Public Finally Gets Chance to Question Developer's Expert on Affordable Housing

Thursday's special meeting of the zoning board gave residents the opportunity to question the testimony of the developer's expert, Dr. David Kinsey, on the testimony he provided regarding the affordable housing component of the proposed development of the United Water property.

that include a 70,500 sq. ft. supermarket, a 4300 sq. ft. bank with two drive-thru lanes and a four-story 221 unit multi-family housing complex that will include an affordable housing component, a 428-space multi-level parking garage and a pool.

opened with Antimo "Andy" DelVecchio, the attorney representing Hekemian's developmental arm in the project, New Milford Redevelopment Associates, basing his client's argument on the fact that the low income housing component included as part of the residential portion of the development plan falls under "inherently beneficial" use. Using that argument, DelVecchio contends that his client should be granted the D-variance needed to proceed with the development.

Supporting this argument, the developer hired Dr. David Kinsey as their expert on affordable housing. Kinsey has testified that despite the fact that the fate of COAH (Council on Affordable Housing) remains undetermined, New Milford has a constitutional obligation to satisfy their COAH requirements. Kinsey also testified that the borough's master plan placed the fulfillment of its affordable housing obligation directly on the United Water property, therefore assigning the proposed development the status of an "" 

According to Kinsey, New Milford's fair share obligation is 40 units, or approximately 18 percent of the proposed 221 housing units.

Let Patch save you time. Get local stories like this delivered right to your inbox or smartphone everyday with our free newsletter. It’s simple and fast: sign-up here.

Al Alonso, an attorney representing himself as a resident against the proposed development, questioned whether in considering "inherently beneficial use" Kinsey did not also consider the negative criteria as required when an . Alonso stated that negative criteria would include any detrimental effect that the development might have on increased flooding, traffic and density.

Kinsey reported that he was hired specifically to testify to the "inherently beneficial use" and was not asked by the developer to consider any negative criteria.  

Marc Leibman, the attorney retained by Councilman Austin Ashley to represent him in this matter against the proposed development, pressed Kinsey on whether his statement that New Milford has a "substantial unmet need" regarding its affordable housing obligation was determined by the state or just his opinion. Kinsey responded that New Milford's "substantial unmet need" was his "opinion."

Leibman further questioned Kinsey on the actual application of the site plans submitted by Hekemian. Kinsey testified that although he knows the location and the square footage of the proposed development, he has not reviewed the application that was submitted to the board.  

Based on the fact that he went on record as to never having reviewed the architectural plans submitted with the application, Leibman asked the board to strike Kinsey’s entire testimony. Board attorney, Scott Sproviero, said that he would take Leibman's request under consideration. 

Members of who came to the podium to speak, came armed with well-researched questions posed to Kinsey on various aspects of his testimony. 

When questioned by John DeSantis regarding the affect that the influx of children from the residential portion of the development would have on the already overcrowded school system, Kinsey replied that he did not take that into account when determining the inherently beneficial use of the property. 

During their questioning of Kinsey, members of SOD cited the 2011 Rezoning Study prepared by then borough planner, Dennis Kirwan, that included the New Jersey Department of Education study on facilities prepared for the Borough of New Milford. According to state standards, New Milford’s schools are currently operating at 25 percent over capacity to adequately support the achievement of the Core Curriculum Content Standards. 

Pressing this point, Lori Barton, SOD's Communications Chair, cited overcrowded classrooms as negative criteria as defined under a D-1 variance. 

"You said [during previous testimony] providing access to good schools to low and moderate income students is important, but if classrooms are overcrowded that’s detrimental to all students," Barton said. "That's a negative criteria." 

Kinsey reiterated that he was not hired to analyze negative criteria.

After asking Kinsey a series of questions regarding the impact of the development on schools and services such as police and fire, to which Kinsey said he could not respond, resident Jose Camacho said, "Because you can’t answer negatives then you don’t know if this site is an inherently beneficial use."

In questioning Kinsey about the affordable housing component, Anna Leone, SOD's member-at-large said, "Then it’s your opinion that in order for the board to grant variances the affordable housing component is necessary?"

"Yes," Kinsey replied. "In my opinion without the affordable housing units this is not inherently beneficial use." 

Testimony will continue on Tuesday, June 12 beginning at 7:30pm. There will also be a special meeting of the Zoning Board devoted entirely to the continued hearing on the proposed development of the United Water property on June 21 beginning at 7pm.