Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Milford adds resolution to contest borough27s fourth-round affordable housing number
Summary
The borough added Resolution 2025:72 to its agenda and later adopted a package of resolutions that includes a provision disputing the state-assigned fourth-round affordable housing figure; Mayor Michael Petrino said the borough is contesting the number assigned by the state.
The Borough of New Milford added a resolution to its agenda on Jan. 27 contesting the borough27s fourth-round present and prospective affordable housing obligation, Mayor Michael Petrino said during the meeting.
Mayor Michael Petrino told the council the resolution (2025:72) "determines the borough of New Milford's Fourth round present and prospective affordable housing obligations. Basically, this resolution is saying that we are contesting the number that the state of New Jersey has implemented on us, from 114 to 108. That is 6 units of affordable housing, but when you multiply that because affordable units are 20%, it's actually 3 additional units that we are contesting." The statement was made when the mayor asked to add the resolution to the meeting agenda.
The council voted to add the resolution to the agenda, and later in the meeting the mayor moved to adopt resolutions 2025:63 through 2025:72. The package was adopted by voice vote; the mayor announced "All in favor? Aye." No recorded nay votes were announced during adoption.
The resolution was described during the meeting as a challenge to the state-assigned number; no statute, court order, or specific administrative filing was cited during the public portion of the discussion. The text and detailed legal grounds of Resolution 2025:72 were not read aloud during the portion of the meeting recorded in the transcript; the resolution number and its purpose (to contest the state-assigned affordable housing figure) were stated by the mayor.
The addition and adoption of the resolution came after a closed-session discussion earlier in the evening; the mayor referenced that closed session when seeking to add the resolution to the public agenda. The council did not debate the resolution in open session beyond the mayor27s explanation and the procedural motion to add and then adopt the package of resolutions.
The council did not provide an implementation timeline, and the transcript does not record any direction to staff or a schedule for follow-up court filings, negotiations, or related administrative actions. The resolution27s specific legal citations, supporting exhibits, and any next procedural steps were not specified on the public record captured in the transcript.
Because the transcript records the borough27s statement of intent but does not include the resolution text or subsequent legal filings, the article reports the council action and the mayor27s explanation without inferring outcomes beyond what was announced at the meeting.
