e [Music] [Music] n [Music] [Music]
they're very they they're very chatty today all right thank you good evening this is a regular meeting of Livingston's planning board and notice of this meeting has been published in accordance with the open public meetings act thank you we take the rooll please we'll do Mr Ratner yes Mr
Diner say yes yes Mr dufford yes Mr batani yes Miss Conor yes Mrs CA yes Mr Fernandez yes we have our cor we have our board attorney uh Mr
Reber Miss F Mr Lewis Miss wishnu are not present this evening thank you if you can please uh call the first matter the matter before the board is a hearing on investigation of whether block 6100 lot 11 for two pit Tree Hill Road
constitutes an area in need of Redevelopment as a non condemnation Redevelopment area um pursuing to the New Jersey Redevelopment here and housing law statute Mr Mr chairman today we have topology um here to do a
presentation on that hearing uh thank you uh so just before we start um just want to go through what we're doing today uh this is a portion uh of tonight's meeting that is dedicated to a form in which an explanation of a draft report of whether a specific study area
is in need of Redevelopment without condemnation will be presented the scope of the study and preliminary recommendations will be explained and then members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions or offer comments the township Council by resolution r24 d244 authorized the
planning board to conduct the study and engaged apology to provide the necessary Professional Services um um we we are recording this we don't have a stenographer but we are recording this um and um uh speakers while they
can make statements will not be required to speak under oath uh the study area consists of tax block 6100 lot 11 the street address is to Peachtree Hill Road there is a state statute that sets forth both specific criteria for determining whether property is in need of
Redevelopment and the procedural steps that must be followed the planning determined that a draft report prepared by topology was ready for public hearing and the port set this evening as the time of the hearing notice of the hearing required by state law have been provided and I stated the notices a
report has been available for public in inspection as required by state law it is important to understand that this is not a hearing to decide that the study area property property is required to be redeveloped the most that can happen as a result of the hearing would be for the
planning board to accept the planner's report as the board's recommendation to the Town Council if that recommendation is made the Town Council Council will then decide at its own public hearing whether or not to direct that a Redevelopment plan be professionally prepared if that happens it would only
be for a voluntary non- condemnation Redevelopment uh only so we have representatives of topology here tonight and I will ask them to uh present their report and go through any points that they like to go through so thank you chairman um good evening board members
uh for the record it's Phil Abramson um from topology I'm joined here by Mark liner I think for our on our show this evening Mark's going to kind of open us up and give some of the background um in our in our slide deck and then I'm going to finish it up um on the statutory
criteria thank you um do you want to go ahead Mark okay great open both my laptops love the Hightech here and there we go great okay before I get uh underway
just good evening everyone I know they not met everyone on the board yet so I appreciate the pleasure of being able to present to you this evening um as mentioned this is for two P stre Hill Road at block 6100 lot 11 um we'll go quick through the process and the overview given the wonderful
introduction from the chairman uh such as the prior resolution authorization from the township Council for the planning board to conduct the study which was then authorized for topology to conduct on the board's behalf uh the report of which is the basis for this hearing right now uh some
of the um manners in which we conducted the investigation and the evidence that we uh incorporated into this process include a site inspection of both exterior and interior conditions on December 26th of last year as well as collection and review of Municipal records regarding the property including
tax building construction permits code enforcement police and fire Land Development historic Maps photography and aerial imagery as well as uh documents associated with the study area including lease agreements easements and things of that nature as well as the
existing zoning parameters for the site so to give an overview of the site uh you see it in this inset as part of this map highlighted in the red it's generally rectal linear site with an office complex in the middle consisting of three wings so to speak in surround
by surface parking uh it is 30.6 n6 acres for context that's just over half the size of the Livingston Mallet across the street it is just one parcel as previously mentioned being block 1600 lot 11 it is deated as a uh 4A tax code
meaning it's commercial property with the valuation just shy of $30 million it is located within the RL research laboratory Zone there is a uh an rl2 Zone in the north west portion of the township otherwise this zone is unique to those that you see on the map
right now in the southwest portion of of the township and regarding development on the site it was originally developed in the late 70s as viewed through aerial imagery um completed by the uh end of that decade and this image shows its
State in 1995 uh from Google Earth imagery regarding the stary criteria uh that are relevant to tonight um as mentioned there is the local Redevelopment Housing law that specifies which of any eight criteria uh the board
may find for the site to be deemed in area in need of Redevelopment and these cannot just simply be recitations of those criteria as it relates to the site in question but we must provide substantial evidence uh backed up by some of those materials I uh mentioned
previously such as Building Inspections prior Municipal documentation and a block byblock analysis or in this case a paral by paral analysis uh to substantiate the claims uh of criteria being eligible for designation as part of tonight's overview of our study we're focusing on
two sets of these criteria criteria a and criteria B um firstly here you see this criteria a annotated I will read through the entirety of it and then explain why it's anotated in this way so criteria a being 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 UNH wholesome living or working conditions and my apologies for the uh unaligned uh brackets here but the point
of this is to indicate that we're looking at two sets of this Clause that must be linked we're looking at the generality of the buildings in their conditions whether they're uh substandard unsafe unsanitary Etc and those conditions that are observed must be conducive to UNH wholesome living or working
conditions regarding criteria B which we'll also use tonight uh there are several Clauses within this um when I'll I'll read through the whole criteria and then focus on the one pertinent to this investigation so criteria B being the discontinuance of the use of a building
or buildings previously used for commercial retail shopping malls or plazas office Parks manufacturing or industrial purposes the abandonment of such buildings or buildings significant vacancies of such buildings or buildings for at least two consecutive years or the same being
allowed to fall into so great aate of disrepair as to be untenantable and for this investigation we are focusing on specifically that first Clause that these uh use previously occupying the site has been discontinued um I believe the board is
more familiar with the vacancy portion of this Clause um which is known as the two-year clause which is not relevant to the scope of the uh investigation as we have conducted it okay now I'll hand it over to
Phil um thank you Mark so again we're looking at one parcel here it's lot 11 and block 6100 and we're going to kind of go through why criteria a and criteria B are applicable um as Mark said uh earlier he read through this I'm not
going to read through it again under criteria a um generality of buildings or um um unsafe dilapidated and we're going to kind of show you some pictures uh of the inside of this building to to show the level of dilapidation and and lack
of safety um so basically when this this building was most recently um like a Ser they call them server Farms or uh you know data data storage facility um when that facility was uh vacated the premises they took a lot of things with
them um and and the good upkeep of the building along with it as well uh so you can see here how the prior tenants basically ripped out um wiring duct work um the emergency egress signs um so it was not really done in a very surgical way um but maybe just more of a a
hatchet than a scalpel um additional examples uh just kind of that there's equipment just everywhere um so you know OB obstacles uh tripping hazards generally unsafe uh conditions as um General sense of the
word unsafe um some additional examples of dilapidation um you know missing masonry probably certain areas of of water damage water leakage um
the there was a you could see here that because of the specific use of the property um I'll use there was a like a super floor over the primary masonry floor of the building these pipes here were all used for cooling liquid um to
cool down the servers and so basically that whole floor was removed um the pipes are still in there so this kind of creates and you could see here how this door is like kind of a floating uh a floating doorway um in the corner where there
were uh there was that super floor sitting above the the main floor of the building where where wires and PES were going so this was very much a purpose-built building um basically all all torn out um leaving behind only maybe the things
that were really difficult uh to remove um limited safety measures now in here there's missing floor tiles there's tripping hazards um and uh you know like a door that you could walk into and kind of fall down 18
inches but um some additional things um that we observed um you know the there were the fire doors that were propped open um by the janitor's uh mopping sign um the
sprinkler room alarm uh was going off basically the entire time during the site visit um and had to be like manually shut off to stop making noise um um the site security um had the the Livingston
Police Department has had kind of constant issues with this property um there were burglar uh incidents as of like last year um recovering stolen merchandise um so the site is unsecure there's a fenc perimeter but it's you
know there kind of on the outskirts of town um there have been and you could even see here uh Livingston Police Department just constant fire alarm fire alarm fire alarm um so this has become an issue for the community uh and a wait
on your public servants um yeah so generally speaking um the generally of the buildings are are at this point substandard and unsafe um dilapidated uh I think that you could you could qualify this building under
criteria a um oh this this is kind of pointing to some of the unsanitary images um that were here as well okay so going to criteria b um so we're as Mark stated we're going
to focus on the discontinuance of the use of a building that was previously used for either commercial or industrial purpose however you want to characterize this and that's kind of what the statute requires if you read the syntax of this
the discontinuance of use is sort of enough um the abandonment is is another part after a semicolon the significant vacancies for two years is another semicolon or the same being allowed to fall in such a state of great disrepair to be untenable is another semicolon so
we're going with the stuff before the first semicolon discontinuance of use of buildings previously used for this list of sort of non-residential purposes um discontinuance in this case is evidenced by the lease that we were able to obtain
um that uh was terminated in March of last year and then also just the physical removal um of all the equipment that was really unique to this use um this is just a a clip from the
lease itself uh that the that the um lease ended on March 31st uh there were construction permits PED in July to basically remove all the data data center
equipment um only the building base electrical was to remain so all the things that kind of made this unique purpose built building what it was were basically taken out over the course of the summer um there were emergency generator
uh fuel tanks five of them in total um in 2020 and in 2024 uh they were all removed um from the site and again this is something that was uh a physical um requirement for uh a server type use like this um
all the cabinets were removed the super floor was removed were the tanks above ground or below do you know below below ground tanks um all the utility rooms have essentially been cleared out um so you know discontinuance
um to me for me as a planner in terms of the type of uh standard that I want to make sure that we're meeting and that we're kind of finding here um this is not a vacant office building this is this is a little bit more than um a momentary pause in use this is a true
discontinuation of use there's overt actions showing an intent to discontinue this use um it's not really readily adaptable somebody couldn't come in with a coat of paint um or even like fix the drops something there's a lot that would have to be done to this building AKA
like Redevelopment to um adapt this for another type of use or a similar permitted use um in the zoning District um it was purpose-built uh there's these expansive utility Wings there's a central operation operational control room there's redundant
electrical lines uh throughout the building so again this is this is really been major investment was made to make this into um a data center util um server server facility um and all of
those things for the most part have been removed um you know thinking about this again being used for another type of use there's very large floor plates in here there's very few Windows it would not be necessarily suitable for somebody to come in and just open up shop as an
office in here um it's not really adequately parked for office use and then so the other types of uses that we might look at um being able to just sort of be able to move in um would be something like an industrial or
Warehouse operation um there's only one loading Bay um it's not really conducive to a a logistics type operation either so this was really a purpose built building for a very specific use all the
uh equipment and all the improvements associated with that use have now been taken out so this is again a true discontinuation of use not a temporary vacancy um so in my opinion um it qualifies not under just criteria a but
also criteria B um there's been an overt decommissioning of this facility um the current that the the use that it was intended for May no longer be conducted on this property um and uh and it might and it's not a use a
building that really could be adaptively reused that's not one of the required findings but I do think that it it kind of draws up it underscores some of our findings that um it would be we're not dealing with a temporary situation the the structure is not simply
vacant um so these are our conclusions as I've said um this is where we are right now the report um was Prov provided to you we're here to um kind of have a conversation about it answer any questions you might have ultimately
you'll provide a report back to the um governing body will they will accept reject or modify your recommendations so happy to answer any questions um M Mark uh any questions from the board just to clarify for the
board either of those alone is grounds for finding a ABS correct absolutely yes was it built as a data center in the 70s or I was asking the same I don't know that we were able to answer that question we didn't have depand information on that um from aerial
imagery the last modifications to it substantively from at least from the outside were in the 90s and they were very minor the actual envelope of the building has not changed since original construction um but ultimately we were able to confirm if it was originally built in that form in that and it was
always one story yeah it's not one story there are multiple stories inside oh there are I believe three um but yeah they're split between like the server room is double height for example um and there's some areas that are office Wings somewhere large utility wings um but yeah it's generally a three story
building u m Mr dufford our planning board historian uh has said that yes it was originally built as a data center interesting he was the only one around in the 40s when built no respect was it was and it was AIG was the most
recent um was it always there facility interesting um is there any recommendations or thoughts of what the use of the property would be assuming that this is approved and moved forward yeah I think that will ultimately that's a going to be a conversation a
discussion with the governing body um right now I really try to avoid those types of because like we're we need to make a very narrow focused decision um on the evidence in front of us um a Redevelopment plan really can't be opted or can't even be contemplated
until this decision is made about the condition like so this is sort of the the ticket of Entry um in terms of that Pro of terms of this process it's the foundation of this process in your professional opinion as a planner do you
see this more in industrial in in that type of use um as opposed to residential so um so this has nothing to do with the uh question a hand um um he knows this he knows this um I
really I think it could honestly this is a location um we're we're at Columbia Turnpike South Orange Avenue Eisenhower Parkway um there are industrial uses around it there's institutional uses around it there's residential uses
around it I don't think that um any one of those interestingly and I wouldn't there's not a lot of sites that you could say this about where it can go either way honestly um I think they would need to be clearly it's worked as an IND like quasi industrial commercial
type use um I think if it was built as a residential use you'd want it um to incorporate certain design features to kind of buffer it from um Columbia Turnpike South Orange Avenue and um but you know this is a unique area of the
township honestly it's on the very edge it's probably one of the last Parcels um and then everything behind it is like swamp and wetland um so it is very isolated and again right behind Kushner they just built um town homes so there's some precedent
there's a medical office right across this is like a cornicopia of of land uses um in a way thank you yeah um AIG was there till March 31st of last year were they physically there or
that's our understanding and I believe that they remained on the site of several months after the lease as part of those construction permits to vacate their equipment so they were there till the termination date of their lease and maybe beyond that as well so okay so it
hasn't been abandoned for that long correct any other members of the board any questions members of the public do you have any questions for uh the the witness and the report uh hearing none there seeing none thank
you okay thank you all right thank you Mr chair thank you board members okay having heard uh the uh uh the presentation having heard uh having read the report and having heard from questions of the board um are there board member uh what what are the what
are the feelings of the board or whether this uh the report should be accepted as written uh any um you know any modifications any changes uh any revisions um seeing none if um I can
then have a motion to well I guess what we'll need to do is do we uh under what criteria make a motion that the property meets the requirements of an Area Redevelopment in which uh portion uh of the the statutory code uh it meets so
look I think that you know after hearing from uh from topology that I think it clearly meets both the A and B conditions um you know the property has been um you know has
been abandoned you you you actually touched upon a couple points that I was going to ask some questions about whether you know the conversion of it uh but with the lack of Windows the underp parking uh it's not is though as you mentioned you can go in there and slap a coat of paint on it and use it as an office building or something else um so
I'll I'll I'll make that motion that uh that qualifies as an area uh in need of Redevelopment without uh condemnation under both statutory sections A and B I'll second is there any further
discussion I agree hearing none Jackie thank you Mr chairman and you made that motion and the second by Mr Santa Mr Fernandez yes Mr Mr Santa yes Mr Ratner yes Mr Diner yes Mr dufford
yes Mr bani yes Miss kanana yes thank you motion carries okay thank you um thank you very much thank you for the uh uh you know for the great presentation uh certainly covered everything that we needed to consider we appreciate it uh thank you members of the public for
coming out um and Mr Diner it's your turn make a motion to adjourn second thank you all have a great evening