Teaneck Voices Areas in Need of Redevelopment - Another Look

Published On April 3, 2022 » 1202 Views» By Charles Powers » Uncategorized, Voices on Land Use Issues

0 stars

Since Council first introduced “redevelopment” in early 2017 as a way of doing development in Teaneck, the Township Council has accelerated the naming Areas in Need of Redevelopment as the primary way to implement its view of the Town’s current “state” (i.e. blighted) and as a way of trying to expedite its own vision of what the Town should become without going through the normal small d “democratic municipal development procedures.
Voices has recently commented on these developments. What follows are significant passages from several of those commentaries:

January 23, 2022 –

IS CALLING IT BLIGHT REPLACING THE MASTER PLAN?

This past week Council suddenly introduced Ordinance 33-2022 with no advance notice. This is a major ordinance, conceived behind closed doors, with potentially far-reaching consequences for the Town. (See article below WHAT HAPPENED AT COUNCIL LAST WEEK with its map ). This ordinance authorizes the first step in designating yet another area in Teaneck to be blighted. It includes both 100 State Street and 189 The Plaza.

Rather than having development guided by the Master Plan principles, the Council has now shifted to a new development framework which bypasses the Master Plan and Teaneck’s zoning regulations.

As Ordinance 33-2022 shows, Council is accelerating the number and the size of the areas it wants to designate as Areas in Need of Redevelopment (AINR).

The structures in an Area In Need of Redevelopment (AINR) have deteriorated beyond the ability to rehabilitate them by renovation or restoration. That is why an Area in Need of Redevelopment is referred to as a “blighted” area.

The AINR approach to development

Begins and proceeds in most phases behind closed doors
Justifies itself by declaring areas of our Town to be blighted – (a sure way to devalue property values)
Allows Council-selected developers to participate in and to evaluate proposed developments without public participation
Permits developers to make deals that avoid taxation based on tax rates tied directly to property values (for example, Alfred Avenue’s special PILOT deal)
Tends to generate strong neighborhood opposition
Avoids the requirement for competitive bidding

This last point is as important as sidestepping our Master Plan. The solicitation and bidding process on redevelopment projects are not subject to NJ State Public Contracts Law which requires solicitations to be public; and the bidding process to be open to all; and that the contract be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.

The NJ State Public Contracts Law was put in place to avoid favoritism and pay-to-play deals. In its absence, particularly with potentially high-stakes redevelopment projects in an AINR, the risk of such corrupt practices increases.

Given some of the risks noted above when Redevelopment occurs under AINR designations, Teaneck residents should be aware that such projects can change the character of the town; can distance development from constraints provided by the consensus view outlined in the Master Plan; and sideline some protections against corrupt dealing.

We should be asking What are the benefits of this approach in each case, as well as who are the beneficiaries?

Why is Teaneck not using the regular procedures spelled out in the Municipal Land Use Law? In sharp contrast to the AINR approach, these procedures:

Commit to a system where a new development is openly discussed – and public dialogue about it occurs well before it is formally sent to a land use board
Open the focus and location of new development to ideas generated by developers as well as residents
Are competitive at the point where private parties seek any form of formal certification or advantage in development design and other selection
Secure a Council’s formal commitment to value all town neighborhoods and not declare any of them as blighted
Encourage every neighborhood to participate in defining local consensus about what their locale sees as its own preferred development and related investment
Establish criteria for the Town to entertain development incentives, such as tax breaks, that vary from the valuations used in the rest of the Town
Assure that hearings conducted by its land use boards for zoning changes and site plan approval, include time for public questioning of witnesses and their answers

January 16, 2022

WHAT DOES GOOD DEVELOPMENT LOOK LIKE?

A Genuine Vision for Development in Teaneck

A Master Plan is intended to be a forward-looking document, setting forth a vision for the community as a whole and laying out goals and objectives for land use, housing, commerce, recreation, open space and transportation. This plan is then implemented in the form of a Zoning Ordinance, which uses the Master Plan as a guideline in order to lay out the specific details of how and where development will occur in the future.

The Process

The 2007 Master Plan is a model of how that process is supposed to work. It was developed by a Planning Board that actively sought the input of the community as a whole. Its goals include to

“Guide appropriate development and growth in a coordinated and managed approach”
“Preserve the character of existing low-density residential neighborhoods forming the predominant character of the Township”
“Provide a balanced land use pattern and appropriate development controls”
“Provide zoning protection for existing multifamily housing, and encourage its expansion only in areas where it would not have detrimental effects on single family residential neighborhoods”
“Strengthen the vitality of existing commercial districts”
“Preserve, protect and enhance parks and open space” and
“Maintain the historic resources and natural beauty of our Township”.

However…

In the nearly 15 years since this Master Plan has been adopted, the Township Council has worked to undermine that community-driven vision.

Development is driven by outside interests that approach a Township Council that is willing to bend over backwards to make any accommodation to meet their requests, even at the expense of residents.
The Board of Adjustment has regularly granted variances that contradict the principles of the Master Plan and that have often been many times the limits set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Board has refused to implement an Open Space and Recreation Plan while it passes piecemeal amendments to the Master Plan.
The Township Council has used its Zoning Subcommittee to meet with developers and special interests behind closed doors and has implemented zoning changes and other giveaways to meet their needs.

This isn’t how zoning is supposed to work. The forward-looking process now operates backwards. Rather than expressing the goals and objectives of residents, it is changed to reflect the wants and desires of developers.

This is not what residents want. This is not what our community needs.

The Path Forward

Residents want to see

that residential neighborhoods are protected and that boundaries with commercial and institutional zones are maintained with appropriate buffers.
Mixed-use developments, with commercial and retail uses on the ground floor and with multifamily housing on the floors above should be strongly encouraged.
New and prospective residents need to be provided with housing options of varying location, size and affordability.
Senior housing for current residents must be provided to serve the needs of those looking to downsize and to spend their remaining years in the place where they have often established deep roots.

All of our commercial districts — along Teaneck Road, Cedar Lane, DeGraw Avenue/Queen Anne Road and West Englewood/The Plaza — have been left to languish. They will benefit from revitalization, mixed-use development and the creation of adequate parking.

With greater numbers of people moving into the Township, preservation of open space for current and future generations of residents is critical. Township facilities, especially parks, need to be developed across the township in local neighborhoods.

These are just some of the basics. Much more work is needed to flesh out the new vision.

But the most important objective is the creation of a new Master Plan. After 15 years, the existing document has been eroded by the passage of time and torn down by the active efforts of a Township Council that seeks to undermine it, root and branch.

A new Master Plan would very likely maintain many of the core goals of the existing 2007 plan, while reflecting the changes in development trends in and around Teaneck in the intervening period. It would be developed with broad community input and participation so that it reflects the goals and objectives of all residents. And it would undoubtedly include major upgrades to antiquated infrastructure to better serve existing needs and future development.

Unfortunately, it appears that only a new Township Council would have an interest in taking on this critical initiative.