150 Allen Road, Explained: The 2024 Denial, the Lawsuit and the Remand

The short version

• The plan: two light-manufacturing and office buildings at 150 Allen Road, 258,528 sq ft, later 244,128.
• The denial: Nov. 14, 2024, 6-0, after 18 hearing dates; memorialized Feb. 5, 2025.
• The lawsuit: SOM-L-000481-25, filed March 27, 2025, as Patch reported.
• The remand: on Sept. 29, 2026 the court sent the case back for the Board to consider the owner’s reconsideration request and revised plan, as Patch and TAPinto reported. No hearing date was set as of Nov. 1, 2026.

The site and the proposal

The Board’s resolution describes the site as Block 11201, Lot 3, a triangular 28.256-acre through-lot in the E-2 Office Zone, with about 57 feet of frontage on Allen Road (County Route 652) and about 1,935 feet along I-78. It was reached by an easement over Lot 2, which is zoned residential. A three-story, 174,546 sq ft office building stood there; the applicant demolished it during the hearings.

Signature Acquisitions, LLC applied on or about Sept. 24, 2022, by its attorneys’ account (Patch reported the court’s ruling as giving Sept. 26, 2022). It proposed Building A (127,977 sq ft: 97,185 of light manufacturing and 30,792 of office) and Building B (130,551 sq ft: 101,792 of light manufacturing and 28,759 of office), 258,528 sq ft in all, later reduced to 244,128. It sought “d(1)” use variances for the access driveway over the residential lot, a “d(4)” floor-area variance (about 19.83% where 15% is allowed), steep-slope, setback, retaining-wall, parking and buffer variances, design exceptions, and a contribution to the tree fund in place of replacement trees.

The hearings and the denial

The resolution lists 18 hearing dates, from Jan. 4, 2023 to Nov. 14, 2024. Parties with counsel included a group of neighboring objectors, which withdrew in April 2024 after a settlement with the applicant; Fellowship Village, Inc.; and the Fellowship Village Residents Council. The Bernards Township Board of Education took a neutral position. The resolution refers to “more than 70 objecting members of the public.”

The Board found the proposed use was “light manufacturing,” a permitted use in the E-2 zone, so no use variance was needed for the buildings themselves. On Nov. 14, 2024 it voted to deny the application in its entirety:

Vote	Members
To deny	Genirs, Tancredi, Cambria, Kraus, Helverson, Herrera
Ineligible	Pochtar, Baumann, Piedici

In its resolution, adopted Feb. 5, 2025 (2-0: Genirs and Kraus aye; Agrawal, Pochtar, Baumann, Piedici and Silver ineligible), the Board relied on the objectors’ planner’s testimony on the negative criteria and found that any hardship from a denial “would be self-created by the Applicant, who chose to demolish the existing office building and propose such a large manufacturing facility, with such an excessive FAR and its associated bulk deviations.”

The reconsideration request

On Dec. 4, 2024, before the resolution was adopted, the applicant’s attorneys wrote that “the sole reason given by the majority of the Board for denying the Application was a stated discontent with the D-4 variance relief,” and asked the Board to reconsider a revised plan that would reduce the floor-area ratio to 14.99%; the letter said the driveway use variances would remain and some bulk variances would be reduced or no longer needed. Revised plans followed in January 2025, with a Jan. 8, 2025 letter.

Patch reported that, according to the court’s decision, the Board said it had scheduled a special meeting for March 13, 2025 to decide whether there was good cause to reconsider and that the applicant withdrew the request on March 11; the applicant filed suit on March 27, 2025.

The court’s ruling

Patch quoted Judge Robert Ballard’s Sept. 29, 2026 statement of reasons:

• “The Court concludes only that, under the circumstances presented, the Board’s decision not to consider Plaintiff’s timely reconsideration application was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.”
• “The matter is REMANDED to the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Bernards for consideration of Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration and revised proposal.”
• The Board “shall consider [the] revised proposal under the zoning ordinances and development regulations applicable at the time Plaintiff’s original application was submitted.”
• “The Court does not reach the merits of the Board’s denial of Plaintiff’s original application.”

The ruling is not on the township’s site. LocalWhy has not reviewed it or the court docket.

After the ruling

• Oct. 7, 2026: the Board’s agenda listed an executive session on “Pending Litigation entitled Signature Acquisitions, LLC vs. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Bernards Dkt# SOM L 000481-25.” TAPinto reported that no hearing was held because the applicant was not present, that no date was announced, and that Chair Lisamarie Baumann said the public would be able to take part when a hearing is scheduled.
• Mayor’s statement: TAPinto quoted Mayor Ana Duarte McCarthy: “The Bernards Township Committee must not direct, influence, or otherwise interfere with the Board’s consideration of a pending application.”
• Oct. 28, 2026: the Board’s special meeting agenda listed the same executive session.

The township had not posted minutes of the Oct. 7 or Oct. 28 meetings as of Nov. 1, 2026.

What is not known

• When the Board will hear the reconsideration request, and whether the township will appeal the remand.
• The revised plan’s current size and variances as they will be presented.
• The terms of the 2024 settlement between the applicant and the neighboring objectors.

What residents can do

• Watch for the hearing notice. The Zoning Board’s agendas and notices are posted on the township’s site.
• Read the record. The application, exhibits, transcripts and reconsideration request are in the township’s ZB22-028 folder.