Anti-Waterview Plan Residents Decry Developer's 'Threat'
A letter from developer RD Realty's attorney saying that if the Whole Foods plan dies, a more controversial project could replace it angers residents and officials alike.
Photos
Videos
Spirited opposition to a plan to develop 26.6 acres of the Waterview tract for a retail-residential project erupted at Parsippany Hills High School Tuesday night as the Parsipany Township Council met for its monthly business meeting. A Wateview-themed ordinance proposal expected to be introduced was discussed at length and passionately, but at the end of a four-hour-plus meeting, the body voted 5-0 to table its introduction.
The council is considering whether to go forward with a plan recommended by the Planning Board to turn the undeveloped Waterview acreage, currently zoned for planned office development, into an overlay zone that would allow mixed-use development.
Residents oppose the project as currently proposed in a plan that calls for a retail center anchored by Whole Foods Market and a 60-unit townhome community. However, a letter to the council from attorney Carl S. Bisgaier of Haddonfield law firm Bisgaier Hoff set off a major outcry among audience members.
Bisgaier Hoff is now representing developer RD Realty, which is purchasing the land in question from Bellemead Development Group.
The letter offered an alternate scenario for RDR's plan to buy the 26.6 acres on Waterview Plaza: erecting a high-density affordable-housing apartment complex.
“The current market for exclusive residential use on the property and at this location would be extremely profitable and would support a rental apartment complex at a realistic density of 20 units per acre," the letter said. "This would achieve up to 530 units. Higher densities could be achieved with a four-story or greater product.”
RDR's letter continued with words that appeared to resonate negatively with many of the residents in attendance at the council meeting.
“[The developer] does not intend to simply make a proposal and terminate its land contract if that proposal is rejected," the letter said. "If this option is rejected, RDR will pursue alternative development avenues. Not developing the property is not an option.”
Bisgaier wrote that the tract's POD restriction "has zoned the property into inutility," and that RDR's mixed-use plan and its apartment complex Plan B are ways to ensure that some development goes forward to make use of the land.
Many in the audience criticized the letter, and accused the developer of threatening Parsippany and its residents.
“I really think that this is an insult to the residents of Parsippany,” said Lake Parsippany resident Mary Purzycki, a citizen-activist who told the council that residents from all over the township would feel a negative impact from Waterview development. “This developer coming in here and saying if you don’t like it my first way, I’m going to make it worse for you, I’m going to really give you something you don’t want.”
Even town officials noted a perceived threat.
“This letter really grinded me,” said Town Council member Michael DePierro.
The veteran lawmaker told attendees that this is the third attempt since the 1980s to develop the site and that previous attempts were beaten back successfully by opposing residents. He said the current proposal is more troubling to many because it offers resident buffers as small as 65 feet, a much lower buffer offered than in earlier proposals.
DePierro said that if this measure does not pass, others will try to develop the land—and he issued a warning to development foes.
"What’s coming next you may not like even more," he said. "...Even if it’s not this developer, which I’m really mad at, it could be someone else."
Buffer size is a major obstacle for a lot of residents from Parsippany and Mountain Lakes, including members of grassroots nonprofit Citizens for Health, Safety and Welfare (formerly Don't Rezone Waterview). The group unveiled a new slogan in response: "The bigger the buffer, the better."
Other objections surround issues such as environmental protection, particularly as it involves water supply; traffic concerns; property values; traffic and general quality of life.
“For the last few months we as residents have believed this developer has come here to bully us and scare us into allowing them to develop this land the way they want,” said David Kaplan, CHSW's president, in regard to Bisgaier's letter. “So, I’d like to thank the developers for putting that in writing and proving it.”
Township Attorney John Inglesino said RDR has a right to propose what it wants as long as it can make the case that a project provides a tangible benefit to the town. Even if residents oppose a plan, according to the lawyer, a court can rule that a development may proceed, even over the town's objections.
Inglesino also addressed comments that Councilman Paul Carifi Jr. should recuse himself from the proceedings given his public statements in opposition to RD Realty's proposal. The lawyer said that he researched the matter and determined that Carifi does not have to step away from voting on the issue.
After a public comment portion that went on until nearly midnight, the council voted unanimously to table the introduction of the ordinance that would allow the overlay zone designation.
The matter is expected to arise again at the council's next meeting, which is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. April 9 at Parsippany High School.
In This article
-
-
-
Parsippany Hills High School
20 Rita Dr, Parsippany, NJ -
-
-
Parsippany High School
309 Baldwin Rd, Parsippany, NJ
Harland
10:21 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Tactical error on the part of the developer. They've shown that they're now doubting whether their original proposal will be approved, so now they're resorting to ridiculous threats. Shows that they realize this isn't a slam dunk, and that the residents of Parsippany aren't going to sit back while they defecate on our town. Kudos to CHSW for keeping up the pressure. Because of your efforts, we now see the true colors of the developer.
Interesting that the article doesn't mention the "low income housing" portion of the lawyers letter. This was another blatant and ridiculous threat.
Analli Citall
10:35 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
The area is zoned for development. The City can not just keep saying no to every plan and expect the developers to be ok with that.
Harland
10:55 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Actually, they can say no when the plans don't conform to the zoning. Why is this unreasonable? I bought my house with the understanding that my property is zoned for a single family home and there are restrictions to what I can do with my property. I can't tear down my home and build a 3 family house. I can't build a cell phone tower on my property. Isn't it arrogant of the developer to purchase a property that THEY KNOW IS ZONED FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS, and then immediately complain that there is no market for offices?
Maybe if the developers showed some respect to the local residents, there would be less opposition. Try submitting a proposal that conforms to the same restrictions as the current zoning in terms of buffers and lot coverage but with a request for alternate usage, such as retail. The problem here is developer greed - they want to pave over every square inch of the property in order to maximize their profits. That is something the current zoning doesn't allow. Why should they be able to do something on those 26 acres of land that the current owners of the other 100 acres of Waterview property can't do?
Chipp
10:52 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
The town needs money. something will be built.
Dave Phillips
4:04 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
They have $50k to create a new position, eh?
DXNJ
6:22 am on Thursday, March 21, 2013
I have to imagine the town can do as they want.. it is their town. as much as I want a Whole Foods, threats aren't leaving a good taste in my mouth and I would be hesitant to support said businesses knowing the history behind it.
Nicholas Robert Homyak
2:52 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
If you want Whole Foods they can occupy one of the vacant developed properties in town..How about the old Shop-rite Liquor store by Home Depot ?
Pete
8:53 am on Thursday, March 21, 2013
This is blackmail, pure and simple: "If you don't give us what we want, we'll build a slum".
Nicholas Robert Homyak
2:51 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
How can an outsider from the community, a large developer, have more rights than community itself? Impossible.
.
D-MorrisCo
9:04 am on Thursday, March 21, 2013
Development can be well suited to the community, or just awful. Good Judgment is required.
My Opinion; The voting representatives in Parsippany have lost their good judgment. The town lawyer Inglesino, acted as if he was the PR arm of the developer Tuesday night, 3/19/13. The process is run as if the fix is in and the council is determined to ignore the citizens. Residents said as much in their 3 minute allotments of free speech. Yet Parsippany and Mountain Lakes citizens are likely to ramp up their defense and create a strong offense. I'm sure the developer and property owner (Belle Meade?) will take their upcoming 10 year (legal, goodwill sucking, dragged out) fight like the usual result of poor judgment.
It is stunning too, that the Star Ledger fails to give appropriate coverage to this large new attack on the master plan in NJ and Par-Troy’s assault in particular. A new helter skelter development policy? What next?
Renee
10:37 am on Thursday, March 21, 2013
Is this the type of developer we want doing business in our town? A developer that makes threats and clearly does not have the interest of the town in mind?
Nicholas Robert Homyak
2:54 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
If one takes a closer look at this they would see that it is the developer that is at the disadvantage, not the community. Not only did the developer know of the restrictions prior to his purchase, he has been determined to have the town aid and abate him in the undermining of the wetlands protections and aquifer protections.
Nicholas Robert Homyak
2:45 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
The part that hurts worse is this unique land could very well have been voluntarily petitioned to be part of the Highlands Master Plan. No “public” hearings were ever held on this possibility. This shows some bias toward this very real possibility of conformance to the Highlands Plan. Many known aspects about this Block Lot would have easily made it feasible for such to take place; perhaps that is why it was never put to public scrutiny. It is a fact this last remaining wooded lot could of been part of the Highlands protections without interfering with any other aspects of Parsippany’s sovereignty. We do need a change in town, people whom realize what time and place they are living in. We need leaders who are concerned with the present danger of loss of environmental and ecological integrity. Destruction of this land will only increase the terrible loss of land ethic the nation is already suffering from.
Renee
3:19 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
Kudos, Nick. I agree with you 100%. And I enjoy reading your letters to the editor on the topic as well.
Dave Phillips
4:02 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
It's not about a Whole Foods, only simple and ignorant people see it as that.
This would be a destruction of an area of town and would severely harm the quality of life for all residents.
Who wants to do bizz by a pushy developer who is threatening all of us?
Barberio, council and planning board needs to squash this horrible proposal.
The land is zoned for office space for a reason.
There are plenty of vacant retail stores in Parsippany, Whole Foods can go there if they want to come to town.
We do not need 70 crammed townhomes, a big box Target store, litter, crime, pollution, traffic, more overcrowding in our schools, because the developer wants to make a boatload of money.
Protest this attrocity and let the mayor and council know you will vote them out if they bow down to the developers.
Robert S
4:08 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
@ Nicholas Robert Homyak - I am not a tree huger however I am proud that we have a people like you in Parsippany who care about environment and see the bigger picture. Plz keep up the good work.. Thank You.
Roman Hoshowsky
9:24 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
Parsippany is dangerously underdeveloped and underpopulated! If you see open space call 1 800-BUILD immediately! Lest we be overrun by godless hoards of wildlife.
plaus1ble deni@bility
8:19 am on Sunday, March 24, 2013
Does anyone know if this can be declared a 'historic preservation site' ?
In Montville they succesfully defeated a cell tower being erected on a church site by declaring the land and church historical preservation. It removed all rights from the cell tower company - and no cell tower was erected. Robert (or anyone on this board) - do you know if anyone has researched this ? It may be an option. If you google 'historical preservation montville cell tower', you can find out more. I also believe there is a fed/state agency of historical preservation that can be contacted to determine if it meets the criteria.
After speaking to some folks in Montville, 'historical preservation' was the only way to defeat the cell tower co. Decalring the site 'Historical preservation' trumps all developers from building on a particlular site.
Unfortunately, this developer has some rights when he purchased the property. I am afraid of his plan B would hate to see what his plan C would be.
Frank Drebin
9:29 am on Sunday, March 24, 2013
If "The Mayor" has millions to spend for the field of dreams from Open Space money, why not buy the Whole Foods project land for real Open Space?
plaus1ble deni@bility
11:48 am on Sunday, March 24, 2013
Frank - sounds reasonable. Does anyone know what it would cost the town to outright re-purchase the land ? Is this a possibility? I think this trumps the FOD project. As for another location in town, i think whole foods co. wants to target the high income area of mountain lakes. Putting it down by the old shop-rite / home depot as someone mentioned earlier, is probably not a profitable venture for them.
Kenneth Kaplan
10:44 am on Sunday, March 24, 2013
I think that the developer was only pointing out a reality: Sometimes, what can be developed on a site as a matter of right, with no rezoning or variances, can be unsightly, unwieldy, and generally disliked by the community. Recognizing that, doesn't it make sense to work with a developer to try to improve the project he wants to build so that he "gets it right," rather than oppose him tooth and nail so that he eventually builds a spite project?
Carolyn M
8:27 am on Monday, March 25, 2013
No - that actually does not make sense. Capitulate now so we don't threaten you with worse later? Using the threat of a spite project to bully us into accepting something we don't want? As of now, the only thing that can be developed there without rezoning or variances is office space - not this proposed strip mall with condos overlooking dumpsters and not apartments - it makes absolutely no sense to cave in when the developer wants us to believe this is a done deal when it really isn't.
Roman Hoshowsky
1:47 pm on Monday, March 25, 2013
OMG-Carolyn M and I finally agree!
Concerned in ML
1:52 pm on Friday, April 5, 2013
The developer does not own the property. The developer is speculating. The owner is a subsidiary of Chubb. They made $11 Billion last year. So who is being harmed, who is being prejudiced by a "no" decision? People need to ask the right questions. If the developer bails, he will make it all up on the next deal in the next community where he blows in and out and pockets millions in speculative real estate investments.