SHARE:  


Time for the New Council

to Listen to Residents on Development



PUBLISHED BY TEANECK VOICES

8/6/2023

Contents:


Time for the New Council to Listen to Residents on Development


  • Why Introduce a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) now?


  • Am Legion Drive Area Redevelopment Community Mtg.


  • Planner's Report on Responses at Master Plan Kickoff


Board of Education Election - Candidates and Process


This Week in Teaneck - August 7 to 14, 2023


The Week that Was -July 31 to August 6


Contacting Teaneck Voices


Time for the New Council

to Listen to Residents on Development


The new Council has - to be sure - supported three useful Town fora addressing the Town's development.


The initial Spring development forum drew at least 150 residents, was conducted in a Rodda Center gym, and provided time for many resident statements - almost all of which called for a change in the Town's development policies and were very critical of the Area in Need of Redevelopment (AINR) mechanisms - and particularly the use of PILOTS to support redevelopers.


The second, a mid-June meeting of about 120 residents, was billed as the kick-off to a new Master Plan. It took place in the Teaneck Library Auditorium and additionally drew a substantial group of internet participants. The results of that meeting reported by 8 leaders of randomly-selected residents is well summarized by the Town planners and found in its entirety in today's Voices article (see below). Again, most residents were open to multi-unit development but opposed to tall facilities and those being governed by AINR procedures. Most were specifically critical of tax give-aways - PILOTS. The meeting's final words were the request that new development steps not precede completion of the new Master Plan.


In today's Voices edition is our summary of last week's July 31 Community Meeting on the American Legion Drive AINR proposed redevelopment proposal that was included in the 2022 litigation settlement. More than 200 residents participated (in-person or by zoom) and for an hour and 20 minutes NO speaker supported the Crossroads project described - and many pressed the Town to abandon AINR's and the Payment In Lieu of Taxation tax-break schemes that can accompany them.


Yes the residents have been invited to share their views - A surprising consensus has emerged. But it remains very unclear whether Council's claims to be listening are, in fact, valid.


Case in point: 8 days after its most recent development town forum, Council is proposing adoption of a resolution and considering introduction of a PILOT agreement that - in so far as the limited information provided - would appear to be giving a redeveloper whose property lies within an AINR tax-break of + or - $6Million.


In what follows below Voices explores what little can deduced from the limited information provided about this PILOT agreement. (Res 25-2023 and Proposed Ordinance 33-2033.) Click Here


Surely with all the recent promises about transparency and commitment to hearing and being guided by public input, the Council and its attorneys need first to explain - on Tuesday night why this proposal is valid & why it is being rushed through. and why the public is not being given an opportunity to at least wade through the 98 pages of legal text that appears to contravene - make a mockery of listening and responding - to what clearly has been so well articulated by literally hundreds of Teaneck residents.

  • Why Introduce a Payment in Lieu of Taxes now?

Council’s just-published website agenda for its August 8, 2023 meeting includes a 56-page resolution (225-20223) and a 42-page ordinance (33-2023) proposed for Introduction, which, if combined, open the way for a PILOT (a Payment in Lieu of Taxes agreement) for a 48-unit 6-story proposed residential facility at 189 The Plaza. The resolution could be approved Tuesday; the public hearing and vote on the ordinance are to be scheduled for September 5.


Teaneck Voices believes these proposed Council actions to be both unnecessary and surely premature. Though arguably better than its predecessor AINR PILOTs, these steps nevertheless represent an ill-advised Town commitment to give up – for 30 years – taxes at rates that the Township would otherwise require of this or another owner for this or another development project in this location.


Teaneck Voices believes that before passage of either of these 2 proposed actions – each of which help to implement projects embedded in the Areas in Need of Redevelopment (AINR) mechanism – should be delayed until the new Master Plan clarifies how and by what principles - development should proceed in Teaneck. 


Surely before acting, Council and or its attorneys need to provide an explanation of what is the rationale for these steps and why they need to be taken now.


Granting another PILOT at this time is an action which the Town’s recent public meetings on development issues have demonstrated to be opposed by an overwhelming majority of residents who have expressed their views at those meetings! (see lead article in this Voices edition).


Teaneck Voices, in its 7/3/2023 edition (Click Here), promised its readers it would seek expert evaluation of the June 27 PILOT analysis presentation made to Council by a Town-consultant analyst (NW Financial LLC) about the financial rationale for a potential PILOT agreement between the Town and the developer/owner of 189 The Plaza. Voices has developed an article on its website which raises many serious questions about that NW Financial presentation (Click Here). But it is in no way clear what is the relationship between that seriously flawed NW Financial analysis and what the Town is committing itself to in the resolution and ordinance to be considered on Tuesday, August 8.


We note here simply two facts which should convince our readers – and possibly the Council – that no action should be taken on Tuesday:


1)   Recent development in Teaneck HAS NOT RECENTLY BEEN DEPENDENT ON TAX GIVE AWAYS – on PILOTS! Within half a mile of this proposed facility are three recent examples. The Avalon development pays regular taxes, The apartment project at 1500 Teaneck Road pays them. The 8-story 1475 Palisade Avenue facility did not receive a PILOT. What is it that differentiates these examples from the 189 the Plaza proposed Pilot?


2)   The NW Financial analysis claimed that this builder can’t – or won’t – build a project on this land unless it is given a PILOT. Has the Town actively explored whether other redevelopers would insist on such a requirement. If the developer of 189 The Plaza won’t build without a PILOT perhaps it should be encouraged to sell to a redeveloper who would. Just because the property sits within an AINR does not create the right to a PILOT.


Readers with the time – and fortitude – may wish to go to our website where we have developed an article which is a composite of input we have received about the NW Financial analysis. Click Here. We note again that the relationship between that analysis and what has just now been proposed for Council action on Tuesday is simply unknown!


Am Legion AINR Community Meeting

Is anybody Listening to Us?.

“If you don’t like looking at an apartment house across the street from your home, turn your head.” A collective gasp erupted from the 200 or so Teaneck residents in attendance. The statement was from Decatur Avenue resident Margaret Baker telling us what then-Deputy Mayor Mark Schwartz said to her when she addressed the huge AINR-driven 255-unit apartment building emerging just feet away from her front door.


That brief statement made months ago by Councilmember Schwartz to Resident Baker, summed up, for many, the ethos surrounding the Township’s American Legion Drive/Beverly Road AINRs vs. the citizens of Teaneck. We the taxpayers of Teaneck have been dismissed in a similar manner when we asserted our rights to live in the environment of low-density, open space, trees, and parks to which most of us moved from crowded, urban apartments.


Early in the evening it became apparent that the 200 residents in attendance (overflow in-person and zoom) were feeling what Mrs. Baker experienced - except it was members of the Meeting’s panel who were turning their heads away. (For those who missed it, the two-hour meeting is available if you Click Here)


The meeting was called by the Council and Manager primarily in order to enable Crossroads Companies, conditionally designated developer of the American Legion Drive and Beverly Road AINRS, to lay out their redevelopment plans. On the panel were Council members C. Denise Belcher, C. Hillary Goldberg, C. Mark Schwartz, Anthony Vulpi a Crossroads Development Partner and an array of lawyers

·       Michael Ash, Teaneck’s new Redevelopment Attorney, & Moderator of the panel

·       Scott Salmon, Teaneck’s newly hired Township Attorney

·       Jason Tuvel, attorney for Crossroads Companies


Prior to the meeting, Teaneck Voices and several Teaneck Neighborhood Associations had circulated the key information that the developer Crossroads had aggressively engaged in conflicts of interest and deception to establish the Stop & Shop facility as part of an Area in Need of Redevelopment. (see Voices edition Click Here )


The question on most residents’ minds was : If this company used wholly improper means to win this contract, why are we allowing them to hold this meeting? And then, why would we trust that firm to redevelop the properties that sandwich Cedar Lane, our downtown .


But our new Council, with 3 members who ran and won on an anti-AINR platform, participated in the planning and promotion of the meeting.


So the audience of residents sat through a jam-packed Power Point presentation detailing the massive development plan for the two presently single family/retail-zoned/parking areas , a presentation which most of the audience had seen before and opposed.


Then it was time for Q&A which was noteworthy for the following:

·       Almost every resident who spoke expressed extreme concern or outright rejection of the Crossroads redevelopment plans.

·       Almost every answer from the panel ignored the question asked and instead promoted the plan.

·       Alleged leading proponent of the AINR-takeover of Teaneck, C. Mark Schwartz, pulled his chair away from his fellow panel members, chewed gum and fiddled with his laptop. He never spoke a word!

·       Seated in the back of the side room were Crossroads CEO Steve Hittman and 2 colleagues. They were accused by the Teaneck residents with whom they were sitting as “yucking it up” throughout.

 

Then, resident Joseph Kaplan (retired attorney) approached the microphone and asked the critical question. He challenged the panel saying that many speakers had made serious allegations of illegal activities and until those allegations were answered honestly – true or false – the rest of this discussion was moot. NOTHING SHOULD PROCEED UNTIL THE CONTRACTUAL PROCESS WAS MADE CLEAR. He asked the panel to respond to his question. 

Stuart Kaplan - Click Here and move cursor to 1hr&1 Min


Immediately and for the rest of the meeting, that question became the elephant in the room. NO ONE on the panel touched it!


Have Crossroads and Teaneck’s new attorneys already bought into the Mark Schwartz mantra: If you don’t like it, turn your head and don’t look at it.


It is worth noting: Councilman Schwartz lives in a lovely home with fenced in swimming pool directly across from Phelps Park. He has nothing blocking his view of parkland, FDU and beautiful sunsets.


Mrs. Baker used to have a view of sunrises over the Palisades; soon she will see the sun only after noon. For a second year, now construction sunrise to sunset noisily erodes her neighorhood


Councilmember Schwartz does know what it is like to have your home life disrupted: One day a year an alumni organization of Teaneck High School Students hold their reunion in Phelps Park. One single day! Councilman Schwartz asked that the reunion be held elsewhere because the loud music was disturbing to his family on reunion day.


It is time for the Leadership of Teaneck and their consultants and vendors to accord Respect and Attention to the people of Teaneck. Finally, Attention Must Be Paid.

Planners' Summary of Public Responses

at Master Plan Kick-Off Meeting

Memorandum To: Master Plan Steering Committee

From: Keenan Hughes, AICP, PP, Spach Trahan, AICP, PP

Date: June 22, 2023

Re: Summary of Public Responses to Questions at Master Plan Kick-Off Meeting


This memorandum provides a summary of the public responses to questions posed at the Master Plan Kick-Off Meeting on June 14, 2023. Responses are based on facilitator notes from eight in-person group discussions involving approximately 60 attendees, as well as 22 completed Google Form responses from virtual attendees on Zoom.

 

1. What are Teaneck’s greatest assets and strengths?

Recurring answers included the following:

- Tradition of diversity, inclusion, and activism on race, cultures, and religions

- Strong community ties, not transient

- Suburban feel

- Sidewalks

- Tree-lined streets

- Quiet

- Proximity to NYC

- Bus transportation options

- Access to major highways

- Institutions: schools, library

- Recreation and parks systems, green space

- Rodda Center programming

Other non-recurring answers included:

- Healthcare, both access to/and as an employer

- Teaneck International Film Festival (TIFF)

- Fairleigh Dickinson University


2. What aspects of life in Teaneck need improvement? What would you like to see change? What might be the biggest challenges in the next 5-10 years?


Responses ranged across many topic areas, summarized as follows:

- Revitalize the commercial areas (Cedar Lane, Degraw Avenue, The Plaza, and Teaneck Road all mentioned)


o Aesthetics

o Types of business offerings (quality, type – cafes, supermarkets,

restaurants, clothing stores, arts/culture/entertainment venues,

etc.)

o More parking needed

▪ Angled vs. parallel parking

o Need for place-making to avoid being a “pass-through” town

o Attract all types of shoppers (young people, people in other

towns, FDU students, etc.)

- Managing traffic congestion and public transit crowding

o Idea: Shuttle to rail stations

o Improve transportation within Twp., to other locations in NJ, and

commuting to NYC

o Improve traffic safety

o Add traffic lights (The Plaza, etc.)

- Pedestrian and bicycle-friendly streets

o Add bicycle lanes

o Maintain sidewalks

o Idea: Close streets for pedestrians

- Keep connectivity throughout Teaneck

- Infrastructure improvements (road surface quality, overpasses)

- High-rise/multifamily apartments – criticisms

o Low-rise apartments preferred

o Design guidelines/aesthetic alignment with existing built

environment

o Need proper setbacks

o Too many multifamily dwellings, creating an urban environment

o Too much developer control

o Concern over impacts on infrastructure

o Concern over misuse of redevelopment process

- Increase/improve housing options

o Allow two-family zoning, accessory dwelling units on single-family lots

o More affordable options

o Add more multifamily housing and missing-middle housing for

young people, young families, and seniors

o Options for people with disabilities

- Parks and recreation improvements

o Better utilize Argonne Park

o Add pickleball courts

o Make parks more user-friendly (benches, lighting, shade)


- Better incorporate Fairleigh Dickinson University into the community

o Attract students and staff to business districts

- Improve the relationship between Holy Name Medical Center and the community

- Improved programming for seniors

- Improve schools

- Property rights/eminent domain concerns

- Address drainage and flooding concerns

- Improve communication over development and planning process

 

3. What is one key topic that the Master Plan must address?

Key topics to be addressed can be summarized in two main categories: residential and commercial.


Residential:

- Providing housing options for the next generation

- Maintain the quality of life and community character (low-density residential)

- Establish design standards for new development

o Height, building materials, architectural style, etc.

- Ensure infrastructure is adequate/has capacity to support new

development, especially residential development (infrastructure =

roads/traffic, utilities, and municipal services)


Commercial:

- Incentivize commercial development and business attraction/success

- Improve walkability from residential areas to business districts

- Parking to support commercial districts


4. Who must be included in the Master Planning process? What groups will be underrepresented without intentional outreach? (e.g., renters, business owners, immigrants, age groups, community organizations, etc.)


Respondents believed the following groups should be targeted for additional outreach efforts:

- Families with children

- Small business owners

- Northeast quadrant of town (Northeast Block Association)

- Youth (under 18) and young adults

- Renters

- Fairleigh Dickinson University

- Hispanic community

- People who work in Teaneck but are not residents

- People with disabilities

- Faith communities (e.g., Muslim community)

- Prospective homebuyers/real estate agents or brokers

- Educational institutions

- Seniors

- People who do not use technology

- Lower-income residents


Respondents provided some preliminary ideas for outreach locations or

methods:

- PTA meetings

- Youth sports leagues

- Community events

- Houses of worship

- Block associations

- Rental communities

- Fliers in supermarkets to reach people that do not use technology

Update on Teaneck Board of Education

Candidates for November's Election

A brief update is due our readers on what we now know about who will be running for the 3 three-year seats on the Teaneck Board of Education in the November 7, 2023 election- and what additional steps will be taken by the Bergen County Clerk (whose office oversees BOE elections in the County) to shape the ballot on which Teaneck residents will cast their votes for BOE candidates in November.


The Board of Education is composed of nine members – 3 of whom are elected each year for 3 year terms (unless a Board member has left the board before the end of his/her term). The Clerk has – as of July 31 - approved the petitions and other qualifications for 6 Teaneck residents (see below) who have sought to be candidates in November.


As of August 7 at 4:00 pm, those candidates who want to be “bracketed” with 1 or 2 other candidates in the election will need to have so indicated to the Clerk’s office. A week later – on August 14 – the Clerk’s elections office will conduct a drawing to determine the ballot order for the candidates, whether they will run alone or as part of a bracket. Finally, on August 18, any approved candidate who wishes to withdraw from the race will have to have so informed the County Clerk.


This is the list of 6 Teaneck residents whose candidacies are currently identified as approved by the County, as that list is found on the Clerk’s website (Click Here)

This Week in Teaneck - August 7 to 13, 2023

Council Meeting - Tuesday August 8 at 8:00 pm - hybrid in both Council Chambers and Click Here for zoom access with the passcode 975342 The agenda packet is available if you Click Here


  • This meeting will include the promised presentation by Manager Kazinci with details about his recent meeting with both local and CSX officials about rail safety and transparency. Also, initial nominations and votes for the long moribund Site Plan Review Advisory Board are expected.
  • The agenda lists introduction of an ordinance that addresses a PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) arrangement with the owner/developer of a proposed 6-story residential facility at 189 The Plaza (see related article in this edition of Voices. )
  • Council owes it to the public to DELAY passage of Resolution 225-2023 and the Introduction Ordinance 33-2023 that together award a developer with what may well amount nearly $6M. What do we get? 7 units for families (none of whom are statistically likely to be current residents) with affordable housing.
  • It is Inexcusable to have the 98 pages of legalese suddenly pop up in the agenda packet Click Here that includes 56 pages of a resolution (225-2023) that awards the amended redevelopment plan to the owner of 189 the Plaza followed by the 42 page Ordinance 33-2023 that seals the PILOT deal.
  • Respect for the public says TABLE THESE ACTIONS until Council at the very least explains what it is doing!


Planning Board - Thursday August 10 at 8:00 pm in Council Chambers (no internet yet announced) No agenda has been posted for this meeting


As Voices obtains additional information about these meetingd, it will update this incomplete information on its website, www.Teaneckvoices.com

.

 

The Week that Was - 6/31 to 7/6, 2023

American Legion Drive Redevelopment Community Meeting (Monday, July 31, 2023)


(See Story in this Voices edition)


Board of Adjustment Mtg - Thursday, August 3


This B of A meeting was announced late on the Township website. The video for the two-hour meeting is now available at Click Here.

The meeting was attended by only 4 (and eventually 5) of the 11 BofA members and alternates.



A change of use (D Variance) request made by the owners/managers of 50 Bergen's residential facility. It was eventually carried to the September 7 meeting when additional clarity about what parts of the current 1st floor community room will now become an office. That will be provided by Attorney Tuvel. Several other applicants also asked to have their hearings continued to September, including Resident Vogel's request for approval of his resident home's renovation involving variances. (This renovation has already been completed.)

Contacting Teaneck Voices


Co-Editors: Dr. Barbara Ley Toffler and Dr. Chuck Powers

By Email: teaneckvoices@gmail.com

By Phone: 201-214-4937

By USPS Mail: Teaneck Voices, PO Box 873. at 1673 Palisade Ave. 07666

Teaneck Voices' Website is www.teaneckvoices.com


Sign Up Now
Send a Comment
Submit an Article
Editorial Policies
LinkedIn Share This Email