Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Brookchester Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press developer and council on school, sewer and flood risks in Brookchester redevelopment plan
Summary
At a continuation meeting, Brunetti representatives described plans to redevelop Brookchester Shopping Center into about 150 apartments and new retail; residents and council members pressed the developer on the project—stimate of new schoolchildren, sewer and flood risks, traffic, PILOT tax relief and effects on local businesses. No approvals were taken.
The borough of New Milford held a special continuation meeting where the Brunetti organization presented a concept to redevelop the Brookchester Shopping Center into a mixed‑use complex with about 150 rental apartments, roughly 27,000 square feet of retail and approximately 390 parking spaces, a company representative said.
"So you're talking about 27 school age children," said the developer's representative, Andy Noran (speaker 3), summarizing his calculation from a 2018 Rutgers study and adding that, "not all kids go to public school ... so that takes the number from about 27 to 24," which he described as a conservative estimate of the project—ffect on school enrollment.
The presentation drew sustained public comment focused on infrastructure and neighborhood impacts. Longtime resident Greg Cuco said older homes and utilities in town may not accommodate higher density development, noting prior pressure and basement failures when nearby towns increased apartment construction. "So where are you gonna put all of the sewage?" Cuco asked, citing repeated sewer pumping on his street.
Residents asked the developer for more current, local data. Multiple speakers said the 2018 Rutgers study is outdated after pandemic‑era demographic shifts; one commenter said, "the estimations that you're coming in with don't make any sense anymore, and it feels very out of touch to me." The developer responded the Rutgers study remains a commonly used state benchmark and that projections rely on factors such as unit size, density and renter income.
Questions about taxes and municipal revenues surfaced repeatedly. Richard Cybulski asked whether the developer would seek PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) and, if so, for how many years. Noran said pilot negotiations and a fiscal analysis would be conducted later and that "the percentage of revenue is typically ... 10% of gross revenue" as the project's baseline for negotiations, but that formal terms are not yet decided.
Several residents raised floodplain and stormwater concerns. Sharon Hilmer asked whether the project would need Department of Environmental Protection permits given proximity to a flood hazard area; Noran said that if DEP permits are required they will be obtained and that the site would be designed so it does not increase off‑site runoff, calling the proposed drainage plan an improvement over the existing impervious surface.
Traffic, parking and emergency access were also frequent themes. The developer said a traffic study would be done during site‑plan review and any necessary improvements would be required then. On fire safety, the developer said the borough—ire department would be consulted in the site design and that ingress/egress would be addressed so fire apparatus can safely respond.
Many commenters urged preservation of existing local businesses and asked what would happen to small retailers during a prolonged construction period. The developer said some retail would be reduced at the site but pointed to additional retail planned on other nearby parcels, arguing the corridor overall would not lose retail square footage.
John Chidanian, borough attorney, reminded the crowd that the presentation is at a preliminary stage and that "no one has voted on anything," describing a multi‑step public planning process that would include planning‑board hearings, potential zoning considerations and public comment opportunities. The borough official also stated the town's affordable‑housing obligation is 368 units and described the obligation as ongoing.
No formal approvals or zoning changes were made at the meeting. The developer said the project is at least a year to two years away from breaking ground if it proceeds and that the next steps include settlement or resolution of affordable‑housing proceedings and more detailed engineering, fiscal and planning studies.
The council opened and then closed public comment by procedural motion during the session; the meeting ended with thanks to the police department and livestream staff.
