Two incredibly important public meetings took place this week – Council met Tuesday; the Planning Board met Thursday.

The first meeting – Tuesday’s 1-10-2023 Council – demonstrated clearly that the change in Council leadership has opened a path to increased transparency by a Council methodically changing the appointment and participation rules of the Township entities which have previously been blocked from public participation and real public reporting responsibilities.

Here are 4 examples of Council actions on January 10 which demonstrate this shift:

1)Passage of a resolution (17-2023) which publicly & formally appointed Council members to all 2023 Council sub-committees whose memberships and activities have previously been largely hidden from public view. Council also committed to requiring both agenda announcements and public reports of all sub-committee meetings Click Here. Previously sub-committees have often conducted multiple closed door meetings without notice and without making reports (The cannabis sub-committee under their chair, former Councilman Kaplan is seen as a primary example.)

2) Appointment of and Definition of Council Liaisons to Advisory Boards (Res 16-2023 Click Here) following the Council discussion clarifying both what entities do not have Council liaisons (e.g., the Planning Bard and Board of Adjustment) and clarifying the limited role of Council liaisons (a matter which also is being addressed in the introduced ordinance amending the Advisory Board ordinance (Click Here Sec 2-148-c. – see also #4 below)

3) Appointment to the vacant Board of Adjustment membership (See Memorializing Resolution 18-2023 Click Here )which moved Alternate #1 (James Brown) up into the full-member position ending in June 2026 that had been vacated by the resignation of Atif Rehman. It also moved the other 3 Alternates up one and named Victoria Wilkerson as Alternate #4. This resolution directly repudiated the effort by the prior Council to by-pass B of A alternates who have often served for years. Regularizing the BofA appointment process is seen as a very first step toward de-politicizing and opening land use boards.

4) Formal and unanimous Introduction of an ordinance (6-2023 Click Here) to amend Township advisory board rules opening their meeting to the public and requiring G&W at all advisory board meeting. This ordinance specifically reverses the 2020 Advisory Board Ordinance which closed these advisory boards to the public. 

Another indicator of our governance opening up was the fact that 42 residents spoke in Good and Welfare and demonstrated that civil responses to the diversity of opinion can be achieved.

• Pro and con views were heard on the questions of cannabis facilities, backyard chickens and the welcoming/praise of various council members. Unanimity continues in public comment about recognizing Senator Weinberg with a naming, the recognition of Teaneck Policeman Fredrick Green and opposition to the use of Areas in Need of Redevelopment as the mechanism for Township development. To hear the entire G&W session Click Here and begin at 1hr&02min.

But before residents should relax, Voices reports the continuing hostility to change and openness which also was demonstrated last week.

The second meeting – Thursday 1/12/2023 Planning Board meeting – richly exhibited the fact that our primary land use decision entity needs much greater public attention. But the public faces major obstacles to doing so which the Board itself creates.

The Planning Board continuously fails to post its agenda until within 36 hours of its meetings – and more often than not those agendas provide 3-liners without any backup. Often they refer residents to going to the Board secretary to see what’s up. See Voices discussion of these issue in last week’s edition (Click Here under Making a New Development Policy. )

As it turned out, the January 12 PB agenda was not published on the website until 30 hours prior to the 1/12/2023 meeting. And the meeting itself was for the 4th consecutive time being conducted – without internet connection – and only audio coverage. However, even that audio tape has not been placed on the Township website now 4 days after the meeting. Not surprisingly, for most of the meeting only two members of the public were in attendance.

(Note, a Voices reporter did video record the entire 53-minute meeting which can be seen on You Tube (Click Here).

This week’s PB meeting could – like Council’s – have been the start of something different. It wasn’t: Council member Belcher was attending her first meeting as the Class 1 Mayor’s designate to the PB. Chair Bodner failed to acknowledge her but did motion Attorney Eyerman to swear her in. Only one member of the public was in attendance.

And then the meeting began with the chair referencing the agenda item by PB# only and then calling for a roll call. What happened next is very important.

Memorializing the 359 Alfred Avenue Site Plan –

Site Plan approvals -even under the AINR system – are a very major step in approving a new development project – in this case the 247-unit second residential project on Alfred Avenue.

Before a Site Plan can be finally approved, the PB’s original vote has to be written up in a resolution which is Memorialized within 45 days by a majority of PB members who originally approved it. It is that document that had to be Memorialized as describing the PB’s approval.

The presentation & initial PB vote on this site plan by Teaneck Urban Renewal, Phase II occurred on December 8. After 2 + hours of applicant testimony & PB discussion (including tense and unresolved debate about the adequacy of parking spots), a 8-0 vote to approve the plan PB was taken.

Then an 18-page resolution which set forth the basis for the PB’s decision was eventually prepared by PB Attorney Eyerman and made available to some PB members just 30 hours before the 1-12-2023 mtg. Again, it is that document that had to be Memorialized as describing the PB’s site plan approval.

What followed was a 2 minute consideration of the 359 Alfred site plan resolution. at the 1-12-2023 PB mtg. Since only 3 members in attendance on 1-12-2023 were also among the 8 members who originally supported the site plan on 12-8-2022 – the roll call on Memorializing this site plan was not a majority – and thus the Memorialization did not pass – Chair Bodner’s saying so did not make it so.

Note new PB member Belcher had to request a copy of the Attorney’s resolution – as it was about to be subject to a roll call vote.

How can the other 41K residents know what happened? Well in this case our Voices readers have 2 choices:

They can watch the entire 53-minute video placed by a Voices reporter on You Tube (again, Click Here)

Or they can choose the 3+ minute option of watching the 8-0 vote that occurred on December 8 and then see the 3-vote roll call from January 12. That can be found on You Tube at https://youtu.be/wcB9nqcTurg_or click the video picture below.

The Township audio only has not yet been posted on the Township Website as of Thursday, January 18 – a week after the meeting!!

At the end of the January 12 meeting, prompted by a resident’s G&W question about why PB meetings are now being conducted at the Rodda Center with no simultaneous public access, the Board had a 14- minute discussion about where and how to conduct its meetings. Chair Bodner and Attorney Eyerman proffered reasons about why it should keep doing what the PB is now doing. It became clear that their views were not shared by most other PB members. But the meeting closed, of course, with no clarity about whether a change would be made.

Watch this space.