the "Route 1 Penns Neck Area in Need of Redevelopment Study", Version 1.0, dated July 3, 2019. The study was conducted on a portion of Route One, between Mather Avenue to the southwest and Washington Road to the northeast. The study area consists of ten lots, identified as Block 38, Lots 1,2,3,25 and 45 and Block 39, Lots 4,5,7,16 and 27. Mr. Novak explained that redevelopment, as defined by the "Redevelopment Handbook" provided by the State of New Jersey, is the process to rebuild or restore an area in a measurable state of decline. The redevelopment process is outlined by the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (LRHL) and provides the municipality with the power to adopt a redevelopment plan. The study recommends that five of the ten properties be designated as an area in need of redevelopment. An area must meet one of eight criteria, "a" through "h", to be considered. Block 38; Lot 2 meets "a" and "b" Criteria, Block 39; Lot 5 meets "a", "b", and "d" Criteria, and Block 39; Lot 27 meets "e" Criterion. Also, land that does not meet criteria, but is necessary for the redevelopment of the area can be included. Therefore, Block 38; Lot 3 and Block 39; Lot 4 is recommended for redevelopment as well. Another recommendation that came out of the study was to consider the rezoning of Block 38, Lots 1,45 and 25 and Block 39, Lots 16 and 7. These properties are presently zoned residential. This designation may no longer be appropriate because of the proximity to US Route One, which serves as a Gateway opportunity for the township. Chair O'Brien pointed out on page 63, fourth item, dated June 8, 2017 "southbound" should be corrected to "northbound". Mr. Novak explained his use of the R-2 land use category to Chair O'Brien. He said there is a slight inconsistency between the Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The Master Plan still identifies the areas as an R-2 land use category. Ms. Geevers offered the following corrections on pages 47, 51 and 57, under "Summary", the Block should be corrected to "39". Page 83, second paragraph, first sentence, Ms. Geevers suggested correcting "there" to "therefore". Ms. Geevers asked about the item dated August 20, 2018, in the middle of page 66, regarding the gas station restroom. Mr. Surtees will check with the health officer to see if it is a functioning bathroom. Mr. Novak told Mr. Hoberman that a directive must come from council to look at an area for redevelopment. Mr. Karp questioned why,if there is no difference between Block 38; Lot 1 and Block 38; Lot 3, was Lot 3 included in the recommendation while Lot 1 was not. Mr. Novak replied that he was trying to minimize the number of properties included in the redevelopment area that do not meet criteria. There are two stipulations for vacant land; it must be empty for ten years or vacant due to access issues. Lot 3 has been vacant for a long time while Lot 1 just became vacant. Mr. Schectel did not feel that the 180-foot depth of Lots 2,3 and 4 was sufficient enough with setback. He thinks that all ten lots should be included in the redevelopment area. Ms. Mandel feels that Lot 1 should be in the same redevelopment zone as Lots 2 and 3. If Lot 1 is left residential, a house could be built on Route One, surrounded by commercial buildings. Mr. Pankove asked if the study took into consideration NJDOT and Mercer County plans for improvement to Route One and Route 571. Mr. Novak responded that this has no connection to criteria. Also, any improvement plans are under draft form. Mr. Hoberman asked Mr.Surtees if the township could explore the idea of Varsity Avenue being made a cul-de-sac and if so, where in the process would that occur. Mr. Surtees advised that a recommendation could be made to vacate Varsity Avenue and make it a part of the redevelopment area. This discussion would take place when council prepares the redevelopment plan. Counsel McManimon explained to Mr. Huey that by statute a municipality is required to make a determination right out of the gate as to whether or not it is going to potentially offer the power of eminent domain.It is too early to determine if it will be necessary for the township to exercise this power. However, if development of the property cannot be successfully negotiated, the township may need to assist in acquiring the property. The township also has the power to zone and select who will develop a property. In response to Mr. Karp's inquiry about an ordinance requiring a building be removed if it is deemed unsafe, Mr. Surtees advised that it is up to the construction official to determine if an unsafe property should be boarded up or demolished. Ms. Mandel asked about the possibility of contamination on some of the properties and how that is handled under redevelopment. Mr. Novak referenced the CEA area on page 74 that extends from Block 39, Lot 27, which is the gas station. He said a number of contaminates were identified in the NJDEP report. Counsel McManimon said the owner of the property is responsible for remediation. If a developer is interested, remediation is part of the deal. Chair O'Brien announced that public comments are limited to four minutes per speaker. After everyone speaks once,there will be opportunity to speak again. Reddy Rathmaker [Rathnaker Reddy Patlola of Plainsboro] owns the gas station [via Trinetra Realty Holdings PA LP] and property behind the gas station [via Vanara Properties LLC], where there was a fire. He is working with the fire department to put the property back to pristine condition. In reference to the bathrooms not working, there are two bathrooms. The township did cap one of the restrooms, but the other works fine. As for contamination, there was a problem prior to 2001. New tanks were put in to solve the contamination problem. He has spent a lot of money to clean up the property. He has not finished cleaning up the property because he has plans to make the gas station bigger. Jerome [omitted], resident of [omitted] Varsity Avenue, which is the [omitted] house off of Route One, thanked Mr. Novak for consideration of the houses immediately behind the study area. In addition to the dilapidated house, there are two driveways on either side of the house leading on to and from Route One. There are curb cuts to permit this and Mr. [omitted] feels this is unsafe. He also said that it is his understanding that remediation was done within the year, on three or four houses on Varsity Avenue, to address contamination related to the gas station. He asked about the impact the situation has on houses farther up Varsity Avenue that are farther from Route One. Mayor Marathe suggested he reach out to the health officer. Martin Kahn, resident of 463 Jefferson Road [in Princeton], owns Block 38, Lots 1,2 and 3. He agrees that Lot 1 should be included with Lots 2 and 3. Mr. Kahn is very supportive of the redevelopment. He also owns Block 38, Lots 25 and 45 and Block 39, Lot 7. He looks forward to combining these properties and will limit displacing homeowners. He also said that setbacks and buffers are needed. Ms. Geevers made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Huey. Mr. Rathmaker [Rathnaker Reddy Patlola of Plainsboro] commented that there are no new contaminates. NJDEP wants to make sure there is no contamination so they can close the case. He would like to be part of the redevelopment and work with the township and Mr. Kahn. Motion to close the public hearing was approved by voice vote. Ms. Geevers commented that the redevelopment is an opportunity to get rid of burned out dilapidated houses. Mr. Schectel's position is that all ten lots be included in the redevelopment area. Mr. Huey agrees that all ten lots should be included. Ms. Appelget expressed concern about sufficient buffering to protect all the neighborhoods behind this area. Chair O'Brien summarized Mr. Novak's recommendation that five lots out of ten be included in the redevelopment area. He also recommended that the township consider rezoning of four lots. Mr. Hoberman would like to know more about NJDOT's plans for that section of Route One. He also wants to hear how the Board feels about including Block 38, Lot 1, located adjacent to Mather Road. Mr. Novak did not recommend that this property be a part of the area but said he understands the argument for including this block and lot. Mr. Pankove made a motion that the Planning Board recommend to Council that all ten lots be included in the redevelopment study area. Counsel McManimon summarized that Lot Block 38, Lot 2 and Block 39, Lots 5 and 27 meet specific criteria. The remaining seven lots are necessary to enhance the ability for redevelopment. Motion was approved, 9-0,by roll call vote. [portion(s) omitted] With no other business before the Board, Chair O'Brien adjourned the meeting at 10:00 pm. * * *