We are Being Fast Tracked and Streamlined into Suspect Illegalities at Waterview

Conditions of Suspect Legality, Sunshine Law; Transparency

Taxation without representation on a local level has hit a new low concerning waterview landscape. Besides the new swiftly created ordinance known as 2015-26 being called a minor change in the Master Plan to create a “first of its kind retail zone”, which disregards main elements of our goals and objectives listed in favor of a private economic concern over the benefits to the community. We are being told that retail is in the best interest of our community and region, not only more retail but new land development is required for this need, that an environmentally sensitive landscape will be virtually erased. That although no change has occurred in the immediate neighborhood, overwhelming public opposition having taken place, with facts of contention, and a previous council vote of no, has been overturned by a legal agreement between the town attorney and the developer’s lawyer; all taking place during a recently called “emergency council meeting” of closed session.

Two grievances and contentions are in order. 1. Violations of the Sunshine law .2. Spot zoning. Let us examine each.

Sunshine law; or transparency for example: Advisory bodies are not subject to the Sunshine Law, such as when a mayor or governor meets with department heads. However, if an advisory body has the power to eliminate options available to a decision-making body, it too becomes subject to the law.

We have either the environmental committee, open space or any committee that was activated or consulted. We do however have the Council Members themselves. The fact that these committees were not consulted or activated shows an undercurrent of over cooperation with the developer against the community. If the Council was brought into a “fast-track” emergency meeting before the scheduled meeting, then did they have the power to make a decision, or should they have refused the options given; public housing threat, or retail? These two options should have been eliminated as not suitable to the situation. The Council already voted no on the retail, and the Threat of public housing, was unfounded. Remedy courts and their criteria will not even been in session until next year some time. It is a fact that environmentally sensitive landscapes are not suitable for such developments. We were duped into believing that open land was the only or main vulnerability for public type housing, not true. Using public housing as a threat, rather than an obligation must be seen as suspect legality and unethical by any developer. The municipally using it as an excuse to favor the developers plan is also suspect of legality, and an act of exclusion in thought, deed and contract agreement.

Emergency meeting, which may be called by a three-quarters vote, may be held only if substantial harm to the public interest would result from a delay and the need for the meeting could have reasonably be foreseen. Whenever possible, the body must provide 48-hour notice. Discussion must be limited to the matter which prompted the emergency meeting.

So the original December 8th scheduled meeting was fast-tracked to before Thanksgiving. What emergency was so dire to allow this “emergency council meeting”? This also demonstrates a clear and overzealous cooperation between the Township Planning Board, Mayor and the Developer RD.

It is not necessary that a meeting result in some action; mere discussion of public matters is enough to make it a meeting public.

Was the council forced in some way to make a decision under “emergency pretext?” Was the council allowed any latitude at all and if not why not?

Violations of the law may result in voiding of decisions made by the public body. Also, executive session discussions may be made public by court order, and penalties may be assessed against individual members.

This would call for a request for such a court order by the council; passing of a resolution for transparency and possible violations of the law would be in order.

No emergency existed. The only explanation is an attempt to fast track and streamlined this extortion by the developer and his cronies in the municipality.

Finally spot zoning. Waterview landscape is a Planned Office District with its buffers and easements already established. How Bell Mead the present owner came to be able to undermine this zoning is being done through their agent RD, which Bell Mead an already rich entity wishes to profit even more by its sale; this can only happen if the original zoning is undermined. No “Public Need “for retail exists, especially new land destruction. No character change has occurred in the immediate neighborhood to warrant such a change.

The POD zone was a well-designed district considering the Troy Brook Watershed, and it’s downstream resources of the Troy Meadows and the Whippany and thereby Passaic Rivers. Its bio-diversity, forest steep slopes and trees are also important in alleviating floods prone in the area.

Finally; Municipal Land Use law states “variance should not be granted when merely, the purposes of the applicant will be advanced, and rather, the grant must actually benefit the community in that it represents a better zoning alternative for the property. The better zoning would open space of all 26 acres as it should already have been. The Public Housing threat is not real, The landscape would defend itself, as the grassroots movement should have already and still may..

Again our Master Plan moves a fake and silly putty in the hands of private corporate developers.