During its 4 ¼ hour meeting on Thursday evening 12/19, Teaneck’s Planning Board took up 3 site plan applications – and approved each of them unanimously – although two with significant conditions.
For the third time, the Board heard testimony and public questions/comments on two proposals to approve both cannabis cultivation and retail facilities on the eastern side of the existing warehouse at 455 Alfred Avenue. The Board had first to agree that the applicants had met the 12 conditions Council specified in the conditional zoning designation for 5 lots on Alfred. The Board also had to agree to give these cannabis proposals a variance since the available parking did not meet Town code parking requirements. The Board agreed that even if the applications were approved the Town engineer must subsequently agree that the proposed odor control program described by the applicant meets the very strict “non-detectable” requirements found in Ordinance 29-2021. The applicant agreed with that condition. The persistent public concerns that the cannabis location at 455 Alfred was within 1000 feet of Englewood’s Denning Park Playground and thus illegal continued. These public claims were said by one Board member to have been inaccurate which he claimed to show by reading from a NJ League of Municipalities (NJLM) legal opinion on its website. (See Teaneck Voices website for discussion at Click Here of whether that NJLM citation was complete and accurate. ) Readers who are interested in reviewing this 2 ½ hour cannabis hearing and the unanimous vote to approve the cannabis site plans should Click Here and go to min 7 of the PB video.
Although it took almost an hour, the site plan amendment sought by Young Israel for awnings and canopies needed for protection from recent climate impacts served mostly to provide clarification of the synagogue’s request. The approval of the variance needed for outdoor dining by the incoming Rumba Cuban Restaurant on the site of the old East Restaurant at 1405 Teaneck Road involved more public discussion to determine what could and could not be said about the safety of turnings into the restaurant from Teaneck Road. The concerned neighbors sought roadway clarification while fully supporting the revival of this restaurant site.
|