Council Takes Action on CSX Threats

Published On September 13, 2015 » 1213 Views» CSX Bakken Risk and New Residential Plans, Slider

Teaneck’s Township Council heard residents urgently address a variety of concerns related to Oil Trains in Teaneckthe dangers they perceive about 1) current CSX railroad practices (extended train “parking” on the 3-rail lines that bisect the Township and the resulting particulate pollution from the idling diesel engines and 2) about the Township current consideration of the proposed plans by AvalonBay to replace the World of Wings museum at 1775 Windsor Road with a 248-unit residential development that would immediately abut the CSX tracks and pose additional risks to those they perceive as inherent in the types of structures they associate with this developer’s building practices.

In fact, Council had already planed to take action on the former issue – and did approve a letter to CSX authored by Councilman Henry Pruitt and to be written on Township stationary as well as a resolution focused on train idling, a draft of which had been proposed by the local coalition that is seeking to Ban the trains, particularly those World of Wingswhose freight is the volatile Bakken Oil that has resulted in multiple fatal accidents in both the US and Canada. All parties noted that fact that the Council’s had no actual jurisdiction in relation to the railroad’s practices being addressed so that its letter and resolutions were an appeal to the railroad – not requirements.   The September 10, 2015  media article by the Record’s Mary Diduch provides additional information on both the Council action and the resident appeals supporting that Council resolution step and additional action on the related development issues in the Township. click here. A successor story by Megan Burrow appeared in the Suburbanite (click here)  Noteworthy is the fact that several Council members, apparently reading from or citing legal opinion, claimed that Council itself had little authority in relation to the AvalonBay plans – but one resident noted that the counter evidence to that claim were resolutions R & S to later be voted (and subsequently passed unanimously) by Council – resolutions that approve “developer’s agreements” a required step in almost all development processes in the Township (click here to see one such resolution).

 

 

Comments are closed.