dePierro Logic is flawed as his words are false.

Night of the Candidates dePierro’s Statement on COAH and Development.

Michael dePierro’s contentions concerning him fighting public housing are unfounded; his statements at the time were also inaccurate and misleading; for example: from a June 2010 Parsippany life article Parsippany comes closer to Highlands Conformance by Cindy Forrest we read: It was questioned how Parsippany, which is almost at build-out level, could be expected to construct another 8,720 housing units. When the first-round numbers came out, according to dePierro, town leaders were told that although Parsippany has seven apartment complexes, two senior residents and a number of high-density communities, it was “irrelevant.” Asked where to put all of those additional housing units, the township was told “go up.”

“In their original open space calculations COAH included wetlands, golf courses and cemeteries,” said dePierro, “does it still include those areas?” The article: Relief from that obligation is available currently through the Highlands Council Regional Master Plan, which lowers the third-round numbers for municipalities that opt into conformance. To encourage towns in the planning area to opt in, the state is using the lower COAH obligation to entice them.

“Under the RMP we arrive at a more realistic obligation of 274 COAH units,” said Snieckus.

What continuance in the RMP plan now gives the township is protection.

“It shields Parsippany from builder’s remedy lawsuits,” said Inglesino. Councilman Michael dePierro, “I have no desire to join the Highland’s RMP.

Let us examine these statements. If at the time when COAH was still in suspension and awaiting round three, which never occurred because the Governor ignored the Law and forced the courts to a new order; a lower possibility of obligation could have occurred and it was the “only” reason why Parsippany opted into the regional conformance, why would he oppose the regional plan; if it may have brought us a lower obligation? The fact that conformance would of protected tax-payers from developers lawsuits, seems also not to fancy him. He goes on with the unknowns and deliberately distorts the issue of COAH and regional planning, COAH being a law for housing regional conformance for better land use and protection of natural resources. By establishing additional standards and criteria and a means to address the issue of public interest, watershed management, open space and historic preservation; many of these issue are not addressed by local planning or developers. dePierro: “In their original open space calculations COAH included wetlands, golf courses and cemeteries,” said dePierro, “does it still include those areas?” Never were wetlands in COAH obligations, and if a town has an natural resource inventory, which conformance does, all landscapes are given scrutiny for any environmental sensitivity; dismissing them from development, or scaling back over development. In other words by using conformance you can protect landscapes from COAH threats or any improper or unnecessary development. I believe when conformance was taken on Parsippany officials knowing and finding out about the plan would understand this. Apparently no one bothered. In 14 years in conformance Parsippany made no advances in their Master Plan; and finally rejected conformance in 2014 right before the COAH, outcome of developers remedy, when we need conformance the most. So in reality he is helping developers gain their way in Parsippany. (Golf courses would have to have a housing overlay ordinance built into the zoning; dePierro should know if that applies; cemeteries doubtful; how about the old cemetery at waterview?)

Who or whom informed dePierro about the COAH? Certainly not any Highlands Council official, who would of explained, how conformance provides all its aspects and benefits. His mind was made up for everyone. Our environmental committee was never asked; no public encouragement or transparency took place at all. By lack of due diligence on the subject of conformance he with Absence of a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made condemned for us all in benefits and advances made in science and land use law. He was plainly arbitrary and capricious; as was other members of the administration at the time.

Waterview would not be an issue, Forge Pond would be ours, the UPS office complex would of most likely been using an already build structure and surely Greystone would still be with us.

Mr. dePierro it’s a politician of the type we have today holding office, but not finding government as sacred, but an obstacle to private interest. He likes to see change; not some balance and has no regard for the natural world that sustains us all. His position of waterview turning his back on the community and over zealously supporting RD developer, in their quest to dominate our town, with no need or reason, willing to erase a valuable landscape. His loyalties and sentiments are not with Parsippany.

One final fact; the Council a ways back refused their pay increase because of the austerity measures being imposed; every Councilman except dePierro saying he was waiting for the raise. More money spent not in our best interest.

Please find of interest you to Mr.. dePierro:

COAH’s Environmental PoliciesCOAH has also made some progress in terms of its environmental policies. The Council has a Memorandum of Understanding with the State Planning Commission that recognizes the importance of focusing affordable housing development where infrastructure exists, consistent with theState Development and Redevelopment Plan. COAH requires that towns in Planning Areas 4 and 5 (rural and environmentally-sensitive areas) plan any new affordable housing sites in designated centers to protect the surrounding environs from sprawl development, and encourages the same for Planning Areas 1, 2 and 3 (developed and fringe areas). COAH gives priority to sites with existing sewers and water service over those without existing infrastructure.COAH calculates a town’s fair share number based, in part, on the amount of land that is developable in the municipality. A municipality with limited vacant, developable land can request a “vacant land adjustment” from COAH, and this adjustment may reduce a municipality’s fair share number. A municipality can reduce the number of acres available for development by showing how much land it has in each of the following categories.

• Restrictive covenants that run with the land (such as conservation easements);
• Steep slopes over 15 percent if regulated by a local steep slope ordinance;
• Wetlands (as delineated by the State);
• Floodplains (as delineated by the State);
• Sites listed on the NJ Register of Historic Places, plus a “reasonable” buffer area;
• Land that the town plans to purchase within one year for active or passive recreational purposes.

COAH does not, however, exclude land protected by other “critical area” ordinances, such as stream corridor or wellhead protection ordinances. Towns can keep unwanted Builder’s Remedy developments from those areas only by proactively finding and designating other appropriate areas for affordable housing.

We may have too much land available for development that is a real possibility. Not being in conformance will surely not help. This is a direct result of too much private outside the community forces having too much power over our places, than real municipal government with true values of environment and long term quality of life goals.