Teaneck council rejects immediate move of Crossroads settlement, residents press for stronger drainage and traffic protections

Council debate over a proposed Crossroads settlement dominated the Teaneck Township Council’s Jan. 6 meeting as residents urged firmer, mandatory protections for nearby homeowners and clearer public access to developer studies.

Councilwoman Goldberg sought to move the Crossroads settlement to the consent agenda so the public could comment before the council took formal action, saying the current draft did not sufficiently protect nearby Bell Avenue residents. "The Bell Avenue neighbors are not protected in this in my very strong opinion," Goldberg said.

The council voted on Goldberg’s motion; the roll call showed only two supporters (Goldberg and Councilman Pagan) and a majority opposed, so the motion failed. Council members who voted no said the settlement was intended to resolve litigation and that detailed public-benefit commitments and technical studies are typically finalized later in the redevelopment-plan and site‑plan process.

Township legal staff and the redevelopment attorney stressed that the settlement agreements are designed to settle outstanding litigation and to preserve the township’s procedural timeline — notably the requirement to adopt zoning for affected properties by March 15. The attorney told the council that "these settlement agreements really are doing ... adopt zoning for these properties by March 15," and that many impact analyses (drainage, traffic, schools) are completed during redevelopment-plan drafting and subsequent site-plan review.

Residents pushed back. Multiple speakers at the meeting’s public-comment period asked why developer-conducted traffic, noise and utility studies had not been shared with the township or public and urged the council to require independent, township-led reviews before approving any redevelopment agreements. One civic group’s list of questions called for the developer’s traffic studies, Stop & Shop’s comments referenced in developer materials, utility and noise studies, and the proposed plans for relocating a Buddhist center and preserving the farmers market.

Council leaders said Crossroads remains required to complete several studies under prior settlement terms and that the township will conduct independent reviews of any developer submissions. The attorney confirmed the township will seek community and environmental-impact analyses — including traffic and stormwater mitigation studies — during redevelopment negotiations and before adoption of final plans.

Questions about drainage drew particular concern. Council members and residents noted earlier Crossroads presentations referencing stormwater mitigation that could involve discharge near the railroad corridor. Several speakers asked whether CSX would have to approve any design that routes additional runoff toward rail property, and council staff said any necessary stakeholders, including rail operators and Bergen County, would be consulted as engineering plans are developed.

Council members also agreed to split a previously combined settlement resolution (originally numbered 12-2026) into separate votes for individual development properties (resolutions 11, 32, 33, 34 and 35-2026) so councilors could vote on each project separately.

What’s next: The attorney said settlements narrow litigation points; specific public-benefit commitments and technical studies — including independent traffic and drainage reviews — will be completed as the township drafts redevelopment plans and negotiates redevelopment agreements. Residents asked that those studies be shared publicly as soon as they are available and that mandatory protections for nearby homeowners be written into final agreements rather than left as negotiable items.