Conditional Use Ordnance Favors Developer. Not specific enough in best practices and future demise

Conditional Use Ordinance, 2015-26 can we really Trust it? Fast Track Streamlined.
Recently the Town Council called an emergency meeting just before Thanksgiving concerning the on-going lawsuit(s) with RD developer. The original meeting was scheduled for December 8th. Emergency meeting may be called under the Public Meeting Act; “Sunshine Law” if substantial harm to the public interest would result from a delay and the need for the meeting could not have reasonably been foreseen. The November 24th so-called, special session amounted to this sunshine law “emergency meeting”. What exactly was the nature of this emergency? RD and the Town’s Law firm were ready to settle the threatened lawsuit; of a builder’s remedy that would threatened the whole of the waterview landscape and its present zoning as a “Planned Office District”. Presto-change-oh; before the council was a choice, not a decision; action was required; although most meeting action or action may be taken; this special session, was summoned not to decide but to choose. This choice would be made based totally on the developer’s two options. One the public housing threat was unfounded and based on fear, misinformation, and a self-fulfilling prophesy of overzealous avocation for the private economic concern over the overwhelming public opposition, environmental values and quality of life concerns. A previous vote of NO to RD proposals by the council and with overwhelming joy of the residents was somehow subverted in a private manner; as if the Council’s NO vote ever occurred, and the grassroots actions were some unexplained turmoil. We now have a pending, (unless a lawsuit ensues to prevent it), a newly established RC-zone ordnance of 16-pages, a so-called “conditional use ordnance”; or do we? Conditional use ordinances that do not provide sufficiently definite specifications and standards are not valid conditional use regulations. Therefore we must suspect legalities as to the developer’s limits and responsibilities and possible unseen changes that may occur in the future, and possible demise further of the previous planned office district. How did Bell Mead the owner come to be allied with RD in this landscapes demise from a planned district with already existing buffers, accommodating the Troy Brook Watershed and its environmentally sensitive landscapes, providing ground water recharge, flood control, trees and aesthetic beauty to the township? Does Parsippany have the right to undermine an immediate neighborhood, for a tax ratable when no public need exist, or the very neighborhoods character has not changed? To this day no proof of the old POD zoning showing maps and balance of bio-diversity in its buffers and easements have been shown that some science exist to this new reason of rezoning. It has been stated because of economic downturns somehow retail is in the best interest of all. This shallow reasoning is highly suspect and ignores all other factors, goals and objectives in our Master Plan. As stated by the Planning Board attorney ordinance 2015-16 will require “minor” changes in our Master Plans Goals & Objectives. These are not minor changes, but major ones; just about every goal & objective; read them for yourself is being demised and ignored; Goals 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11. Objectives, 1,2,3,4,5,6, all of them. The environment, the very geology of landscapes and the neighborhoods themselves are mere obstacles for developers like RD to overcome, fast track and streamline away, all with the help of politicians who refuse to let go of the fantasy of home-rule in the age of big money and corporations are people. Where are we maintaining, enhancing and bringing stability to our community? Where are we being response to our environmental features, encouraging buffers, enhancing commercial areas, not creating more, preserving our natural resources and beauty of remaining landscapes; where and how are we preserving and protecting our water supply and acknowledging the water deficits and the accumulative impacts of erasing environmentally sensitive lands? Water is everyone’s responsibility and a public trust, that developers ignore, or allow NJDEP’s lower standards of conservation and use of this commonly shared resource for private purposes. We are seeing the dangers of freedom, individual rights, passing the buck to others, NJDEP and money in politics and local elections. When a grassroots movement with valid contentions and evidence bring a Town Council to vote NO and have that democratic organic life be subverted subterranean law deals at a local level, we have surely lost our democracy, even on the local level. It is now up to use to either not accept this deal; not law, or make this “proposed” 2015-2 Ordinance very specific in every paragraph of its confusing and perhaps contradictory statements. In this whole process one can see suspected spot zoning, and violations of the Sun Shine Law, and MLUL (Municipal Land Use Law). In that the private interest not the community is being better served. The element of the $3.5 million dollars in open space tax dollars for what benefits the developer more than the community is another twilight zone aspect of this whole deal. Can we honestly call this new reduced buffer from POD to RC truly open space? Home –Rule cannot be home rule when superpac money comes into the community; only conformance to regional planning can ensure the best interest of the residents. Waterview has proven this lesson. Surely RD will attempt to cut corners and profit as much as possible at our expense. Watch out for the fast track and streamline from RD and their allies. Who created Ordinance 2015-16 surely not the people or the Council. Home-rule must realize swimming with the sharks may be dangerous; especially when the water runs out, just ask the fire-department, all this new housing is making it prime for so-called COAH type public housing.