Polizzi Letter to Zoning Board Raises Another Potential Conflict Question
School Superintendent Polizzi's letter to the Zoning Board regarding the proposed development of the United Water property raises objections and questions of potential conflict.
New Milford School Superintendent Michael Polizzi submitted a letter dated March 11, 2013, to the Zoning Board of Adjustment regarding the proposed development of the United Water property, according to Board attorney Scott Sproviero.
That letter -- undisclosed to the public, but said by Sproviero to include four areas of concern --was the subject of much discussion between Sproviero and Hekemian's attorney, Andy DelVecchio.
At issue is whether or not Polizzi has authorization to speak on behalf of the Board of Education since, according to DelVecchio, there are currently no public minutes available on the BOE's website reflecting their consent to have Polizzi appear.
Polizzi assured the Board that the BOE did consent to his appearance and it will be reflected in forthcoming BOE minutes.
Still, DelVecchio maintained that the BOE is a 'body politic' -- a public corporation invested with powers and duties of government -- and as such, they are required to appear in these proceedings through representation of counsel. DelVecchio stressed that any submission by Polizzi to the Zoning Board outside of an attorney's submission should be disregarded.
Polizzi's letter also raised the issue of a potential conflict since vice-chairman of the Zoning Board, Ronald Stokes, who sits as chairman of this proceeding because of chairman Karl Schaffenberger's recusal, is employed by the New Milford School district.
DelVecchio informed the Board that he will be submitting a letter brief to the board on the conflict issue with Stokes and whether it is his position that Stokes should recuse himself. In doing so, he also reserved the right to invoke a judicial declaration--start a lawsuit and let a judge determine whether or not Stokes can or cannot continue to hear the application.
Although Stokes said that Polizzi's letter will not prejudice his ability to fairly hear the application, he stepped down for the evening until a decision regarding this potential conflict is rendered.
"We've been hearing this case for 14 months, 400 days, 30 hearings," Sproviero said. "To have any event in any way render what we've done annulled at this point, and have us restart this, would just be an extraordinary travesty."
DelVecchio said that he found Polizzi's letter 'particularly egregious' since the BOE is within 200 feet of the proposed development and received notice when the application was originally filed.
DelVecchio said that also egregious was "the lateness of a position being hoisted into the record."
When Polizzi came before the Board as a private citizen to question the applicant's traffic engineer, Betsy Dolan, DelVecchio objected stating that he is neither a resident nor a taxpayer. Having allowed residents from other towns to speak at the hearing, Sproviero gave Polizzi the same courtesy while DelVecchio stated that he had objected to the other non-residents being allowed to speak to the application.
Stating that he has a vested interest in the safety of the high school students, Polizzi asked Dolan three questions, all of which DelVecchio objected to based on the fact that they had been previously asked and answered by the expert. All involved the type and level of traffic around the high school, as well as whether the widening of River Road would require taking any property away from the high school.
Receiving objections from DelVecchio, rather than answers from Dolan, Polizzi ended his questioning and stated that he will bring BOE counsel to the next Zoning Board meeting on March 28.
Follow New Milford Patch on Facebook and Twitter. Click here to sign-up for our daily newsletter and get local news like this delivered to your in-box.
Lori Barton
2:19 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
The NM BOE has been on record with written correspondence concerning this property since 1/6/2011 when they submitted letters to all sitting members of the NM Mayor & Council. They sent anther letter again on 9/16/2011 following Hurricane Irene. I firmly believe that they thought their position had been communicated to the Zoning Board by the M&C. Unfortunately, that is not how this process functions. It appears that when the BOE became aware that the zoning board was not informed of their position, they decided to send representation. Mr. DelVecchio may not like it, but this is not a new "position being hoisted into the record." This position was adopted and known before this application was heard for the first time. Unfortunately, it was communicated to the M&C instead of the zoning board. Too bad the mayor or the liaison to the BOE didn't make them aware that this was a necessary step.
Howard Berner
2:20 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
DelVecchio seems to have an answer for everything, except the right answers for the community. Attorneys like him are what ruin the reputation for the whole legal community.
James Joyce
2:32 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
DelVecchio is zealously representing his client, which is what lawyers are required to do. It is not his job to look out for the community as the community is not his client. That is our job.
David Bednarcik
7:57 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Hope this prevents the development of the United Water property.
Ulises
8:06 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
The Engineer on the ZB works for the same company the seller of this property, United Water, utilizes - yet there's no conflict of interest there? Now according to Mr. DelVecchio, Mr. Stokes is in conflict over a letter sent by the Superintendent because Stokes works for the BoE??? Mr. DelVecchio is the one prolonging these testimonies, not the concerned citizens throughout Bergen County asking simple questions.
FYI, orginally DelVecchio argued that only people living 200' from this site should be allowed to ask questions, even though this development affects many people's lives in New Milford & Oradell. Thankfully, his request was denied. His argument is that all the surrounding towns will benefit from a strip mall adjacent to our high school & river, across the street from our Senior Center, clearing almost 300 trees, add more apartments in a town that is maxed out already, traffic will increase minimally and there's no need for a traffic light (according to his experts).
All we want to know Mr. DelVecchio, because you read our comments here and distort them on the record, as you did last night, is how exactly is this beneficial because your experts have been proven wrong throughout this entire process?
Lori Barton
8:29 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Mr. Stokes has worked for the BOE from the start of this process. I'm sure DelVecchio knew that. Why is it any different because the BOE wrote a letter outlining their concerns (which have NOTHING to do with Mr. Stokes)? Mr. Stokes has shown that he can be impartial and he insists that he can remain so. How does this letter change anything? The letter doesn't question Mr. Stokes' ability to remain impartial. That's all DelVecchio. DelVecchio is the biggest reason why this application has taken so long.
karen
9:41 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Great now we are wasting money allocated for educational purposes on legal fees
Lori Barton
10:29 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Would you rather see students injured (or worse) due to the increased automobile and truck traffic both in front of and behind the high school if this development is allowed to go forward? Don't we expect our BOE to intervene when there are questions of student safety involved? I am one of the first ones to argue for spending on education but all the money in the world means nothing if you don't first protect the health, safety and well being of the students.
karen
6:22 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
Yes I believe in safety, but neither do want to hear arogram is going to be cut bc it's not in the budget. Wonder what the doe would say about spending education monies on this
John
8:50 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
Talking about safety Why doesn't the police Dept enforce the no drop off in front of the school on River road. The kids cut in between the cars while the traffic is stopped due to the dropping off. There should be no right hand turn onto Cooper st. durring 830am-900am and 250pm-330pm And the town should enforce their own rules. This lack of enforcement is a safety hazard and creates additional traffic.