This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Community Corner

Pending vote on New Milford development could end in litigation

BY  REBECCA D. O'BRIEN STAFF WRITER The Record

NEW MILFORD — After two years and nearly 50 hearings, a large and controversial mixed-use development proposed for the borough's western edge could come to a zoning board vote this month.

The vote on granting variances for the project would be the first step in what observers say is likely to be a protracted legal battle over a plan calling for construction of a 70,500-square-foot supermarket, a 4,300-square-foot bank and a 24-unit apartment complex on 14 vacant acres along the Hackensack River.

Find out what's happening in New Milfordwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

"I think that either scenario is going to lead us to court," said Zoning Board Attorney Scott Sproviero. "We are far from done — this is just phase one."

Attorneys for the developer, New Milford Redevelopment Associates, part of the S. Hekemian Group, are expected to give summations tonight before the zoning board. The board is slated to discuss and vote on the application at its Feb. 20 meeting.

Find out what's happening in New Milfordwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

About 30 members of the public spoke out against the project at meetings on Jan. 23 and Feb. 4. That followed two years of testimony, cross-examination and impatient outbursts from lawyers, board members and New Milford residents alike at meetings that often ran late into the night.

Hekemian has already filed two lawsuits against the borough in state Superior Court, accusing New Milford of failing to comply with state affordable housing mandates and seeking a court order to force the town to rezone the property.

The 24-unit apartment complex is designated for low- and moderate-income housing, which Hekemian says justifies the many use variances the developer has requested for the project.

The board must consider whether the affordable housing component makes the proposal an "inherently beneficial use" that outweighs any possible negative impact on the town, such as traffic, flooding and overcrowded schools.

John Rutledge, a resident and leader of Stop Over Development, a citizens group founded in opposition to Hekemian's plans, said he was "fairly confident" that the zoning board would come down on their side. "They didn't come close to making the burden of proof" on inherently beneficial use, he said.

Another complication is that the application has changed several times since it was introduced in January 2012: The apartment complex was scaled back, a 3-acre athletic field was offered to the Board of Education in a deal that was later rescinded, and the Borough Council briefly debated rezoning the property to allow for a compromise.

"It's been a moving target," Sproviero said.

Several members of the board have recused themselves from considering the application, leaving just five voting members — all five must vote yes to approve the variances. If any voting members oppose it, Sproviero said, "I expect [Hekemian] will pursue continued relief in the courts. And I expect the objectors' groups to likewise follow suit" if the vote goes in Hekemian's favor.

Attorneys for Hekemian could not be reached for comment Monday night.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?