PARSIPPANY — During Thursday’s Parsippany-Troy Hills Board of Education Meeting, July 25, the members discussed the recently approved warehouse at 20-30 Lanidex Plaza.
Board Member Sheethal Abraham said they recently met regarding the 20-30 Lanidex Plaza approved warehouse. Parsippany Board of Education Superintendent Dr. Sutter, Member Mr. Raia, Sheethal Abraham, and Board President Mr. Choffo were present.
Board Member Sheethal Abraham said, “We discussed the PILOT communications and the warehouse at 20-30 Lanidex Plaza, which is the backyard of Eastlake Elementary School.
Board members Mr. Raia and Mr. Berrios attended the Planning Board meeting on Monday, July 22, at which the project was approved. We also discussed the outcomes and discussions surrounding the PILOT, how Eastlake Elementary School could be affected by the warehouse or apartments, and the number of schoolchildren that could impact the district. We discussed Eastlake further and talked about how it was discussed with the developer in February 2024. Town officials informed the Board of Education about the ongoing plans, more as a courtesy. Concerns included environmental impacts, water runoff or flooding, sound barriers, etc. We have continued negotiating with the Mayor and the Township Council in good faith and plan to send a weekly certified mail letter to the Mayor. It has been more than two months since the last in-person meeting with Mayor Barberio, and there’s still much to discuss regarding PILOTS, capital projects, shared services, etc. In addition to that, we also discussed the Chinese Cultural Exchange Program. The exchange cultural program in the past, who could participate, and the consensus of the program were discussed again. Many students were visiting the Mayor’s office recently, and many probably saw the pictures and write-up on social media, which prompted the discussion.”
Board President Andrew Choffo said, “I have a couple of things. Some are under new business, but I’d like to address the Lanidex warehouse based on what you brought up in your report. It appears that there is a misnomer or misinformation being provided to the public that the Board of Education somehow endorsed or approved the plan to redevelop 20 and 30 Lanidex from commercial office space to warehousing. I want to go through a couple of facts and draw my conclusion. On January 19th, 2024, the developer’s attorney emailed the board attorney asking to meet regarding the proposed warehouse at that site. “The developer wanted to contact some neighbors, including the Board of Education, to provide a private presentation/briefing of the project so the BOE could see and comment on the site plan.” I don’t know if the developer contacted other neighbors in the area. I’m not aware of whether that happened or not. On February 9th, a meeting with the developer was held, and in attendance were Dr. Sutter, Mrs. Tedesco, our board attorney Kathryn Gilfillan, Vice President Golderer, Mrs. Cogan, Mrs. Shappell, and myself. Representing the developer were the property owner, the attorney, an acoustic engineer, and a wastewater engineer. The developer, in a meeting that probably lasted without 90 minutes, presented the site plan and solicited input from the experts who were in attendance. Board members and administrators asked questions and a great deal of time was spent on flooding, noise, and pollution that might be generated from an operational warehouse that would have trucks coming in and out of the site.”
He continued, “Having some knowledge of site development, I felt they did an adequate job answering our questions and presenting the site plan. Board members had the opportunity to ask questions, which many questions were asked, and the meeting concluded amicably. But I want to ensure that the public knows because I think the Mayor keeps saying that the Board of Education endorsed and approved the plan. That’s not the role of the Board of Education. I appreciated the outreach from the developer to talk to us as a neighborly gesture. This was happening, but the town knew what that area looked like. It knows it’s to the South and the West; there’s a school, and it’s very residential. To the North and East, it’s more commercial. The town approved the site plan; It wasn’t the Board of Education. I guess the town could have looked to have something else built there. I mean, it’s not going to stay vacant. It’s not going to get plowed over for green acres. That’s just not going to happen. The other options could have been more high-density residential development, light manufacturing, etc. However, when faced with 5,000 units and hundreds of new school children coming to the school district over the next several years, I think it was the consensus of the Board and the administration at the meeting that more high-density housing was probably not an option we wanted to pursue there. Again, we appreciated, at least I did, the developer and experts’ input. I think they did a very good job describing how sound would travel and how wastewater management would occur..’
Ms. Cogan said, “We were never asked for permission or approval. I took it as an informational meeting.”
“I think they reached out to us as a courtesy, and we appreciated the courtesy in understanding what would go on there and allowing us to answer questions. This is what we did, said Dr. Sutter.
Mr. Choffo continued, “This meeting wasn’t a secret meeting by the attendees involved. The board was briefed in closed session. A corollary: The second time I used that word tonight, I found another word for the meeting: exploring the possibilities of converting a commercial office building into a school. And I think we did, with our architect and the board, pursue that opportunity only to conclude that retrofitting an office building to a school is not cost-effective. And again, I hope no board members feel they weren’t aware of this. There were several closed-session meetings where this was part of the discussion, and then it morphed into the office space discussion. I just wanted to clarify that the board did not approve or endorse the warehousing in that area. We simply had a presentation by a developer who would present a site plan to the town that they could approve or not approve. We asked our questions, and we thanked them for their time. That was fundamentally how that went.”
