Good evening and welcome. This is a regular meeting of the Princeton Planning Board on Thursday, April 16, 2026. Pursuant to section 13 of the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of the time and place of this meeting has been given by prominently posting the
resolution of regularly scheduled meetings of this board for February 2026 through January 2027. A copy was filed with the clerk of Princeton on January 14, 2026. Legal notice on the adoption of said resolution was published in the January
16th, 2026 edition of the Princeton packet. Notice of this meeting also has been posted to the municipal website, princetonj.gov/calendar. Notice that all regular and special meetings of the Princeton Planning Board will be held electronically via Zoom was transmitted to the Princeton packet and
the times and was filed with the clerk of Princeton on Tuesday, January 14, 2026. Please note that this meeting is being recorded. During tonight's hearing, members of the public will have an opportunity to comment and ask questions. Public
comment will be heard by the board after our professional planner has finished the presentation and has been questioned by planning board members and staff. When public comment is invited, those wishing to comment orally should virtually raise your hand by clicking on
the reactions or raise hand icon at the bottom of your Zoom screen or if participating by phone by pressing star9. Oral comments will be taken in the order in which hands were raised. We ask with respect that members of the public express your views in three minutes or
less. A countdown clock on your screen will help speakers keep track of time. If you have specific questions for our planning consultant, Mr. Collie, that were not addressed in his presentation or in subsequent questioning, you may pose those questions and may exceed
three minutes if you need to. Inappropriate public comment containing obscenity, hate speech, or relating to matters not before the board will be muted. Miss Battle, would you call the role, please? >> Certainly. Mr. Bottingham,
>> here. >> Councilman Cohen >> here. >> Mayor Frida >> here. >> Mr. McGawan >> here. >> Miss Na >> here. >> Mr. O'Donnell >> here.
Miss Pearl Mutter, >> Miss Swimmer >> here. >> Mr. Taylor >> here. >> Miss Wilson Anderson >> here. >> Chair Wilson >> here. You have a quarum. Thank you.
Um, announcements. Justin Leco, have you got anything? >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good evening, uh, members of the board, members of the public. Um just the same announcement or reminder I made last week about those financial disclosure forms that members of boards, commissions, and committees need to fill
out um by the state's deadline of April 30th. So um if you're having any trouble with that, feel free to reach out and I'm happy to troubleshoot it uh with anyone that needs help. >> Okay, great. >> Could you forward it to me? I had the
one for the board of health which I filled out but I wasn't able to link anything and do another one for this board. So if you could help me out that'd be great. Thank you. >> Okay. I'll double check and see if you need to fill out two um or if one would just work. I see councilman Cohen
shaking his head and I imagine he >> my experience my experience has been just one but both positions need to be listed on that form but I wasn't able to add the second position of planning board in addition to council I think staff can do that so
>> yeah I couldn't link it I tried >> exactly staff should be able to do add that second position for you >> I can check with our municipal clerk tomorrow and I'll let you know >> good Perfect. Thank you.
Um, subcommittee reports, we have none uh tonight is my understanding. So, we'll move right into our hearing. Um, and this is a hearing to determine whether certain real property located at 27 Franklin Avenue and 101 Walnut Lane,
specifically block 7301, lot 1 and block 31.01, 01 lot 105 on the tax map of Princeton um or portions thereof meet the requirements for and should be designated under the local redevelopment
and housing law as a non-condemnation redevelopment area such that any redevelopment area determination shall not authorize the municipality to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire any property in the study area.
So, we have tonight um representing us as council, Mr. Joe Maraziti. Um not many people in the state of New Jersey know more about redevelopment than Joe. Joe, welcome back. >> Thank you. You're very kind, Madam Chair. >> Uh and we we have our um planning
consultant, Chris Collie, and of course, our planning director, Justin Leco, who who always uh starts us off and and sets the table. So, Justin, if you would do that, I'll turn it over to you. >> Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. And uh I just want to confirm that the notice was
is in order um for this uh hearing tonight. Um and as the chair said, Chris Collie is here. He's a licensed professional planner uh from topology. Um and he prepared the report um that was included in your packet uh as well
as online and uh on file at the municipal building. Um, I believe uh Chris might tell us a little bit about his qualifications and then jump right into things. >> Sure. Attitude. >> Great. >> And it would be appropriate to to have
him sworn. Madam Chair, I can do that unless you would rather do it. >> I would not rather do it. Please go right ahead. Thank you. >> Mr. Collie, do you affirm that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth with respect to the matter that you're about to testify on this evening?
>> I do. Please state your qualifications. >> Great. Um, thanks for having me. My name is Christopher Collie. Last name C O L L E Y. I'm a principal with the planning firm Topology. Uh, my business address is 60 Union Street, Newark, New Jersey
07105. Um, I have been uh practicing planning um in New Jersey for as a licensed planner for about 5 years now. Um, I am a licensed professional planner in the state. Uh I'm a member of the American
Institute of Certified Planners. I have a degree in urban planning from Harvard Graduate School of Design. I've testified before a number of different boards in the state, some of which include Bhin, Westfield, uh in your neighborhood, Cranberry, um Hoboken,
Bernardsville, uh Perth Amboy, amongst others. I have never testified here and I'm happy to be here. >> Well, we're happy to have you. We accept your qualifications. Thanks. And before you start, I'll just note for the public that there are um 31 uh
attendees in addition to those of us who are panelists appearing on your screen. Oh, go ahead, Mr. Collie. >> Okay, terrific. I am going to share my screen. Um I have a presentation for you this evening. Can everyone just confirm you can see? Yeah. Okay. All right. Um so
this is a uh this is an overview of my report. I'm not going to touch on every word that was in the report. But I think it provides a pretty good summary um of what we looked at and and what we found. Um it's probably going to take me between 20 and 25 minutes to go through these slides. Um I will try and
um be efficient, but you know, it's important for the sake of the project to uh to uh to give a good overview. So, just to sort of get us oriented in terms of what it is that we're here to talk about this evening, um, as was
indicated, um, I'm, uh, discussing, uh, a preliminary investigation, an area needed redevelopment study that was conducted for two properties, two lots, uh, block 3101, lot 105 and block 7301, lot one. Uh, these properties are better
known locally as the Westminster Choir College site. Uh they're a little under 23 acres and they're generally bound by Hamilton Avenue in the south, Walnut Lane in the west, Franklin Avenue in the north, and Lynden Lane in the east. Um to sort of set the stage for what it is
that we're actually covering this evening. Um, it's a very simple uh question uh a nuanced question but a but a but a simple one uh for the board to consider which is does the study area meet any of the criteria to warrant recommendation for designation as an
area in need of redevelopment under the local redevelopment and housing law. And if you've read my report, which I assume you will, you will know that um my position is that that yes, it does. Um and I'm here to really walk you through that position. the things that we're not doing tonight. And just to be clear for the board and members of the public, no
action tonight will change the zoning of the property. We'll authorize demolition of buildings. We'll determine the future uses of this. We're simply here for the board to hear and ultimately make a recommendation regarding whether or not the property u meets the criteria.
Uh this is not a process that is occurring in a vacuum. So, we are here tonight because of an action that was taken by the municipal council. Um, they passed a resolution uh back in November of 2025 directing the board to take this
study uh to undertake this study. Um, after that, we've done uh quite a bit of due diligence on the property. We've analyzed the property from from whatever angles we we can think of, and ultimately, we prepared a report which was submitted at the end of March, March
27th. Um, we're here tonight as I said to review that and you know just importantly I think from a sort of table setting perspective you know you the planning board you don't you don't actually make the designation you make a recommendation and ultimately this goes back to council and the council will
exec reject or or modify your your recommendation. So um moving beyond sort of the introductory stuff into like what's actually in the report and what did we do. Um, so this is and everything you're going to see tonight is an excerpt from our report. Um, uh, this is
a summary of all of the documents that we looked at. Uh, we looked at everything we could get our hands on, municipal records, aerial photography, uh, we visited the site a number of times. We walked through all the buildings. Um, we, uh, we looked at police records, fire records, uh, things
of that nature. And if you if you see the report uh you know about 50 pages of it roughly is actually the written report and then about 100 pages of it is appendices. So we relied and this is common in these types of documents on whatever documents had been provided that we could find by other uh
professionals that sort of gave more of a specific and detailed look into certain things that we were investigating. So we looked at uh there's a boiler report that we referenced in there. Um there's some reports prepared by EWMA, by Penoni um and by others that uh I think provide a
lot of the uh color in the document. So um moving to an actual discussion of the property a little bit. Uh as I told you, uh we're considering uh this site which you probably know as the Westminster
Choir College property. Um, and we do our best in the report to provide a sort of highlevel history of the property, at least as we think is relevant to to our findings. Um, and there's some some great pictures we were able to to to uh to use sourced from the Westminster
Choir College Archives um photograph and and and a sort of paraphrasing of the the history um of the property which which as as folks probably know is really tied with the the history and the evolution of of the choir college which moved there in the 30s and you know sort
of evolved its footprint um over time and and really accomplished um incredible things um while they were there. As you know, if you've been to the property recently or if you've you've read about it, uh the choir
college um left left the site um back in uh in 2020. And if you visit now, um you'll see that the site is um much quieter and you know there's the buildings are still there, but they're
largely vacant and and the property um doesn't really have that uh that sort of the life that I expected it once had when the choir college was there. So our report really is centered around the buildings
that are on the campus. So, I do want to just make sure that folks have a good understanding of of what those buildings are uh before I get to the statutory analysis. Uh so, there's 16 buildings um on the campus and we're going to kind of talk about them in a few groups. There's
a collection of five buildings which center around a uh the sort of traditional college quad. And can someone just confirm for me that you can see my cursor? >> Yep. Yeah. >> Yes. Great. Okay. Thanks. Um, so a collection of buildings which center
around uh the the the traditional uh original university quad. You'll hear me refer to those as Williamson Hall, Erdman Hall, Taylor Hall. Uh, and these buildings were built in the 30s. As I mentioned, also fronting that quad is is a building you'll hear me refer to as
the Shidy Student Center as well as uh the Bristol Hall, the Bristol Chapel. Sort of immediately to the east of those buildings on the quad, there's um almost a secondary quad which was constructed
which includes the Cullen Center which is a newer building which was built uh about 10 years ago now as well as the playhouse um which is exactly what it sounds like a playhouse. Um, moving north from there,
uh, there's sort of a a second generation or a third generation, depending on how you want to count it, of buildings that were constructed as the college expanded. And those include three connected dormitories, Dayton Hall, Ithaca Hall, and Princeton Hall, as well as Sebrook Hall, which is a
standalone building. As the one interesting historical aside, I will allow myself. uh these buildings named after the three locations of the choir college over time, Dayton and then Ithaca and then Princeton. And then um sort of along the eastern
edge of the property backing up against Lynen Lane, there are a series of smaller structures including what was once the president's house, a cottage, a relocatable classroom, and a maintenance shed. And I only take the time to go through these buildings because we're going to talk a lot about
the buildings as we go through it. So I just would like folks to have an orientation uh with that briefly on the zoning uh the sites actually split between three zones and um you know interestingly here you can see the distinction between the two lots. So one
lot here and one lot here and that um you know corresponds to the old um the old municipal boundary. So that's that's our table setting. That's why we're here and that's the property we're talking about. Um I'm going to transition into the actual
criteria and this is really the meat of the report. So um how do we evaluate whether or not a property meets the uh criteria to be an area needed development? There's a lot of case law on this uh and sort of one of the seminal cases comes out of Perth
Amboy and uh this is just a quote from the report. The court sort of speaks to the type of work and the type of analysis that is supposed to go into one of these reports. You're supposed to inspect the buildings. uh you're supposed to look at whatever information you can find and ultimately you're supposed to provide substantial evidence
to support whatever finding you take and um that is the reason why you're hearing my testimony. That's the reason why we wrote a 50-page report. It we need to provide more than simply a a statement stating that the property meets the criteria. You need to support that with
evidence, which I think we did. Um so I will uh I'm not going to walk you through all of the many criteria. I'm just going to walk you through the three that are important uh for this project. The three that we cited for this project. And so I'm going to read them
in whole. So the first one is criteria A. It says 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 in the report you'll see how when we cite criteria A, we talk about how buildings are, you know, meet these sort of evidentiary words in the beginning, substandard, obsolescent, and then also specifically how those conditions are conducive to
unh wholesome living or working conditions. The second um critical uh criteria for the purpose of our analysis is criteria D uh which says 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, dilitterious land use or obsolete layout or any combination of these or other factors are detrimental to the safety, health, morals of the community. So a lot there but sort of generally similar
structure. There's a clause up front about conditions and then uh there's a clause at the end about impacts and you'll also see in the report how we talk about relationship between conditions and impacts. So the way that we chose to structure
this report as well as this presentation is um to sort of talk about what I found to be the three most prevalent conditions that I thought related to the criteria generally um or or specifically but not
specific to a particular criteria and then tie them to the criteria. So, there's three big ones that we cover in our report, and they have to do with water damage, uh, accessibility, and, uh, heating and cooling systems. Okay. So, we'll start with water damage.
Um, and I'll I'll tie these to A and D in a in a couple minutes, but when you walk this property and you walk the buildings, um, you see water damage in in a wide range of different, um, forms
a and probably the most um extreme version of that uh, is is in Taylor Hall. Now, Taylor Hall is one of these buildings that I spoke about earlier that fronts on the quad. And Taylor Hall, um there was a steam pipe that was
connected to Taylor Hall, which which burst uh a number of years back. And Taylor Hall has has really suffered as a result of that. Um you see the red X on it. You cannot in enter that building right now. The photographs that I have here, I I I had to take from another document. we have sort of extensive
water damage and extensive steam damage in that building which is believed to uh to connect to to extensive um mold growth as well. So sort of that's your um that's your uh you know most significant example of water damage on
the campus. But it's not the only place you see it as you walk around. And as I said, we walk these buildings a bunch of times and you see water and steam and moisture sort of taking its toll on the buildings uh in a lot of different places. uh whether it's steam damage in
Bristol Chapel, leaks on the ceiling in Princeton or Ithaca associated with burst pipes or leaking pipes, sort of some moldlike substances in those buildings, uh additional steam damage, uh extensive water damage in the basement of Sebrook Hall that's
associated with flooding, uh leaking in the roofs of the student center, uh buckets sort of placed to sort of catch water where you can um throughout backwards. uh the burst pipe in Seabbrook again um the library with plaster on the ground
from where where there was water damage in the ceiling. So sort of an overwhelming um condition across the buildings of of uh of water. And what we did is you know we looked at all right well of the if we were to take all the whole campus and
look at how much square footage is in the entire campus and then what percentage of the buildings by square footage have some sort of water damage. Is it, you know, a few of them? Is it most of them? It feels like a lot. But when we did that, we we find that 84% of the overall building in the square
footage is a building that has water damage in some capacity. And you see it sort of ranges in its case. So that's our one big condition that we start with. Um, a second significant condition which we cite and described in the report as being relevant to criteria A
and D has to do with accessibility. So, you know, you're sort of taken as you walk around these buildings um by uh um the lack of sort of standard accessible features that that you find in in in
buildings commonly today. And and most vividly for me was sort of the lack of the lack of elevators, lack of vertical circulation. So, on this entire campus, you only find two buildings that have elevators. Uh and it's not because they're singlestory buildings. uh you know multi-story building multi-story
building multi-story building multi-story you only find these two elevators though and you know similar to how Taylor was the sort of most extreme version of the water damage I find that the elevators are reflective and indicative of like the overall situation with accessibility on the campus um so
you know where we do have uh vertical circulation in Bristol Chapel we have this chairlift which sort of provides limited capacity um in other buildings we have uh entrances and exits that open directly into the grass but don't have railings
or or other sorts of traditional accessibility features. Um where we do have an elevator in the student center, it's behind a quite overweight door that really limits the access um for someone who has a mobility impairment. Um and again sort of where we have these
emergency exits, they're they're connected to these sloped areas which which are difficult uh if not impossible for somebody uh in a wheelchair to to get to get through or get out. So that's a sort of snapshot of that. But when you look in our report, we we've identified a bunch of different characteristics.
And when we look at the buildings from an overall perspective under that one, about 87% of them lack accessibility features as we've defined it uh in this report. The third common characteristic which
we're going to tie to A and D um is about heating and cooling systems. And uh the the sort of extreme example, the most significant example that we cite in the report here talks about the boiler system, the shared boiler system that uh services
um Williamson Hall, Taylor Hall, Erdman Hall, and the chapel doesn't service Taylor Hall anymore. Sorry, because of the leak I told you about. Um, and there's a report in the in our report that we cite that sort of speaks to um the overall condition of this boiler and
the challenges um associated with its operation. One of the two boilers is offline. Um the second one has has a number of deficiencies and the boiler condition is kind of like reflected of the overall
temperature control and heating uh and cooling infrastructure of the campus. So, we've got the sort of obsolete and substandard boiler there, but we also, as you walk the campus, have uh sort of rotted window sills that uh limit um temperature control. We have window
wells that are dilapidated. Uh we were up on several of the roofs with the building inspector for the municipality pointed out to us the variety of sort of patches that have been required over time um to keep the roofs uh functional and you know, relate probably to some of
the leaks that we discussed. and a variety of other considerations about insulation and portions of buildings with no heat. Uh overall reliance on window units uh to car cool um large areas a variety of other sort of heating and cooling characteristics that we
discussed in the report. And when we quantify that um it actually comes out to the same percentage 87.1% um of the building square footage in the study area which have these uh we're calling substandard obsolete building elements which affect temperature
control. So those are our like big themes, right, that we talk about in the report. And before I go to A and D and how they relate to those themes, the last note I'll make in this section is that while the property is two lots, uh
we write the report as if it's one entity because it's common ownership, um because the units have been historically affiliated. And uh as I say common ownership, I realize that I neglected
earlier on to state that after Westminster had left, the municipality acquired the property. Uh so the municipality acquired this property back in 2024. And I apologize for for missing that note.
Okay. See how we're doing on time. Okay. So um hopefully everybody's with me, right? We've got these three common characteristics. water damage, accessibility, heating and cooling, and how do they tie into criterias A and D.
So, it's my testimony that the property qualifies under criteria A as the generality of the buildings are substandard and obsolescent in a matter that is conducive to unh wholesome living or working conditions. So, what's the relationship between water damage
and unh wholesome working conditions? Well, um there's an obvious link between water damage and the potential for mold growth. Um there's a really interesting discussion in one of the appendices about the relationship between moisture
in Taylor Hall and the integrity of the building materials and how the increase in moisture has contributed to um the deterioration of those building materials um in a way that's uh uh creates health risks and would be conducive to unwome working conditions.
And then of course there's just the obvious but not uh minimal uh issue of slipping and falling like right if you're in a working condition or living condition like you're relying on a dry and safe environment to to move around. Um and I think it's relevant just to to add
on here. I'm just going to read this quote out. These are conditions where water has been observed since the municipality has acquired the property. not simply uh just like a few old stains, right, that we've noticed in the ceiling tiles, but these are sort of
pervasive uh conditions of water damage uh that we've observed throughout the campus as my prior photos indicated. Um accessibility. So, what's the relationship between accessibility and um unh wholesome working conditions? as
well. It's my testimony that the lack of accessible accommodations in these buildings is is substandard and obsolescence. And like in a practical terms, like just thinking about um a wheelchair user or an individual with some sort of mobility impairment, there's really limited if no ability to
access um almost all of these study buildings. So from the perspective of you know a wholesome working condition and a wholesome working environment uh these buildings can't be used by or um
enjoyed by or uh employ in their current condition people who have um those uh those characteristics. We go into that more in the report. Um, and you know, one thing that's interesting, I think, that we thought about was how
a lack of accessibility impacts people who don't have mobility limitations. Um, I'm a new parent. Uh, I pushed a stroller around this campus. And these buildings, uh, that lack, you know, sort of these accessible features, they're also not accessible for someone pushing
a stroller. um or someone who's uh um maybe doesn't you know technically have a mobility uh limitation but um but would benefit from from greater access to the buildings and then finally uh heating and cooling.
So what's the relationship between the sort of heating and cooling infrastructure that I discussed and unh wholesome working conditions? uh there's a relationship particularly
um between temperature and water and um I think the heating and the cooling infrastructure um is an exacerbating factor for the water damage that we find in the campus. Um you know lack of temperature control plus water uh sort of creates this this
feedback loop. Um this picture on the right I'll just narrate for a second actually uh this this was a small fire which was created in one of the maintenance buildings uh because of the steam uh that was here. You can sort of see some of this uh and that's just sort
of reflective of the the conditions associated with the heating and cooling um infrastructure. uh you know one thing that that we considered here is like what it means to have buildings where temperatures can't be controlled
adequately and there's a variety of standards whether UCCC or OSHA um about that and and and these build and those standards exist for a reason because that's sort of the identified meaning of a wholesome working condition as it relates to temperature and these buildings would struggle to to meet
those. Let me check my time. Okay, so those are our sort of big picture criteria A, right? Um there are also a variety of things which we put in the report which didn't fit within those buckets. Um uh the Hamilton house which is the dean's residence failed its lead
inspection. Um IA Hall has issues with the sewer pipe which currently has required all the toilets and sinks to be shut off. Um Sebrook Hall has had issues with the alarm systems. So there's just a variety of substandard and obsolescent conditions in my mind that make this
property qualify under criteria A. Um and these conditions are conducive to unh wholesome living or working uh conditions. So criteria D um as I said it's similar but
different um and it's our finding here that the area contains buildings and improvements which by reasons of dilapidation and obsolescence are detrimental to the safety, health, morals and welfare of the community. Uh so you know walking back through our three characteristics again water damage
like what's the relationship between water damage and um health right well it's it's it's it's a link through mold u most directly so you wouldn't be surprised to hear that the EPA speaks to um the issues associated with mold in indoor buildings
um and I guess I should note here since you've seen a bunch of quotes any of these quotes are just quotes from from the report or reports cited in the report u So, you know, water damage, a dap condition, a dilapidation detrimental to health and safety. Um, accessibility really about obsolescence
and an obsolete layout and how that's exclusionary um to to mobility impaired individuals. Um, we talked through that. I was actually interested in some of the some of the stats like one in eight adults in the United States has a
mobility impairment. Um, and uh we have a variety of other sort of similar findings like that. And then heating and cooling. Um obsolete and dilapidated systems provide inadequate and unreliable temperature control. And um
you know there's a relationship between temperature control and lack of temperature control and and health outcomes. And the impact of working or or living or hanging out in areas that have um temperature extremes is also something we discuss in the report.
Couple more slides. So one of the differences between criteria A and D is criteria D also speaks about improvements. Um so you know I don't think that if these were the only things we saw this would necessarily mean qualification under
criteria D. But if you walk the site you do see dilapidated improvements. Um you do see cracked sidewalks, dislodge pavement, things of that nature. And like what's the relationship between health and safety with these? I mean they create opportunities for people to fall. they make it harder to uh to to to roll a wheelchair or push stroller um or
whatever, but you certainly find dilapidated improvements throughout the area that that would have impacts on on health and safety. And then um sort of my closing thought about the criteria, um obsolescence is like a hard word for
us in the planning field. And uh there was this very um important case a few years back and the court helpfully provided some of the definitions of obsolescence and I think they're really sort of uh help frame like what the word might mean for this
campus. I think the first one's particularly useful the condition or process of falling into disuse. And I think when you think about that in the sort of context of this property and uh the context of some of the photos that we've we've seen or maybe things that you've seen uh being out there, I think
it really um reflects um the conditions of the study area. So closing on D, the property qualifies under criteria D, buildings and improvements which by reasons of the lapidation obsolescence are detrimental to safety, health, morals and welfare. Um a note on
criteria H. This is the smart growth criteria. I do find that it meets the smart growth criteria just based on the context. Um this this is never used as a standalone criteria but I think based on your master plan and based on uh sort of mixeduse nature of of of of the broader
area um that it would certainly uh be consistent with smart growth principles to designate this property. So, 27 minutes. Um, my recommendation, as you can tell, is that these properties qualify under uh
criteria AD and HH um as a non-condemnation area needed redevelopment. Uh the planning board's job tonight is to review the report and make a recommendation um about if you feel that it also meets the criteria. The next step from that would be the council
adopting a resolution um accepting, rejecting or modifying the planning board's recommendation and then you know just just for folks to understand like and then whatever may happen on this property like that would then be subject to u future hearings right on on
whatever it may be on on plans or site plans or other approvals um as they're applicable. So that's it for my presentation. Thank you for listening to me. I'm going to stop my share. And >> Madam Chair, could I suggest before we go further that the the preliminary uh
investigation be marked as an exhibit? Give it an exhibit number for the record. >> Yes. >> What is your customary marking system? Is it >> It could
>> very Yeah. Okay, that's all I wanted to say. >> Thank you, uh, Mr. Cohen. And then Mr. Taylor's got his hands up to. So, I just had a a brief comment between
about the distinction between criteria A and D >> that I'm not saying you didn't say this, but I want to focus in a little bit more sharply on it, which is criteria A and D which relate to living and working
conditions could apply to private buildings which were not generally open to the public. Whereas criteria D talks about the impact on the health and welfare of the general public. And because this is a campus which was open
to the public for performances and such in the past and since the municipality is a public entity and one can imagine regardless of what the uses are that would be contemplated in the future that the campus would be open to the public.
that that for me is a really clear way of thinking about why the same kinds of deficiencies relate both to section A and and criteria A and criteria D. >> Okay.
>> Right. Thank you for that. Um, Jack, >> yeah, I'm crystal clear, thanks to you, Chris, about the nature of the process and I appreciate we're at the early stages of the process. This isn't an
issue with me. What I'm missing or not quite comfortable about is the framework or the legal context of what is effectively starting tonight. Couple of questions. Number one, eminent domain is the legal basis, I
understand, for acquiring the property in the community. What does that mean as a practical matter? Does it have any legal effect whatsoever in terms of what we're doing? Does it suggest that there are perhaps
potential legal actions or controversies out there? What is the tone that eminent domain sets? That's that's that's really number one. Then number two, with respect to your broad experience in the
state, what is the general legal effect of the recommendation that we made tonight? Does it become in legal act? What are the kinds of legal actions that can
arise? Do do these actions is the evidentiary basis the the language that we use in in responding to the council? I'm not clear about the legal implications of what we're doing
although I understand the legal role visa VR recommendation. Um, thanks for those questions, Jack. And I I will let Joe um jump in, but I do want to step back to the the very beginning of the
conversation where I clarified that what we're being asked to do um is decide whether this meets the requirements for and should be designated as a non-condemnation
redevelopment area such that any redevelopment area designation determination shall not authorize the municipality to exercise the power of eminent domain. So that's that's a starting point and Joe I'll
I'll let you take it from there. >> Yeah, I'll certainly uh call upon Chris as well. He can fill in what I leave out. But with respect to eminent domain, it's my understanding I've I've understood that the property has already been acquired by the municipality
through that process of eminent domain. So that process is one that that uh can be used uh in the event that the uh public body in this case the municipality has an intention to use it for public purpose. Valid public
purposes are very broad. That's not what's in front of us tonight. As Chris mentioned uh earlier, tonight is a very narrow question of whether the area meets the criteria
under the statute. The statute um is one that has a a statutory division. The first step is the one uh that we're on tonight to determine whether it meets that criteria. And then the the future
steps uh and this gets to your question of the uh legal effect of the recommendation. If the recommendation is accepted by the governing body and it is only a recommendation from the planning board
uh but the final decision is made by the governing body to accept the entire recommendation or parts of it. Uh and if they do uh then the property becomes an area in need of redevelopment and then
the next step a separate entirely different step uh is to prepare a redevelopment plan for the uh future use of the site and that redevelopment plan and and of course uh
I've been with you through that process with the theological seminary. you're very familiar with the redevelopment plan that that uh lays out the vision and uh also uh in effect the zoning for the for the site. So that's a a separate
step. Uh I'll just say one more thing about eminent domain. This is a a non-condemnation uh area designation. Uh the statute permits the municipality to go in either direction. And it wouldn't have made any sense uh to have proceeded as a
condemnation area in need of redevelopment because uh the property is already owned by the municipality. Uh in the normal case uh if a property is determined to be a non-condemnation
uh uh area in need of redevelopment uh the two main consequences of that are number one that a pilots payments in l of taxes are not possible in that kind of a designation and secondly u the property cannot be acquired by eminent
domain. The only one that matters here is the the first one I mentioned and that is uh payments and move taxes are are not a tool that is usable here. Uh I'll leave it to Chris to fill in anything uh that you may think I should
be added to the to the record here. Um, well, it's just on the on the pilot issue. Not that we're here to talk about a pilot tonight, but correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Mayor. It's a rehab area where pilots are not permitted, but non-condemnation. >> That's right. Yes.
>> So, so a non-demnation redevelopment area, which >> I stand corrected on that. That's correct. Yes. Rehabilitation area. This is a non- condemnation. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So, I no doubt confused things by rereading
>> part of the opening and I I apologize for that, but the point is that it's sort of moot because the property is already owned by the town and um so I apologize if my going back to that added to anyone's confusion. >> That's well well taken, Louise, and
thank you Chris and Joe. It provides context in a process that we're going to be part of for many months, perhaps years ahead. And so I thought building blocks need to be put in place.
>> Good. Thank you. Um questions, additional questions or um thoughts from board members? Oh, sorry. Um Mr. O'Donnell, >> thank you. Uh, one of the things I'd like to clarify for myself is, um, from
what I understand, the outcome of our recommendation tonight, uh, should we recommend this is that the municipality can unify the zoning across the the area. Um, is that correct?
>> Yes. that if if the designation is made then the the redevelopment plan would be the process of establishing the zoning on that site. >> Right. Okay. Thank you. And um secondly, there are buildings on the site that are
being currently used by uh various groups. Uh are what what condition are those buildings in? Sure. >> It's uh kind of horrifying to see the pictures that we've seen, but uh is the
entire is that it's representative of much of the campus? We've seen uh as as you've seen 80% or so. Uh what's what's what are what are the other the uh the occupied sections? You know, both municipality and some
nonprofit groups, I understand, are using uh sections of the campus. Yeah, I mean there are pockets of this campus like for example the Cull-in Center which is one of the ones I flagged earlier. That's that performance space.
Um that building is terrific. That's a like an immaculate building. Um I don't I'm not an expert in performance space acoustics, but I understand it to be incredibly well designed for that. It's in fantastic condition. Um, so there are certainly pockets of the campus that are
in great shape and that are um being utilized and uh that's why I thought it was important to try to quantify um the campus like not that that's an exact science but you know to try and quantify it as best as we could um because uh there are pockets but overwhelmingly I
feel like the conditions which which you saw in the photographs are reflective of the the conditions throughout. >> Okay. Thank you. Sure, >> Miss Na. Uh thank you. Um and so just to uh follow up on Mr. O'Donnell's com
comment, uh the buildings where the conservatory is operating, some of the performance halls are still in fine condition and usable condition. Um, if the planning board accepts this
recommendation and the area is declared area in need of devel redevelopment, will um will groups still be able to use the buildings that are usable?
>> It's a good question. It's not really, I think, a question that's part of part of the recommendation um or part of like this hearing, >> but I but I think although I guess an answer is not required to that, there's there's no
thought by the governing body at the moment that this designation would change the use by any of the groups now on the campus. I would say that the the designation itself doesn't change anything that's going on uh at the time,
>> right? >> The redevelopment plan would lay out a future for it, but that redevelopment plan would have to be implemented at some point in some way. So, the new designation would not change the youths. >> Yeah. And maybe I should just tack on to that. Buildings that are declared an
area need a redevelopment, that doesn't mean they're buildings that are necessarily like not accessible. uh meaning like you can't go in them. It's not like at the end of that process, you know, a sign is hung from the door and there can be no access because the declaration. So, from that perspective, it wouldn't impact those those
particular uses. >> Okay. >> Um and thank you, mayor, for um clarifying that, Mr. Body. >> Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Um this is a a question for for Chris and and Joe
Marid alike. Um, I was just wondering if you could help us a little bit contextualize some of the uh a little more the the conditions that you observed and uh either refer us to other kinds of past examples that we might be familiar
with in this area that had met this test in the past and had proceeded either through, you know, through public, you know, basically satisfied the public and also satisfied perhaps the courts if that was necessary. I can take the first stab at that. Um
so um it's going to be difficult for me to give you local Princeton examples of buildings with similar conditions. But to to the second point um you know as I as I mentioned during the presentation there's a certain standard um of documentation of evidence
that we're expected to and that I personally expect to include in one of these reports. Um, and that's why like it's so important to have attached to reports like this, appendices that speak to particular conditions, photographs that detail specific conditions, um,
references to um, whether regulations or standards or uh, studies about the impacts of these conditions um, on people in buildings. Um that's for me sort of the the bar to get over is is can you assemble that evidence in a
narrative that um uh that holds together. Um personally I have written studies um that have been accepted that dealt heavily with water damage and the impacts of water damage on buildings um that referenced
accessibility um and the impact of accessibility on buildings. I've never personally seen a boiler like this. Um, but that doesn't that didn't give me pause that like that was somehow outside of the parameters of what would be an acceptable um piece of evidence uh for for this for this report and from
property. >> Mr. Cohen, >> I just wanted to make one additional comment related to this because I don't think any of our other areas in need uh have been challenged in court. Some
of the redevelopment plans have been challenged, but the designations have not been challenged. So, in specific response to Nat's question about satisfying the courts, we we don't have any history uh locally about, you know,
the designations that we've done satisfying the courts. >> Linda Schwimmer, >> thank you. Um yeah, I wanted to thank Chris for his presentation. I think it was very clear and certainly I'm
convinced of of the need um for redevelopment uh or designating this as a redevelopment area. Um I'm wondering I have a really it's a process question. Do we at this point uh make a motion or do we hear from the comments from the
public when we're done discussing or what's the next step to to move move forward? >> Yeah, we after we've um discussed Sorry, Joe, please jump in after I >> go >> fill in any blanks. Um after the board
has uh had its discussion and and Q&A, um I will open the meeting for public comment. Um and we'll hear uh comments um opinions, questions from members of the public. Um and then we when when
that when everyone has had an opportunity to um and right now there are 40 members of the public um in attendance. Uh when everyone who wishes to speak has done so and asked whatever
questions they they have expressed their views then I'll close public comment. We'll have additional discussion and consider a motion. Um Joe Maraziti did I leave anything out? >> No I would just add a little bit of a
nuance here. This is uh this witness is subject now to cross-examination by anyone who wishes to ask him questions. Uh, and I would suggest that when members of the public address uh, the
witness that they first put their questions to him um, in the form of of of that process of cross-examination and then separately make a comment. So if if there could be some discipline, I know
it's hard to do between a question and and and commentary. commentary is subject to the time limitation. Questions uh are not. >> So appropriate questions that are addressed addressing the testimony are
appropriate and that's the cross-examination phase of it. >> Okay. So you're suggesting or asking that members of the public if they have questions start with their question. >> Question. >> Yes. >> And do comments afterward. Okay. Okay.
>> I would suggest that. And they they will be sworn the members of the public. >> No, they're well actually, no, they're not going to be giving testimony. I don't know. Maybe there are people who want to testify. Uh but if they're just simply questioning, then they would not be sworn. If there are people in the
audience who want to put on a case in opposition, maybe there's someone in the audience with an attorney who wants to oppose this. That would be a a different process where we would swear them. But uh with respect to questions uh those
are uh in the nature of cross-examination not any uh need to swear uh people asking those questions and comments are comments it's opinion. >> Okay. So our just just so our practice
has been always to swear in people who are um offering public comment. So I'm not disputing what you're what you're saying. I'm just saying that this is a departure to some degree. And so maybe
if we it is it fair to separate if we're separating questions from comment to I'm a hair perhaps because a comment >> is not a factual statement. It's an opinion and so you don't swear to the truth of it.
>> It's it's an opinion. >> I think the reason why we have sworn people in the past is in case they lapse into testing. >> Well, that's why hair split and maybe that happens. You know that >> I I think there's little harm in swearing people in and uh I won't object
to it. I won't object to it. >> I I think that um I I think I would like to do so bec because we always do and I just I don't want for this to be a a departure from our from our normal process. Although I
recognize >> the points you're making. I'm not disputing those. >> Consistency is important as well. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, any other comments or questions from from board members?
Okay. Then I will invite now members of the public um who wish to uh pose questions uh to Mr. Collie and express opinions. Uh now is the time to virtually raise your hand by clicking the raise hand icon at the bottom of
your screen. Uh we have hands going up as I speak. Um I think we've already brought over the first uh persons uh Josh Zinder and next to come over will be Nancy Hartthog and
then Edward Mccclure. Um welcome Mr. Zinder. >> Hello. Um, I was going to have my question toward the end, but if you really want, I can do it in the beginning. If you want to swear me in, I'll swear me in.
I swear to tell the truth. >> You affirm tell the truth and nothing but the truth. So, help help you God during these proceedings. >> Yes. Um, so I was going to ask a question at the end, but you uh you wanted sooner. So, um, I'm Joshua Zinder. I live at 142 More Street. I'm
an architect here in town, so my house is about a block, maybe a block and a quarter away from the site. Um, my question was, I had hoped to find uh recommendations from typology on which structures were worthy of restoring and
keeping, and I'm curious why it was not done at this stage. Um, I can wait for the answer till I'm done, but I'm going to what I was going to say. I have been in these buildings and I have observed the damage years ago. I can't imagine how their state has deteriorated
deteriorated further. I'm glad to see that Princeton is taking the first step with this redevelopment plan for the site. It's about time. Um I would like to note to everyone here tonight that just because a building is damaged and neglected does not mean it is not worthy to restore and rehabilitate and valued
for its historic architectural presence. Solutions to make buildings accessible are done all the time and achievable if plan suggests. There is value in doing so and creative individuals are engaged. It is possible. Adaptive reuse is a
powerful tool for design and rehabilitation of this site and I hope it is encouraged by the planners despite the neglected state of the buildings. as adaptive reuse. There are many sustainable systems, um, heating, cooling, mechanical systems that can be brought to the site in support of a
restoration of many of these structures. Um, and then I was just going to say failing a lead inspection as was mentioned with the house is not uncommon in residences in Princeton and it is rectified often. Um, I am pleased that the buildings will now be rehabilitated.
I look forward to seeing this redevelopment classification move forward and take the first real step to reactivate and re-engage and restore many of these structures and the entire property in support of the community and bringing new and vital uses to the
property. I hope the board votes positively for this tonight. Thank you very much. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Zender. So, Mr. Holly, um, did did you come to a an opinion about
which structures are worthy of restoring? >> I didn't, and it's not something that I would do in this study. So, um, but I'm totally uh understanding and empathetic with the sentiments like, and I tried to hit this in the beginning, let me say it better now. Just because a building is
in an area that is declared to be in need of redevelopment or even if the characteristics of that building contribute to the designation as being in need of redevelopment does not mean that that building should be turned down necessarily. And there are certainly ways to um rectify the conditions and
the characteristics that led to this area in need of redevelopment. And like I don't want the takeaway to be area in need of redevelopment and demolition are are equated and equivalent in any way. >> Right. >> Thank you.
>> Um I think we're bringing over Miss Hartthog next. >> Madam Chair, could I just add a comment? >> Yes. Yes. >> And Joe, I actually need to be sworn in on this one as well. you affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
>> Yes, I did. Thank you. Uh just for everyone's knowledge, both uh newer board members, members of the public, um one of the last times that the uh board uh did one of these uh uh area need studies um was with the shopping center.
Uh and that's kind of a a illustrative example um because it was the shopping center parcel and three parcels adjacent to it. Um but then only a redevelopment plan went on one portion of it. So obviously the majority of the site has not changed since uh that was uh
declared an area need of redevelopment in I think 2021. So just to kind of further Chris's point um with a local example. >> Good. Thank you. Um, welcome Miss Hartthog. If you could activate your camera and unmute
yourself, we would love to hear from you. >> Hi. >> Hi. Um, I guess I should be sworn in. Is that >> be sworn in? Yes. Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give it will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth? >> Yes. Um I guess I first have a question for uh Chris Collie and that is did you visit um while the nonprofit arts groups
were functioning like during lessons during performances or recital? Um I guess I I'll stop with that question for now. I have a comment. Um, I've been in the buildings a number
of times. Um, I don't know that I've been there when every group was operating, but I've certainly been in the buildings when um, >> when some of them were. Yeah. >> Um, the reason I asked that, and this is
maybe to follow up on Mr. O'Donnell and and um Miss I'm sorry someone else spoke in a similar vein that um it's just I was concerned about the the
term um oh no now I've forgotten it uh something like desolation or or in the report as I understood it that a property can be deemed um ab not abandoned you didn't use that was not
the word but just in light of the fact that there are continuing groups functioning there and for whom I'm not sure there are other possible sites to be used and I realize this is would be part of a plan I'm not trying to argue
against the designation tonight um but just that I think historically of course there was a choir college and that at least part of this property should be used for arts and nonprofit arts in a
community um setting both for performance and for practice and for teaching. Th those are all opinions. Um I personally helped create a not here in Princeton but in other places worked with in
children's theater and um had yeah it's finding space for those kinds of things is always very very difficult and getting support and yes it would be wonder I mean and of course you want to meet ADA requirements have healthy
places for people to be but it it would be helpful at some point to hear which buildings could be without h tremendous cost um retoolled and refashioned
for use. >> Um >> um I guess that's >> Yeah, thank you for that. I mean I I happen to know and I I know that other board members do too. Um that the one hall is it Cullen? Is that what it was? >> I'm sorry.
um is in terrific shape. Uh it's relatively new. It's used a lot. Um you know, the Westminster Community Orchestra is there as our other groups and there's teaching and learning and wonderful programming going on. And as
Mayor Freda indicated, there's no no >> uh appetite or uh intent as as I understand it to evict or otherwise displace anyone. Uh but this sets the stage for a
if we do come to the conclusion that this meets the the criteria um for area in need of redevelopment designation um sets the stage for a planning process that where we figure out well which
buildings would we as a community you know led by council's efforts um determine um what uses what mix of uses what community benefits, what buildings are >> um candidates for adaptive reuse, and
which ones >> just aren't. Um and but that's that's a next that's a later step along this. >> Okay. I I just it was the term I and I I'm sorry, I
>> dilapidated maybe. That's the word. Not quite, but light was in the report and that's often a term that gets people excited. >> Yes. Okay. Thank you. Also, I've visited my I've seen many performances there for my grandchildren. Thank you for letting
me testify. >> Thank you. Um, uh, Mr. Mccclure, you're up next. If you could I see you're activating your camera and unmuting yourself. Thank you. Mr. Marzie will swear you in. Yes. Uh,
Mr. McCclure, do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on this matter? >> Yes, I do. I don't intend to give a comment or testimony. I just have a question. >> Okay. >> For anyone knowledgeable enough to
answer it. Um, since the municipality already owns the property, presumably it could proceed to do whatever seems necessary. uh what are the advantages of making this determination that the planning board is consi considering
tonight and if there are any disadvantages. That's my question >> and that is an important question to answer. So um uh I'll leave it to Mr. Kie and Mr. Mayor Zid to set to answer
that. >> I'll yield to you. >> Sure. I mean the the real outcome of an area need a redevelopment designation is is um most commonly the preparation of a redevelopment plan which allows you to set a vision and set a framework uh for for a site and that's that's really the
primary advantage of uh of proceeding with the designation. The secondary component that's opened up by the redevelopment designation are the financial components that are uh part of redevelopment. Um both of those things,
the redevelopment plan and the uh any of the other financial components are all things that ultimately come from council uh and come back to council. Um so in a way the board is here to hear this question about does the property qualify? Um and then the outcomes of
that ultimately are sort of back in the court of the of the municipal council. I I would certainly agree with all that and say that the comments that we've received so far are illustrative of the of the of comments to be made for the
next step which is what do we do with it once this this process is is concluded. The plan is where the comments about adaptive reuse and selecting buildings and making changes and all of that that's that becomes a robust
conversation and uh the municipality has the opportunity to deal with zoning issues and and that sort of thing in that process. >> Mr. Mayor Ziti, can you speak a little bit to the flexibility that a town has
with the redevelopment area? designation flexibility as to uses as to uh negotiating with different um people who occupy the property or that kind of thing.
>> Sure. Uh the contrast is between municipal land use law uh where there's zoning for a particular area uh and uh you know this site is a little different because the municipality owns it but leave that out of the equation for the
sec for a second. when you have municipal land use law governing the zoning of an area uh and a property owner comes in with an a complying uh application, there's very little that
can be u adjusted in that uh in in that process. Uh there's an entitlement to go forward with that as of right zoning with redevelopment. It's a whole different kind of a conversation. municipality. First of all, if this area, this is a very particular
statutory process that enables the municipality once it's declared an area need of redevelopment to uh think big uh come up with a a new vision and new uh zoning requirements. And then as the
implementation goes forward of those particular uses on that site, there's a negotiation process that can uh be engaged in with private parties. if that's the desire. That's not something that can be done under this energy.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Mccclure. Uh, welcome, Mr. Madison. Um, uh, Mr. Marazita will swear you in and then you can ask your questions or state your opinions. Both.
>> Good evening. Do you do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. >> Um, well, first of all, by qualification, uh, most of my career has
been involved working either for developers, corporations, or, uh, investors in a construction and real estate capacity. Uh, I also served on the planning board for 13 years, three as a chairperson here in Princeton. I've
lived here in Princeton for 47 years. Uh I supported definitely the purchase of this property uh believing that it could be a great asset to Princeton. Um what surprises me is that uh most developers,
investors, and even homeowners before they purchase a property do a thorough analysis or investigation through a home inspector or otherwise um of a potent of a property before they buy it. It gives them an opportunity to either walk away
or use it as a negotiating tool to lower the price. My understanding, and perhaps Mayor Freda could correct me if I'm wrong, is that that was not done for the $42 million purchase of this building. And now it's being done only to discover
that even though there were classword classrooms in operation five years ago, it has deteriorated s substantially. Um, I do agree with Josh Cinder that we should try to reuse those buildings as much as possible. Um, but I am and I'm
sure other taxpayers are concerned about all these costs now that have been identified um, by Mr. Collie. So, um, I guess my question would be well, first of all, let me mention one other thing.
The dorms are obviously in bad condition. There are developers who do affordable housing developers that should be considered for the redevelopment of the rear of the site with affordable housing, not 8020
affordable housing, which is taking over the uh Princeton, but rather 100% affordable housing. and developers can be enticed to do that by doing a land lease by the owner of the property back
to the developer for 30 or 40 years. But anyhow, my question I guess uh getting back to the mayor is why wasn't any kind of a pre-purchase analysis uh similar to what Mr. colleague has done performed uh
before incurring $42 million of debt to the taxpayers. >> If I may simply clarify, the the purpose of the questioning is for the witness, Mr. Collie on on his testimony. Okay, >> that's the appropriate uh function of
this hearing and the the cross-examination is not of the members of the board or members of the governing body, but rather of the witness. And if you have a question for Mr. Collie, that would be an appropriate question. >> Okay. Well, Mr. Collie, I believe, was not involved in the purchase of the
property, so I will retract my question other than to just say that um it's a big surprise that all of a sudden um there are potential costs that could have been anticipated. Thank you. >> Can I can I just say without answering
Peter's question, Peter, happy to talk to you dur later on this week. Okay, I'll call you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you both. >> Thank you. Bye. >> Bye. >> Bye. Um I think next we have um bringing over
Bill Wolf. And then next uh after Mr. Wolf, Joe Butler, and then someone who is identified as DHF. Welcome, Mr. Wolf. Can you activate your camera, please? Uh, I don't know where to do that on your site here.
>> There's a little icon at the lower left of your screen with the >> Oh, I see it now. It was appearing in before. Now I see it. >> Mr. Wolf, I I will I will swear you. Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give uh will it will be the
truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Yep. >> My name is William Wolf. I live at 50 Hawthorne Avenue, which is directly across the street from the Shidy Student Center, and I have lived there for 40
years. Um, and I served on a very similar u committee of the planning board uh working with uh the seminary
uh in uh redeveloping their site. And so I'd like to volunteer if you set up a committee to to serve in that a similar capacity. Um,
I do have reservations about the process that you are considering tonight because it insists on uh
uh treating the whole property as one entity, one broad brush, one designation. Uh, and then Scattershot finds a lot of examples in different buildings to justify that one single designation.
Um, I I think what you're doing is making more complexity than necessary because you own the property, you have the capacity to reszone the property, you have the capacity to plan the
property. The advantages that Mr. Marzadi uh stated only applied to other uh owners than municipalities. You're not in danger of having some other
developer walking in and pulling the rug out from under you. So my question is why are you doing this? It uh in the context of you're just making it easier for people to pick your decisions apart.
I can respond to the question specifically about the the report. >> Actually, I I would uh like the uh municipal planner to answer it. >> Sure. >> If he's still there. >> Well, you know, as I said before, just to keep the structure correct here, the
cross-examination is of the testimony given by the witness. So to be uh somewhat technical about it, which lawyers are, um the the appropriate cross-examination uh is of what was included in the
testimony of Mr. Collie. Um that's the appropriate purpose of this proceeding this evening. Uh if you want to make a comment, I understood you have just made a comment and that is an appropriate thing to do as well. uh then the
question about why is really a question for the governing body uh which asked that this step be taken. This was not a decision of the planning board. There was a resolution adopted by the governing body which is the statutory
way to begin this process asking that the planning board conduct this investigation and this hearing and then report back with a recommendation. So, I'm trying to keep some structure to the process this evening to make sure that we stay on track. I hope you understand
that. >> Thank you, sir. But I realize that Mr. Collie and yourself have already answered this question from your perspective and therefore I would like to address it to Mayor Mark Freda, who I guess is the person who serves on both
the council and the planning board. >> Well, Mr. Mayor Freda and Councilman Cohen both serve on the planning board. Okay. And um I think my suggestion would be to take this up take this question to them offline because as Mr. Maraziti
noted or or in a or in a council meeting. Um uh what we're here to do tonight is determine whether the um the evidence
and the arguments or um uh that Mr. Colin uh sorry, Collie um described earlier and that are laid out in detail in the in the uh in his report are persuasive um as to the uh
need or the um uh benefits of declaring this an area in need of redevelopment. And so the question of well why are we going this route is a question for council and um I I
personally think it's a good way to go. I'm not I'm not at all trying to punt to them out of some sense of uncertainty or ambivalence. Uh personally I just don't want to go down that particular rabbit hole and spend the whole night talking about something that is a council matter
and not a board a planning board matter. Mr. I I just want to suggest that I think it is appropriate for Mr. Collie to answer a portion of Bill's question that had to do with why do the whole campus together
as opposed to separating it out into pieces. Chris did touch on it, but he could elaborate on it a little bit and I think that's a worthy question that should be answered. >> Thanks. >> Sure. Sure. Um,
so the sort of study area boundaries are set by the block and lots. I guess that's where we start, right? So we evaluate all of the conditions that we find within those blocks and lots. We chose to evaluate the two lots together and this is relatively common practice because they're commonly owned and they're affiliated with one another and
they've historically operated as a single entity. um regarding the sort of like cherry-picking of conditions across the entirety of the campus. Uh the purpose of sort of describing building by building and providing photographs
across the range of buildings was to hopefully convey that the characteristics that we found and the the conditions that we described really weren't limited to like very specific, you know, nooks and crannies at this campus. They're conditions that we found
building after building as we walked in and you know door after door as we open. So I I do feel like the characteristics that we described were present across the the majority of the campus, the generality of the campus. >> Thank you for that, M. Schwimmer.
Um, yeah, just following up on on Councilman Cohen's comment and the the question as it was posed, I do think it would be helpful to the board as we as we vote or consider this and vote to um
just have some guidance from either the planner or um Joe on the related benefits. So, you know, to the consideration, I mean, from what from what's been discussed and presented, I think one of them clearly is thinking
about it as the full um all but all all of the lots because they've been historically used together even though they're separate lots. So, there could be um organized planning process. That seems to be a clear benefit. But if there's any others that relate to our
decisionmaking of the benefits and and if there's something that we should be aware of that would be a negative, I think that would certainly be helpful for us in terms of our vote before it goes to council. So, not getting into the specifics of future use or anything
like that. Just really the the pros and cons of the process that's before us today. The process question, >> the process question is a very narrow process question actually that you've been presented. You've been given a
particular uh focused and defined question which is does the the area that's described as has been described by the witness meet the statuto criteria to be declared an area in need of redevelopment? That's the limited
question before the planning board. That's your focus on answering that question based on as uh Chris has said substantial evidence in the record. So what he has provided is his testimony
as evidence coupled with the report that has attached to it the appendices with with the additional information that he has identified and and we have marked that report in evidence. So now you have
that a collection of of factual information in front of you. Uh and it's on the basis of evaluating that evidence and making a decision whether you believe that there is enough evidence to
conclude that the area is in need of redevelopment for either uh of any of the three. Actually I I agree the section H smart growth should not stand alone but uh it it has been evaluated
under two different criteria A and D and under the statute uh one is enough to declare an area in need of redevelopment. So I am uh being as precise as I can because your role is
very precise. It is it is it is a a role that has blinders on it in a sense. It's not looking toward what's coming next. It's not looking for back as to why you're here. It's looking at this particular narrow question that the
governing body has given you under the statutory scheme that the legislature has set out some ex some number of years ago. So I uh I hope that helps uh understanding what your role is. It's
that's the basis of of of your function here tonight is not to decide whether redevelopment is a good idea or not a good idea. Not to decide whether this should have come a different way. All these are valid questions that there's
another forum for that. But the forum for this question tonight is before the planning board. It's a very narrow question >> and I just want to say thank you for that Joe after we dispatch with our duty. Um maybe we could spend a little
time talking about the the context because um we are at the early early stages of a as I understand it a multi-step process where there will be community input and that where a lot of thought
has been uh and conversation thought has been put into and conversations had about potential um uh reuses and and what kind of process extends out before
Princeton, you know, after tonight. Um so if if there can be if we can spend five minutes on that um uh Mayor Freda and Councilman Cohen after we have u
made a decision about the suitability or the persuasiveness of this report then maybe we'll have fewer questions that are not relevant to what we are here to do
tonight. That makes sense. Is that all right? >> David and Mark, can you after we're done, can you talk a little bit about what h what happens next? >> Sure. >> Okay.
Um next up we have um Joe Butler and then we'll bring over DHF and after that April Redinger. Welcome Miss Butler. Hi, >> Mr. Marzidi.
>> Yes. Good evening. Oh, I see you now. Uh, do you affirm that your testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Yes. Um, there's a lot to knit together here, so I I've got to pull my
notes from different sections. First, I'm trying to understand the description of the property as largely vacant and could you clarify what that means in this context and can you identify which buildings are currently in use and whether those buildings are considered safe and
functional? Um, and I asked because I recently attended a municipal meeting on the site and as others have mentioned, um, there are other nonprofit groups that are also using portions of the campus. So it would be helpful to understand how those functioning buildings are treated in the analysis
and whether they are considered um part of the generality of buildings meeting the criteria. >> Sure. >> You want me to keep going or you want to answer that? I have more >> suggest you go one at a time. It's >> okay. >> Traditional way.
>> Okay. Um so we'll take the question piece by piece. Um I guess let's can you can you give me the first piece of the question again? Well, um the description was largely vacant that the that the properties or the buildings on the
property are largely vacant. >> And yet we know that the municipalities holding meetings there, other people are holding meetings there. >> And then so it was >> how the how the functioning buildings are being treated in the analysis and
whether they're considered part of the generality of buildings meeting the criteria. >> Right? So largely vacant. I think that's really taken from a just a descriptive portion of the report up in the uh yeah
up in the property history section. >> Um so um vacancy is not um part of the stat criteria that's being cited. There is a criteria about vacancy like we're
not claiming vacancy here as as being a sort of defining characteristic. um for the campus. So, but generally like which buildings are definitively vacant, I can tell you. Um oops.
Um Dayton and Ithaca Hall certainly vacant. Uh Sebrook Hall is certainly vacant. Um the Talbot Library has always been vacant when I've been in it. Bristol Chapel has been vacant when I've been in
it. Um, Taylor Hall is certainly vacant. Erdman Hall has vacant been vacant when I've been in it. Um, the um, the Cullen Center uh, has been occupied at times when I've been in it.
The Playhouse, I don't recall. Um, the other sort of ancillary buildings, the cottage, the relo relocatables have been vacant when I've been in them. Um, the president's house has been vacant when I've been in it and Williamson Hall
uh has been occupied on the lower level, the basement level, but has always been vacant when I've been in it uh at any of the upper levels. >> So, how many functioning buildings are there? >> Functioning is a tough word, right? So, and I guess one of the challenging
things about, you know, buildings is like they have many components and they have many characteristics, right? Um, so, and that's why we tried to in our report sort of like pull apart the different conditions that we would find in the building and and talk about how how those buildings related um to the
criteria. So, functioning functioning is a hard one. Like functioning is not a word that I evaluate under the statutory criteria. Um, I guess of the buildings I've just named, five of them have had activity in them
that I've been aware of during the study area. >> So, we presume those are safe for the public to use. So there's two things going on here. One is the working conditions criteria,
right? And the second one is criteria D, which which deals with health, safety, morals, and welfare. There's like there's a spectrum of safety. Um that's why I've sort of in the report detailed the nature of the conditions um that we've that we've found. I don't know. Um
I'm not a uh I don't know what the right word would be. Um, I think it's a reasonable presumption for you to have um that they're safe. Um, >> it's the municipality. >> I'd say the ones that are in use are
safe but mostly not accessible. So that was one of the important criteria that qualifies them as in as in need of rehabilitation or >> that's kind of another question that I have is um how would you
we would all like to see the buildings accessible handicapped accessible but how would you identify the lack of accessibility whether it rises to the level of unh wholesome working condition as that term is used in the statute rather than just functionally.
>> Sure. Um well, we included a table in that section where we looked at specific characteristics of each of the buildings um and evaluated them based on different um types of accessibility uh infrastructure that would traditionally
be accommodated in those buildings. Um, so it was our finding that of those characteristics, overwhelmingly the buildings lacked them. And that's really why I showed the elevator um image to begin with, right? Because it's kind of the most
um visible uh lack uh or visible um deficiency from an accessibility perspective of the buildings. Um I do think it's helpful to remember that we are considering sort of all three of these components together. uh that we cited. Um but if you look at
the table that we prepared uh that describes the different accessibility characteristics, I think you'll have a better understanding of the types of things that we looked for to determine whether or not we found that the buildings um lacked accessibility. I don't doubt that they lack
accessibility and but whether that rises to the level of unh wholesome working condition according to the statute is was kind of my question. >> Sure. >> Um I'm also trying to understand um the timing of the conditions that you
described. So the municipality has had the building for about how long? Over a year. >> Yes. the municipality acquired the building or the property in uh
September 24 >> or pass sorry passed the ordinance to acquire the property in September of 2020. So, a year and a half almost really, but um and can you clarify which conditions were documented prior to the
acquisition and whether a baseline condition was established and how should the public understand conditions that may have persisted or changed under municipal ownership? like we've had a history in town. People can let their properties deteriorate,
including the municipality and then meet the standard to declare them an area in need of redevelopment >> and we're sort of encouraging bad behavior. So it but it it builds on something I don't know a another one of
the speakers said that is probably not your purview, but I think a lot of people are trying to reconcile two things. On the one hand, the report describes deterioration and obsolescence. And on the other hand, the town acquired these through eminent
domain and compensated the owner between 42 and 50 mil I mean 42 and $50 million that of for debt. And so like trying to square those two assessments,
the um the valuation that was paid and what we're now understanding about the properties. >> Chris, would it be fair to say that the deterioration of the buildings has not changed significantly from the date before we purchased it to today?
It's hard for me to say because all I know like I I have commissioned my report over the last uh the council resolution was in November. So like over that period, right? So I have you know that's when I've visited the property for this purpose. That's when I've taken
these photographs. That's when I've considered the property in this light. So I can't really like speculate about you know prior to that. Um, >> but Mark, you're trying to say >> Oh, I I I I thought Chris might be able to answer that question and and I would say in in my visits to the site, I would
not say it seems to me that one question you're asking a leading question. Has the town allowed the buildings to deteriorate to the point to allow what's trying to be happen tonight to happen? And I would say the answer is absolutely positively no. the buildings that were
so deteriorated before we purchased them that they are not significantly different than they were before we bought them. They were they're they're they're way past their prime. >> It's just a fact of life, >> right? So, >> and and the value of most property in town is not the buildings or structures
on the property. It is the property itself. So you so the price that was compensated was for the value of the land is what you're >> I am I simply made a comment that >> okay >> you ask any real estate agent they will tell you most of the value is the
property not the structures on the property >> and Miss Butler we're we're we're a field we're out of the lane >> yeah okay >> that we need to that we need to stay in this >> I just want to make a I guess ask a question about the public process
because When Topology was hired a year ago, I remember going to that event, the bicycle event, um to speak with Chris. Um there was going to be a lot of public input,
a lot of discussions. A year has gone by and now the we have this ANR process, but I haven't seen a lot of public input other than a survey, which I didn't see any results from that survey. There might have been posted somewhere, but I
didn't see them. And um I guess I'm just not I I'm not understanding why we're going to the ANR at this stage when theoretically we haven't had the public discussion about what the process not what the process is going to be, but what people want to see
on the site or what might be possible on the site. So it feels like there's a plan that the public's unaware of. That's >> which is not part of the planning board's role. >> Not >> but but that that is but Joe that is a
discussion that should be had with the governing body >> when comes up. >> So my question was really what additional authority does this designation provide and why is it important to make the determination before a specific plan for the site has been established?
>> Well, I'll quickly answer that the statute sets it up that way. There can't be a plan without this process, a redevelopment plan. The process calls for uh a two-step process. And this step
is uh is blind with respect to what's coming next. It's simply a question of whether there's I'm going to repeat myself uh substantial evidence before the planning board that the area meets the statutory criteria.
That's the only question tonight. Then as you as you point out um there will be a further process if this recommendation and it's would only be a recommendation is accepted by the governing body and the area or some significant part of it
is declared to be in need of redevelopment. That then sets the stage for the public comment and the plan about adaptive reuse about selecting buildings for for uh repair uh selecting other buildings for other uses. That
process begins after this step. So it's a it's a sequential uh deliberately legislative sequential process and we're in we're in this step now. There will be other steps
and that's where the public involvement and comment and suggestions about the nature of the plan, the redevelopment plan are appropriate and what I've seen uh in the past in Princeton it's rather robust.
Well, I guess I was using plan in a different way, in a different meaning, not the actual technical plan of what it's going to be, but a year has gone by and there really I haven't heard the public discussion about do we want housing, do we want this, do we want that? It's fine. Um, I guess one final
question and that is in light of Malonga versus West Orange, do you think it's wise? Do you think it jeopardizes the status of the ANR to continue to let people use the property for meetings and
I mean that was part of the argument with that library. The wall had fallen down and people were continuing to use the library and so it really wasn't obsolescent at all. >> I don't know it it's beyond my pay
grade. I just think it's a red flag. >> Yeah. I mean we certainly considered Malanga while we were preparing the report. like I think there's a distinction between these properties and the conditions that were in there that were present at that time. >> Okay. >> Thanks. >> Thank you, Miss Butler.
>> Um next, please bring over >> HF. We have uh six more um members of the public who would like to speak speak. um DHF and then April Redinger and then
um Ohad Mlum. So if um could bring over DHF, please declined to be promoted to a panelist speak. I'll try again. >> Okay. But April's here. >> Yeah, let's go ahead. We'll hear from um
Miss Redinger and then um from DHF if uh that person wants to speak. Welcome. >> I'm April Redinger. I'm at 226 More Street, so just on the other side of the high school from the Westminster property.
>> Good evening. And and do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Um, so I have a question and I think you sort of um alluded to it a little bit, but I guess just for the sake of my own
um understanding of it, um I just wanted to know how does the historic nature of any of the buildings come into play in the analysis? >> Um very minimally. very minimally. Um I consider the buildings against the
statute. The statute doesn't really say um about age uh being a factor. Um that certainly would be a part of any planning process, right? Age of buildings um architecture of buildings, all of that. But from the purpose of, you know, do they meet these criteria?
Age is is um minimally important. there's like no leniency given to like as the analysis if it is like an older building or things like that. >> There's always gray area here
>> and like perhaps if there was one old structure on a piece of property and that structure didn't have an elevator on it. Would I have written a report, you know, citing this property and that sole characteristic warranting designation is immediate redevelopment?
Maybe not, right? Um but uh you know we consider sort of holistically the the various characteristics. Um so and no like age age plays very little role in in that. >> Thank you. >> Uh I would just like to add something if
I could madam chair. Um that just for uh Miss Redinger's knowledge and members of the public that are curious as well. Um, if you remember back to the master plan that was adopted in 2023 in the historic preservation element, we do include the original buildings from the quad as an
area that should be studied in the future for potential uh historic designation. Um, the blunt tool that is zoning does not always uh, you know, comply with uh, keeping older buildings. Um, but the
redevelopment plan uh would u and I'm going to use that f word again uh would allow flexibility um in a way that just uh reszoning would not. >> So that would be something that the public can comment on at a later later date when the plan is to like when we see what the plan will be.
>> Yes, >> certainly. >> Yes. Do you have any idea what the timeline of that would be as far as when this plan? I mean, I know it's not really the nature of this call tonight, but I'm kind of just getting an idea in my mind of like what that process would be. >> Will I do
>> Oh, sorry. >> I do not have that time frame now. Um, as Chris mentioned in his presentation, that would be a next step that would be decided upon by council. Um, we would uh likely bring in a consultant um as we've done in the past to uh write the plan,
engage the public. Um, and then ultimately it goes uh I want to say council, then planning board, then back to council. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you. Um, DHF,
welcome. Thanks for activating your camera. If you could unmute yourself and tell us your name. um for starters and then we'll swear you in and hear your questions. >> Thank you. Um my name is David Flag. Uh
born in Princeton Hospital 73 years ago, so I'm old, but uh can you see my hand? My hand up. I guess >> and you're you're echoing some. So do you have us on your on your phone as well as on your laptop or something? And
>> uh I'm just on the laptop. Okay, we we can >> I go to audio. >> No, don't don't worry about troubleshooting. >> Thanks. >> That that's a slippery slope.
>> Let Mr. Maraziti swear you in, Mr. Flag, and then you can >> check my Can you see my hand? >> Yes. Good evening, Mr. Flag. Do you affirm that you'll tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth uh with respect to your testimony tonight? Yes, I do. Thank you. Um,
>> yeah, Mr. >> Thank you for your presentation. Is it fair to say that these buildings that are in bad shape? >> Uh, a lot of that is because of lack of maintenance as well as lack of use. Is
that a fair statement? >> I think that's factor. Yeah. >> Will this if something goes wrong in the future while this process is moving forward. Uh, will maintenance be done on the pro
on the property or does it depend on what's what goes wrong? >> That's a tough question. Uh, I don't know if that's really my question to answer. >> Yeah, >> let me So, Joe, tell me if can I answer that question or should we not answer?
>> I'm not going to say no to anybody who wants to say something. I'm just telling you what the what the guidelines are and what the purpose is and certainly not going to tell the mayor can't speak. >> Well, okay. By the same token, I don't want to take us down a rabbit hole, but
I I will say this, >> if there's any necessary maintenance that has to be done, it would be done. If on some of the buildings that are not being used and will not be used, like the dorms, we have shut a couple of those. We have turned off the water. we have turned off the heat. Um, simply
because maintaining them is not cost-effective. So there's no yes or no answer to your question. It is very subjective as to what's in the best interest costwise and and just what makes sense. But we are paying attention to that.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Yes, sir. >> Sorry about the echo. >> That's all right. Anything else? >> I think that was it. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, next we have >> Sorry, Madam Chair.
>> Oh, yes. Excuse me. >> Oh, I was trying to get Mr. Flag before he left. Um, there's another account with his name uh with a hand up. Uh, I guess we'll bring that over in a second and find out who the real David Flag is. >> That's why it was echoing.
>> That's why it was echoing. Exactly. Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um, welcome. >> Hello. Well, good evening. Um, my name is Ohad Mabloom. I'm at 174 Dodge Lane.
>> Thank you. Go ahead, Joe. >> And do do you affirm that the testimony will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. Thank you very much. Um, Mr. Collie, um, thank you for the report. My question is directed to the percentages
that you provided uh in terms of uh percentage of square footage that suffers from water damage for example etc. And if I understand correctly and please correct me if I'm wrong um you
would include into that number the entire square footage of a building if there is some water damage in the building. That's right. That's how we calculate it. Yes. >> So, for example, if there's water damage in one floor,
the square footage of the entire building would be uh included in in the the the final number. >> That's correct. >> Or even if it's in one room. >> Yes, that's how we calculated it. >> Okay. So, for example, with respect to
water damage, 84% I think was the number. What that number means is that there is some water damage in buildings that have a combined square footage equal to 84% of the square footage of the entire
uh of the generality of the building. >> That's exactly right. >> But okay, but in in actuality, it's possible that there is water damage just in a much smaller portion of the entire square footage. In other words, if you
look uh building by building and you just calculate, let's say, the floors or the rooms that suffer from the damage, >> you might end up with a number much smaller than 84%. >> You may you may and you know how to quantify this like was certainly a
challenge when preparing the report. Um water has a tendency of moving. Water has a tendency of not being visible necessarily to the naked eye as you're moving about the building. Um, so I felt that uh if there were buildings where I observed water damage and I tried to really show with the photographs and I
think I even said this during the presentation. We weren't simply like seeing a few drops on the ceiling, right? And then checking off water damage. This was like a a prevalent visible even sometimes ongoing issue. Um, but yeah, the way you've described
how we calculated is exactly how we calculated it. I think it was an appropriate way to calculate it. um given the mobility of water and given the fact that these pipes and whatnot are often sort of um behind uh and out of um out of closed doors and also given the fact that the conditions that we
site that relate to water damage often have to do with air quality. And you know, just because there's water damage in one piece of a building and you know, down the hallway doesn't have any water damage, doesn't mean that whatever the sort of air quality impacts associated with that water damage are haven't um uh
expanded beyond the place where you can physically see the the water. >> Thank you. And does the report include more granular information though about water damage? For example, um you know that particular building the D water damages in that room or in that floor or
in that wing of the building or it just you know anecdotally says or here are a few images of water damage in that building. We are concluding that there is water damage here. >> Uh it's a combination of of things.
There's there's three things I'll point to. one, there's a paragraph at the start of that water damage section where we sort of go building by building. This is on page 29 of the report. We go building by building and describe the nature of the water damage that we observed um in in the different
buildings. Um those descriptions are aligned with the photographs that come on the next few pages, pages I don't know 30 through 36. Um, and then you know the building that I cited, Taylor Hall, where the water damage is the most
extensive, that one also has the most detailed information and there's appendix there's an appendix that's attached to the report that speaks like very specifically uh to the conditions that were that were detailed there. >> Okay. But if I wanted to calculate the percentage of the square footage that
actually suffers from water damage, do I have that information in the report to do that calculation? Uh, no, you wouldn't be able to to to do the sort of calculation you're describing, which I think is like a square, like a
maybe I'm not supposed to ask you questions back, but I think you're describing like measuring the area where there is visible water, right? And then counting that square footage and then calculating your own percentage. You wouldn't be able to accomplish that with the detail that's in the report.
>> Okay. Um similarly with respect to accessibility I think Mrs. Butler before me pointed out that accessibility is you know uh can have different levels or different levels of severity if you
will. Um when I think the final number there was that 87% of the generality of the building suffer from accessibility. Would it be fair to say that some suffer from a bigger, you know, or more severe
or more acute accessibility issues, whereas others it's milder. I'll say that the accessibility issues throughout the campus vary from building to building. Now, whether you want to say one's more mild or one's more extreme, I mean, it matters to the
person who's trying to use them. So, I don't know. Maybe the mild example wouldn't be so mild for someone who's attempting to get into one of those buildings or building. >> Yeah. But I think you could say the accessibility problems are also a code problem and it's prevalent throughout the entire campus.
>> Thank you. >> And I would also say if the restrooms >> for a building are not accessible, the whole building is not accessible from a restroom standpoint. If if there's no elevator, the entire second floor is not accessible. It's
not, you know, the square footage of the elevator. So, >> of course, but that's exactly my question. I mean, do we count the square footage of every building the same way? Uh, maybe some building have all those issues that you mentioned. Maybe in
others, the accessibility issues are much milder. In other words, the restrooms are accessible. Um, maybe it's a single floor. Uh, but there is, let's say, a heavy door in the entrance. Do we still count it to I just trying to
understand how uh informative is that number 87%. What does it actually mean once we break it down to the issues in the various building? Um, >> yeah, it's a good question, but I I would say, and Chris can correct me if
he thinks I'm wrong, but I would say between bathrooms, door widths, um, exits that go nowhere, the accessibility problems and violations are extremely significant throughout the entire campus. So I I doubt that the 84% or
whatever is far off from being pretty close to to accurate. >> And if I could just tag on one thing um about the percentages, there's no statutory requirement about a certain percentage. Um the percentages are included
to provide the board and the reader with an understanding of of the the nature of the condition, right? and they tie to that word to that word generality, but it's not the statute doesn't say that, you know, 65% of the buildings need to be X, right, or Y. It's it's an
informative metric um intended to sort of speak to the the conditions throughout the campus. >> Okay. Well, thank you and that's appreciated. Uh I just wanted to make sure that I understand the the the the significance of those numbers and how they're calculated because I think we
all see that it's a mixed bag there. There are some buildings who are in great condition and some buildings who are in very poor condition and uh so there's a lot of um granularity here but in any case that's uh all I had to ask. Thank you very much. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Um next we'll bring over person identified as Jim. Welcome. >> Hi. Uh, >> um, if you could state your full name and then, uh, Mr. Marazidi will swear
you in. >> Sure. My name is James Bash and I live on South Harrison Street. >> Good evening, Mr. Bash. Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do.
Um, so my comments are mostly about sort of um, it's been kind of sad to watch the history of this campus over the years. I guess it's almost a decade now where um, the administrators of Brder tried to uh, monetize the campus of a
worldclass choir college. And um I think some of us had relief when when finally the town was going to be taking it over and and finding other purposes for it because it was clear that it wasn't going to become a choir college again.
Um so my questions have to do with um the future of the Westminster site. So, my wife and I read the uh the headline topics this week and we both were immediately concerned say, "Well, gosh, this sounds like the town is going to be setting up for demolition of these
buildings." And I'm happy to hear in uh some of the earlier comments from the panelists that that is not necessarily the case that it's more of a a legal issue about moving forward in a planning process. although we have seen historic
buildings that in an ANR that were demolished um after it was declared in need of redevelopment. So my question for Mr. Collie I had a couple of questions. The first is um you know reading the article and in your report
um talks about lack of accessibility uh old heating and cooling systems, cracked sidewalks. You know a lot of us live on in old houses uh ourselves included. This is just comes with the territory with older historic buildings and um you
know a previous uh member of the public asked if there was any allowance made for the age of the building and we're talking about 1933 uh these beautiful historic 1933 brick buildings. In your experience, um, is this is some of these things uncommon
for century old buildings or should we really be alarmed that this is really unusual for century old buildings on private college campuses? Um, this is my first redevelopment study of a college campus from the 1930s, but I
have been in plenty of buildings like this. And I will tell you that I believe that the the ex the nature of the water damage that I observe throughout these buildings is unusual. Yeah. I don't think that's like par for the course for for an older building. Um and you know as it relates to the boiler, there's a
appendix attached to the report that's prepared by an expert in in boilers. I don't know what their exact professional capacity is, but the the conclusion of that report is not simply this is an old boiler, right? The conclusion of that
report is that this boiler uh I can even probably tell you exactly what it says, but uh to paraphrase it, it says that one of the two boilers isn't even functioning anymore. And the other boiler has reached the end of its life, but not simply because it's old, but because it's um it's really uh
dilapidated perhaps to use a word. Um so I don't know if we can really like draw a direct parallel between someone who maybe lives in an older house. I'm actually doing this from my 1925 house right now. Right. So, um I don't I don't
think that like that's the sort of thing that that we're talking about here. Like, and uh the >> the conditions that that I observed and the conditions that I showed in the photographs like to me are not consistent with with normal buildings from the 1930s that I walk around,
particularly as it relates to water damage. >> Okay. Yeah. because I mean if we're talking cracked sidewalks um I've got a lot of them to sell you right out in front of our house. Uh so um and and also we recently went
through a couple of referendums with our high school and other public schools to replace their heating their HVAC systems because they were dated. It maybe didn't work 100% um needed updating and so on. So, I mean, it's not uncommon when you're
dealing with an old property to see old things, right? I mean, these buildings have been around for a century. Um, so I'm hopeful that, you know, they're not going to be raised, especially the 1933 era and the original quad. But then when I hear Mayor Freda saying, "These
buildings are well past their prime, Mr. Freda, and the value is in the land," I'm not quite as reassured. Um, now I know that's not your Bailey Wick here and we're just talking about this ANR, but um I I I concur with some of the comments
the previous uh members of the public particularly um Mr. Zinder and Mr. Madison and the question Mr. Madison asked I think is a good one and it wasn't answered because Mr. Maraziti sort of preempted it. But maybe I'll ask you Mr. Collie in situations like this. So, it's been a year and a half since
the town made the um ordinance to to buy the property and then it was purchased at last April. So, been about a year since the eminent domain. In your experience, are these types of reports done before the closing of a major transaction? In your I mean, you're a
professional. You do this. This is your job. This is your career. Are you employed? Is your firm employed to do this before the closing of transactions as would happen with a traditional house? Right? So, I'm going to have the inspection happening before I put down that final money and contracts made, but
it's not closed. So, when in the process does this type of report normally happen? Are we sort of unusual and that we're happening kind of a year after the closing of the deal? >> So, I think you're talking about two separate things here. And let me be clar clear about like what I do, right? And what my job is.
>> I am not a home inspector, right? So, the reason why I site so much >> didn't say that. >> No, I know. Just just just to be clear like because so the reason why I have to cite so many of these appendices about the boiler conditions is that like I'm a planner and I evaluate the property against the criteria and I rely on the sources and the information that I can
compile as well as my own eyes right to like prepare that report. I would not be commissioned to evaluate buildings in the way that I think you're describing which is you know a cost estimation type thing right >> um prior to a building. I can't really answer the question cuz it's not
actually um um what I do. Uh as it relates to like when is an area in need of redevelopment study usually done. It could happen at any point in a process. Uh it really could. So I don't think this is particularly unusual to be doing a redevelopment study at this moment. Um
but if you were to come to me at a different point a year ago, I probably would have said the same thing. I don't think it would have been unusual then. um and a year from now maybe not even but uh so it can vary widely in terms of when the redevelopment study and designation take place. >> Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Um I guess my
final comment would be that I hope that uh considering it seems like the town uh council was aware of hopefully some of these issues before making that final purchase. And I see Councilman Cohen, you're nodding your head. Then hopefully the town also planned for the
possibility eventuality of restoring some of these magnificent buildings um especially the older uh historic ones and um and I hope that the ANR leads to that and that we're putting our trust in the right process here uh rather than
sort of um any being blindsided. I think that's what maybe some of the comments you're seeing tonight are folks are just maybe a little anxious and like okay we've read a lot about the ANRS and we you know we're trying to figure out what do they mean where do they go and um so hopefully fingers crossed it goes in the
right direction where we're saving what we can that's uh going to be a resource not just the land but a historic resource and a beautiful um you know a city on the hill which is every time I drive by ride my bike it's it's a beautiful thing to behold. Thank you
very much and have a good night. >> Thank you, Mr. Bash. Thank you for that. >> Thank you. >> Um Justin Leco. >> Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh I would just like to uh explain one or two things about what an ANR is and isn't or
just kind of reaffirm it. Um because I I think I've heard some comments tonight that are um extrapolating one area in need of redevelopment in town as if that's the normal uh kind of procedure. And I'm of course talking about the one uh the former seminary
properties where the buildings were taken down uh in between um the designation and the re the redevelopment plan. Um, just to be clear, the town could tear down any or all of the buildings today and could have done so
since we got the keys a year ago. Uh, the town has not chosen to do that, I think, for a lot of reasons um that we all know like uh as I mentioned earlier, the the original quad being in the master plan is something to study. Um, so the ANR, you know, is not a pathway to do that.
That can be done. There are no uh local, state or national historic protections on this site at all. right now. Um the town could could take them down, but like I said earlier, you know, this process does allow for us to uh uh kind
of make a more nuanced plan um than one we would normally have. And >> of course, a more nuanced one is not, you know, does not mean you go in and you you bring the bulldozer uh as the first step or or as any part of the step necessarily.
>> All right. Thanks for that clarification. Um, we have Annne Weber coming over. We have, um, William Wolf has raised his hand again. So, I'm going to ask you, Mr. Maraziti,
um, if someone has, um, already posed questions. Um, is there My inclination would be to allow Mr. Wolf to come back and ask more but not
you know not not go a field of the question that's before us tonight. Is that >> I think that's right and I think it would be appropriate to get everybody else first. >> Yes. >> Anybody else who's waiting? >> Okay. So if you'd bring over um uh Annne
Weber please and then we'll hear from Mr. Wolf. And as of right now there are no other hands raised. So to the public, if any of you who have not spoken or even if you have and have further questions,
um, now's the time to raise your hand. Are we able to bring over Annne Weber? >> I have received another notification of uh declining to be promoted. I'll try one more time. >> Okay. Thank you. And just for members of the public um
that might not have been uh used Zoom before, what we do is we ask you if you want to be promoted to a panelist. Then you have to affirmatively click yes um to be moved over. Looks like Miss Weaver uh declined. However, uh Mr. Wolf is back.
>> Okay. >> Hello again, Mr. Wolf. >> Hello, Madam Chairwoman. Uh, I just wanted to make a very quick comment because I'm concerned that members of the public uh have expressed concern about existing
uses of the buildings and there's been a lot of the comments in the report about accessibility and the legislation that
uh requires that excess Accessibility is newer than any of the buildings on the campus except for the most recent performing arts center. And in no way is it illegal or immoral to use a building
that is inaccessible. The only time that that that requirement comes into play is when you reconstruct or are constructing a new building, then you have to meet those
requirements. But you don't have to vacate a building that doesn't meet those new accessibility requirements. That's my only comment. >> Okay. Thank you. Um,
Anv or Anvy Anv Weber, if you would um activate your camera and unmute yourself, uh, in order to speak to the board, that'd be great. Please. There we go. Now, just uh, now you just
need to unmute. Okay. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. >> My name is is an Weber and I live at 498 Stockton Street.
>> And do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, told truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. Well, um thank you for uh letting me get through the the
vicissitudes of Zoom here. Um >> I just, you know, want to say that I do um I appreciate uh Mr. Wolf's comments just now that um there are there are
many exceptions and many ways of providing accessibility in buildings. Um the other thing that I think we need not to lose sight of here is okay there's an
there's water damage. There's the the boilers are shot. Um, so that these are repairs that would need to be made to these buildings before they can be used.
But if you are going to have buildings on the site which are to be used and you build them new, you are paying for a new roof that presumably does not leak. you are paying
for um you know ramps and elevators and so just to say well these buildings are not accessible and are therefore you know it's 80% inaccessible um it's therefore
they are worthless they are um you know just they they can't be reused. Well, they can be reused and there's um the value both in terms of money in the existing
structure of these buildings um is considerable and also the value of the existing materials and the existing carbon that has gone into these
buildings. um that does not need to happen again. There does not need to be new brick made for the for buildings like this. Um so I think yes there there are clearly problems
with these buildings and they would need substantial renovation to be able to be reused. But if we're considering a use that requires a building, um we need to make sure that we are um
considering that in context. Thank you. Thank you. Understood. I think um it's clear there's a a real strong interest in adaptive reuse for these at least some of these buildings and um I too hope that that comes to
pass um and expect that it will. Uh are there other members of the public who would like to address the board? Now would be the time to raise your hand virtually? Seeing none, I will close the public
comment and cross-examination portion of the meeting and invite um other thoughts, comments, questions from board members or a motion. I I would like to move to um approve I'll try to figure out how to rephrase
this to approve the recommendation to council to move forward with declaring the two properties that were described as in need of redevelopment or something to that effect.
>> Actually, >> that's good. >> Yeah, that's perfect. That's >> excellent for a newbie, Linda. And actually there there's a >> really impressed >> uh that that was very well done and I have prepared a written resolution
>> that uh >> yep >> would accomplish that. Uh, and the title of it is resolution recommending to the mayor and council of the municipality of Princeton that 27 Franklin Avenue, block 7301,
lot 1 and 101 Walnut Lane, block 31.01, lot 105, be designated as a non-condemnation area in need of appropriate redevelopment. And that resolution cites and refers to the uh
the report and the uh conclusions arrived at by Mr. >> Collie. That's exactly what I heard Linda say. >> Yes. >> I will I will amend my motion to move the resolution as just presented by our attorney. >> Perfect.
>> Thank you. Mr. O'Donnell, were you raising your hand to second or did you >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Um, Miss Battle, would you call the role, please? >> Sure. Mr. Bodinghammer?
>> Yes. >> Councilman Cohen? >> Yes. >> Mayor Frereda? >> Yes. >> Mr. McGawan? >> Yes. >> Miss Na? >> Yes. >> Mr. O'Donnell? >> Yes. >> Miss Swimmer?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Taylor? >> Yes. Chair Wilson. >> Yes. >> Motion carried. >> Well, thank you and thank um thanks to members of the public too for um such a keen interest in this. I know
it's shared by many many people in the town. There are um 27 members of the public still here. Um FYI. So, as I mentioned earlier, if um the mayor and councilman, if you could talk just a little bit or maybe Justin, I'm not sure
who to throw this question to about um you know, what comes next assuming council um uh accepts the recommendation, declares uh this an area in need of redevelopment. How do you expect the process to play out? What happens next?
Uh well, first they would have to actually formally uh accept uh the recommendation. Um I believe that will likely be on the 27th of April at their next meeting. Um and then from there uh it would be a decision of where to go
next. Um like basically to prepare the redevelopment plan. Um like I said earlier, we generally here would hire a consultant um most often by resolution. Um then that consultant would work on a plan. Um, but
you know, this is not uh really no redevelopment plan for an area need in need is the same. Uh, so I can't gauge right now what exactly that's going to look like um or how long that's going to take. >> Okay. Um, anything to add, Mayor Freda
or Councilman Cohen, about >> I I think it's pretty obvious >> process itself. >> Yeah. Well, look, the the process has to include more public input and I would hope that the governing body would agree to a work session to talk about the choir college property and thoughts on
how to develop it or what to use it for. Um, you know, but there's could be municipal uses, there could be school uses. So, you know, anyway, so I think a lot yet to be determined.
>> Yeah. And there was the the one question community survey um which I gather there was good response to that um I mean it was just one question but it was an open-ended question and so I'm sure a lot of a lot of people responded and a
lot of information and and thoughts were gathered and so that's that's a starting point anyway. >> Yeah. And if I'm not mistaken, Chris, you could weigh in on this, but there were results of not just that survey,
but a fair amount of uh work that topology has done in studying the site conditions and that that were presented at council. So not, you know, not design options for the redevelopment plan going
forward, but a lot of uh information about what has gone into the process so far. >> That's right. Yeah, we made a presentation about really about site characteristics and about objectives um back in November actually and I believe that presentation still lives on the
website. So for people who are curious about questions like do we want to preserve the historic quad or you know whatever else. I mean, there's there's a long list of object of of objectives
that were identified uh by the the group that's been working on this so far, and it's all in the public public realm um for people to take a look. >> Good. And that's on the uh on the uh
municipal website under council meetings or council. I'm just looking for a little bit um clearer direction of PE if people do want to go and find exactly what you're talking about that presentation those those findings and objectives exactly
where are they? >> There's a there's a section that includes minutes from past meetings. That's one place to look. There's a section that has the agendas of past meetings. That's another place to look. Um I'm trying to pull up the website to see where else on there it might be. I
don't know, David or Justin, if you remember other specific places on the website, >> YouTube as well. Uh the the presentation itself, um as with all council meetings, is recorded and on YouTube. Uh I don't know if Chris, I think you said November of last year. I don't know the exact
date off the top of my head, but uh if it was November, you have two to look at um probably to to figure out which one it was. >> Okay. >> Yeah. The other thing is you can just go to the town website, which is >> princetonj.gov.
>> There's there's a search feature. Just put in Westminster Choir College, and a whole bunch of stuff pops up. >> That's right. That's right. That's the That's the thing to do. Thank you, Mayor. That's why we pay you the big bucks. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. Um, okay. Our next meeting is uh May
7th. Um, anything else before we say good night? Seeing none, Mr. Cohen? >> Move to adjourn. >> Second. All in favor? >> I.
>> Thanks everyone. Um, good conversation. Interesting work yet to come. See you in May if not before. >> Later everybody. >> Thank you >> everyone. >> Good night. >> Thanks again Joe. >> Pleasure.