Dear Editor:

The six-month severance payout to Parsippany’s former township Business Administrator should concern every taxpayer — not because it is an isolated incident, but because it fits a troubling pattern. Time and again, the prior administration and Town Council rushed through major decisions with minimal public scrutiny and lasting financial consequences.

That same pattern was clearly on display in December 2025, when two significant development projects — the Lanidex warehouse and the 500 PARQ residential project — were fast-tracked and approved using long-term Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILOT) agreements. These deals will shape Parsippany’s finances for decades, yet they were advanced with little public notice and during the holiday season, when residents had limited opportunity to understand or question what was happening.

At the February 3, 2026 Township Council meeting, residents raised serious concerns about those approvals, particularly why a PILOT was being considered for a project already well underway. Questions were asked about whether the council received full and accurate information before voting, and whether the process complied with state redevelopment law, including potential Article 15 violations. Put simply, residents wanted to know: Did the council truly understand what it was approving?

Those concerns deepened around the PARQ Apartments project, where developers were accused of misleading the council to secure a tax break reported to exceed $100 million over the life of the PILOT. If the information provided was incomplete or inaccurate, this goes beyond a policy misstep — it strikes at the heart of ethics and public trust.

The December approvals were made by the prior Town Council, including Judy Hernandez, Paul Carifi, Frank Neglia, and Justin Musella — who had publicly opposed PILOT agreements during his 2025 mayoral campaign. Only Councilman Matt McGrath was willing to call for repeal or reconsideration once these concerns came to light.

That same lack of care and transparency appears in the severance deal highlighted in your article. Once again, the agreement was negotiated and approved by the same prior administration and Town Council, committing taxpayer dollars with far too little public oversight.

December’s rushed PILOT approvals set the tone. The severance payout followed the same playbook. And once again, taxpayers are left holding the bill.

Parsippany residents made their voices heard in November and rejected this approach to governance. As the new administration moves forward, residents are looking for meaningful change — particularly on issues such as appointments, executive severance agreements, and PILOT approvals — and a clear departure from the practices of the past.

Tim Berrios
35-Year Parsippany Resident

Dear Editor:

In support of Bob Venezia’s Contention on the Lanidex Warehouse. Under N.J.S.A. 40A:20-1 et seq. (the Long Term Tax Exemption Law), a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreement must generally be negotiated, approved, and executed by the municipality before construction begins to qualify for the tax exemption on the improvements. .. PILOT agreements are typically approved during the redevelopment planning phase, which occurs before site plan approval and the issuance of construction permits.

If construction begins before the PILOT is authorized, the developer may be liable for full, conventional property taxes on the improved value of the property, as the tax exemption generally applies to improvements made after the agreement is in place.

Disclaimer: Real estate tax law, particularly in New Jersey, is complex and highly dependent on the specific redevelopment agreement. Consult with a New Jersey land use attorney for specific project guidance. (Again we have until March 31st to do this)

Seems this PILOT for Lanidex should be looked at by State Attorney General. This warehouse boasted No PILOT at the Board Hearing, according to Attorney John Inglesino. The warehouse is also outside the guidelines for warehouse locations. So much for the safety wellbeing of the residents

If Councilman McGrath is sincere in his contention he should take it to the next step, and ask that a Higher Legal State Agency look into the matter, not just state his opposition, but actually oppose in a forceful manner of looking in to a possible illegality in how this whole Warehouse, and sudden Pearl Harbour PILOT came to tuition at a lame-duck Council of the last administration

March 31 is a deadline given in the State to review any Housing Developments.
Consider this The Lanidex Warehouse not only is it allowed to be outside the Warehouse Guidelines for such location placement; near a school; it was openly in favor for as an alternative to any affordable housing by the BOE at the time, and one of the reasons it was approved by the former Council, and Mayor who sat on the Board that approved it. Therefore it can be argued this warehouse was allowed in direct relation to the Housing, as opposed to it. (This can be easily proved by the very words spoken during the Planning Board Hearings.)

Neighborhood preferred housing not warehouse
People from the immediate neighborhood in Lake Parsippany open spoke at Council, saying they would rather have the Housing than the warehouse. Former Council appeared to give this some concern. If the warehouse developer had made it known, he could not overcome the financial obstacles of this warehouse construction in the location, then the project should of been cancelled in favor of the Neighborhoods Request.

Did Inglesino pull another fast one off on Parsippany?
Rain off the roof of the warehouse, would be cleaner was the only Guarantee from Inglesino expert, at the Planning Board concerning stormwater. Site Selection for Lanidex Considerations, while being near the school was ignored, imposing on the Lake Parsippany Neighborhood character ignored, and all the required modification to accommodate the trucks and traffic ignored, or would be addressed before.

Warehouse Guidelines Ignored
Environmental Sensitivity: Avoiding placement near sensitive receptors like schools, parks, or residential areas, no sited from the Planning Board at the time from the Guidelines for Warehouse locations.

Mitigate and avoid conflicts with other uses, sensitive populations and receptors by locating large warehouses away from residential areas/neighborhoods, downtown commercial/retail areas and main streets, schools, daycare, places of worship, hospitals, overburdened
communities, scenic corridors, and historic districts, important public and civic outdoor spaces, and recreational facilities (Livingston-Benedict remaining landscape)

State Planning Commission Policy
To systematically address warehouse development, communities should proactively plan for warehouse projects to prevent land-use conflicts that harm residents, other communities, and the environment before they materialize, and guide sustainable development. Proactive planning ensures long-term benefits and provides a predictable business environment, with consistent expectations for developers.

Parsippany has already approved 2-other warehouses in appropriate locations and given 30 Year PILOTS. Like too many office spaces, and malls of the past, now we shall over do the warehouses in New Jersey. This is no time to be bipartisan in a harmless asking for a review by the courts on the strange PILOT given for Lanidex by the last administrations lame duck session.

Nicholas Homyak

Dear Editor:

At the January 6 council meeting, Councilman McGrath made a motion to introduce an ordinance that would repeal the PARQ Lanidex PILOT and the Lanidex Warehouse PILOT. When no one seconded the motion, the matter was immediately dropped. Since then, I have performed my own inquiry and have determined that there is sufficient reason to declare both PILOTs null and void. The Lanidex Warehouse PILOT should be repealed because the developer breached one of the clauses contained in the PILOT agreement.  The PARQ Lanidex PILOT should also be repealed because, in my opinion, the developer made a fraudulent claim for personal gain, i.e. to obtain a lucrative $117 million tax break.

Regarding the Lanidex warehouse PILOT, the language in Article 15, titled Certification as to the Commencement of Construction, is crystal clear. It prohibits the developer from beginning construction of the project prior to the approval of the PILOT application by an ordinance authorizing the PILOT by the Township’s Governing Body. The uncontested fact that the Lanidex warehouse was more than half complete BEFORE the ordinance was adopted is an obvious violation of Article 15 and thus constitutes a breach of contract. I believe that the Governing Body has no choice but to move Councilman McGrath’s motion forward and ultimately vote to repeal Ordinance 2025:32.

The PARQ Lanidex apartment PILOT should be repealed for an entirely different reason. As I stated earlier, I believe that the developer made a fraudulent claim in order to mislead the Governing Body into approving a PILOT agreement that would grant the developer a mind-boggling $117 million tax break. The developer’s assertion that the PARQ project was not financially feasible without a PILOT convinced the council to approve the PILOT. But in my opinion, there is a preponderance of evidence indicating no PILOT was ever needed.

This evidence includes the fact that interest rates are lower now than when the 275 apartments and 75 town houses in PARQ Phase 1 were built without a PILOT, so it will actually be cheaper to finance Phase 2. In addition, there are substantial savings in construction costs that can be achieved by constructing identical apartment buildings on the same property after the first building has been in operation for a while. Drawing information from the Construction Review Online website and other construction websites, AI estimates that the savings from just one more 275-unit building can amount to 12-15% of total development costs, which translates to construction cost savings of $8 to $20 million. For 4 extra buildings the savings would be $32 -$80 million. The handout that the council received lists about a dozen areas where savings can be achieved. For example, architectural and structural plans can be re-used. And only minor extensions and lateral connections are required for the roads, water, sewer, and gas and electric utilities that were installed for the first building.

Therefore, construction of Phase 2 of the PARQ development will cost tens of millions of dollars less than Phase 1. Logically, if the developer was able to complete Phase 1 without a PILOT, then certainly he can complete the much less expensive Phase 2 without needing one. In my opinion, the assertion that Phase 2 is not financially feasible without a PILOT is a fraudulent statement solely intended to secure the council votes necessary to obtain a $117 million tax break from Parsippany.

I believe that the Lanidex warehouse developer knowingly breached a clause in the PILOT agreement, and that the PARQ Lanidex apartment developer knowingly misrepresented the project’s financial need for a PILOT. By their deceptive actions the developers showed contempt and disrespect for the Township of Parsippany and especially for the administration and the town council. Unfortunately, these actions also misled the council into granting $100 -$200 million in tax breaks that are totally undeserved.

So, I would like to request two things:

1. The council votes YES to introduce Councilman McGrath’s ordinance that would repeal both PILOTs so that there can be a thorough discussion of the pros and cons of each PILOT agreement.
2. I would like the township attorney to confirm that the Lanidex warehouse developer did indeed violate Article 15 of the PILOT agreement.
   

Bob Venezia