At the June 16 Planning Board meeting, the Board was told that it was 6 letters from developers whence the Town got commitments for plans for six properties that together would serve to fulfill the Town’s State-required 4th Round “prospective obligation”. Development Plans for those 6 properties are described on pp. 23-37 of the Housing Element Fair Share Plan (HEFSP) and are available on this Teaneck Voices website at Click Here.

As it turns out, those letters were NOT sent to the Township by the properties’ developers. Instead they were all sent by one attorney, Jason Tuvel, who asserted that he was the attorney for each of these developers and, apparently, was writing in behalf of each of them.

And it also turns out that the Town did not receive 6 letters. When a Voices editor OPRA’d all six, the Town’s OPRA response sent only 5 such letters. Each of the 5 is available to our readers by clicking below to open the 5 pdfs we received:

120290-_Request for Inclusion in Fair Share Plan_CrossroadsTeaneck_4-30-25

120291-Inclusionary Request Letter Hill Street

120292-Inclusionary Request Letter 143 State Street

120293-Inclusionary Request Letter 827 Teaneck Road

120294-Draft Inclusionary Request Letter 54 W Englewood

• 120289-54 W Englewood 5-28-25 – 2

There are many anomalies in what we did and did not receive from the Town: 

• Several of these letters refer to “plans” which were not included in the Clerk’s OPRA response. We will be seeking the missing portions when the Municipal Offices open again.
• Missing as well is any letter concerning 140 State Street, the 6th site included in the HEFSP document. This the mixed-use facility is one that Jonathan Vogel has been given permission to build at the corner of State and Queen Anne. Why no “inclusionary request letter for this property? We will request an explanation from the Clerk. It should be noted that developers of this same property – under one scheme or another – been given approvals to construct facilities at that corner for more than a decade. So far, NADA! Vogel’s record is no better!
• The 5 Tuvel letters make generally the same promises but each would require something different from the Town. A careful reading of what the Topology planners’ draft of the HEFSP (approved by both the PB & Council) gives are best understood to be blanket promises that the Town will approve any plan or ordinance proposed by each of the six developers. Has Teaneck already approved them sight unseen? 
• Had each of the five developers signed off on what Tuvel said about them? What evidence is there that they did?