[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,86,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6047235,"mediaKeyId","3537061-8a598742a851fcf170abe42be6a84e55","parentId",3537061,"title","Tenafly council adopts two ordinances on second reading and approves consent agenda; minutes and fireworks contract included","audioSeconds",59,"startMs",2560980,"endMs",2620970,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3537061-8a598742a851fcf170abe42be6a84e55&start=2560&end=2620","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3537061-8a598742a851fcf170abe42be6a84e55/thumbnail_2560980.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6047235/Tenafly/Bergen-County/New-Jersey/Tenafly-council-adopts-two-ordinances-on-second-reading-and-approves-consent-agenda-minutes-and-fireworks-contract-included","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6047235-344bfd5a229ed4b487908a821e1b529c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771179559&Signature=JX3VR0bE-Qy3Bn6ukagfPP0K-iEpQelgPYVKNcl3UG7wejnIjs8r3NAL3C3dZv2E0TPCrISzdg-NMSEgxXADRxIEa9-EeKwQ4b~Au5hDDZBOU4Eka-ySh4xi0UZZ0S3Ys6AduSBpkH~iItWtTy6yw~2aLZWCVEpZe4t6nBKpwghvuwUTO~HQNSzp4Yx6grzleBBY~r55tn~t-jSzw7My0VhBVWlY2a3fmMEHV8RJ9N8A8TTUDyf8njHKIpV~swL51fMIIuAno1kqLFSYWTsFrlOAG0R47gqS5UJxKuTfYBEse0b96~jNF-nkBoBqaGozvRIr2HTqh-ZFFodI9kCSJg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Tenafly Borough","date","2025-03-04T00:00:00Z","article","The Tenafly mayor and council took several procedural and consent actions at their March 4 meeting.

Ordinances adopted
- Ordinance 25-08 (amending chapter 2 — administration of government — article on police department/volunteer ambulance/fire department): Councilman Park moved to adopt Ordinance 25-08 on second and final reading. The motion received a second and passed on a roll-call vote; the clerk announced the ordinance had been published on Feb. 23 in The Record.
- Ordinance 25-09 (Washington Street parking limits): Councilmember Doctor O'Connor moved to adopt Ordinance 25-09 on second and final reading; the motion received a second and passed on a roll-call vote. The clerk announced the ordinance had been published in the Feb. 20 edition of The Record.

Consent agenda and minutes
- The council approved the consent agenda (resolutions R25-131 through R25-161). During roll call councilmembers voted to approve and one of the resolutions awarded the borough fireworks contract for July 5 (contract award referenced during roll call discussion). The council also approved minutes for the Jan. 7, 2025 and Jan. 21, 2025 mayor-and-council meetings.

Voting notes: the meeting record shows roll-call affirmation for the ordinances and consent agenda; the transcript records affirmative roll-call responses for council members present and no recorded objections during the motions. The clerk conducted roll calls for each adoption and for the consent agenda.

Ending: The mayor asked for final procedural business before moving to committee reports; the meeting proceeded to committee updates and then closed session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Tenafly Council Meeting - March 4, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","On March 4 the council adopted Ordinance 25-08 (police/volunteer/amended chapter) and Ordinance 25-09 (Washington Street parking limits) on second and final reading; the council also approved a consent agenda (Res. R25-131 through R25-161), awarded the fireworks contract and approved minutes for Jan. 7 and Jan. 21, 2025.","taxTitle","Tenafly, Bergen County, New Jersey","taxId",70483,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6047241,"Tenafly administrator reports $1.6M HUD flood-control grant, post office lot RFP responses and Grove Street timing",0,2365660,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3537061-8a598742a851fcf170abe42be6a84e55&start=2365&end=2365","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3537061-8a598742a851fcf170abe42be6a84e55/thumbnail_2365660.jpg","/articles/6047241/Tenafly/Bergen-County/New-Jersey/Tenafly-administrator-reports-16M-HUD-flood-control-grant-post-office-lot-RFP-responses-and-Grove-Street-timing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6047241-585f54b8846dc391c36c2d00e83824b6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771179559&Signature=SxrB0CGI-BhoH1dWI2v~CHJ6k7Od8ZcFS2pAWmbaH6gXZ4PUiRgX--RrEYlRd3KqQvazHYviUMTATH5HAnN3JPNKQgMI1pMyCgE8Tn5vZGhMNxrTlT3HuLQTx9UMy~fMPAoe4WKcAsj47iEg7Mo~5Xmhmf1aHXKoCv1XXw8erX-jdZk7zm2vxi9K0c-DnuMyh459hV05mxMZrS3kShxBaEMueZmEe6QgTOX4e5l7GCACpUmu-TmP9vOVSieSejB-0i-ZmSGSKWh7gwUm-fEeSS57YZXCcv2xMCuszfBSMmkLtZlZ40y7CQmx~PVN0x-bzra8YTO24x3PhYw8fbNhxA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Borough Administrator David reported on budget and capital matters at the March 4 Tenafly council meeting, saying the borough had a $1.6 million federal grant for stream cleaning and debris removal and that the grant requires a 25% local match of about $400,000.

David said the grant — assigned to HUD New Jersey for administration — covers debris removal and stream cleaning and will operate as a drawdown grant (monthly reimbursement of costs rather than full post-construction reimbursement). He said the borough must complete an environmental review before HUD can issue the first agreement and allow drawdowns. David also described a separate FEMA scoping grant opportunity to fund engineering and permitting work (NJDEP permits) that would put the borough in a stronger position to seek further resilience funding.

On a downtown site, David said the borough issued an RFP for the post office parking lot and received two responses by the February deadline; the borough will have its special planner and borough attorney review responses for responsiveness and responsibility, then schedule presentations so responders can present their proposals to the council. No selections were announced at the meeting.

David also said the Grove Street park project is on track for an early April opening (with a field meeting scheduled with the contractor the following day to confirm paving and skate-park equipment installation). He said the borough would provide a written status update after the site visit.

Ending: David told councilors he would upload grant documents once the environmental review is complete and that staff will continue to pursue a FEMA scoping grant to advance engineering and permit work for further flood-control projects.","Administrator David reported the borough received a $1.6 million federal grant for stream cleaning and debris removal that requires a 25% match ($400,000), two responses to a post-office parking-lot RFP were received and the Grove Street project aims for an early-April opening.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6047244,"Tenafly council debates tree-ordinance relief, mitigation ratios and landmark designation process",1127,755100,1882420,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3537061-8a598742a851fcf170abe42be6a84e55&start=755&end=1882","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3537061-8a598742a851fcf170abe42be6a84e55/thumbnail_755100.jpg","/articles/6047244/Tenafly/Bergen-County/New-Jersey/Tenafly-council-debates-tree-ordinance-relief-mitigation-ratios-and-landmark-designation-process","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6047244-52b9f7f9917d1e27c5a6ec43d79ddeb4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771179559&Signature=Kh7LQIvZhjQM~ynbyKU7qI06GANF~hfDV5eGi36yF-P9QMyfhl7kLGXTmZ8MBqrrYHQebguC3zIvrlZGbI03j5IYswkUAwNjZZxDo18VVY6h~c9juohB-D4m0hprzcknjNCb041Hbalr9UfGdlBGda-gTrWtDSK4lhvy~eLltnqoWYAsAJAriY7IxUQu5PoDM4W4rzqKEBcg3HiT2DYVkICm6HDjZK6oGdGco6THCTavw4zt~SFHlLJVgcNWEXZA9Qq5~o0UR8-~v9gxB30IysUpkdFMr1DcrKHR4g6ZDI5gCCEYyjh3Qgj5Nih5-n66bNiIphywCIbJSs3MPRKlTQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Tenafly mayor and councilors spent an extended portion of their March 4 meeting discussing the borough’s tree ordinance, including whether homeowners who cannot physically replant required mitigation trees should have a clearer appeals path and how landmark tree designation is initiated.

The discussion began after councilors said residents reported being unable to plant the number of replacement trees required under the ordinance because their lot footprints are too small. Staff explained the ordinance calculates mitigation to “replace what you’ve taken away,” and if a property cannot accommodate the required replacements the owner may forfeit the mitigation payment into the borough’s Shade Tree Fund. A council member identified as Julie (speaker) said the fund has been used for townwide plantings, including “about 100 trees in the Nature Center,” and described the fund as an established mitigation mechanism.

Council members pressed staff on appeals and landmarking. Several councilors said an appeal pathway exists for some hardship determinations but that a specific appeal process for disputes over mitigation calculations was not obvious to residents. One councilor asked staff to confirm that the code allows a party to appeal a zoning officer’s determination to the governing body; another said the mitigation appeal process is present elsewhere in the code and that staff should communicate that option to residents.

On mitigation ratios, staff reviewed the ordinance’s caliper-based replacement schedule: a removed 1–12-inch caliper tree requires one replacement, 12–16 inches still one, 16–18 inches two, 18–24 inches three, 24–30 inches four, and trees over 30-inch caliper trigger five replacements plus two additional trees for every additional five inches of diameter. Council members noted this can make replacement impractical on smaller lots when a single large, old-growth tree requires multiple new plantings.

Landmark designation prompted separate debate: under the current ordinance, residents must nominate a tree and contact DPW for consideration; staff said property-owners must be involved and may object, so an owner-driven nomination process can limit proactive landmarking. Council members described the public benefit of protecting old-growth trees (reducing erosion, providing canopy, environmental benefits) and asked staff to prepare options for allowing landmark designation where the borough identifies qualifying trees, subject to property-owner input and legal limits on restricting private-property rights.

Council members repeatedly framed their comments around enforceability and fairness: councilors said the ordinance’s goal is to preserve tree canopy while acknowledging that small lots and large preexisting trees create mitigation challenges. They asked staff to propose changes that would (a) clarify appeal procedures for mitigation disputes, (b) consider alternatives for small lots, and (c) evaluate whether landmarking can be done more proactively while preserving property‑owner rights.

Ending: Councilors directed staff to provide options and alternatives for future meetings; staff and councilors noted the borough will continue using the Shade Tree Fund to plant trees at public sites, including the Nature Center and along public rights-of-way.","Council members and staff discussed complaints from homeowners unable to meet tree-replacement calculations, the hardship/appeal process, mitigation ratios for large trees, and whether landmark-tree protection should be initiated without owner nomination.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6047249,"Hotel at center of Tenafly redevelopment plan sold; council says original redevelopment agreement stalled",543,64990,608810,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3537061-8a598742a851fcf170abe42be6a84e55&start=64&end=608","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3537061-8a598742a851fcf170abe42be6a84e55/thumbnail_64990.jpg","/articles/6047249/Tenafly/Bergen-County/New-Jersey/Hotel-at-center-of-Tenafly-redevelopment-plan-sold-council-says-original-redevelopment-agreement-stalled","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6047249-4593475a6ce3f421fa75c16e9769dbec/orig.mp4?Expires=1771179559&Signature=dTEoXUbzM12iN6gbzWIpXAg7o3OXWjSMGaewFtIQlWmAPX82fOJMcEVkNp-8b7ePlKApaQTZrMYNv4jNuLZDlavAI6RsZ2Cn1zmPrPgJ5cu32wji3RCzeJ7hOwXXTG2g4uaxEAyEh536bj~SERFf1swIXrmUSGtKL8cts~rdRxFDpgUktS3mPvTxdLDPYxuyV5no3mhk17oXxuC4jFPQRLvqnolX6wOp~KoNQSxcxUUSfDtbvqFwhLC81G180lDkMjXWgZYwMlz8-NEb6-y9MlnNX3Vqq8YXDbrOwWTC4Ylbni5SzlbMQJdhNoMKL0tbm9t5IuzXXSHyKBu~UHbbtA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Tenafly officials told the mayor and council on March 4, 2025, that the hotel property included in the borough's Dean Drive redevelopment plan was sold to a new owner after the plan was adopted, and that sale has stalled the negotiated redeveloper agreement.

The change in ownership means the single-ownership condition in the redevelopment agreement no longer holds, town staff said, and the council rescinded authority to execute the redevelopment agreement when it learned not all parcels remained under the same ownership. Staff said the group that had been negotiating still owns the southerly parcel but the northerly parcel containing the hotel was sold “relatively soon after the redevelopment plan was adopted, unbeknownst to us,” according to a staff member identified in the meeting as Jeff (staff member). Jeff said the redevelopment agreement contained covenants and representations that presumed single ownership of the involved lots and that those conditions would have been breached had the agreement been signed.

Why it matters: the redevelopment plan is an overlay zone that would have permitted two principal uses — assisted living (congregate care housing) and hotels — and included conditions linking the proposed assisted-living development to hotel refurbishment. Jeff told the council the redevelopment plan was intended to be implemented together (hotel first, assisted living second), and that separate ownership prevents that integrated approach from moving forward as originally negotiated.

Council members reviewed the three-step process staff had described: (1) a redevelopment study that finds an area meets the state statute definition of “area in need of redevelopment,” (2) adoption of a redevelopment plan (an overlay that changes permitted uses and zoning provisions), and (3) a redevelopment agreement with the redeveloper that would set covenants and obligations. Staff said the borough had completed the study and adopted a plan; the redevelopment agreement, however, was not executed and the council withdrew authority to sign it once the ownership split became known. The council also noted that, because the redevelopment plan is an overlay, a property owner may instead use the underlying B-2 (downtown business) zoning to pursue permitted uses such as hotels or commercial uses. The underlying B-2 zone also allows dwelling units above a building’s first floor, staff said.

The council clarified limits of municipal authority: stormwater or other upgrades would apply only to new construction or additions that require site‑plan approval; interior renovations requiring only a building permit generally do not trigger stormwater upgrade requirements, Jeff said. The borough also confirmed it has no agreement with the current hotel owner and that the previously proposed assisted‑living project is not moving forward “as originally envisioned” while ownership remains split.

The mayor and council asked staff to report back on whether the current hotel owner plans to pursue renovation permits and what applications, if any, they file. The meeting record shows staff told the council the new hotel owner has come to discuss upgrades and that the owner is free to apply for permitted renovations under the underlying zoning, but no formal applications had been filed at the time of the meeting.

Ending: Council members said they would expect staff to return with options and next steps if the new hotel owner submits applications or if consolidating ownership again becomes feasible.","Council members and staff reported that the hotel parcel included in the Dean Drive redevelopment plan was sold to a new owner after the plan was adopted, breaking the single-owner condition in the proposed redeveloper agreement and leaving the assisted-living component on hold.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Tenafly council adopts two ordinances on second reading and approves consent agenda; minutes and fireworks contract included

Tenafly administrator reports $1.6M HUD flood-control grant, post office lot RFP responses and Grove Street timing

Tenafly council debates tree-ordinance relief, mitigation ratios and landmark designation process

Hotel at center of Tenafly redevelopment plan sold; council says original redevelopment agreement stalled