Hekemian Planner Continues Cross Examination

Thursday's special meeting of the Zoning Board began where it ended last--with the cross examination of the applicant's planner, Peter Steck, who owns a private consulting firm in Maplewood.

As with his prior testimony, Steck repeatedly stressed that the proposed development of the United Water property--70,500 sq. ft. supermarket, 4300 sq. ft. bank and 24 low and moderate income housing units (down from 221 units)--is an "inherently beneficial use."

Under the borough's first two Council of Affordable Housing (COAH) requirements, New Milford needs to construct 45 low to moderate income housing units. The current United Water application requires all 24 of the housing units to serve as affordable housing.

"It was my conclusion [the development] was an inherently beneficial use because of Mount Laurel," Steck said.

The Mount Laurel decisions require that municipalities use zoning to provide opportunities for the constuction of affordable housing for low and moderate income households.

Because Steck said during his previous testimony that he relied on David Kinsey's analysis -- "inherently beneficial use" and the borough's need to comply with its affordable housing obligation -- Al Alonso, an attorney representing himself as a New Milford resident, challenged the testimony of Kinsey and Steck in his cross-examination. Through his questioning, Alonso tried to highlight the inconsistencies and/or different standards being used by two Hekemian experts.

Steck emphasized that New Milford's 2004 master plan and 2008 Fair Share Housing call for a mixed use development on that site.

"We're doing what your master plan says even though you haven't rezoned," Steck said. "The master plan singles out this site as a great site for inclusionary housing and commercial." 

Alonso asked Steck if the Shop Rite is driving the low and moderate income housing or is inclusionary housing driving the commercial component.

According to Steck, the market rate subsidizes low and moderate income housing.

Interjecting for clarification, Board Attorney Scott Sproviero said that the nature of inclusionary development is that the driving force and benefit are both located on the same site.  

Steck said that New Milford's governing body never responded to the Planning Board to rezone.

Alonso replied, "They took an affirmative stand," he said. "They decided not to do it."

Following Alonso was Louis Flora, an attorney representing the Borough of Oradell in the hearings. Flora questioned Steck about the reduced number of affordable housing units and contended that eight of the 24 units are driven by the commercial component of the development.

Steck was cross-examined by a number of New Milford residents, including 11-year old Sabrina Wilson, who wanted to know the impact of the proposed development on traffic in the area of the high school and middle school.  

The hearing of the proposed development of the United Water property will continue on May 14. Steck will retun for cross-examination on May 23.

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.