In ShopRite Shocker, Attorney's Claim May Derail Board Expert

One of the Wyckoff Planning Board's expert witnesses has a major conflict of interest and cannot serve as a board expert, according to an attorney opposing an application to build a supermarket in Wyckoff. 

Attorney Robert Inglima, opposing the application on behalf of Munico Associates, told the planning board he believes Gary Dean — hired as the planning board's traffic engineering consultant — is involved in an ongoing New Milford Zoning Board application that involves both Inserra Shop Rite Supermarkets — the applicant before the Wyckoff Planning Board — and an attorney from the law firm of Beattie Padovano.

Attorney John Lamb, who is arguing for the applicant in the Wyckoff Planning Board Inserra application, is also employed by Beattie Padovano.

"The basis for the conflict is that Inserra, it's my understanding, is the proposed developer of a on a New Milford site that Mr. Dean and or his firm have been involved in working."

According to testimony from Dean on Monday night he has been employed by the township since the fall of 2010.

As evidence that a conflict existed, Inglima presented a document to the Wyckoff Planning Board that was previously submitted by Dolan and Dean — Dean's firm — to the New Milford Zoning Board.  

Inglima grilled Dean on whether before accepting a job from a municipality he typically reviews with his firm whether the firm is "currently or about to be engaged with respect to a matter that might be a conflict of interest for you?"

Dean responded that he checked with members of his firm and found no conflict.

"Our firm is not doing any work with ShopRite or Inserra Supermarkets as a client," Dean said.

According to Inglima, the documents, which could disqualify Dean as an expert for the Wyckoff Planning Board, were obtained from New Milford Board of Adjustment on Friday, March 23, at 3:30 p.m. 

"That was certainly not a time when I could come before this board and raise this issue," Inglima said. "Had I known about this issue before I would have raised it with you."

Much of the argument between attorneys and board members late Monday night centered around the timing of Inglima's revelation, which Wyckoff Mayor Chris DePhillips called a controversey of "significant magnitude."

"Mr. Inglima, may I ask respectfully, why was it that you didn't you alert council and the board immediately on Friday afternoon about this?" DePhillips asked. "Certainly on the weekend even, we could have formulated some thoughts as to how to respond to this."

"I don't know how anybody could have done anything to make a different outcome from tonight," Inglima said. "This matter has been going on for a long time ... when we find out about a situation where an expert for the town is working for the applicant in another municipality..."

"Allegedly," Lamb shouted from his seat in the audience.

"Is there plausible deniability? Really?" responded Inglima.

Planner Robert Kane worried that much of the schedule set forth by the board may have to be scrapped if Dean is found to have a conflict because when a new expert is chosen by the board, he or she would have to read 18 months of meeting minutes. 

The board conditionally approved two other expert witnesses — Michael F. Kauker and Peter Ten Kate — and said they would move on with their testimony while sorting out the matter of Gary Dean's eligability as an expert. 

The public would still have its opportunity to comment at the beginning of a special Wyckoff Planning Board meeting on April 23, according to DePhillips. 

"I frankly think that this controversy changes what may happen with the board witnesses but it's not going to — at this point — change how the witnesses went in from the applicant and the objector," DePhillips said, adding that it could change the complexion of the application and future objections. 

Planning Board Attorney Joseph Perconti asked that attorneys submit "the facts surrounding the conflict" by March 29. He said he would then circulate the documents and have a reply back to council by Monday, April 2.

"If, in fact, additional briefing is necessary, we'll stick to the guideline of April 4 for the objectors, April 11 for the applicants, and a decision will be rendered on the 23rd [of April,]" Perconti added.

Look for more from Wyckoff Patch as this story develops.

To read more about the ongoing issue before the Wyckoff Planning Board, click here.