The Stop & Shop Settlement and What's Next?
The public has received NO Information whatsoever about the status of the S&S litigation settlement since the massive settlement document/resolution was suddenly walked in for approval at Council on 9/20 and two days later a similar process occurred at the Planning Board. Strong negative public reaction to AINR-like stipulations in the settlement were claimed to be "refuted" by Town counsel. But then in the 11/22 meeting following the election an obscure amendment to the settlement resolution slipped through Council.
Literally no public meeting mention of the S&S settlement has been made in the 5 subsequent months. But, in fact, much has actually been occurring. In December 2022, Mayor Dunleavy signed the settlement but none of the other 5 signatories did so. Court records show considerable controversy among land owners until mid-March. Then all signatories signed and the S&S attorney asked for the litigation's dismissal in a document stating that all claims were dismissed and no one owed anyone anything.
Via OPRA and other document identification by alert residents (not officials) Teaneck Voices has been able to provide its readers with all of these very key documents on its own Teaneck Voices website which can be accessed if you Click Here
The existence of None of these documents has been announced publicly despite there having been 3 Council meeting since the settlement was signed and one meeting since the litigation's dismissal.
What happens next is impossible to forecast. There are reliable reports that there is an officially organized process now underway to convert the S&S settlement into a redevelopment plan for both the settlement-referenced AINR's. Will the redevelopment plan for them now pop up at an upcoming Planning Board meeting? Are forecasts accurate that a proposed ordinance to provide secretly-chosen developer Crossroads Companies with a PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) deal will soon follow? Meanwhile how valid are suggestions that there are a myriad of legally serious missteps already embedded in these previously unreleased documents? Has the new Council been fully apprised of all these alleged developments, or have the Town's professional staffs left Council out of the loop as well?
Beverly Road AINR and the overdue Belle Avenue Flooding Fixes
Another case of failure to communicate and then act. Despite the extraordinarily articulate and persistent leadership of the Belle Avenue flood victims neighborhood, many fear that the Beverley Road AINR development plans may be entwined with why the Town can't get itself organized to get Green Acres approval to finish the proposed Sagamore Park flood mitigation. These long-time floods are devastating. Are the inexcusable 3 decades of municipal promises and then looking the other way going to continue due to administrative timidity? Council, you can't you fix this? Talk to us - what's what?
DPW location-a perennial Q - new home or remedy the mess?
For more than 50 years Teaneck has been pledging action on the inexcusably dangerous and contaminated recycle center on River Road. (In 2016, then Planner Richard Preiss said it posed an unacceptable and imminent risk to employees and residents) In late October 2022, just before the 2022 election, the Manager brought a group of DPW workers forward at a Council meeting and promised them a new work facility - in a new Leonia shared project - in 2 years . Since then radio silence.
Rumors fly around continuously - the Leonia deal is on, or off or awaiting resolution of either policy or personality differences. There are complicated (but not impossible) issues involved in putting a recycle center in a protected park. Does Teaneck have a plan B? In 2019 the Town designated this 1600 River Road public land to be an area in need of redevelopment (an AINR). 4 years later, nada! Those of our readers who take their wastes to the Center and pay taxes do deserve an update. Don't we need a timeline for definite remedial action?
The proposed new Cedar Lane Bridge across the Hackensack
Unbeknownst to most, there recently was a "Community Stakeholder" virtual meeting to allow the engineers designing the new bridge to describe their plans and hear stakeholder views.
Problem: the internet access address was not sent to some who signed up and all who had planned to attend were originally given the wrong virtual address. Reportedly the meeting eventually went forward and Teaneck Voices has been promised a copy of the meeting's Power Point with design options and related discussion. (We will share it with our readers when it arrives.) No more public meetings on the bridge until Fall of 2023.
Why does public access and involvement so consistently go awry?
Holy Name Zone-No mediation settlement; HNMC hearings with no internet
On Wednesday night (4/26) the next in the interminable series of hearings begun in October 2022 will continue on the proposed site plan for a day care center on the controversial Holy Name expanded hospital zone . A total of 5 residents have attended the last 3 HNMC hearings. The Chair has mandated that there be no internet access and that the meetings occur at the Rodda Center instead of the Council Chambers. 3 of the 11 Planning Board members cannot attend because they have conflicts as did the PB attorney before he left to be a judge.
At long last the Town has installed a fixed camera and the hearings now at least show up on the Town website, if someone presses the Clerk's office to post them. .
The public is precluded from knowing what is and is not happening in the mediation that is supposed to bring the hospital and its residential neighbors to agreement. But enough is enough and the public deserves a full update on a stand off that just keeps going. Or, alternatively how about a public communication that reports an agreement that can then allow a PB transition to having hospital expansion plans focus on how the plan will meet storm water standards and all the rest of the real issues that land use standards themselves should involve.
Herrick Park Improvement - Planning Board stalls and we pay
Time and again, in public meeting contexts residents and advisory boards alike ask why won't the Planning Board even discuss what is needed to allow Teaneck be eligible for the millions of Green Acres $ that our contiguous neighboring municipalities receive. Our recreation/open space inventory has to match the state's -- but Chair Bodner refuses to put the issue of open space documentation on the PB agenda.
Now the Town is poised in 2023 to spend more than $1.5M to improve Herrick Park into a reputable park. The Town is applying for much of this to come from Green Acres, but Green Acres is PRECLUDED from actually delivering the first $ of what should be most of that $1.5M. Before our tax dollars go where it does not need to go, residents deserve to know why one official gets to require his board to remain silent about meeting a clear statutory responsibility. Mr. Bodner, what's what?
Route 4 Bridge over CSX/Palisades - when and what?
It is not imminent, but DOT is in direct talks with the Town about the plans to add a lane and a half to Route 4 where the state road crosses over the CSX tracks/Palisade Ave. The plan is now real enough for DOT to start planning how to divert and pay for pieces of protected open space in order to carry out the project. And like the PSEG diversion, that money should come to Teaneck if only we designate equivalent valued public land to open space protection. DOT is now meeting with our administrative leadership. Is there some reason why we, the public, are not hearing about the project?
61 Church Street plans - answers for now but not from Town officials
Why do public officials work so hard to keep the public in the dark about anything to do with land use? Assumedly they don't trust the wider populace to respond coherently and participate constructively.
But this week there is concrete evidence to the contrary.
The proposal to turn a former church on 1.3 acres into a private high school by hugely expanding/redesigning the facility did catch the attention of its neighbors. 61 Church is in an R/S zone and the two initial hearings about approving the D variances this application proposed attracted hundreds of zoom participants.
Communication among private residents built quickly. The neighbors studied the zoning issues, began in-person and zoom meetings which quickly mushroomed into a town-wide grouping, recognized they needed expert legal help, and recruited the extraordinary land use attorney, Gail Price. She attended the second hearing, and would have done applicant witness cross-examination at the next one.
But ten days before the scheduled 4/27 meeting Price met with the applicant attorney and we can only presume to guess the content of that exchange. But we know what happened: not only has the school application been withdrawn but the applicant has ended its purchase contract with the facility's current owner.
Will an applicant with a more appropriate and zone-consistent use now come forward? That is the hope. In any event, the now far-better organized and prepared neighborhood will be an optimal position to participate in any subsequent zoning approval process. And the next developer proponent will have the advantage of working with an informed and competent group of neighbors advocating an enhanced neighborhood. .
And, happily, the neighbors will be particularly well-prepared to participate in the Town's upcoming Forum/Town Hall. Which leads us to the next article
|