Inspira Hospital Center Preliminary Investigation

Inspira Woodbury Study
Preliminary Investigation into designation as Area in Need of Redevelopment
Authorized by Resolution #15-133 passed on June 23, 2015
Block 84, Lots 1, 2, 4, 4.01, & 6
Block 85, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 24, 24.01, 24.02, & 24.03
Block 86, Lots 1, 1.01, 2, 3.01, 6, 7, 13, 14, & 16
April 26, 2016
Study conducted by
Intentionally Blank
Acknowledgements
Mayor
William J. Volk
City Council
Business Administrator
Tracey L. Parker
Michael Theokas
Daniel Reddin
Director,Economic Development
Danielle Carter
Randi Woerner
David Trovato
Theodore Johnson, Jr.
Planning/Zoning Board Administrator
William H. Fleming
Brian Bosworth
Heather S. Tierney
Planning Board Secretary
Jessica Floyd
John Leech
David Swanson
Solicitor
Planning/Zoning Board
Charles A. Fiore
Sam Ferraino, Jr., Chairman
Mark Seigel, Vice Chairman
Planning Board Engineer
Mark Meagher
Paul Breier
Federici & Akin
Leticia Marks
Chris LaCroix
Planning Board Planner
Ryan Lange
Robert F. Melvin
Group Melvin Design
John McNaul
Karlene O’Connor, Alternate #1
Phil Hagerty, Alternate #2
Justin Geist, Alternate #3
Shelley Laurence, Alternate #4
Prepared by:
Robert F. Melvin, PP/AICP
NJ Planner License No. 04018
i
1.0 Contents
1.0Introduction..........................................................................................................1
1.1. Overview......................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.a.
Study Authorization......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.b.Non-condemnation ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.c.
Study Area Description................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.d.Ownership........................................................................................................................................................ 4
2.0
Redevelopment Law...........................................................................................5
2.1. Purpose of the Act.......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2. Redevelopment Procedure........................................................................................................................... 5
2.3. Statutory Criteria............................................................................................................................................. 6
3.0Background..........................................................................................................8
4.0
Inspira Medical Center Properties.....................................................................9
4.1. Criterion D....................................................................................................................................................... 9
4.1.a.
Statutory Language........................................................................................................................................ 9
4.1.b.Parcels............................................................................................................................................................... 9
4.1.c.
Summary Conclusions..................................................................................................................................... 9
4.1.d.
Complex Obsolesces through Faulty Arrangement and Design............................................................... 9
4.1.e.
Faulty Arrangement and Design of Parking and Circulation .................................................................. 15
4.1.f.Findings........................................................................................................................................................... 15
5.0
Properties Not Owned by Inspira.....................................................................17
5.1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 17
5.1.a.Background.................................................................................................................................................... 17
5.1.b.
Summary Findings.......................................................................................................................................... 17
5.2. Section 3 Criteria.......................................................................................................................................... 17
5.2.a.
Statutory Language...................................................................................................................................... 17
5.2.b.
Redevelopment Vision.................................................................................................................................. 17
5.2.c.
Critical to Successful Redevelopment........................................................................................................ 20
5.2.d.
Areas Needed for Infrastructure or Utilities................................................................................................. 20
5.2.e.Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................... 21
6.0
Public Utilities......................................................................................................22
6.1. Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................... 22
7.0Appendices........................................................................................................24
ii
2.0 Introduction
2.1. Overview
2.1.a. Study Authorization
On April 28, 2015 the City of Woodbury (the “City”), through Resolution #15133 (Appendix A) authorized a preliminary investigation to determine the need for
redevelopment of Block 84, Lots 1, 2, 4, 4.01, & 6; Block 85, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 24, 24.01, 24.02,
& 24.03; and Block 86, Lots 1, 1.01, 2, 3.01, 6, 7, 13, 14, & 16 (herein after referred to as the “Study
Area”) pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A-12A-6. Group Melvin Design was contracted to conduct a preliminary
investigation and determine whether or not the designated Study Area qualifies as an “Area in Need
of Redevelopment.”
2.1.b. Non-condemnation
As of 2013, the Legislature requires that Preliminary Investigations state whether the redevelopment
area determination shall authorize the municipality to use all those powers provided by the Legislature
for use in a redevelopment area, including eminent domain.
Resolution #15-133 states that should the Study Area qualify as an Area in Need of Redevelopment, the
City of Woodbury is authorized to further qualify the area as a “Non-condemnation Redevelopment
Area,” such that the municipality may use all those powers provided in the Legislature for the use in
the designated area in need of redevelopment excluding only the use of eminent domain pursuant to
NJSA 40A: 12A-1 et seq.
2.1.c. Study Area Description
The Study Area, located in Neighborhood #1 per the City’s 2011 Comprehensive Master Plan, is primarily
bounded by Tatum Street to the west; Packer Street and Broad Street to the north and east; and
Woodbury Creek to the south (Figure 1 and 2). The Study Area is comprised of twenty-three tax parcels.
Twelve parcels constitute the Inspira Medical Center (or “medical center”)– formerly the Underwood
Memorial Hospital. The large hospital complex maintains a medical center, central in both location and
function, and provides additional requisite services through the utilization of outlying structures, both
built-to-suit and retrofitted. Paved and unpaved parcels within the Study Area are used by Inspira as
parking lots (Block 85, Lots 1, 3 & 5; Block 86, Lot 2). Additional uses within the Study Area include a child
care center (Block 85, Lots 24 & 24.01), three single family residential homes (Block 85, Lots 2 & 24.03;
Block 86, Lot 3.01), one restaurant (Block 86, Lot 16), and three tax parcels used for utility purposes (Block
84, Lots 1 & 6; Block 86, Lot 1.01).
Figure 1 identifies the location and surrounding environs of the Study Area while Figure 2 identifies in
detail the lots identified as the Study Area.
1
CR
AM
ME
R
W
AL
NU
T
CH
ER
RY
PA
GE
FR
AN
CE
S
Figure 1. Inspira Woodbury Study Area
PA
CK
ER
Block 86
TA
TU
M
OA
K
RE
D
UNDERWOOD
Block 85
BA
NK
BR
OA
D
Block 84
.
0
85
170
340
Feet
510
2
Study Area Parcels
Figure 2. Inspira Woodbury Study Area Lots
PACKER
3.01
Block 86
1.01
2
1
16
6
7
14
13
OAK
24
Block 85
24.01
TATUM
24.02
1
4
2
3
BROAD
24.03
5
RED BANK
Block 84
4
2
4.01
6
1
.
0
50
100
200
Feet
300
3
Study Area Parcels
2.1.d. Ownership
The following is a summary of the ownership of all parcels within the Study Area. Ownership data was
collected via a tax record search conducted through the Gloucester County Assessors website.
It should be noted that approximately 75% of the 19.86 acres included in the Study Area is owned by
Inspira.
Block
Lot
Address
Owner
Acres
84
1
N Broad St
Public Service Elec & Gas Co
2.18
84
2
414 Tatum St
Tatum Realty LLC
0.22
84
4
75 W Red Bank Ave
Inspira Medical Center Woodbury
6.9
84
4.01
414 Tatum St
Tatum Realty LLC
0.41
84
6
N Broad St
Public Service Elec & Gas Co
1.51
85
1
80 W Red Bank Ave
Inspira Medical Center Woodbury
0.24
85
2
72 W Red Bank Ave
Gerald Taylor
0.186
85
3
66 W Red Bank Ave
Inspira Medical Center Woodbury
0.28
85
4
52 W Red Bank Ave
Inspira Medical Center Woodbury
4.169
85
5
60 W Red Bank Ave
Inspira Medical Center Woodbury
0.12
85
24
77 Oak St
Tra Cee Nursery School Inc
0.14
85
24.01 67 Oak St
Tra Cee Nursery School Inc
0.14
85
24.02 518 Tatum St
Inspira Medical Center Woodbury
0.14
85
24.03 524 Tatum St
Elizabeth Bock
0.14
86
1
74-76 Oak St
Inspira Medical Center Woodbury
0.35
86
1.01
546 Tatum St
Woodbury City
0.05
86
2
66 Oak St
Inspira Medical Center Woodbury
0.49
86
3.01
550 Tatum St
Lynn A. Shumaker
0.11
86
6
54 Oak St
Inspira Medical Center Woodbury
0.48
86
7
34 Oak St
Inspira Medical Center Woodbury
1.20
86
13
537 N Broad St
Inspira Medical Center Woodbury
0.08
86
14
543 N Broad St
Inspira Medical Center Woodbury
0.24
86
16
547 N Broad St
Thao Pham
0.08
4
3.0 Redevelopment Law
3.1. Purpose of the Act
New Jersey’s Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (LRHL), empowers municipalities and local
governments with the ability to initiate a process that transforms underutilized or poorly designed
properties into healthier, more vibrant, or economically productive land areas. The process has been
used successfully across New Jersey to transform distressed properties, meeting statutory redevelopment
criteria, into economically viable and productive neighborhoods and centers of activity. Projects
approved for redevelopment are often eligible for certain types of technical and financial assistance
from local and county governments, as well as the state. The ability to grant these incentives is an
essential part of a comprehensive strategy to attract new development into areas exhibiting decline
and blight.
3.2. Redevelopment Procedure
The LRHL requires municipalities to engage in a series of steps before it may exercise its redevelopment
powers. This process is meant, in part, to ensure that the Governing Body acts in concert with the goals
and objectives of the City’s Master Plan. Recognizing the Planning Board’s role as the steward of the
Master Plan, these steps require the Planning Board to make recommendations to the City Council. The
required steps are as follows:
• The Governing Body must adopt a resolution directing the Planning Board to perform a preliminary
investigation to determine whether a specified area is in need of redevelopment according to
criteria set forth in the LRHL (N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5). The City Council has adopted Resolution No.
2013-6-14.
• The Planning Board must prepare and make available a map delineating the boundaries of the
proposed redevelopment area, specifying the parcels to be included in it. This map should be
accompanied by a statement setting forth the basis of the investigation.
• The Planning Board must then conduct the investigation and produce a report presenting the
findings. The Board must also hold a duly noticed hearing to present the results of the investigation
and to allow interested parties to give testimony. The Planning Board then may adopt a resolution
recommending a course of action to the Governing Body.
• The Governing Body may act on this recommendation by adopting a resolution designating the
area an “Area in Need of Redevelopment”. The Governing Body must make the final determination
as to the Redevelopment Area boundaries.
• A Redevelopment Plan must be prepared establishing the goals, objectives, and specific actions
to be taken with regard to the “Area in Need of Redevelopment.”
• The Governing Body may then act on the Plan by passing an ordinance adopting the Plan as an
amendment to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
Only after completion of this process is the City able to exercise the powers granted to it under the
State Redevelopment Statute.
5
3.3. Statutory Criteria
A study area qualifies as being an “Area in Need of Redevelopment” if it meets at least one of the eight
statutory criteria listed in Section 40A:12A-5 of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law:
A. The generality of buildings are substandard, unsafe, unsanitary, dilapidated, or obsolescent, or
possess any of such characteristics, or are so lacking in light, air, or space, as to be conducive to
unwholesome living or working conditions.
B. The discontinuance of the use of buildings previously used for commercial, manufacturing, or industrial
purposes; the abandonment of such buildings; or the same being allowed to fall into so great a state
of disrepair as to be tenantable.
C. Land that is owned by the municipality, the county, a local housing authority, redevelopment
agency or redevelopment entity, or unimproved vacant land that has remained so for a period of ten
years prior to adoption of the resolution, and that by reason of its location, remoteness, lack of means
of access to developed sections or portions of the municipality, or topography, or nature of the soil, is
not likely to be developed solely through the instrumentality of private capital.
D. Areas with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding,
faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage,
deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental
to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.
E. A growing lack or total lack of proper utilization of areas caused by the condition of the title, diverse
ownership of the real properties therein or other similar conditions which impede land assemblage
or discourage the undertaking of improvements, resulting in a stagnant and unproductive condition
of land potentially useful and valuable for contributing to and serving the public health, safety and
welfare, which condition is presumed to be having a negative social or economic impact or otherwise
being detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the surrounding area or the community in
general.
F. Areas, in excess of five contiguous acres, whereon buildings or improvements have been destroyed,
consumed by fire, demolished or altered by the action of storm, fire, cyclone, tornado, earthquake
or other casualty in such a way that the aggregate assessed value of the area has been materially
depreciated.
G. In any municipality in which an enterprise zone has been designated pursuant to the “New Jersey
Urban Enterprise Zones Act,” P.L.1983, c.303 (C.52:27H-60 et seq.) the execution of the actions prescribed
in that act for the adoption by the municipality and approval by the New Jersey Urban Enterprise
Zone Authority of the zone development plan for the area of the enterprise zone shall be considered
sufficient for the determination that the area is in need of redevelopment pursuant to sections 5 and
6 of P.L.1992, c.79 (C.40A:12A-5 and 40A:12A-6) for the purpose of granting tax exemptions within the
enterprise zone district pursuant to the provisions of P.L.1991, c.431 (C.40A:20-1 et seq.) or the adoption
of a tax abatement and exemption ordinance pursuant to the provisions of P.L.1991, c.441 (C.40A:21-1
et seq.). The municipality shall not utilize any other redevelopment powers within the urban enterprise
zone unless the municipal governing body and planning board have also taken the actions and fulfilled
the requirements prescribed in P.L.1992, c.79 (C.40A:12A-1 et al.) for determining that the area is in
need of redevelopment or an area in need of rehabilitation and the municipal governing body has
adopted a redevelopment plan ordinance including the area of the enterprise zone.
6
H. The designation of the delineated area is consistent with smart growth planning principles adopted
pursuant to law or regulation.
N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-3 further states that “A redevelopment area may include lands, buildings, or
improvements which of themselves are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but
the inclusion of which is found necessary, with or without change in their condition, for the effective
development of the area of which they are a part.” This is commonly referred to as the “Section 3
Criteria.”
According to the Redevelopment Handbook, this section allows for the inclusion of properties that
do not meet the statutory criteria but are,”essential to be included in the designation to effectively
redevelop the area.” Examples of such properties include properties located within and surrounded by
otherwise blighted area, property that are needed to provide access to an area to be redeveloped,
areas needed for infrastructure or utilities, or properties that otherwise could be determined to be
critical to the area’s successful redevelopment.
7
4.0 Background
What is today the Inspira Medical Center in Woodbury was founded by Dr. J. Harris Underwood in 1915
as Underwood Hospital, a private hospital in the county seat of Gloucester County. Since its inception,
the hospital has occupied the intersection of Broad and Red Bank Avenue, where it currently stands. In
1937, Underwood Hospital became a public institution through a certificate of incorporation, with the
stated mission, “to establish, maintain, manage, operate, and conduct a hospital in Woodbury.”1 Since
then, the hospital has played a major role in Woodbury and Gloucester County, expanding to merge
with nearby Memorial Hospital in 1966 and serve as the hub of Underwood-Memorial Health Systems,
which operated separate health care centers in Glassboro, Mullica Hill, and Paulsboro. Today, the
Inspira Medical Center Woodbury houses 305 beds and employs 1,800 full- and part-time employees
and has a medical staff of nearly 400.2
A propensity for expansion has grown the footprint of the medical center to its modern day size. Ten lots
surrounding the original hospital structure were gradually acquired, allowing for the construction of a
medical arts building, a new emergency department, a maintenance and storage facility, additional
medical office buildings, an outpatient services building, a 796 space parking garage with solar canopy,
and two additional surface parking lots.
In order to keep Woodbury’s hospital financially viable, and to provide a wider array of medical services,
Underwood-Memorial Health Systems, Inc. merged with South Jersey Health System, Inc. to form Inspira
Health Network in spring 2012.3 The proposal of the merger was promising. Peter Galetto Jr., chairman
of the combined SJH-Underwood Board of Trustees, stated, “This was not a merger because there was
a desperate partner here that needed a rescue plan,” and reassured the public that there was to be
no staff reduction or facility closures during the merger.4 Additionally, the merger was expected to
allow the two organizations to grow their cardiovascular, oncology, women’s health and surgical care
services, as well as to expand outpatient care sites and create stronger relationships with government
agencies to obtain public funding and affect public policy.5
Unfortunately, in the years since the 2012 merger, the Inspira Medical Center in Woodbury, as the
Underwood Memorial Hospital was re-branded, has had difficulty maintaining viability. A report by
the Inquirer, citing a bond disclosure, stated that the hospital in Woodbury has suffered $23.2 million in
operating losses over the past four years, including $4.6 million last year.6 As a result, Woodbury may be
at risk of losing its largest employer and one of its largest taxpayers.7 City officials say they have been
advised that Inspira will be closing large portions of the Woodbury location. In March, 2016 Inspira
entered into an agreement with Rowan University to purchase 100 acres to build a new Gloucester
County hospital alongside Route 55 where it meets Route 322.8 However, Inspira Health Network hospital
officials have said the health network may continue to have a presence in Woodbury.9
1Inspira Medical Center Woodbury History. https://inspiragloucester.foundation/. Accessed November 2015.
2Inspira Medical Center Woodbury. https://inspiragloucester.foundation/. Accessed November 2015.
3Based on information provided by property owner
4Woods, Don E. Underwood-Memorial Hospital and South Jersey Healthcare merger agreement finalized. South Jersey Times. 01 November 2012. Accessed November 2015.
5Woods, Don E. Underwood-Memorial Hospital and South Jersey Healthcare merger agreement finalized. South Jersey Times. 01 November 2012. Accessed November 2015.
6Laday, Jason. Residents react to Inspira reportedly claiming hospital can’t make money in Woodbury. South Jersey
Times. 07 May 2015. Accessed November 2015.
7Laday, Jason. Residents react to Inspira reportedly claiming hospital can’t make money in Woodbury. South Jersey
Times. 07 May 2015. Accessed November 2015.
8Gray, Matt. New Inspira Health Network hospital in the works for South Jersey. NJ.com. 16 September 2015. Accessed November 2015.
9Forand, Rebecca and Spencer Kent. How Inspira’s plans to build a hospital will impact Harrison, Woodbury. NJ.com.
18 September 2015. Accessed November 2015.
8
5.0 Inspira Medical Center Properties
5.1. Criterion D
5.1.a. Statutory Language
Areas with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding,
faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage,
deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental
to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.
5.1.b. Parcels
The properties which comprise the Inspira Medical Center in Woodbury are: Block 84, Lot 4; Block 85,
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 24, 24.01, 24.02, & 24.03; and Block 86, Lots 1, 2, 6, 7, 13, & 14 (see Figure 3). Detailed
descriptions of each Block and Lot are provided in Appendix B.
5.1.c. Summary Conclusions
As the result of piecemeal acquisition and expansion, the Inspira Medical Center in Woodbury is a
series of overlapping facilities that have been stitched together to meet the changing needs of the
community over the past century. However, that approach is no longer viable. The medical center
is landlocked and has outgrown its footprint leaving no room for expansion of services or room to
upgrade the facility. In addition, the supporting parking and circulation system is improperly designed
to effectively meet the current and future needs of the patients. For these reasons, Inspira decided
to significantly reduce their footprint in Woodbury and open a new facility in Harrison Township. This
decision has already had significant negative impacts on the economy of the community and will
continue to do so for the foreseeable future: development near the hospital has stalled and the City is
faced with the possibility of losing more than 20% of the jobs located within the City limits.
The following analysis will demonstrate that the Inspira Hospital parcels within the study area meet the
statutory Criterion D for designation as an Area in Need of Redevelopment because: the facility cannot
be updated due to its obsolete layout as the result of faulty arrangement and design; the parking
and circulation system is improperly designed to accommodate all the piecemeal acquisitions and
expansions; which results in significant current and future economic and physical determinant to the
community. As such, it is the recommendation of this report that the City of Woodbury designate Block
84, Lot 4; Block 85, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 24, 24.01, 24.02, & 24.03; and Block 86, Lots 1, 2, 6, 7, 13, & 14 as an
Area in Need of Redevelopment in accordance with Criterion D under the State Local Redevelopment
And Housing Law (N.J.S.A 40A: 12A-3).
What follows is a detailed description of the ways in which these Blocks and Lots meet the statutory
criterion to be designated as an Area in Need of Redevelopment. The majority of the information
about the buildings is based on information provided by the property owner
5.1.d. Complex Obsolesces through Faulty Arrangement and Design
Overview
As detailed in the Background section of this report, the Inspira Medical Center has developed in a
piecemeal manner since inception in 1915. Some buildings date back to 1950s, while some of the
newer buildings were constructed in 2007. The result is a series of overlapping facilities that have been
9
Figure 3. Study Lots Owned by Inspira Medical Center Woodbury
PACKER
3.01
16
1.01
2
1
6
7
14
13
OAK
24
24.03
TATUM
24.02
1
4
2
3
BROAD
24.01
5
RED BANK
4
2
4.01
6
1
.
0
50
100
200
Feet
300
10
Study
Parcels
Parcels Owned
by Area
Inspira
Lots acquired for expansion
stitched together over the past century to meet the changing needs of the hospital. Unfortunately, the
Woodbury medical center has reached the point where this piecemeal approach is no longer a viable
means of meeting the healthcare needs of the community.
Semi-Private Room Configuration
In its current configuration, the hospital requires many patients to occupy “semi-private” rooms,
meaning that patients are required to share rooms. The alternative to shared rooms are private patient
rooms, which have become the industry standard in the United States. Private rooms reduce the risk
of hospital-acquired infections, allow for greater flexibility in operation and management, and have
positive therapeutic impacts on patients.10 This is in line with the overall shift in healthcare towards
a focus on patient care, safety, dignity, and privacy.11 The inability of Inspira to replace or upgrade
semi-private rooms demonstrates that the medical center is not equipped to continue to meet the
healthcare needs of the community going forward. The property owner has identified the Woodbury
facility as a critical path item with the only remedy being either to build a new patient tower or construct
an entirely new facility.
Poorly Design Internal Configuration
The second factor contributing to obsolescence is a poorly designed circulation system, again the
result of piecemeal construction. According to the property owner, there is a limited separation of
flows between the public and patients. See Appendix D for diagrams showing the overlapping patient
and public flows. As these diagrams demonstrate, there are many overlapping corridors and flows, a
condition that negatively effects the privacy of patients. The ad-hoc circulation system results in many
unnecessary crossings which inhibits how the medical center functions. They slow passage of staff and
visitors, decrease patient privacy, and prevent ease of direct and indirect access to services. Finally,
many units are housed in buildings that have been constructed with double loaded corridors. As a
result, some nurse stations have limited visibility into patient rooms, reducing their functionality.
Additional Issues
The property owner has characterized the facility as extremely dated and noted that it does not meet
the standards of a modern medical center. Several patient rooms are being used to provide additional
nurse stations. Improper layout also limits how equipment and supplies are being stored, severely limiting
the capacity of some departments. Moreover, various areas within the Woodbury Inspira Medical
Center do not meet current ADA requirements. This includes patient rooms within the inpatient section
of the facility. These rooms contain inboard bathrooms that do not meet ADA size requirements, limiting
function and accessibility by patients. A lack of a central reverse osmosis water system also limits the
functionality of several patient rooms. In rooms without these systems, the hospital is not able to provide
dialysis treatment, which typically require such a system.
Failure to Meet Industry Benchmarks
As evidence that the piecemeal approach will not allow Inspira to continue to provide adequate level
of care, the property owner has identified that the facility currently fails to meet industry benchmarks
for departmental gross square feet (DGSF). In fact, the complex is lacking a combined 218,292 square
10Advantages and Disadvantages of Single- Versus Multiple-Occupancy Rooms in Acute Care Environments.
Environment and Behavior, 760-786. November 2005. Accessed November 2015.
11Ibid.
11
of departmental spaces. The largest variances exist for administrative space (39,302 gross square feet),
medical-surgical space (77,054 gross square feet), progressive care (16,761 gross square feet), and
operating rooms (10,785 gross square feet). One of the most significant indicators of a shortage of
space is the conversion of patient rooms for staffing needs. As noted earlier, several patient rooms are
now being used to provide additional nurse stations. The quality and quantity of spaces are also majorly
deficient in the following units: progressive care, the dialysis/stroke/telemetry unit, and transitional care.
Lack of appropriate space for these care units is a significant determinant to unit’s ability to provide
high-level quality of care to patients.
Defining Obsolescence
To address the long term challenges to meeting the needs of the community, the property owner has
found that a new patient tower would need to be added to the existing campus. The only alternative
to this solution that the property owner identified was a full replacement of the hospital. This latter point
is significant.
In considering whether to attempt to continue the piecemeal approach to hospital development,
the current maintenance costs of the Woodbury facility must be considered. According to the
property owner, the Inspira Medical Center in Woodbury has the highest cost associated with building
expenses within the Inspira Health Network, at $10.26/square foot compared to $5.19 in Bridgeton,
$6.26 in Vineland, and $7.06 in Elmer. Going forward, if the hospital were to choose to keep the entire
medical center open, the property expects to make necessary and significant infrastructure upgrades
to Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing equipment and services, existing roofs, and exterior cladding
totaling approximately $15,000,000. The property owner has noted that as the facility maintenance
costs continue to rise the facility will become more obsolete in terms of how it can continue to
accommodate evolving patient care delivery methods, technologies and equipment.
Contrasting the Inspira Medical Center in Woodbury with modern hospital layouts underscores the
problem. Figure 4 is a diagram of the typical modern hospital building.
This modern approach uses a standardized kit of parts, addressing branding, operations, planning, and
construction; the pieces of which are flexible and can be adjusted to specific sites and client needs.
This model works with best practices and adapts to changes in care delivery models. The goals of a
prototypical approach are to standardize, replicate, and increase performance. As a result of these
efforts, newly constructed hospital buildings can lower costs and increase efficiency.
Due to these significant issues, the property owner is faced with the choice of both constructing a new
patient tower and investing millions of dollars in inevitable repairs, or building a new facility. Stated
differently, the need for costly upgrades to maintain a high standard of operations has made the entire
complex economically unviable. This does not discount the fact that some of the newer structures may
function at or above modern standards. Instead, the present extent of obsolescence at the primary
hospital facility compromises how the hospital and its staff currently function compared to the newer
sections of the hospital and will continue to compromise the amount, types and quality of services that
can be provided in the current setting.
Community Impact
The Woodbury Inspira Medical Center complex currently meets best practice standards for care.
Nonetheless, the facility obsolete: it can no longer be improved in a manner to meet the evolving
health needs of the community. As noted, Inspira has officially announced plans to reduce the number
and type of services offered in Woodbury and build a new facility in Harrison Township, NJ.
12
\\ STANDARDIZE USING PROTOTYPICAL DESIGN
DIAGNOSTICS
& TREATMENT
PUBLIC
To
help4.achieve
consistent
brandDesign
experience, HKS recommends using a prototypical approach for
Figure
Typicala Modern
Hospital
developing new ambulatory and acute care facilities.
CLINIC / MOB
BED TOWER(S)
SITE
SUPPORT
PROTOTYPICAL DESIGN + CONSTRUCTION
A prototypical approach is a model consisting of a standardized kit of parts, addressing branding,
operations, planning, and construction; the pieces of which are flexible and can
be adjusted to specific
DIAGNOSTICS
& TREATMENT
sites and client needs. This model works with best practices and adapts to changes in care delivery
models. The goals of a prototypical approach are to standardize, replicate, and increase performance.
As a result of these efforts
the building can lower cost and increase efficiency.
PUBLIC
A prototype can:
• Decrease errors
Public space is softer space that can be used
• Lower
cost the parts and enhance brand.
to connect
SITE
• Increase safety
• Increase construction efficiency
•
•
•
Increase infection control
Enhance best practices
TOWER(S)
Create brand BED
consistency
PROTOTYPICAL DESIGN + CONSTRUCTION
A prototypical approach is a model consisting of a standardized kit of parts, addressing branding,
operations, planning, and construction; the pieces of which DIAGNOSTICS
are flexible and can be adjusted to specific
AND TREATMENT
sites and client needs. This model
works
with
best
practices
and adapts to changes in care delivery
PUBLIC
models. The goals of a prototypical approach are to standardize, replicate, and increase performance.
As a result of these efforts the building can lower cost and increase efficiency.
A prototype can:
• Decrease errors
Public space is softer space that can be used
• Lower
cost the parts and enhance brand.
to connect
CLINIC
• Increase safety
• Increase construction efficiency
•
•
•
Source: property owner
Increase infection control
Enhance best practices
BEDS
Create brand consistency
DIAGNOSTICS
AND TREATMENT
Hospitals
are often referred to as PUBLIC
“anchor institutions” within communities, in part because they have
84
the capacity and investment horizon to make long-term decisions that have large impacts on their host
PUBLIC COMPONENT
communities.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Office of University Partnerships
A PROTOTYPICAL
APPROACH
defines
anchor institutions
as, “long-standing and deeply rooted community organizations that often
are the largest contributors to their communities’ continued economic stability and strength.”12 As is
the case in Woodbury, anchor institutions are often major job employers, attract businesses and highly
BEDS
skilled individuals to the area, consume
sizable amounts of land, and have major economic impacts on
CLINIC
employment and spending patterns.13 14
12 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of University Partnerships. “The Role of Anchor Institutions in Sustaining Community Economic Development”. February 2013
13 Netter Center for Community Partnerships at the University of Pennsylvania, March 2008. https://www.nettercenter.
84 upenn.edu/anchortoolkit/what-anchor-institution; Accessed: March 23, 2016.
14
“AnchorCOMPONENT
Institutions and Urban Economic Development: From Community Benefit to Shared Value” Initiative for a
PUBLIC
Competitive Inner City. June 2011
A PROTOTYPICAL APPROACH
13
When an institution such as Inspira Health Network decides that investment in their facilities is no-longer
financially viable and announce a decision to leave, the impact is real, even if the level of service
of the hospital has not noticeably depreciated. Inspira employs 1,800 full- and part-time employees
and has a medical staff of nearly 400 in Woodbury. That represented 22% of all the 7,960 jobs located
within the City of Woodbury in 201415. These employees help support a micro-economy of restaurants,
convenience stores, and other retail establishments that are likely to suffer significant losses as a result of
Inspira’s decision. The impact of the decision is already being felt on the City’s economic development
efforts. Interviews with Township officials revealed that Inspira’s announcement has discouraged
developers from pursuing plans to develop a mixed-use development near the medical center.
This effect of Inspira’s downsizing is not limited to surrounding retail services. The following businesses are
located within the study area or immediately adjacent to it:
• Orthopedics Surgery-Support Med
• Paragon Skin Center Medical Spa (620 N Broad)
• KGE Medical Group (608 N Broad St)
• Dimarino Kroop Prieto Associates (26 E Red Bank Ave)
• BAYADA Home Health (608 N Broad St Suite 300)
• The Asthma Center (608 N Broad St Suite 310)
• Orthopedics at Woodbury (Block 84, Lot 2)
• Newpoint Behavioral Health (Block 84, Lot 4)
The facilities are dependent on being located in close proximity to a large medical center. When
Inspira builds its new facility in Harrison, it is likely that these businesses will have to relocate or close. The
loss of these businesses, jobs and taxes generated by these facilities will be a significant hardship for the
community to bear.
When the Inspira Medical Center relocates, up to 12 parcels located within the study area would
become vacant. These properties, in their current state, have become so obsolete that they cannot
reasonably be rented or sold as medical facilities. The redevelopment of the hospital and adjacent
buildings into new uses will take a considerable amount of time, during which some buildings will likely
sit vacant. Even if well maintained, their presence will depreciate the value of surrounding properties,
including those of owner-occupied housing in adjacent neighborhoods. There is also a well-established
connection between the physical appearance of buildings, vacancy, and illegal activity.16 As such, the
City of Woodbury will likely need to increase police patrols of the area to compensate for the attractive
nuisance that will be the vacant portion of the hospital. The City and its taxpayers will bear this cost.
Finally, the City of Woodbury has expended, and will continue to expend, considerable time, energy,
and money into planning for future conditions following the exit of its largest employer. This effort could
otherwise be dedicated to encouraging economic and community development in other areas of
Woodbury City.
As such, the detriment to the community extends well beyond the problems associated with health
care provision. That said, it should also be noted that the factors that contribute to the medical center’s
obsolescence have also limited the types of services Inspira Health Network can currently offer the
community: a different, but significant, detriment to those who live within its service area.
15 U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. OnTheMap Application. Longitudinal-Employer Household Dynamics Program. http://
onthemap.ces.census.gov/
16 “Hanging out the No Vacancy Sign: Eliminating the Blight of Vacant Buildings from Urban Areas” 74 New York
University Law Review. 1139 (1999)
14
Conclusion
The above analysis has demonstrated that the hospital will not be able to meet the evolving needs of
those it serves, a significant detriment to the community. This underscores why Inspira Health Network
has decided to decrease its footprint in Woodbury and to build a new hospital in Harrison Township.
However, the decision of Inspira Health Network to scale down its facility in Woodbury has effects
beyond the health care needs of residents. The hospital is a major employer in the City and a reduced
footprint will have far reaching economic and social impacts on the community. As such, it is the finding
of this report that the Inspira Medical Center in Woodbury is obsolete as the result of faulty arrangement
in buildings, parking and circulation and design and have become and will continue to be a detriment
to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.
5.1.e. Faulty Arrangement and Design of Parking and Circulation
As noted in the previous analysis, the piecemeal acquisition of property surrounding the primary hospital
building has resulted in ad-hoc solutions to meeting patient needs. The same is true for parking and
circulation solutions: gradual expansion has inhibited cohesive, complex-level circulation planning.
(see Figure 5) The location of parking significantly inhibits the ability of the complex to effectively serve
patients, visitors, and staff. Analysis of Google street view indicates that the streets surrounding the
hospital, particularly within the Study Area, are used heavily for parking. This has been confirmed though
interviews with Township officials familiar with the area. This is a strong indication that there is a parking
shortage within the complex and/or parking is being mismanaged through improper design. Further
evidence is the fact the most recently acquired properties are used for parking. Although a number of
these sites have been improved as paved parking lots, a number have not, another clear sign that an
ad-hoc solution to parking is not working.
As a result of this condition, the surrounding commercial and residential neighbors are suffering from
insufficient on-street parking. Moreover, visitors looking for the right place to park circulate through the
neighborhood, increasing traffic congestion. The result is that surrounding areas feel less like singlefamily neighborhoods and more like just a piece of a major medical center.
5.1.f.
Findings
The medical center buildings are obsolete and the parking and circulation system is improperly
designed. The consequences for the community are significant: Inspira has decided to significantly
reduce its footprint in Woodbury and open a new facility in Harrison Township. This decision has already
had significant negative impacts on the economy of the community and will continue to do so for the
foreseeable future: development near the hospital has stalled and the City is faced with the possibility
of losing more than 20% of the jobs located within the City limits.
For the above stated reasons, it is the recommendation of this report that the City of Woodbury
designate Block 84, Lot 4; Block 85, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 24, 24.01, 24.02, & 24.03; and Block 86, Lots 1, 2, 6, 7,
13, & 14 as an Area in Need of Redevelopment in accordance with Criterion D under the State Local
Redevelopment And Housing Law (N.J.S.A 40A: 12A-3).
15
Figure 5. Inspira Medical Center Woodbury Hospital Complex
PACKER
3.01
1.01
C
2
1
16
D
6
14
7
13
OAK
24
24.03
TATUM
24.02
A1
BROAD
24.01
4
2
3B 5
A Block 85, Lot 1: Paved parking lot
RED BANK
4
2
4.01
6
1
B Block 85, Lots 3 & 5: Gravel parking lot
.
0
50
100
200
Feet
300
Parking
Study Area Parcels
Main Hospital Building
Accessory Hospital Facilities
C Block 86, Lot 2: Gravel parking lot
D
16
Block 86, Lot 6
6.0 Properties Not Owned by Inspira
6.1. Introduction
6.1.a. Background
The properties within the Study Area that are not owned by Inspira are: Block 84, Lots 2, & 4.01;
Block 85, Lots 2, 24, 24.01, & 24.03; and Block 86, Lots 1.01, 3.01, & 16, as illustrated in Figure 6. These
properties represent residential properties, businesses, and publically owned land that remain in spite
of the amassing of adjacent properties by Inspira and pervious owners. The homes and businesses are
increasingly isolated from the neighborhood, and present as fragmented hold-outs within the medical
center. Detailed descriptions of each Block and Lot are provided in Appendix C.
6.1.b. Summary Findings
This report finds that Block 84, Lots 2, & 4.01; Block 85, Lots 2, 24, 24.01, & 24.03; and Block 86, Lots 1.01, 3.01
&16, themselves are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but the inclusion of which is
found necessary, with or without change in their condition, for the effective development of the area
of which they are a part and therefore deemed critical to the area’s successful redevelopment. The
assemblage of properties within the redevelopment area will ensure the study area is redeveloped
in a manner consistent with the goals of the City, due to the small acreage of the parcels and their
disjointed configuration. This report recommends that Block 84, Lots 1, 2, 4.01, & 6,Block 85, Lots 2, 24,
24.01, & 24.03; and Block 86, Lots 1.01, 3.01, &16 be designated as an Area in Need of Redevelopment
under the State Local Redevelopment And Housing Law (N.J.S.A 40A: 12A-3).
6.2. Section 3 Criteria
6.2.a. Statutory Language
N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-3 states that “A redevelopment area may include lands, buildings, or improvements
which of themselves are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but the inclusion of
which is found necessary, with or without change in their condition, for the effective development of
the area of which they are a part.” This is commonly referred to as the “Section 3 Criteria.”
According to the Redevelopment Handbook, this section allows for the inclusion of properties that
do not meet the statutory criteria but are essential to be included in the designation to effectively
redevelop the area. Examples of such properties include properties located within and surrounded by
otherwise blighted areas, properties that are needed to provide access to an area to be redeveloped,
areas needed for infrastructure or utilities, or properties that otherwise could be determined to be
critical to the area’s successful redevelopment.
6.2.b. Redevelopment Vision
Per the 2011 Master Plan, the primary goal of Woodbury is to reestablish itself as a major business and
commerce center of Gloucester County and continue to maintain a viable and desirable community in
which to live, work and play in a clean and safe environment. This includes housing, business, industrial,
recreation, and open space opportunities to meet the diverse needs of the citizenry’s dissimilar ages,
ethnic groups, and income levels.
17
Figure 6. Study Lots not Owned by Inspira Medical Center Woodbury
PACKER
3.01
16
1.01
2
1
6
7
14
13
OAK
24
24.03
TATUM
24.02
1
4
2
3
BROAD
24.01
5
RED BANK
4
2
4.01
6
1
.
0
50
100
200
Feet
300
18
Study Area
Parcels
Parcels Not Owned
by Inspira
The 2011 Master Plan encourages redevelopment of areas that are exhibiting decline (i.e.
disproportionate number of vacant, dilapidated and/or substandard structures). Redevelopment
should be undertaken to encourage a strong connection between Downtown Woodbury and the
hospital, as a major economic hub and service provider, while mitigating the hospital’s encroachment
on neighboring residential areas.
Redevelopment of the hospital area will assist in the reestablishment of an economic base, as well as
assist to alleviate suboptimal circulation patterns between the downtown and the hospital area, and
encroachment concerns. This Investigation will serve to capitalize on strategic redevelopment of the
area that is exhibiting decline in an effort to ensure that future development will be compatible with the
City’s planning vision and goals. As such, it will serve to fulfill the strategic goals and objectives outlined
in the 2011 Master Plan.
The strategic goals and objectives related to redevelopment are as follows:
Land Use:
• Encourage the redevelopment of the downtown business district to insure that it creates a lasting
positive contribution to the city of Woodbury.
• Establish a renewed consistency between land use and zoning districts.
• For all commercial and industrial properties, establish design criteria that minimize the impact of
parking, traffic, noise, illumination, signage, and smoke odors, etc.
• Encourage redevelopment wherever needed.
• Rezone areas of the city where appropriate, to reflect current uses or uses deemed to be in the
long-term best interest of the community.
• Continue to protect and ensure the preservation of the historic character of Woodbury.
• Establish a design criterion and performance standards that enhance and beautify the downtown
district.
• Continue to maintain an open dialogue with and involve residents regarding land use issues in
their neighborhoods.
Economic:
• Expand and diversify the economic profile of the City, reestablishing Woodbury as an important
economic center in the region.
• Provide a business friendly environment for existing businesses, which have invested in the City and
provide a support for those wishing to upgrade or renovate.
• Encourage redevelopment and full occupancy in existing commercial locations.
• Encourage dialogue with property owners of downtown businesses regarding opportunities within
the community.
• Promote redevelopment and offer business incentives.
In addition to fulfilling local long-term planning goals, redevelopment of the Study Area would ensure
consistency with the 2001 New Jersey Development and Redevelopment Plan, which identifies
Woodbury as a Metropolitan Planning Area,17 and the 2012 Draft State Strategic Plan,18 which identifies
17 2001 New Jersey Development and Redevelopment Plan. http://www.nj.gov/state/planning/docs/stateplan030101d.pdf. Accessed November 2015.
18Draft State Strategic Plan. http://www.nj.gov/state/planning/spc-state-plan-draft-final.html. Accessed November
2015.
19
this area as Priority Growth Investment Area (PGIA). According to the State Strategic Plan, a PGIA is
“an area where more significant development and redevelopment is preferred and where public and
private investment to support such development and redevelopment will be prioritized.”
In summary, the redevelopment of the Study Area is clearly consistent with the Woodbury Master Plan
and would reinforce key local, county and state smart growth objectives.
6.2.c. Critical to Successful Redevelopment
The lots that are not currently owned by Inspira but lie within the Study Area comprise properties crucial
to the cohesive redevelopment of the Study Area. The lots currently lie in the MH zone, indicating that
the lots are viewed by the City as part of a larger medical district. Should the Medical Campus cease
to exist, the businesses that have located in the area to serve the medical campus may cease to be
economically viable, causing economic hardship for the City. It would then be necessary to encourage
redevelopment to insure that it creates a lasting positive contribution to the City of Woodbury and be
consistent with the Woodbury Master Plan. The redevelopment of the Study Area in a comprehensive
manner will also re-establish a consistency between land use and zoning districts.
Block 85, Lots 2 and 24.01, and block 86, Lot 16 are surrounded on three sides by lots owned by Inspira,
and maintain a fourth edge against a public right-of-way. The inclusion of these lots in the study area
allow for consecutive lots to be redeveloped within one cohesive vision for the redevelopment area.
Should redevelopment occur, the inclusion of the properties will also allow for greater option for points
of access, ingress and regress, and further the implementation of multi-modal circulation routes. These
alterations will encourage full occupancy of the redeveloped Study Area and minimize the current
detrimental impact of parking and traffic within the Study Area and surrounding neighborhoods.
6.2.d. Areas Needed for Infrastructure or Utilities
Block 86, Lot 1.01 is a parcel located in the Southwest corner of the Study Area. Currently located on
the property is a utility access point (see Figure 7). The presence of these utilities aid in providing the
necessary infrastructure for redevelopment to occur on the site. These facts support the finding that
Block 86, Lot 1.01 meets the standards identified in Section 3 of the Redevelopment Statute.
Figure 7. Public Utility Access Point
Street level image from 2011 tax accessor records as viewed from Tatum Street
Utility Access Point
Block 86, Lot 1.01
Block 86, Lot 1.01: Aerial view
20
6.2.e. Conclusion
This report finds that Block 84, Lots 2, & 4.01; Block 85, Lots 2, 24, 24.01, & 24.03; and Block 86, Lots 1.01,
3.01 &16 themselves are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but the inclusion of
which is found necessary, with or without change in their condition, for the effective development of
the area of which they are a part. It is the opinion of this investigation that the properties are sufficiently
segregated from the surrounding neighborhood as to be considered more a part of the medical
center than the surrounding residential and commercial areas. Furthermore, the inclusion of these lots
is determined to be critical to the area’s successful redevelopment. As such, the properties should be
included within the Study Area as an Area in Need of Redevelopment so as not to have a deleterious
effect on the welfare of the community should they be left undeveloped or developed separately from
the surrounding properties to be designated and can be redeveloped in a manner consistent with City
planning goals.
21
7.0 Public Utilities
7.1. Conclusion
The properties designated as Block 84, Lots 1 & 6 are used for public utilities.
Block 84 Lots 1 & 6 are owned by Public Service Electric and Gas Company. Lot 1 contains one
transmission tower comprised of a steel lattice tower, supporting an overhead power line. The property
also contains standard wooden utility poles, used to support overhead power lines. These utility poles
may support wires for other public utilities as well. Lot 6 also contains standard wooden utility poles and
overhead power lines (see Figure 8 below).
Figure 8. Street view of Block 84, Lots 1 & 6
Both properties abut commercial/institutional uses to the north and Woodbury Creek to the south.
Lot 6 is not accessible by road; topography prevents a challenge to this end. Both properties are also
located within a flood hazard zone, as determined by FEMA (see Figure 9).
Based on the information acquired and analysis of Block 84, Lots 1 & 6, this investigation finds that there
is currently not enough evidence to qualify these properties as an area in need of redevelopment.
However, the lack of means of access to developed sections or portions of the City may qualify the lots
under Criterion C to be designated as in need of redevelopment, at a future point.
22
Figure 9. Special Flood Hazard Area
23
8.0 Appendices
Appendix A - Resolution #15-133
24
25
26
27
Appendix B - Existing Conditions of Properties within Study Area Owned by
Inspira Medical Center Woodbury
28
Block 84 Lot 4 contains a 796 space parking garage, constructed in 2003, with solar canopy, a medical
office building used for outpatient treatment constructed in 1970, a two-story health center that serves
as the family medicine center and center for sleep medicine, and two additional surface parking lots
containing 285 spaces and 48 spaces respectively.
Block 85 Lot 1 is used as a parking area. The paved lot contains 24 spaces and is gated.
Block 85, Lot 3 is used as a parking area. Signage on the property indicates that it is reserved parking,
but the lot has not been improved beyond the addition of gravel to function as a parking surface.
Block 85, Lot 5 is contiguous with the parking area located on Lot 3.
Block 85, Lot 4 is the main building of Inspira Medical Center Woodbury. The property contains a sevenstory structure, primarily of concrete construction. The footprint of the hospital has expanded many
times; Downs wing was constructed in the 1950s, A, B, and C wings in the late 1960’s, and D wing in the
late 1970s. In 2007, the Emergency Department extension was constructed using fireproofed steel.
Block 85, Lot 24.02 is a single family home. It was constructed in 1952 in the Cape Cod style and contains
asbestos siding and an asphalt roof. The property is classified as 15D - church & charitable property for
tax purposes.
Block 86, Lot 1 was purchased by Inspira Medical Center Woodbury from Ginni Angelastro in 2015. A
two story brick structure is located on the lot as well as a shed and surface parking lot. The primary
structure was a medical office building and apartments prior to sale: the first floor is presently used
as a medical office and is 1,400 square feet in size. It is unknown whether Inspira Health Network has
maintained the use of the second story as two one-bedroom apartments.
Block 86, Lot 2 functions as a parking area, with gravel roughly applied. It is uknown whether Inspira
maintains this lot solely for staff or if the lot is used freely by the public.
Block 86, Lot 6 was granted in 2004 to Underwood Memorial Hospital by homeowners Robert F. and
Helen S. Huesser. During the period between 2011 and 2013, the single famiily home on the site was
demolished. The lot is currently vacant, although parking remains on the driveway accessible via
Packer Avenue, which was maintained from the property’s prior use. Inspira has placed a “smoke free
facility” sign on the edge of the property bordering Packer Avenue.
Block 86, Lot 7 is a gated 63 space parking lot that serves the Emergency Department of Inspira Medical
Center Woodbury, and a structure occupied by the engineering department of Inspira Medical Center
Woodbury and used as a maintenance building. The building was constructed with a metal roof and
metal siding on three sides, and a decorative brick front on the facade of the structure facing Oak
Street.
Block 86, Lot 13 contains a two-story stucco finished building used for medical offices and a small
number of parking spaces. The property was sold in February of 2000 for $185,000; the net value of the
property is now $160,100, indicating a loss in value.
Block 86, Lot 14 is classified as a health center by the tax accessor. The lot was sold in 2003 for $1.00 to
Underwood Memorial Hospital by Edward Apetz, MD and Linda Apetz. The building currently on the
site was constructed in 1996 and functions as the antenatal testing unit and houses the prenatal care
program for the hospital.
29
Street views of Block 84, Lot 4 & Aerial view of Solar Canopy
Block 84, Lot 4: Parking Garage
Block 84, Lot 4: Aerial View of Solar Canopy
Block 84, Lot 4: Outpatient Center
Block 84, Lot 4: Outpatient Center
Block 84, Lot 4: Family Medicine Center
30
Appendix C - Existing Conditions of Properties within Study Area Not Owned by
Inspira Medical Center Woodbury
31
Block 84 Lot 2 and Lot 4.01 is owned by Tatum Realty LLC. The lots contain a two-story brick building
with decorative stone accent and entry canopy that serves as a medical office building. The building
is currently occupied by Advanced Orthopaedic Centers, and is not affiliated with Inspira Medical
Center Woodbury.
Block 85 Lot 2 is a residential property owned by Gerald Taylor. The two-story structure functions as a
single-family home. The structure is in a Colonial style with stucco siding and asphalt shingle roofing. The
property also contains a two car garage accessory to the primary structure.
Block 85, Lot 24 and Lot 24.01 are owned by Tra Cee Nursery School, Inc. The single family home located
on the lot 24 was constructed in 1950 and is single-story. The structure located on lot 24.01 is also a
single-story structure. Both have commercial uses as nursery schools; Tra-cees nursery school offers an
infant program, toddler program, pre-school program, pre-kindergarten program, before and after
school programs and summer programs for school aged children.
Block 85, Lot 24.03 contains a single family residental home owned by Elizabeth Bock. The residence is
a single-story Ranch style home with vinyl siding that was constructed in 1952.
Block 86, Lot 1.01 is owned by Woodbury City, therefore public property, and is .02 acres. The site
contains a utility access point contained by concrete with a metal fence surround on all sides and
above.
Block 86, Lot 3.01 is a residence owned by Lynn A Shumaker. The lot contains a single family home that
was constructed in 1920 in a Colonial style.
Block 86, Lot 16 is owned by Thao Pham. The site is currently Bo Ne restaurant. The lot was sold at a
sheriff’s sale in 2013 to a holding company, who sold the lot and existing building to Thao Pham later
in 2013. NJ Asessment Records also indicated the 2003 purchase of the property by an existing tenant
from the owner, and the sale of the property to an LLC in 2007. Street view photography may also
indicate an apartment in the rear of building.
32
Existing exterior conditions of commercial properties
Block 85, Lot 24.01: Nursery School
Block 85, Lot 24: Nursery School
Block 86, Lot 16: Restaurant
Block 84, Lot 2: Medical Office Building
Block 86, Lot 16: Restaurant parking
Block 84, Lot 2: Medical Office Building
33
Existing exterior conditions of residential properties
Pictured: Street view of Block 85, Lot 2, Block 86, Lot 3.01; Block 85, Lot 24.03
Block 85, Lot 2
Block 86, Lot 3.01
Block 85, Lot 2
Block 86, Lot 3.01
Block 85, Lot 24.03
Block 85, Lot 24.03
34
Appendix D - Functional Flows Analysis provided by the Property Owner
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42