Document library

What to look for

• Pages 1–4, the procedural recitals: the Township filed its declaratory-judgment action and participation resolution January 28, 2025, the HEFSP June 25, 2025 and the implementing ordinances and resolutions March 13, 2026; FSHC confirmed compliance with the settlement terms; no other interested party filed a challenge or any other communication.
• The prior-round table (302 units, 316 mechanisms, 241 bonus credits, a 14-credit surplus) and the Third Round table (a 1,000-unit obligation, mechanisms totaling 993 units with 743 bonuses, seven units carried into the Fourth Round). The order lists Henderson/Genesis as awaiting site-plan approval for nine family rental units, 40 TJC/Premier units as approved, Advance/Fox Hollow’s 28 family rental units and River Trace’s 11 family for-sale units as complete, and North Branch Walk (91), Summit Green (92, with 22 bonuses) and Judelson/Glen (125 age-restricted) as under construction.
• The mechanisms table (pages 6–8): Whiton Hills extensions (30 age-restricted units with 15 bonuses and 44 family units with 22 bonuses), Evans Way/KRE (80 family units), Vollers/Premier (50 credits — 46 family and four special-needs — with 23 bonuses) and 147 Stony Brook Road (four special-needs credits with four bonuses), all marked “proposed.” The table totals 272 credits, 208 units, 64 bonuses, 265 after the carryover and a 10-credit surplus; the HEFSP reports 271.5 credits, 63.5 bonuses and a 9.5-credit surplus. The half-credit difference is unexplained in the record.
• The monitoring paragraphs (pages 7–10): yearly Affordable Housing Monitoring System entries by each February 15 covering trust-fund collections, balances and expenditures and unit construction, starts, certificates of occupancy and deed-control dates; deed-restriction uploads as developments come online; a realistic-opportunity review as of July 1, 2030, on which a party may file where an inclusionary site lacks preliminary site-plan approval by the midpoint; and retained jurisdiction.

The order’s signature date is handwritten and uncertain in the OCR; the eCourts filing stamp is April 15, 2026. The figures above are from the scanned order and were checked against its page text.

What to look for

• The cover letter (pages 1–4), which recites the January 8, 2026 Consent Order Conditional Compliance Certification requiring a new AH-8 zoning ordinance, a Fair Share Housing Center request for additional information of August 28, 2025, and an October 7, 2025 case-management order requiring the Township and FSHC to confer on conditions for compliance.
• Ordinance 2026-1507 (pages 3–10), creating the Route 22 Affordable Housing 8 zone: up to 250 multifamily apartment, townhouse and stacked-townhouse dwellings plus one special-needs group home, 50 affordable credits (at least 46 affordable multifamily units and four special-needs bedrooms), a 10% minimum open-space area and 60% maximum impervious coverage, on a 31.9338-acre concept plan.
• Ordinance 2026-1508 and the January 2026 amended plan (pages 15–23), replacing the 2022 Evans Way warehouse plan with up to 300 apartments and 100 townhouses on Block 58, Lot 36, 80 affordable units (20%), with Block 58.01, Lot 4 unchanged and a two-acre portion contemplated for public use.
• The roll-call pages of both ordinances (2026-1507 page 11; 2026-1508 page 18): first reading February 9, 2026 and adoption March 9, 2026, with Committee members Young, Columbus, Owens, Beatrice and Schworn marked “Yes” at both readings; no abstentions or absences are marked.

Ordinance 2026-1509 and Resolutions 2026-64, -65 and -66 are listed in the filing as exhibits. The Township Committee’s minutes record Ordinance 2026-1509 introduced on February 9 and adopted on March 9, 2026, 5–0, and the three resolutions adopted on the March 9 consent agenda, 5–0 (see the March 9, 2026 Committee meeting).

What to look for

• Table 3, “Summary of Credits for the Fourth Round (2025–2035)”, page 9 — the mechanism list and the totals: 208 units, 63.5 bonus credits, 271.5 credits, a 16.5-credit surplus before the seven-unit Third Round carryover and 9.5 after it. The April 15, 2026 court order reports the same table as 272 credits, 64 bonuses and a 10-credit surplus; the half-credit difference is unexplained in the record.
• The site sections: Evans Way/KRE (38 acres, 400 family units, 80 affordable, about 10.5 dwelling units per acre, a two-acre donation along Stony Brook Road contemplated); Vollers/Premier (21.5 acres, 250 family units, 50 affordable credits — 46 family units and four special-needs bedrooms); Whiton Hills (Block 74, Lot 1: 288 apartments, 74 deed-restricted, certificates of occupancy 1992–1996, a Township-subsidized extension of controls of at least 40 years); and 147 Stony Brook Road (Block 36, Lot 2: a four-bedroom home owned by Youth Consultation Service, Inc.).
• 147 Stony Brook Road is marked “Occupied” in the plan’s table; the April 15, 2026 order marks the same mechanism “proposed.”

The plan was filed with the court in docket SOM-L-142-25 on June 25, 2025, one day after the Planning Board adopted it and the same day the Township Committee endorsed it (Resolution 2025-124). Court file stamps read SOM-L-000142-25.

What to look for

• The roll-call table on page 3: Young, Columbus, Owens and Beatrice under “yes,” Schworn absent.
• The recitals, which date the Superior Court order establishing the 0 present-need / 255 prospective-need obligation to April 8, 2025. The Planning Board’s June 24 resolution dates the same order to April 18, 2025; the order itself is not among the posted Branchburg court files.

The resolution directs that a copy be sent to the Office of Planning Advocacy and the Somerset County Planning Board within 30 days. The roll-call page was checked against the page image.

What to look for

• The vote table: Douglas Chabrak, Vicki Cook, Anna Columbus, David Owens, Alan Verbeke, Charles McLoughlin and Daniel Russoniello marked aye; Larry Hambro and Maria Donegan marked absent; no nay or ineligible marks appear. Vicki Cook made the motion and Alan Verbeke seconded it.
• The recitals, which state the Township’s recalculation as 248 units (the January resolution’s operative text said 247) and date the court order fixing 255 units to April 18, 2025. Township Committee Resolution 2025-124 and the Township’s March 13, 2026 court filing date that order to April 8, 2025; the order itself is not among the posted court files.

Douglas Ball, Acting Clerk of the Planning Board, certified the resolution. The vote table was checked against the page image; the scan’s OCR alone is ambiguous.

What to look for

• The recitals on the FSHC and NJBA objections to the Township’s calculation and the mediation agreement reached between the parties.
• The resolution’s commitment to 0 present-need and 255 prospective-need units.

The OCR of the roll-call page lists the five committee members, but the vote marks cannot be read reliably from the scan, so no roll call is published here. The resolution is dated March 24, 2025; the research notes date the mediation between March 20 and 24, 2025.

What to look for

• The operative paragraph, committing to 0 present-need and 247 prospective-need units.
• The recitals on the Department of Community Affairs advisory estimate of 297 units and the Township’s recalculated figure of 248.

The Township filed this resolution with the Superior Court on January 28, 2025, in docket SOM-L-142-25; the court’s file list dates the resolution by that filing date. The resolution is a scan; the figures above were checked against the page text.

What to look for

• Opinions (pages ~7–10): unmodified on the regulatory basis prescribed by the Division of Local Government Services; adverse relative to U.S. GAAP because the prescribed basis differs in ways presumed material. Not a finding that the regulatory statements are misstated.
• Findings: no material weaknesses in the limited internal-control consideration; no reportable noncompliance; Recommendations section reads “NONE.”
• Current fund schedule: year-end 2025 balance $11,801,344.22 (opening $12,056,537.71; excess from operations $6,254,470.51; $6,509,664 used as anticipated revenue). The annual financial statement prints $11,802,344.22 — an unresolved $1,000 difference.
• Tax rates: 2025 $1.709, 2024 $1.804, 2023 $1.871; municipal component $0.305, $0.315, $0.295. Assessed valuation 2025 $4,925,532,700.
• Collections: 2025 levy $84,959,605.69, cash collected $83,899,596.59, 98.75% (2024: 99.02%); last tax sale Sept. 17, 2025.
• Contracts: bid threshold raised to $53,000 effective July 14, 2025 by resolution; public bids requested for Neshanic Pump Station Mitigation and Provision & Planting of Trees; no clear-cut violations found.
• Debt categories: $5,200,000 general serial bonds and $26,930,000 bond anticipation notes payable at Dec. 31, 2025 — balance-sheet categories, not net debt.

The audit is a scan; figures are read from the archived OCR derivative.

What to look for

• The release says only about 10% of towns nationally achieve a AAA rating and just 1% hold one for a decade or more.
• It states the S&P report reflects conservative budgeting with steady surpluses and no reliance on one-time revenues, and that a copy of the report is available on the Township website.
• It notes that county and school levies are separate and not yet finalized at the time of the release.

This is the Township’s own announcement; the underlying S&P letter and report (an earlier Township page links a September 2024 report) were not obtained, and no rating action after the release is in the record reviewed.

What to look for

• Debt table: bonds and notes for local school purposes $11,910,000 (fully deducted); utilities $2,550,000 (fully deducted, self-liquidating sewer debt); municipal/county general obligations $41,945,000 gross, $6,294,635.38 deductions, $35,650,364.62 net.
• Equalized valuation basis: average of 2022–2024 equalized valuations, $4,387,921,011; net debt 0.812% of it. Gross debt less deductions equals the statutory 4% net debt limit’s basis shown at $175,516,840.44.
• Utility schedule: $2,550,000 sewer serial bonds authorized but not issued; 2024 utility cash receipts $7,366,673; operating/maintenance costs $4,515,939.43.

A 2025 annual debt statement was not found in the Township document inventory reviewed as of Oct. 30, 2026.

What to look for

• Year-end surplus schedule: $11,802,344.22, against the audit’s $11,801,344.22; the records do not resolve the difference.
• Certification figures: net valuation taxable for 2025 of $4,925,532,700 and tax-year 2026 taxable value of $5,343,796,600 — separate valuation fields from the user-friendly budget’s Oct. 1, 2025 property roll.

The statement is a scan; figures are read from the archived OCR derivative.

What to look for

• Appropriations, Sheet 34-499: $28,437,328.59 total — $20,004,341 within caps, $6,632,987.59 excluded, $1,800,000 reserve for uncollected taxes. Excluded lines include $3,600,000 capital improvements and $1,891,000 municipal debt service.
• Levy worksheet: local school $50,742,524.46, county $17,296,767.50, municipal open space $2,512,021.83, municipal purposes $16,504,732 — total $87,056,045.79. The user-friendly budget instead reports $88,509,350; the variance is unexplained in the record.
• Budget notice: preliminary approval March 23, 2026; public hearing April 27, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. The final-adoption certification’s handwritten date and vote marks are not legible in the scan.
• Public-safety lines: police salaries $3,900,000, police other expenses $425,000, fire hydrant service $425,000, aid to volunteer fire companies $165,564, fire prevention $150,000 salaries and $5,900 expenses, first aid contribution $63,000, emergency management $8,000 and $7,000.
• Capital program, Sheet 40b: $39,021,000 total — roads $13,040,000, parks $445,000, DPW equipment $2,200,000, emergency-services equipment $1,500,000, municipal complex $20,000,000, computers $600,000, police equipment $1,236,000. A planning schedule, not by itself authority to spend.
• Open-space trust schedule: 2026 rate $0.0500, total tax collected to date $37,431,124.40, expended to date $27,763,006.29, 23,509 acres preserved to date.

The file is a scan; figures are read from the archived OCR derivative and should be checked against the page image where digit-level precision matters.

What to look for

• Tax distribution, as the letter states it: approximately 60% to the Branchburg School District, 20% to Somerset County, 20% to municipal government, with the Township, school district and county described as entirely separate entities.
• Old York School: the Township “currently in discussions” with the Board of Education to acquire the former school property, described as publicly owned, for a future police headquarters and Office of Emergency Management; the current headquarters described as not fully compliant with DOJ accessibility standards or the ADA; millions in savings expected versus a new building; construction “not anticipated until late 2028.”
• Housing: the letter describes court-mandated residential development as progressing slower than anticipated and restates the administration’s opposition to unnecessary residential development.

The letter’s exact date is not printed in the document text; the file is archived without a verified date.

What to look for

• Property tax breakdown: 2025 rate 1.709, 2025 total levy $84,174,755.70, average residential impact $10,653.55. 2026 components: municipal purpose $16,504,732, municipal open space $2,671,898, local school $51,942,145, county purposes $14,007,650, county library $1,882,925, county open space $1,500,000 — totaling $88,509,350.
• Levy comparison: $15,006,801 to $16,504,732, +$1,497,931, 9.98%. The current-year rate and average-bill cells are blank/zero; the 2026 certified rate is not stated.
• Averages: 2026 average residential assessment $673,242 (2025: $623,379).
• Service categories (multi-fund): Public Safety $5,450,614 ($5,385,464 general budget, $65,150 offsets) on the way to $37,121,726.89 total modified appropriations across funds.
• Personnel: 88 full-time and 24 part-time positions, total cost $14,546,314.68, including 29 full-time police officers ($5,667,657) and zero firefighters.
• Debt: municipal gross $46,430,000, net $16,260,364.62; 2026 principal and interest $1,890,650 (5.09% of budget); per-capita gross/net $3,107.76/$1,088.38; Standard & Poor’s AAA with the rating-year field blank.
• Tax appeals (2025): 6 filed at County Tax Board, 15 at State Tax Court, 2 appealed decisions, 23 pending, $0 paid out by the municipality.

What to look for

• The property: 32 acres in the northern section of town, between Route 22 and Route 28, “acquired following the 2022 voter referendum.” No block and lot, price or deed terms are given.
• The quotes: Mayor Thomas Young — “The original purpose of this purchase was to give Branchburg control over its future”; Committeeman Dave Owens — “This property will move from preservation to purpose.”
• The process: the Municipal Open Space and Recreation Committee will lead planning and seek public input; early concepts include community events, walking paths, natural areas and facilities for concerts, festivals and civic gatherings.
• What is missing: public workshop dates, which the release says “will be announced in the coming months.” None had been posted as of Oct. 30, 2026.

The release notes the park timing alongside Somerset County’s Semiquincentennial planning. The media contact is Administrator Greg Bonin.

What to look for

• The header: NJPDES permit NJG0148539; Stormwater Program Coordinator Doug Ball, P.E., Township Engineer; annual review date 9-10-2024, with a revision-table entry that day for “Updated ordinances and personnel.”
• The ordinance history: stormwater-control ordinances 2006-1020 (adopted April 10, 2006), 2021-1411 (June 14, 2021) and 2024-1477 (Aug. 25, 2024, per the plan’s table).
• The sweeping program: all 89 miles of municipal roadway swept three times a year and 10 miles of industrial roadway nine times a year, not outsourced.
• The inventory form (“due 01 Jan 2026”): outfalls, groundwater discharge points, interconnections, inlets, manholes, conveyance length and facilities all “TBD”; pump stations 0; maintenance yards 2. The Watershed Improvement Plan form also reads “TBD,” with “None” for regional projects.

The plan describes the program as written; completed sweeping routes, inspection logs and a filed inventory are not in the posted record.

What to look for

• The trigger: NJDEP amendments to N.J.A.C. 7:8-1.1 et seq. adopted July 17, 2023, and the Township’s adoption of the model ordinance, as the Township’s stormwater page and the SPPP describe.
• “Major development” defined: one or more acres of disturbance since Feb. 2, 2004; one-quarter acre of regulated impervious surface since Feb. 2, 2004; one-quarter acre of regulated motor-vehicle surface since March 2, 2021; or a combined one-quarter acre of the latter two, without double-counting, including projects in a common plan and specified public projects.
• The standards: erosion control, groundwater recharge, runoff-quantity control and runoff-quality treatment, with green infrastructure required to meet the minimum recharge, quality and quantity standards.
• Effectiveness: upon adoption, publication and approval by the Somerset County Planning Board, or within 60 days of county receipt without action; the Clerk must post the ordinance and notify NJDEP and the soil conservation districts within 30 days.
• The vote pages: first reading July 22, 2024 with five yes; final reading four yes and one absent, as visually checked against the scan. The handwritten dates render differently in OCR; the SPPP table’s Aug. 25 and the closing page’s Aug. 26 are both retained.

What to look for

• The ballot question, quoted in full: “Should the Township of Branchburg expend public funds to acquire land within the Route 22/28 corridor for the purpose of preventing large commercial warehouse/distribution type facility development in favor of development more beneficial to the community and its residents?”
• The estimates: $25 million market value for the properties under discussion; a potential tax increase of approximately $220 per household if the Township acquired the entire parcels; the option to buy only portions.
• The zoning context: the letter says current zoning allows commercial development including manufacturing with warehousing, and that the properties could support a 300,000+ square foot facility.

The letter states the Township was not certain the owners would sell, and that all purchases would be subject to mandatory public readings and Township Committee approval. These were the mayor’s estimates before the vote, not final purchase prices.

What to look for

• The dates: sheet title blocks of Sept. 19, 2001 and Dec. 3, 2002, with later annotations including one dated 2009 on sheet 2. The filename “2018 ROSI” is the Township’s file label; the scan shows no 2018 compilation date.
• The aggregate acreage: 639.53 acres wholly undeveloped and 175.06 acres developed or partially developed, as printed on sheet 1. These are historical inventory totals, not a count of land currently preserved.
• The parcel rows: named municipal parcels, drainage-basin properties and conservation easements, distinguishing funded status. The scan’s parcel rows are not reliably readable; do not add them up or assign individual lots from the OCR.

This is historical mapping context only. It does not establish current ownership, which mapped tracts remain protected, or where the 2025 park parcel or the 2026 sign locations sit.

What to look for

• The version label: v.2018, the map the SPPP’s MS4 mapping section links as “the most current.”
• What it feeds: the plan says the map is updated as new facilities are accepted by the Township or built by developers, and that the Township will use GPS devices to locate infrastructure for the inventory due Jan. 1, 2026.

The plan’s inventory counts were marked “TBD” at the 2024 review, so the map does not by itself establish the number of outfalls, inlets or conveyances.

What to look for

• The response claim: “We received a positive response and have been advised that NJDOT is actively working toward a solution.”
• The caution: the mayor’s belief that closure without a comprehensive traffic safety assessment would shift risk — pushing heavy traffic onto residential streets and forcing drivers to cross Route 202 at Old York Road (Centerville).
• The commitment: the statement says the Township will remain involved and provide updates.
• What it does not contain: any NJDOT commitment, design, timeline or written response; the full NJDOT communication was not obtained.

What to look for

• The demand: immediate closure of all unsignalized crossings, including unsignalized U-turns, along Route 202 in Branchburg, with the crossings not remaining open “while the Department conducts prolonged studies or considers future improvements.”
• The fatality assertion: four fatalities and numerous serious non-fatal motor vehicle accidents on Route 202 over the preceding two years, with the most recent fatality two days before the letter. The mayor’s assertion; no official crash-count record accompanies the letter.
• Jurisdiction: “While the State has jurisdiction over this roadway, our residents expect their local government to advocate forcefully for their interests.”
• The requests: a meeting with NJDOT leadership and a concrete timetable.
• The stated alternative: the Township will pursue every lawful option, including direct action to close or restrict hazardous crossings and turning movements, if NJDOT does not act.

The letter also states that residents are demanding action; it gives no speaker, petition or letter count.

What to look for

• Q2 and Q3: the development is in Readington; the connection would run through the Somerset Raritan Valley Sewerage Authority, where Branchburg is a member; under the 1980 agreement Branchburg must cooperate and express support but is not obligated to guarantee approvals or override independent agencies.
• Q4: SRVSA nearing designed capacity; Branchburg’s sewage traveling through Bridgewater’s trunk lines, with inflow and infiltration contributing to system stress; PFAS and microplastic mandates with upgrade costs potentially exceeding $100–$200 million.
• Q5: what is called a septic system would in practice be a small-scale wastewater treatment facility meeting NJDEP discharge standards; the Township would not have approval authority over it but “would strongly oppose” such a facility in Branchburg serving development in another municipality.
• Q6 and Q7: the Township’s statement that it has supported the project framework in good faith since 1980 and has not objected to the Readington development.

The FAQ was posted with the mayor’s letter of the same date. Neither document reports agency decisions; approvals remained pending as stated.

What to look for

• The 1980 and 2020 recitals: the letter restates the settlement’s zoning and sewer terms and the 240-unit proposal, and says FH Golf Partners would donate the Branchburg portion if the Readington project is approved.
• The capacity statements: SRVSA serving seven towns, nearing capacity, facing PFAS and microplastic treatment mandates, with modernization costs that could exceed $100–$200 million and uncertainty whether the site can support expansion.
• The Township’s position: opposition to a septic or small-scale wastewater treatment facility on the Branchburg portion, and the statement that Branchburg does not have the authority or votes to override SRVSA or its members.

The letter refers to a developer-hosted community meeting but gives no attendance or speaker count. It is the Township’s dated statement, not an agency record; no contemporaneous SRVSA study or permit decision accompanies it.

What to look for

• The sheets: title and key plan; legend and general notes; construction plan; grading and drainage; signing and striping.
• The signal work: the legend includes traffic-signal mast arms, signal heads and pedestrian signals at the Route 202 intersection.
• The signatures: Township Engineer Douglas Ball, P.E.; a 2024 committee roster on the title sheet — Mayor Anna Columbus; Deputy Mayor Thomas Young; Committeepersons James Schworn, Brendon Beatrice and David Owens; and an “Approved for Construction By:” line.
• What is missing: any record tying the set to a completed project. Whether the work was built, and when, is not established by the retrieved record.

What to look for

• Paragraph 19, as amended: the three replacement deadlines, extendable only in writing by mutual agreement.
• The roll call: Young, Schworn, Beatrice and Owens yes; Columbus absent — as visually checked against the scan, whose OCR does not reliably align the vote marks.
• The signature block: Mayor David Owens; Administrator/Township Clerk Gregory J. Bonin.
• The extension’s execution date: handwritten and not legible in the scan; the Oct. 9, 2023 date is the resolution’s adoption date.

What to look for

• The recitals: FH Golf Partners as successor in interest to Fox Hollow Enterprises, Inc.; the Dec. 28, 2018 escrow agreement funding the Township’s sewer-conveyance study; the finding of insufficient present conveyance capacity.
• The project: 192 age-restricted active-adult market-rate units and 48 family affordable units (240 total), the only Readington connections allowed under the agreement, with Readington to enter its own agreement with Branchburg and to collect and remit sewer fees at Branchburg’s rates.
• The flow cap: maximum average daily flow of 60,000 gallons per day during any 30-day period, with a flow meter.
• The agencies: SRVSA, Branchburg, Bridgewater, Somerset County and NJDEP, including the Water Quality Management Plan amendment to include the Readington Development in the SRVSA and County WQMP.
• The land: donation of the Branchburg golf-course property and certain Readington parcels under listed triggers, Branchburg’s right to refuse, a deed-restriction alternative, and the $2,300,000 valuation with withdrawal of tax appeals on that portion.
• Exhibit B, the Mott MacDonald report of July 29, 2020: measured Brandywine pumping of 325 gallons per minute (Dec. 13, 2019 drawdown test), future design flow of 361 gallons per minute including a separate 111-unit development, and a $615,000 construction estimate for pump-station upgrades.
• The original deadlines: sewer approvals by Sept. 30, 2022; development approvals by Mar. 30, 2023; improvements connected by Sept. 30, 2025 — later extended by Resolution 2023-216.

The resolution’s vote table is handwritten; the scan’s checkmarks do not reliably map to the roll-call columns, so member-by-member votes are not stated.

What to look for

• The parcels: the Branchburg portion is Block 5, Lot 2; the Readington portion is Block 15, Lot 28.
• The 200-unit cap on the “Readington Development,” with the golf course to continue in substantially the same configuration.
• The sewer terms: access first to the Brandywine pumping station, or to the Township’s Fox Hollow sewerage plant if an agency denies it; the developer pays connection and expansion costs; Township cooperation is expressly not a warranty of approvals.
• The land restriction: on the first use of sewer access, the Branchburg parcel is limited to golf-course use or an open natural preserve, with development and use rights conveyed to the Township except continued golf use.
• The companion ordinance: counsel’s Apr. 22, 1980 letter, included in the filing, says Ordinance 80-372 was adopted “at last night’s meeting.”

The stipulation recites dismissal of both actions with prejudice by consent order; the order itself was not located in the retrieved records.

What to look for

• The title block: “Possible Sanitary Sewer Extension Miller Ave., Station Road and Central Place,” scale 1 inch = 100 feet, base map dated October 2024, “Revised August 2025 - Lots 2, 10.01, 11.08, 20, 24.”
• The legend: existing sanitary sewer, proposed sanitary sewer, proposed sanitary force main, and areas where sewer is unavailable and owners are not interested in connecting.
• The section counts: Section A, 5 of 5 homes want sewer; Section B, 2 of 6; Section C, 8 of 18; Section D, neither of 2 — 31 homes in all, 15 marked interested.

The sheet documents a proposed layout and represented homeowner interest, not a final engineering plan, approved route or signed connection commitment. The Township’s companion letters of July 16 and September 2025 are image-only scans whose text could not be read.

What to look for

• The bridge (home page): in poor condition, with structural and functional limitations that do not meet today’s design standards; an existing four-span bridge to be replaced by Somerset County in coordination with NJTPA and NJDOT through the Local Capital Project Delivery process.
• The timeline (home page): Local Concept Development completed summer 2020; Local Preliminary Engineering “Current Phase: Fall 2024 to Summer 2026”; Final Design/ROW acquisition anticipated start 2028; construction anticipated start design-dependent.
• History (news page): Public Information Meeting No. 1 on May 2, 2019 at the Branchburg Municipal Building (purpose and need); No. 2 on Oct. 17, 2019 at the Hillsborough Township Municipal Complex (conceptual alternatives); the study’s graduation from concept development to preliminary engineering on July 1, 2020.
• The meetings page: Local Officials Briefing No. 1 on April 17, 2025 (virtual, 10:00 a.m.), then a Community Stakeholder Meeting (Summer 2025), Local Officials Briefing No. 2 (Fall 2025) and a Public Information Meeting (Fall 2025), all with time and location “TBD” — not confirmations that they were held.
• Maps and plans and the documents the site posts for the meetings.

Somerset County’s own project page (https://www.somersetcountynj.gov/government/public-works/engineering/projects-under-design/picket-place-bridge) was not readable by direct automated access; the project website was read directly.

What to look for

• The transition: the Township is responsible for initial placement and immediate support; “responsibility transitions to Somerset County Social Services” for longer-term housing and broader services. “At this time, residents displaced by the fire are being assisted through county services.”
• The coordinators: Captain Ed Edgar (Branchburg PD) and Health Officer Jim Norgalis, recognized as lead coordinators for the Office of Emergency Management.
• Community relief: the Branchburg Parent-Teacher Organization coordinating donations and assistance from River Lea Farm; branchburgpto.org for information.
• Investigation: “authorities have ruled out arson. Preliminary findings indicate that the fire was accidental in nature,” with details to be shared once complete.

What to look for

• The displacement estimate: “displaced approximately 60–80 residents.”
• The division of responsibility: longer-term housing, placement and social services “coordinated at the County level, typically in partnership with the State and organizations such as the Red Cross.”
• How to help: donations directed through established, vetted service providers, with an American Red Cross list of Somerset County organizations attached.

The release is the Township’s account; no independent displacement total or later recovery status appears in the reviewed primary record.

What to look for

• Public Questions: the full authorization language for School Bond 1 and School Bond 2, including each question’s appropriation and bond ceiling, final eligible costs ($15,028,799 and $2,284,063), the 40% state debt-service aid percentage, the $0 of non-eligible construction elements, the fund-transfer allowance, and the condition that Question 2 takes effect only if Question 1 is also approved. Question 1’s eligible costs: Stony Brook $3,485,134, Whiton $4,453,255, Branchburg Central Middle School $7,090,410.
• Branchburg contests: Township Committee (vote for one), Board of Education (vote for three), county and federal offices, as the extraction identified them.
• Voting instructions and early-voting detail: Oct. 24–Nov. 1, 2026, 10 a.m.–8 p.m. Monday–Saturday and 10 a.m.–6 p.m. Sunday, at six countywide sites.

The packet merges multiple municipalities’ ballot sheets in the extraction, and the Branchburg sheet’s printed layout was not visually confirmed; the mailed ballot is the authoritative copy.

What to look for

• Applicant identity (section I): Comcast of Central New Jersey II, LLC, system name the same, address 279 Amwell Road, Hillsborough; a Delaware corporation organized June 26, 1985; stated to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Comcast Cable Communications, itself wholly owned by Comcast Corporation.
• Coverage (section IX): “service is currently available to the entirety of the municipality,” with the Office of Cable Television’s Line Extension Policy to apply in future situations at a density threshold of 25 homes per mile.
• Rates (section X): refers to appendices; detailed rates, channel line-up, reliability measures, complaint history and requested consent terms are not verified from the scan.

The application is the applicant’s own filing, not adopted terms.

What to look for

• The hearing’s purpose: evaluating Comcast of Central New Jersey II, LLC’s application for renewal of its municipal consent to own, operate, extend and maintain a cable television and cable communications system in the Township.
• Public participation: “All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard.”
• Application review: copies on file with the Township Clerk, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., at 1077 U.S. Highway 202 North.
• Republishing: “This notice will be published again between the fourteenth (14th) and seventh (7th) day prior to the hearing.”
• Adjournment: the hearing may move to “any such other time or place.”

The notice establishes a scheduled hearing, not that a hearing occurred or that consent was renewed.

What to look for

• The statement “Branchburg’s fire and rescue services are 100% volunteer. These men and women are not paid.”
• The commitment: “Our Township is committed to prioritizing emergency services, and we promise to provide our full support and necessary resources to protect and safeguard its members.”
• The Mayor’s framing of emergency-service members as distinct from other volunteers.

The message is the Mayor’s statement in a municipal publication; it has not been checked against payroll or the companies’ own records, and it does not enumerate the support provided.