Council weighs planning board recommendation to declare 169 Lackawanna an area in need of redevelopment amid PILOT concerns

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The planning board recommended designating 169 Lackawanna as an area in need of redevelopment; residents warned the designation could signal a future PILOT agreement while administration said designation does not require a PILOT and pointed to high vacancy on the site.

The Parsippany (Troy Hills) Township Council on Feb. 4, 2025, discussed a planning board recommendation to designate property at 169 Lackawanna as an area in need of redevelopment. The designation would allow the township to prepare an official redevelopment plan; residents at the meeting warned the move could be a precursor to a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) agreement.

Bernie Clark, who said he examined the property, said he supports redevelopment generally but urged the council to oppose PILOT agreements because of their long-term fiscal impact on local schools. “My problem is the use of pilots, which seriously hurt the school system,” Clark said, adding that redevelopment can and does occur without PILOTs.

Mayor James Barbario and the administration said the planning board found that the site met multiple statutory criteria for an area in need of redevelopment. A representative from the administration told the council the property had been in foreclosure in 2016 and that vacancy rates at the site were roughly 86%–90% in recent years, making it a strong candidate under the redevelopment statute. The administration emphasized that designation as an area in need of redevelopment does not automatically create a PILOT; any applicant seeking a PILOT must request it and the council would have to approve such a request.

Members of the public asked about project counsel and whether earlier attorneys (named by commenters) were involved; council members said the presence of certain language in a resolution does not force a PILOT and that each developer’s request would be evaluated if and when it is made. The council did not take a final vote on a redevelopment plan during this meeting; the action on Feb. 4 was discussion of the planning board recommendation and related public comment.