FACT OR FICTION???

The attorneys for New Milford Redevelopment Associates, part of the S. Hekemian Group gave summations before the zoning board last night. Stephen Eisdorfer began and concentrated on the 24 units of affordable housing proposed for this site. It was his opinion that the New Milford Zoning Board was “obligated to approve” this use under the law due to its “inherent benefits.” He itemized all of the reasons that this development will satisfy the inherently beneficial criteria but he failed to indicate any of the negative impacts to the neighborhood. Under the law, if it is determined that granting approval would result in detriment to the public good, those are grounds for denying the application.

Eisdorfer outlined what he perceived to be New Milford’s unmet COAH obligation, based on his “expert,” Dr. Kinsey. However, Kinsey’s figures are in conflict with the opinions of New Milford’s planner, Paul Grygiel. Much of Kinsey’s testimony was questionable and was challenged by Al Alonso, a land use attorney and New Milford resident. Kinsey’s testimony was also disputed by Marc Liebman, currently the borough attorney. Formerly, Liebman represented Councilman Ashley when he was challenging the application.

Eisdorfer also relied on the “expert testimony” of Peter Steck. Steck testified that this development was “not disruptive to the existing neighborhoods” and that it was not “oversized.” Steck said it is inherently beneficial to develop the property in an overwhelmingly commercial capacity. In Ridgewood, Steck is being paid by a community group opposed to the expansion of Valley Hospital.  In that case he says “the neighborhood will be severely affected- increased traffic, blockage of light and air, shadow patterns, noise.” He complained that the lights from the proposed parking garage would shine all night. And those are his concerns for a property that is ALREADY DEVELOPED with a full-scale hospital, not for 13 acres of land that is currently open space. It appears that Steck will say whatever he is being paid to say.

Following Eisdorfer’s summation, New Milford’s Zoning Board attorney, Scott Sproviero, had a few key questions. He asked about several of the cases cited by Eisdorfer and was told that these were never published. Sproviero also challenged Eisdorfer’s assetion that this property was used as a “dewatering” facility, asking for proof of the necessary equipment on this land for that process.

Andy DelVecchio gave his summation next. To listen to DelVecchio, you would get the impression that this developer is beneficent and only wants to do what is best for this town. He explained that the only reason that the original 221 apartments were reduced to 24 units was in response to concerns expressed by the public. In reality, the change was made to allow for flood storage on the property since the public educated the “experts” on the extent of flooding in that area.

DelVecchio referenced our ten-year old 2004 master plan as indicating that it supported this kind of development. But that plan did not include retail or commercial development. It mentioned the possibility of professional offices. Also, the only mention of affordable housing in that document refers to age restricted housing, which would not add any additional student population. DelVecchio cited the master plan only when he felt it would help his case. He said that the master plan indicated that this is the only site in New Milford suitable for an “inclusionary devlopment.” He failed to say that is because it is the only undeveloped site large enough. He also conveniently ignored the fact that New Milford is already significantly deficient in recreational and open space. Developing this property will only make that situation worse.

DelVecchio downplayed the public’s concerns with flooding, traffic, school safety, the environment and aesthetics. He asserted that the reason the huge apartment complex was reduced in scope was for aesthetic reasons in response to the public. But there were never any concessions made in the plans for the humongous ShopRite and that was always much more of an issue with the public.

DelVecchio acknowledged the extensive public participation in these hearings but indicated that the lack of participation by the Board of Education indicated that they did not share the public’s concerns. In fact, the BOE did send a letter to the Zoning Board outlining their concerns. Michael Polizzi, Superintendent of Schools, was not permitted to ask questions. He was told he needed to have legal representation. It is unfortunate that the BOE did not follow through with sending legal counsel since DelVecchio now is using that to indicate tacit approval of these plans.

The board is slated to discuss and vote on the application at its Feb. 20 meeting.