At the end of its January 6, 2022 meeting, the Teaneck Board of Adjustment heard the testimony of Joseph Burgis (Principal of Burgis Associates, Inc.) as the applicant’s planner in support of an application to the Board to approve a 20-unit multi-family rental facility at 54 W. Englewood Ave. – a property which is located within a R/S (residential single) zone.

What follows here is a transcript document within which is found the transcript of Burgis’ testimony beginning at page 8 of this 50-page document. Note at p.39 of the transcript, Vice-Chair Rosen (who is presiding for the Board on this application) halts further testimony and indicates that additional questions/comments on this Burgis testimony will be included when the application is next heard.

The same transcript remains the testimony about which Planner Burgis is to be cross examined. Here is what has happened to the crfoss-examination scheduling.

• That cross-examination of Mr. Burgis was originally scheduled to be on February 3, 2022
• After several requests for the session to be delayed, it was rescheduled for April 7
• And then it was rescheduled for May 5. But when Mr. Burgis’ colleague – Steve Lydon – was asked  to serve as the surrogate witness for Mr. Burgis that session ended with agreement that Mr. Burgis would have to himself be present for the actual cross-examination.
• That cross-examination was then formally – by vote – rescheduled for June 16
• However, at the June 2 Board meeting, the applicant’s attorney requested that the cross-examination be rescheduled for a special Board meeting on July 21, a request formally ratified by Board vote.
  Meanwhile, the original January 6, 2022 transcript remains the testimony on which Mr. Burgis is still to be cross-examined Click the line below twice
  01-06-22-54 ENGLEWOODAVE-transcript

Some readers may find it useful to review the letter written in October by the Board’s Planner Elizabeth Leheney (Phillips, Preiss et al) which summarizes very well the applicant’s 54 W. Englewood proposal and then explains the issues involved and outlines well the presumptions when a land use Board is being asked to approve an application such as this which involves approving a d(1) variance for a use different than the one governing the zoning for the proposed property .
Again, Click the line below twice
Planner Leheney 10-7-2021 re 54 W. Englewood