Dear Mayor Subrizi...

The following words are not meant to be personal -- I admire and respect you and believe you are a quality person. This is my hometown since 1968, and I write this letter to you as my mayor because you hold the position. Please view my words as a conversation, not as an attack.  My wish always is to enlighten, be enlightened, unite, and have a peaceful end.

As a New Milford resident I am responding to this letter you wrote to New Milford on the Boro website:

MAYOR’S MESSAGE:  DO YOU WANT TO GAMBLE OR LOOK AT THE SURE THING? What will happen if the Mayor and Council watch the current Zoning Board application continue until they run out the clock?  The appeal process will begin.  It is safe to assume that whether the application is approved or denied, an appeal will be filed. SOD seems to think if we run out the ZB application that something monumental will occur.  They think the Superior Court will see the development as a negative for New Milford because of SOD's prevailing attitudes and opinions about traffic, pollution, flooding, school crowding, etc. In fact, the courts will not be considering the impact to New Milford at all.  The court will be required to consider the proposal based on the given testimony, land use law as prescribed by the State of NJ, and COAH obligations as ordered by the NJ Supreme Court.   Herein lies the gamble.  The vote to proceed with the crafting of an ordinance to re-zone will begin to restore certain ability to the Borough that we do not currently have.  We would have a say in what is constructed and how it will be done.  And a portion of the property (approx. one third) would be dedicated back to New Milford to use as we see fit.  It would NOT include the 221 multi-family units or the four story parking garage (with the swimming pool). SOD has effectively rounded up a lot of support for its' cause which they say is to stop overdevelopment. Their cause would be better defined by Stop This Development.  Other new development continues around us and past decades of development have already occurred. At the end of the process of crafting a re-zoning ordinance another vote will have to be taken.  That vote will be to approve or deny the newly created ordinance.  I support the creation of the re-zoning ordinance (which passed 3 -1) as it will open up other possibilities that are not in consideration at this point. There are many facets to this issue, and all must be considered while taking into account that all concerned are acting in the best interest of New Milford. I do not agree with the SOD idea that we Roll the Dice for New Milford's future when there may be a sure thing available.  We owe it to the residents and taxpayers to investigate all options that are available to us. Sincerely, Mayor Ann Subrizi

I would like to address some of the things you said.

FIRST, SOD does not think that something monumental will occur if we run out the application, and we do not believe that the Superior Court will rule based on SOD’s prevailing attitudes. If you believe this, then respectfully, you have not been paying attention, and have underestimated the collective intelligence of SOD.

What SOD does believe is:

• If the ZB denies the variances (which we feel they will based on the case presented so far);
• If the 6 COAH units are relocated to Brookchester (which you have already indicated that you are inclined to do);
• If the M&C refuses to re-zone (an important decision that rests in your hands),
• Then Hekemian is left with a property on which he can develop 38 homes. We don’t believe Hekemian will stick around for 38 homes. If he does, therein lies our gamble, and that is the one we are willing to take, because worse-case scenario is 38 homes.
• Also, it is my understanding that the clock has long since run out on this application; that’s why they keep asking for the extensions.  The appeal process only begins once the ZB makes its decision. If the applicant doesn’t like the decision, then he may appeal, but there has to be a basis for an appeal.

SECOND, you say that the court will be required to consider the proposal based on:

1)  The given testimony – Unless you have heard the testimony, respectfully, how can you be qualified to predict what the court will decide. Please take the time to listen to the hearings. I believe you will realize what the rest of us who have followed the details of this case know:  that Hekemian’s case as presented is weak and flawed and will not hold up in any court except for one that is crooked. The residents of NM have done a stellar job disproving each expert witnesses testimony. You will also discover more intimately the nature of the beast you are about to strike a deal with.

2)  Land Use Law as prescribed by the state of NJ – The property is currently zoned “Residential A” allowing for 50 homes. According to Dennis Kirwan’s re-zoning study that you authorized, only 38 homes can actually be built on that property. What more do we need to know about land-use law? It might give you confidence to know that we have three attorneys on our side, one of which happens to be a land-use attorney.

3)  COAH obligations – You authorized Paul Grygiel to do a re-zoning study to see whether we could unhinge the COAH obligation from the UW property. He presented his final report to the M&C concluding that it can be done and that we only had to re-locate 6 units http://newmilford-nj.patch.com/articles/2004-master-plan-affixes-afforda....

What was your purpose of funding this study if you have no intention of satisfying our fair share housing obligation elsewhere in NM? If you do intend to satisfy it elsewhere, then what basis will Hekemian have to take us to court, since we will have removed their sole cause for a builder’s-remedy lawsuit? Instead of rushing to re-zone, why not focus on moving these 6 units?  Otherwise NM remains vulnerable to more developers coming in and doing exactly what Hekemian is doing even beyond the time when the fate of the UW property is determined.

THIRD, our cause would in fact be better defined by calling it “Stop This Development” as you suggest, because that is our mission, but number one, SOD has a dual meaning which makes it more appropriate, and number two, your suggestion would make us an STD acronymically speaking, and that’s not too appealing, right?  Is that the joke? Imagine all of New Milford posting STD signs on their lawns?

There is a group of people who are against this development for valid and well-articulated reasons. They organized and came up with a name, and most people understand that they’re not out to stop development all over the world (even though many non-doers seem to want them to). And sure “other new development continues around us and past decades of development have already occurred” but  there are examples of towns who are fighting this creeping cancer and are winning (our neighboring Oradell a prime one); this is an historical application since there has been nothing of this magnitude in the history of New Milford; and putting the fact that this is NM’s last remaining greenspace aside, it’s this particular property and its proximity to the river and the high school that has triggered a response from our community.

The town endured a series of traumatizing storms. Rich Henning from UW came and spoke to the M&C and blamed development for the flooding. Then in a disgusting display of greed and lack of concern for the community, Suez/United Water proceeded to enter into a contract with one of the largest overdevelopers around -- effectively throwing New Milford to the wolves -- when what they should have done had they had any decency at all is sell the property to New Milford for $1 as was suggested by Zoning Board Chairman Karl Schaffenberger during the 11-28-11 UW presentation held in the Council chambers.

Then Hekemian’s engineer presents plans positioning a 4-story apartment complex 80 feet from the high school. Despite drownings in retention ponds, they weren’t even considering fencing them in, next to hundreds of curious students, and an apartment complex full of children. They don’t seem to care that the property they’re planning to develop floods. They don’t seem to care about the residents of Hekemian’s Sheffield in Englewood when it floods to the entrance door despite EXPERT engineer Dipple’s flood calculations, and let’s not forget those downstream of that development, or the residents across the street from Hekemian’s Boulder Run who have to endure tractor-trailer traffic despite the fact that they were promised they wouldn’t use that road.

Developers lie, and they don’t seem to care about the people who they hurt.

So the question that came to my mind when I read your letter is:  Which route is the gamble, and which route is the sure thing? Making a deal with the likes of Hekemian seems to be the gamble. The one that you are willing to take.

Even though the quality of life of the residents in the immediate proximity will be diminished, and they will experience financial losses as the values of their homes drop dramatically. The approximate 1,000 New Milford homeowners who suffer from flooding will suffer more, and those on the fringes will experience new, the horrors of having their homes invaded by the all-consuming brown Hackensack River. Our children at the high school will be put in harm’s way with the increased traffic and hordes of unknown people. And so it goes.

If this development goes through people will be hurt. That’s the sure thing.

You do not agree with our idea of rolling the dice, and SOD does not agree with the Mayor and Council rolling over. Officials making deals such as these are what has hurt the residents of New Milford to begin with. People were in a position to protect the residents, and didn’t. If you decide to strike this deal, who will you have to compromise with next? There is something fundamentally scary about giving in to a bully, or a terrorist, or a person who holds power over you. This kind of defeat is hard to accept, most especially when neighboring towns have fought and succeeded.

The President of your Council, a certified public accountant, believes it’s still possible to purchase this land. Let him present you with some numbers before casting your vote. Take heed to his counsel instead of our negative Borough Attorney who keeps saying that land will be developed. Explore moving the COAH units. Please take the time and listen to the tapes of the ZB meetings.  And ask Hekemian for full details on his new plan, how much land will be imperviously covered, etc. before making your decision.

It is very hard for me to believe they are seriously going to donate 4 acres to NM, but even so, you stated at the April 25, 2011 meeting that losing the “developer’s agreement gift…should not be the driving force behind the Council’s decision; the driving force should be what is best for the property and what is best for the town at that site.”  Don’t you think what is best for New Milford is all that beautiful, peaceful, nurturing green that is currently at that site?

In love and light, and with the greatest respect,

Michelle

p.s.  Dennis Kirwan warned the M&C about the property’s historic issue with flooding, the regional impact, the increase in traffic from the “potential draw from adjacent boroughs,” and the loss of vacant land.

p.s.s. “Paul Grygiel cautioned the M&C to consider the negative impact that the development would have: municipal/fiscal impact, impact on services, impact on schools, types of traffic, impact to the community character and whether it generates an affordable housing need.”