Peter G. Steck Community Planning Consultant

80 Maplewood Avenue, Maplewood, New Jersey 07040 (973) 762-6568

Steckplan@gmail.com

PLANNING EVALUATION AREA IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT STUDY

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION, BLOCK 58, LOT 1 380 ASBURY BLOOMSBURY ROAD

FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP WARREN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY

Prepared for:

Robert Simon, Esq. Herold Law, P.A. 25 Independence Boulevard Warren, New Jersey 07059 On behalf of:

Tracey Heisler, et al. In the matter of:

Tracey Heisler, William Heisler and Viking Development Company, LLC

v. The Township of Franklin and the Land Use Board of the Township of Franklin Docket No. WRN-L-000167-19

Peter G. Steck, P.P. N. J. Planner License No. 1776 February 7, 2020

-1-

INTRODUCTION On February 4, 2019 the Franklin Township Committee adopted Resolution 2019-34 directing its Land Use Board to prepare a preliminary investigation of the 112 acre property on Bloomsbury-Asbury Road known as Lot 1 in Block 58 (the “Farm Property”). The purpose of the investigation was to determine if it satisfied the criteria for designation as an “area in need of redevelopment” under the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 et seq. Following this charge, the Franklin Township Land Use Board commissioned Professional Planner James T. Kyle to conduct an investigation of the Farm Property. Mr. Kyle issued a report dated April 18, 2019, titled “Preliminary Investigation, Block 58, Lot 1.” Mr. Kyle’s report was presented to the Land Use Board during a May 1, 2019 public hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Land Use Board recommended that the Farm Property be designated as an area in need of redevelopment having found that criterion “c” from N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5 was applicable. Subsequent to that recommendation, on May 6, 2019 the Township Committee adopted a resolution designating the Farm Property as an “area in need of redevelopment.” This designation was challenged in court by Tracey Heisler, William Heisler, and the Viking Development Company, LLC resulting in a January 3, 2020 consent order remanding the matter to the Land Use Board and directing the Land Use Board to conduct a new hearing and for the Township Council to consider anew any recommendations arising from that new Land Use Board hearing. This Planning Evaluation has been prepared on behalf of Tracey Heisler, William Heisler, and Viking Development Company, LLC in advance of the scheduled February 12, 2020 public hearing of the Franklin Township Land Use Board. Planner Kyle issued a new report titled Preliminary Investigation, Block 58, Lot 1 and dated January 24, 2020. Which, like his April 18, 2019 report, again recommended the Farm Property be designated an “area in need…” under criterion “c” of N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5, concluding The Farm Property is “land that is owned by the municipality, the county, a local housing authority, redevelopment agency or redevelopment entity, or unimproved vacant land that has remained so for a period of ten years prior to adoption of the resolution, and that by reason of its location, remoteness, lack of means of access to developed sections or portions of the municipality, or topography, or nature of the soil, is not likely to be developed through the instrumentality of private capital.”

Upon review of planner Kyle’s revised Preliminary Investigation, and the prior proceedings, it is concluded that criterion “c” cannot serve as the basis for a finding that the Farm Property is eligible for designation as an area on need of redevelopment. The reasons for this conclusion are contained in the balance of this Planning Evaluation.

-2-

STRUCTURE OF THIS PLANNING EVALUATION

Introduction Page 1 Structure of This Planning Evaluation Page 2 Materials Reviewed Page 2 Redevelopment Area Designation Criteria – Background Page 3 General Location of the Study Area Page 5 Description of the Surrounding Area Page 7 Zoning Considerations Page 8 Preliminary Investigation Study of January 24, 2020 Page 9 Preliminary Investigation Study of April 18, 2019 Page 10 Land Use Board Public Hearing of May 1, 2019 Page 11 Prior Developer Interest in the Farm Property Page 11 Planning Evaluation of the 2020 Study and Proceedings Page 12 Summary Planning Evaluation Page 15

Appendix A Portion of the 2020 Study Appendix B Curriculum Vitae of Peter Steck

Plate I Location of Farm Property Page 5 Plate II Street View of Route 632 from Google Maps Page 5 Plate III Google Earth Satellite Photo of Farm Property Page 6 Plate IV Land Uses from NJDEP Geoweb Site for 2012 Page 7 Plate V Franklin Township Zoning Map Page 8 Plate VI Concept plan for 1,300,000 Square Foot Facility Page 11

MATERIALS REVIEWED Among the items reviewed in the preparation of this Planning Evaluation were the following:

• Preliminary Investigation, Block 58, Lot 1 dated May 18, 2019 • Preliminary Investigation, Bock 58, Lot 1 dated January 24, 2020 • NJDEP Geoweb site • Satellite photos from Google Earth • Google Maps Street View • Consent Order from Hon. Thomas C. Miller, P. J. Cv. dated January 3, 2020. • Complaint in Lieu of Prerogative Writs prepared by Herold Law, P.A. • NJDEP Highway Map • Land Use Board public hearing transcript of May 1, 2019 • Township Committee meeting transcript of May 6, 2019 • Tax assessment records, New Jersey Association of County Tax Boards • Franklin Township Zone Map • Franklin Township Land Use and Development Ordinance, Chapter 90 • Local Redevelopment and Housing Law

-3-

REDEVELOPMENT AREA DESIGNATION CRITERIA - BACKGROUND In New Jersey the designation of an area as in “need of redevelopment” by a governing body is a formal process governed by state law. The powers are described in the New Jersey State Constitution, and the process is authorized by the 1992 Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 et seq. This state statute requires participation by both the planning board and the governing body and establishes criteria for designating an area as in need of redevelopment or as blighted. “Blighted area” has the same meaning as an “area in need of redevelopment,” which under the predecessor statute was known as a “blighted” area.

With respect to the procedures for designation, the governing body first authorizes the planning board to conduct a preliminary investigation. The results of this investigation are presented to the planning board at an advertised public hearing. The public must also be provided an opportunity to be heard at the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the planning board makes a recommendation to the governing body as to whether or not to designate the area as in need of redevelopment. The recommendation is then communicated to the governing body, which then has the option of accepting or rejecting in whole or in part the planning board’s recommendation. According to case law, the designation must be supported by substantial credible evidence that the designated area satisfies at least one of the criteria set forth under N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5 of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law. The municipality bears the burden of presenting such evidence.

The specific criteria that must be present to designate an “area in need of redevelopment” are found in N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5 and are reproduced in part on the following page along with the definition of the term “redevelopment area.”

The New Jersey Legislature declared that the specific purpose of the Local

Redevelopment and Housing Law is to redevelop blighted properties which may be achieved only through the efforts of local government when, for various reasons attendant to the blighted condition, the private market will not step in to correct or ameliorate the blighted condition. The statue states in this regard:

There exist, have existed and persist in various communities of this State conditions of deterioration in housing, commercial and industrial installations, public services and facilities and other physical components and supports of community life, and improper, or lack of proper, development which result from forces which are amenable to correction and amelioration by concerted effort of responsible public bodies, and without this public effort are not likely to be corrected or ameliorated by private effort. [N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-2a]

Once an area is designated as an area in need of redevelopment, the governing

body (typically designated as the redevelopment agency) has the ability to adopt a redevelopment plan by ordinance that establishes site-specific zoning controls. A governing body also has the right to designate a redeveloper. Additionally, a redevelopment designation permits a governing body to enter into “payment in lieu of taxes” or PILOT agreement with the redeveloper which allows for preferential treatment. Unlike real estate tax revenue, 95% of the PILOT revenue is dedicated to the Township with the remaining 5% for Warren County. The Board of Education receives no revenue from the PILOT agreement unless the Township elects to provide it.

-4-

REDEVELOPMENT CRITERIA FROM N.J.S.A.40A:12A 5. A delineated area may be determined to be in need of redevelopment if, after investigation, notice and hearing as provided in section 6 of P.L.1992, c.79 (C.40A:12A-6), the governing body of the municipality by resolution concludes that within the delineated area any of the following conditions is found: a. The generality of buildings are substandard, unsafe, unsanitary, dilapidated, or obsolescent, or possess any of such characteristics, or are so lacking in light, air, or space, as to be conducive to unwholesome living or working conditions. b. The discontinuance of the use of buildings previously used for commercial, manufacturing, or industrial purposes; the abandonment of such building or buildings; significant vacancies of such building or buildings for at least two consecutive years; or the same being allowed to fall into so great a state of disrepair as to be untenantable. c. Land that is owned by the municipality, the county, a local housing authority, redevelopment agency or redevelopment entity, or unimproved vacant land that has remained so for a period of ten years prior to adoption of the resolution, and that by reason of its location, remoteness, lack of means of access to developed sections or portions of the municipality, or topography, or nature of the soil, is not likely to be developed through the instrumentality of private capital. d. Areas with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community. e. A growing lack or total lack of proper utilization of areas caused by the condition of the title, diverse ownership of the real property therein or other similar conditions which impede land assemblage or discourage the undertaking of improvements, resulting in a stagnant and unproductive condition of land potentially useful and valuable for contributing to and serving the public health, safety and welfare, which condition is presumed to have a negative social or economic impact or otherwise being detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the surrounding area or the community in general. f. Areas, in excess of five contiguous acres, whereon buildings or improvements have been destroyed, consumed by fire, demolished or altered by the action of storm, fire, cyclone, tornado, earthquake or other casualty in such a way that the aggregate assessed value of the area has been materially depreciated. g. In any municipality in which an enterprise zone has been designated pursuant to the "New Jersey Urban Enterprise Zones Act," P.L.1983, c.303 (C.52:27H-60 et seq.) the execution of the actions prescribed in that act for the adoption by the municipality and approval by the New Jersey Urban Enterprise Zone Authority of the zone development plan for the area of the enterprise zone shall be considered sufficient for the determination that the area is in need of redevelopment pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of P.L.1992, c.79 (C.40A:12A-5 and 40A:12A-6) for the purpose of granting tax exemptions within the enterprise zone district pursuant to the provisions of P.L.1991, c.431 (C.40A:20-1 et seq.) or the adoption of a tax abatement and exemption ordinance pursuant to the provisions of P.L.1991, c.441 (C.40A:21-1 et seq.). The municipality shall not utilize any other redevelopment powers within the urban enterprise zone unless the municipal governing body and planning board have also taken the actions and fulfilled the requirements prescribed in P.L.1992, c.79 (C.40A:12A-1 et al.) for determining that the area is in need of redevelopment or an area in need of rehabilitation and the municipal governing body has adopted a redevelopment plan ordinance including the area of the enterprise zone. h. The designation of the delineated area is consistent with smart growth planning principles adopted pursuant to law or regulation.

-5-

GENERAL LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA Lot 1 in Block 58 is a 112.90-acre parcel located at 380 Asbury-Bloomsbury Road in the southern portion of Franklin Township proximate to Interstate 78 as shown on Plate I. Asbury-Bloomsbury Road is a two-lane Warren County highway known as Route 632 as shown on Plate II.

PLATE I LOCATION OF FARM PROPERTY

PLATE II STREET VIEW OF ROUTE 632 FROM GOOGLE MAPS

-6-

Plate III reproduces a June 15, 2018 satellite photo of the Farm Property showing the site in agricultural use. In line with this use, the Franklin Township Tax Assessor has assessed the property as Class 3B qualified farmland, which has been the assessment category for at least the past decade. Class 1 is the assessment category for vacant land.

PLATE III GOOGLE EARTH SATELLITE PHOTO OF FARM PROPERTY

With approximate property lines added by Peter G. Steck, P.P.

-7-

As noted on Plate III, the property is roughly rectangular in shape with “cut outs” along Asbury-Bloomsbury Road due to the single-family homes also located along the north side of the county highway. The Farm Property has 900 feet of continuous road frontage. DESCRIPTION OF THE SURROUNDING AREA The subject site is located in an agricultural area with clusters of single-family homes as shown on Plate IV which shows the land use pattern in 2012 as determined by NJDEP. The pink color is classified as “Urban” which in this case identifies single-family homes. Most of the single-family dwellings in the immediate area were constructed in the late 1970s and into the 1980s. Two of the dwellings were built in 2006 and 2007. The NJDEP Geoweb site also indicates that none of the lands in this part of Franklin Township are in a sewer service area.

PLATE IV LAND USES FROM NJDEP GEOWEB SITE FOR 2012

-8-

ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The Farm Property is within Franklin Township’s I Industrial District which permits a range of industrial uses that include warehousing, wholesaling, processing, light manufacturing, offices, and agriculture. The I Industrial Zone requires a minimum lot size of 130,000 square feet with a minimum road frontage of 250 feet. The RC Rural Conservation Zone abuts the Farm Property to the north and east as shown on Plate V. The RC Zone permits single-family dwellings and agriculture and requires a minimum lot size of five acres for dwellings. During the May 1, 2019 Land Use Board public hearing Land Use Board member and Zoning Officer James Onembo indicated that Lots 5 and 6 (in Block 61), west of the Farm Property, were being considered for an overlay zone to foster affordable housing. [Page 11 of transcript.]

PLATE V FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP ZONING MAP

-9-

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION STUDY OF JANUARY 24, 2020 Consulting Planner Kyle submitted a study dated April 18, 2019 (the “2019 Study”), which was presented at the May 1, 2019 Land Use Board public hearing. At that meeting, the Land Use Board adopted a resolution recommending the Township Committee designate the Farm Property as an “area in need of redevelopment”, which the Township so designated five days later, at its May 6, 2019 Meeting. The recommendation and action by the Land Use Board and Township Committee were challenged in the New Jersey Superior Court, in litigation titled Heisler et al. v. Franklin Township Land Use Board et al., docket no. WRN-L0167-19. The actions of the Land Use Board and Township Committee were voided, and the matter was remanded to the Board by way of court order dated January 3, 2020.

Mr. Kyle prepared a revised study on the Farm Property dated January 24, 2020, which introduces minor supplemental information to the 2019 Study on the same property (the “2020 Study”). The 2020 Study, summarized below, is expected to be presented at the February 12, 2020 public meeting of the Land Use Board. Introduction Page 3 The 2020 Study references the litigation that prompted a new hearing and reproduces the statutory criteria for designating a site as in need of redevelopment. A 2017 satellite photograph identifying the Farm Property is provided. Description of the Study Area Page 6 The Farm Property is described as being in agricultural use and having no significant environmental feature that would impede development. The slopes on the property are identified to be generally slight to moderate with an overall slope of 4.8 percent and no slopes greater than 10 percent. No soil conditions are noted that would frustrate development. The 2020 Study also notes that the Farm Property is assessed as qualified farmland for local real estate tax purposes. Existing Zoning Page 6 The Farm Property is located in an Industrial District which permits light industry, warehousing, offices, research and laboratory uses, and agricultural uses. The 2020 Study observes that the Farm Property has been zoned “industrial” since at least 1979. The dimensional standards of the I Industrial Zone are displayed. Legal Basis for Redevelopment in New Jersey Page 9 The 2020 Study outlines the procedures associated with designating a property as an area in need of redevelopment with a focus on the potential benefits that arise from the adoption of a redevelopment plan after such a designation. Review of Study Area Parcels and Redevelopment Criteria Page 11 The 2020 Study concludes that redevelopment criterion “c” applies to the Farm Property. In his study, Planner Kyle alleges that the Farm Property is currently vacant and has been vacant for at least ten years. He indicates that there are no structures on the property, but does reference a shared driveway in the front portion of the property giving access to the cultivated areas On this basis Planner Kyle claims that the Farm Property is “unimproved vacant land” despite it being cultivated and therefore eligible for designation as an area in need of redevelopment.

-10-

Planner Kyle further concludes that the Farm Property lacks means of access to developed portions of the municipality, and notes there is little significant development in the surrounding area. In support of this observation, Planner Kyle observes that most of the commercial development is along Route 57 in the northern section of the Township, and there are smaller areas of nonresidential development in the Township’s hamlets. He does concede that there are some single-family homes near the subject site along Bloomsbury Road. Finally, he alleges that “it is clear that by virtue of the study area’s location and its infrastructure limitations in a rural environment, it is not likely to be developed by private capital alone.” Planner Kyle relies on sample zoning definitions of “vacant land”, “unimproved land”, and “improvement” in the 2015 publication “The Complete Illustrated Book of Development Definitions,” Fourth Edition by Harvey S. Moskowitz, et al.

Because of the limited discussion in the 2020 Study that directly addresses how criterion “c” applies to the Farm Property, pages 11, 12 and 13 of the 2020 Study are reproduced in Appendix A. Recommendations Page 13 Planner Kyle concludes that criterion “c” applies because the property “is both vacant and unimproved and located well away from the developed portions of the Township. Its location is challenging despite reasonable access to Route 78 to the south. Having languished for approximately 28 years with industrial zoning, the study area is not likely to develop through the instrumentality of private capital.” PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION STUDY OF APRIL 18, 2019 The prior April 18, 2019 “Preliminary Investigation, Block 58, Lot 1” was also prepared by Planner Kyle and was the subject of the Franklin Township Land Use Board’s May 1, 2019 Public Hearing. This prior study referenced criterion “c” as the sole basis for justifying an area in need of redevelopment for the Farm Property and advanced the same rationale that the property had been vacant for over ten years, was remote from the developed sections of the Township, and was not likely to be developed through the private marketplace. The 2020 Study was slightly longer than the 2019 Study owing to additional information being added in the later study. The 2020 Study referenced the court order for remand and rehearing. Details were also added in the 2020 Study about the gravel access driveway, the slope of the land, the farmland assessment, the definitions of vacant land, unimproved land, and improvement from the 2015 Moskowitz publication, more history was provided by the length of time the property had been in an industrial zone, and more observations were provided regard other portions of the Township where development is more concentrated.

-11-

LAND USE BOARD PUBLIC HEARING OF MAY 1, 2019 A review of the transcript of the May 1, 2019 Land Use Board public hearing on the area in need of redevelopment designation provides important information about the motivations of the Township, the Land Use Board, and its consulting planner. By far the dominant discussion was about the benefits of a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreement with a redeveloper. No discussion occurred about how the subject site was in fact blighted, and how its condition as agricultural land was detrimental to the public welfare. PRIOR DEVELOPER INTEREST IN THE FARM PROPERTY Information has surfaced about meetings between a prospective developer of the Farn Property for a distribution warehouse with certain Land Use Board members and planning consultant Kyle in advance of any evaluation as to whether the Farm Property was eligible for designation as an area in need of redevelopment. Prior development interest in the Farm Property also surfaced by the interested developer having submitted to the NJDEP an August 31, 2018 concept plan for a 1,300,000 square foot warehouse and distribution facility to the NJDEP as shown on Plate VI.

PLATE VI CONCEPT PLAN FOR 1,300,000 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY

-12-

PLANNING EVALUATION OF THE 2020 STUDY AND PROCEEDINGS Based on a review of the proceeding leading up to the May 1, 2019 Land Use Board public hearing and the subsequent release of a January 24, 2020 “Preliminary Investigation, Block 58, Lot 1” study by consulting planner James T. Kyle, the following planning observations are offered: 1. Lot 1 in Block 58 is not “vacant property”, as incorrectly concluded in both

the 2019 Study and 2020 Study

The 2020 Study indicates the Farm Property is currently used for agricultural purposes and has been in agricultural use for at least ninety years. Satellite photos over the years document the tilling of the soil for crop production. The 2020 Study relies on definitions from the 2015 publication “The Complete Illustrated Book of Development Definitions” to conclude that farmland is “vacant land.”

Page 595

Noteworthy is that the sample definition states that to be vacant the land must be both “undeveloped and unused.” (emphasis added). Yet, the 2020 Report identified the Farm Property as having been in active agricultural use since at least 1930. As a result, Farm Property is not vacant land based on the definition relied on in the 2020 Study to conclude the opposite. The 2020 Study also omits an annotation to the definition of “vacant land” that distinguishes agricultural land as distinct from vacant land: the 1975 Mt. Laurel New Jersey Supreme Court decision. As quoted, the Supreme Court characterized the majority of Mt. Laurel Township as still “vacant land or in agricultural use” (emphasis added). Hence, it is improper for the 2020 Study to conclude the Farm Property is “vacant land”, because the fact it is used for agricultural purposes shows it is not vacant land.

-13-

This is consistent with the fact the Franklin Township Tax Assessor has classified the Farm Property as “Class 3B qualified farmland”, warranting a reduced real estate tax assessment. Such a classification is dependent upon the land producing a certain dollar amount of agricultural products. If the land were vacant, as claimed by the 2020 Report, it would be assessed as “Class 1, Vacant Land.”

2. Criterion “c” is misinterpreted in the 2020 Study.

c. Land that is owned by the municipality, the county, a local housing authority, redevelopment agency or redevelopment entity, or unimproved vacant land that has remained so for a period of ten years prior to adoption of the resolution, and that by reason of its location, remoteness, lack of means of access to developed sections or portions of the municipality, or topography, or nature of the soil, is not likely to be developed through the instrumentality of private capital. [N.J.S.A. 40A: 12A-5(c)]

A property that can be designated as an “area in need of redevelopment” pursuant to criterion “c” in N.J.S.A. 40A:12A must be “unimproved vacant land” meaning that the land must be both unimproved and vacant. As already discussed, Lot 1 in Block 58 is not vacant.

It is also not “unimproved,” because the 2020 Study observed that the land surface has been manipulated. Through the years it has been seasonally tilled and harvested and hence has been “improved” for agricultural purposes. If unused, natural growth would have taken over with a succession of various vegetation and eventually a return to forest. Consequently, the Farm Property fails the threshold test under criterion “c” and is not eligible for designation as an “area in need of redevelopment” under N.J.S.A. 14A:12A-5(c). The second part of criterion “c” requires an analysis of whether a property has been undeveloped and unimproved for at least 10 years (unlike the Farm Property) specifically “by reason of its location, remoteness, lack of means of access to developed sections or portions of the municipality, or topography, or nature of the soil.”

Despite the characterization of the area in the 2020 Study as “undeveloped”, this part of Franklin Township is developed predominantly for agricultural and residential use. Moreover, through the years and even as recently as 2007, new housing has been built on lots fronting on the highway and in the immediate area, including the adjacent Lot 1.03 in Block 58 which was developed with a new dwelling in 2007.

The 2020 Study also states the Farm Property lacks access to the municipality, which is clearly incorrect, given it has over 900 feet of frontage on a fully improved county highway that links directly to an Interstate Highway less than one mile away.

-14-

As further evidence that the location, remoteness, and lack of means of access do not support an “area in need of redevelopment” designation, during the May 1, 2019 Land Development Board public hearing, it was indicated that the Township was considering nearby properties on the county highway for development as Mt. Laurel affordable housing. This begs the question of how the Township can consider the immediate area of the Farm Property to be reasonably developable for inclusionary affordable housing, if it is so remote from the municipality to be “unlikely to be developed through the instrumentality of private capital.” The classic example of where criterion “c” is applicable are premature subdivisions deeded before the Map Filing Act. It is known that New Jersey newspapers gave lots to subscribers as an incentive to boost the number of subscribers. Such early lots were plotted and recorded but accessed only on “paper streets” that contained no pavement or utilities. Consequently, there was no way to access such lots or to extend utilities. The Farm Property, with frontage on a county highway in close proximity to the Interstate 78 interchange is far afield from this scenario. It is also is observed that the Farm Property and the surrounding lands are not in a sewer service area and must rely on septic systems for the handling of wastewater. Hence, compared to areas that have public water and sewer, the area is ill-suited to more intensive development (such as the 1.3 million square foot warehouse proposed). The fact that industrial uses have not developed in response to the industrial zoning is not a measure of whether criterion “c” applies. It may be simply that the zoning in place does not take into account market conditions and other practical considerations. Finally, it is noted that there is no evidence that the topography or nature of the soil are factors in determining whether criterion “c” is applicable. The very fact that the land has been cultivated shows it is relatively level and suitable for development.

3. Improper consideration of a PILOT agreement.

During the course of the May 1, 2019 Land Use Board public hearing, there was considerable discussion among Board members and consulting planner Mr. Kyle regarding the benefits of entering into a PILOT agreement with a designated redeveloper. This was such a dominant part of the proceedings that it essentially replaced the purpose of the hearing. The charge to the Land Use Board which came from the February 4, 2019 Township Committee resolution was to determine whether Lot 1 in Block 58 would qualify as an “area in need of redevelopment”. However, this issue was put to the side in favor of the potential PILOT agreement. The May 1, 2019 proceedings demonstrated that the motivation for the “area in need of redevelopment” designation was not the elimination of blight. The motivation was to set the stage for future negotiations with a known developer who already had proposed to Township officials that it was seeking the advantages provided by a PILOT agreement in order to build a 1,300,000 square foot warehouse distribution facility. Those discussions introduced an improper bias into the hearing and in fact became the basis for the court order vacating the resolutions of the Land Use Board and Township Committee.

-15-

The New Jersey Constitutional foundation for the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law is the elimination of blight. A PILOT agreement is just one of the financial tools authorized to eliminate blight. However, a PILOT agreement is not warranted or authorized for the purpose of subsidizing the cost of constructing a warehouse on an unblighted parcel of property that has been put to continuous productive agricultural use for at least the last 90 years. The Farm Property simply does not qualify for a PILOT agreement because there is no need that the Property be redeveloped. A PILOT agreement could hypothetically been considered if the Property had some undesirable conditions (i.e., blight) the Township sought to eliminate through redevelopment, and if the Farm Property did qualify for and was properly designated as “an area in need of redevelopment”, and if the Land Use Board and Township adopted a redevelopment plan, and if a redeveloper was interviewed and selected in accordance with applicable law, and if the project passed the “but for” test certifying the need for such a financial mechanism. In this instance, however, none of those factors are present. Instead, it was the developer who selected the Farm Property specifically because it is an attractive property that suits the developer’s needs. The developer then proposed a PILOT agreement to Township Officials as a means of subsidizing its planned construction. And the Township, seeking to accommodate the developer in order to make a deal, is inventing a supposed “blight” that does not exist at the request of the developer. As reflected in the transcripts of the prior proceedings, the motivation for designating the Farm Property as an “area in need of redevelopment” is inverted because it is being driven by a redeveloper seeking a better deal, not because there is an actual need to redevelop the area. This does not satisfy the purpose, intent, nor the requirements of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law.

SUMMARY PLANNING EVALUATION

An evaluation of the proceedings leading up to the scheduled February 12, 2020 Land Use Board public hearing yields the conclusion that no substantial credible evidence has been presented or could be presented that would warrant an area in need of redevelopment designation for Lot 1 in Block 58. No substantial credible evidence has been produced or could be produced that would support an area in need of redevelopment designation for Lot 1 in Block 58 based on criterion “c” of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law. The property is not blighted and efforts to declare it blighted represent capricious, arbitrary and unreasonable actions of a governing body. The proceedings have been tainted and likely will continue to be tainted by premature discussions with an interested developer.

APPENDIX A-1

PORTION OF THE 2020 STUDY

APPENDIX A-2

PORTION OF THE 2020 STUDY

APPENDIX A-3

PORTION OF THE 2020 STUDY

APPENDIX B-1

Peter G. Steck Community Planning Consultant

80 Maplewood Avenue, Maplewood, New Jersey 07040 (973) 762-6568, Steckplan@gmail.com

EDUCATION

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Master of City and Regional Planning, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey

LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION New Jersey Professional Planner License No. 33LI00177600, received in 1976. American Institute of Certified Planners, Past Member ID# 036672

POSITIONS HELD

1990 - Present Principal of own planning consulting firm: Peter G. Steck - Community Planning Consultant 1981 - 1990 Director of the Department of Planning and Community Development for the

Township of Montclair, New Jersey. Coordination of 16 person staff responsible for technical services to the Planning Board and Board of Adjustment, administration of the Uniform Construction Code, commercial and residential property maintenance codes, Community Development Block Grant Program, Section 8 Existing Housing Program, and Neighborhood Preservation Balanced Housing Program. Prepared Master Plan, Housing Element and Reexamination Reports. Secretary to the Planning Board and Board of Adjustment and Zoning Administrative Officer.

1978 – 1980 Associate Planner with Malcolm Kasler Associates, Hackensack, New Jersey.

Responsibilities included preparation of master plans, development ordinances, fair share housing studies, and development application reviews.

1973 – 1978 Assistant Township Planner, Montclair, New Jersey. Responsibilities included

technical services to the Planning Board and Board of Adjustment, preparation of master plan background studies, capital improvement programs.

1972 – 1973 Associate Planner, Alvin E. Gershen Associates, Trenton, New Jersey. Prepared

master plan background studies and development application reviews.

CITIZEN AND PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT

Municipal Land Use Law Technical Review Committee, N. J. League of Municipalities, Member New Jersey Planning Officials, Board of Councilors Montclair Historical Society, Past Trustee Rutgers Center for Government Services – Continuing Education Lecturer CLE International – Conference Panelist Lorman Educational Services – Conference Panelist New Jersey Association of Planning and Zoning Administrators – Conference Panelist New Jersey Planning Officials – Achievement in Planning Award, 2009 American Planning Association – New Jersey Chapter – Conference Panelist N. J. Redevelopment Authority Redevelopment Training Institute - Panelist Original planner of Church Street in Montclair – in 2012 named a Great Place in N. J. by APA-NJ and in 2015 named a Great American Street by the National Main Street Center

APPENDIX B-2

CONSULTING EXPERIENCE

Engaged in private consulting as a land use planner since 1981 representing municipalities, development boards, land developers, and neighborhood associations. Work performed in over 170 New Jersey municipalities. Expert testimony presented in Bergen County, Passaic County, Essex County, Union County, Morris County, Monmouth County and Sussex County Superior Courts and before the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission and the New Jersey Tax Court.

SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE FOLLOWING MUNICIPALITIES Caldwell Borough Cedar Grove Township East Hanover Township City of Elizabeth Town of Kearny Kenilworth Borough Maplewood Township Nutley Township Lafayette Township Paramus Borough City of Paterson Pequannock Township Ringwood Borough Union Township Upper Saddle River Borough Teaneck Borough Randolph Township Millburn Township Saddle Brook Township Stillwater Township City of Hackensack City of Long Branch City of Englewood Madison Borough Saddle Brook Township Franklin Township Sayreville Borough Deal Borough Bridgewater Township Moonachie Borough

SERVICES TO PRIVATE CLIENTS IN THE FOLLOWING MUNICIPALTIES Aberdeen Township Allendale Borough Andover Borough Andover Township Bedminster Township Belleville Township Bergenfield Borough Berkeley Heights Township Bernards Township Bloomfield Township Boonton Township Branchburg Township Bridgewater Township Byram Township Carlstadt Borough Cedar Grove Township Chatham Borough Chatham Township Cherry Hill Township Cliffside Park Clifton City Clinton Town Cranford Township Denville Township East Hanover Township East Orange City Eatontown Borough Edison Township Elizabeth City Elmwood Park Borough Englewood City Englewood Cliffs Borough Englishtown Borough Essex Fells Borough Fair Haven Borough Fairfield Borough Florham Park Borough Fort Lee Borough Franklin Lakes Township Freehold Township Garfield City Garwood Borough Glen Ridge Borough Glen Rock Borough Hackensack City Hampton Township Hanover Borough Harrington Park Borough Harrison Town Hasbrouck Heights Borough Hawthorne Borough Hillsborough Township Hoboken City Holmdel Township Hopatcong Borough Hope Township Howell Township Independence Township Irvington Township Jamesburg Borough Jersey City Kearny Town Kenilworth Borough Lakewood Township Leonia Borough Lincoln Park Borough Linden City Little Falls Township Little Silver Borough Livingston Township Lodi Borough Long Branch City Long Hill Township Madison Borough Mahwah Township Manchester Township Mansfield Township Maplewood Township Marlboro Township Maywood Borough Mendham Borough Mendham Township Midland Park Borough Millburn Township Monmouth Beach Borough Monroe Township Montclair Township Montvale Borough Montville Township Morris Township Morris Plains Borough Morristown Town Mt. Arlington Borough

APPENDIX B-3

SERVICES TO PRIVATE CLIENTS IN THE FOLLOWING MUNCIPALITIES Continued

Mount Laurel Township Mount Olive Township Neptune Township New Providence Borough Newark City North Bergen Township North Caldwell Northvale Borough Nutley Township Ocean Township Old Bridge Township Old Tappan Borough Orange City Palisades Park Borough Paramus Borough Park Ridge Borough Parsippany Troy Hills Borough Plainfield City Point Pleasant Borough Ramsey Borough Randolph Township Raritan Township Readington Township Red Bank Borough Ridgefield Park Village Ridgewood Village Ringwood Borough River Vale Township Rochelle Park Township Rockaway Borough Rockaway Township Roseland Borough Rumson Borough Saddle Brook Township Saddle River Borough Shrewsbury Borough South Orange Township South Plainfield Borough Springfield Township Stillwater Township Summit City Teaneck Township Tenafly Borough Tewksbury Township Tinton Falls Borough Union Township Upper Saddle River Borough Verona Township Wall Township Wallington Township Washington Township Watchung Borough Wayne Township Weehawken Township West Amwell Township West Caldwell Township West Orange Township West Windsor Township Westfield Town Wharton Borough Woodbridge Township Wood-Ridge Borough Wyckoff Township Woodcliff Lake Township Dover Township Green Brook Township Stanhope Borough Lacy Township Ewing Township Far Hills Borough Jackson Township Carteret Borough Somers Point Union City Atlantic Highlands Camden City Highland Park Upper Freehold Hopewell Township Blairstown Township Oxford Township Atlantic City Princeton Borough Lopatcong Township Hackettstown Town Vineland City South Hackensack East Rutherford Borough Lyndhurst Township Secaucus Borough South Hackensack Township Secaucus Town Teterboro Borough Beach Haven Borough Belmar Borough

PARTIAL LISTING OF PRIVATE CLIENTS The Heller Group Marriott Corporation Weldon Materials Kessler Institute Kings Supermarkets Barnes & Noble Toll Brothers Salvation Army The Rockefeller Group Trammell Crow Residential E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. Millennium Homes Chase Manhattan Bank Schindler Elevator Seton Hall Preparatory School Saint Peter's College Wakefern Food Corporation Murray Construction Company Vornado, Inc. Wayne General Hospital The Mills Corporation Kushner Companies The Home Depot Enterprise Rent-A-Car Exxon Mobil Corporation The Manor Restaurant Stavola Const. Materials, Inc. The Applied Companies U S Home Corporation Broadway Improvement Corp. The Dwight-Englewood School K. Hovnanian Companies Kindercare Prudential Insurance BMW of North America, LLC Prism Capital Investors Skylands C.L.E.A.N. Inc. Bob Ciasulli Auto Group N. J. District Water Supply Com. Sudler Companies Starwood Ceruzzi WRNJ Radio New Jersey St. Peter’s Medical Center St. Joseph's Medical Center Gap, Inc. M. Alfieri Co., Inc. Hartz Mountain Industries, Inc. Toys “R” Us New Jersey Animal Coalition Jersey Central P. & L. Elizabethtown Water Company Simon Property Group Town and Country Developers Alfred Sanzari Enterprises Kyocera Mita America, Inc. Mack-Cali 8/16