Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents challenge proposed 160‑unit River Road redevelopment as council introduces PILOT ordinance
Summary
The New Milford mayor and council introduced a first‑reading ordinance to authorize a 30‑year PILOT for a 160‑unit redevelopment at 814 River Road (including 32 affordable units). Residents at the meeting raised concerns about loss of small businesses, school capacity and infrastructure; borough counsel warned litigation is pending under Mount Laurel rules.
New Milford — The New Milford Mayor and Council on Jan. 31 introduced an ordinance on first reading to authorize a financial agreement (a 30‑year payment‑in‑lieu‑of‑taxes) tied to a proposed redevelopment of Block 501, Lots 9 and 10 at 814 River Road into 160 residential units, including 32 low‑ and moderate‑income units, and about 12,500 square feet of retail space.
Mayor Michael J. Petrino asked the clerk to read the ordinance, which the council moved to introduce on its first reading and scheduled a public hearing for Feb. 23. The ordinance was presented as a mechanism to permit a redevelopment project while setting terms for municipal payments and tax arrangements.
The meeting’s public comment period drew repeated objections to large new developments and to how the borough and state rules for affordable housing are being applied. “These are mom and pop stores … There’s nowhere for these businesses to relocate to if they are torn down,” said Laurie Barton, a resident who asked what the community could do to help the council oppose the proposals. She warned that existing local businesses and jobs could be lost if retail sites are redeveloped into large apartment complexes.
Kathleen Zadroga, another longtime resident, told the council, “This town has been a small town, a good town. You want to bring in 161 units — for what? The schools are going to be out of control.” Several speakers raised specific concerns about school capacity, emergency services and parking if large projects are built.
Resident Richard Cybolski asked officials for the borough’s target for affordable units and how far the borough is from meeting that goal: “What number do they want us to have?” officials repeatedly directed residents to the borough’s website for plan documents and said the public will have an opportunity to comment at upcoming hearings.
Borough counsel and the town’s attorney explained the legal backdrop. “There is litigation technically pending now,” counsel said while summarizing the borough’s proceedings under Mount Laurel‑related case law and the new state program overseeing municipal affordable‑housing obligations. Counsel warned council members that statements made publicly could be used in later court proceedings, and noted the Fair Share Housing Council and other objectors have filed challenges in many towns across the state.
Officials noted that developers file plan materials on the borough website and that residents can contact local and state legislators, though some remedies rest with state bodies or courts. Council members and staff said they will post updates when legally appropriate and encouraged residents to review the posted filings and attend the Feb. 23 hearings.
The ordinance was introduced only on first reading; no final approvals were made at the meeting. The council also introduced several other ordinances on first reading and scheduled their public hearings for Feb. 23. The meeting moved to closed session at its close; officials said no action would be taken upon reconvening.
