Articles Open space and environment
The Washington Valley Park Tree Case, Explained: The County Access Drive and the Township's Lawsuit
What Somerset County built at Washington Valley Park, what Bridgewater says went wrong, what the county said in reply, how the township's lawsuit has gone so far, and the figures the sources give differently, set side by side.
The short version
- The project: a new Somerset County access drive into Washington Valley Park from Vosseller Avenue, replacing the Miller Lane entrance, built in fall 2025.
- The township’s objection: trees removed well beyond what the plans showed, on a slope above the Vosseller Avenue area the township repaired after Hurricane Ida.
- The case: Township of Bridgewater v. Somerset County, Somerset County Park Commission, et al., Superior Court, Somerset County, docket SOM-C-012074-25 (from the caption of a filing Patch published; LocalWhy has not read the court docket). Filed Oct. 16, 2025.
- Where it stands: restraints and a preliminary injunction were denied in fall 2025. On Oct. 1, 2026 the Council President described the lawsuit as pending. No judgment, dismissal or settlement is in the record LocalWhy has reviewed.
Most of the facts below come from news reports of the township’s and the county’s public statements in October and November 2025, attributed to each. The township’s 2026 Council minutes mention the case twice.
What the county said about the project
At the county commissioners’ meeting of Oct. 28, 2025, as TAPinto reported, county engineer Matt Loper said the drive delivers on the 1997 Washington Valley Park Master Plan and the 2005 capital facilities plan. His account of the steps:
- design began in 2023, with a field survey contract in November 2023;
- a wetlands delineation in March 2024 found no wetlands in the project area;
- State Historic Preservation Office approval in January 2025, followed by a coordination letter to the township;
- authorization to bid in February 2025, for a 20-foot roadway with 2-foot grass shoulders, 1,500 feet long, and a virtual meeting with township officials that month;
- a stormwater report in March 2025 finding no DEP land-use permits required; an NJDEP stormwater construction general permit in early September 2025; and a pre-construction meeting with the township later that month.
He said the project disturbs 2.14 acres of the 719-acre park and that an NJDEP Green Acres determination of Oct. 24, 2025 found the drive is permitted development. County counsel Joseph DeMarco said the bid specifications include a separate “site clearing” item covering all trees in addition to the listed trees, and that county roads and driveways do not traditionally go to municipal boards.
What the township said
- Mayor Matthew C. Moench said the township raised concerns about tree removal and sight distance in August 2025 (TAPinto, Oct. 29, 2025).
- The township said about 300 to 500 trees were removed, while the plans and bid documents showed far fewer, and that the slope sits uphill from where Hurricane Ida damaged retaining walls on Vosseller Avenue (TAPinto, Oct. 17, 2025).
- Township engineer William Burr said NJDEP’s online wetlands map shows a mapped wetlands area along the cleared corridor; he said the map “isn’t a regulatory document” but indicates further inquiry is needed (TAPinto, Oct. 22, 2025). No NJDEP determination on this has been found.
- At the Oct. 28, 2025 county meeting the Mayor asked the county to commit to replacing trees on or off site and to explain its stormwater mitigation, and said he did not object to the road itself.
- The township started an online petition to the county commissioners on Oct. 20, 2025, asking them to halt work, repair the damage, release a stormwater analysis and environmental documents, and give assurances for other county parks. It had more than 700 signatures by Oct. 22 (TAPinto).
The figures the sources give differently
| Figure | One source | Another source |
|---|---|---|
| Trees listed for removal in the contract documents | 34: the township’s statement (TAPinto, Oct. 17, 2025); county counsel also referred to “the 34 trees” (TAPinto, Oct. 29, 2025) | 37: “contract documents authorizing the removal of only 37 trees” (Patch, Nov. 14, 2025) |
| Township spending on the Hurricane Ida repairs on Vosseller Avenue | ”more than $1.1 million” (township statement, TAPinto, Oct. 17, 2025) | “$1 million” (the Mayor at the Oct. 28, 2025 county meeting, TAPinto) |
| Distance from the cleared slope to the Ida repairs | ”about 800 feet” (township statement) | “800 yards” (the Mayor at the county meeting, as quoted by TAPinto) |
| Wetlands | None in the project area (county’s March 2024 delineation, per the county engineer) | A mapped area on NJDEP’s non-regulatory online map (township engineer) |
The total number of trees actually removed has not been established in any record LocalWhy has seen.
The lawsuit
| Date | Event | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Oct. 16, 2025 | The township files suit against Somerset County and the Somerset County Park Commission | Patch; TAPinto |
| Oct. 17, 2025 | Judge Haekyoung Suh denies temporary restraints: “Plaintiff’s request for temporary injunctive relief is denied for failure to demonstrate immediate and irreparable harm” | Patch, Nov. 14, 2025, quoting the order |
| Nov. 10, 2025 | Judge Suh denies a preliminary injunction | Patch, Nov. 14, 2025 |
| Nov. 12, 2025 | The Park Commission moves to dismiss, saying it has been an independent body since 1956 and had no role in planning, design, bidding, funding or construction; ruling set for Dec. 19, 2025 | Patch, Nov. 14, 2025 |
| Sept. 17, 2026 | Council President Joan Geiger reports meeting the Engineer, Administrator, Deputy Administrator, Councilman Kirsh and the Township Attorney on “the litigation concerning the removal of trees by the County,” with discussions continuing “with the goal of reaching an amicable resolution” | Council minutes |
| Oct. 1, 2026 | Geiger reports meeting the administration on “the pending lawsuit regarding the removal of various trees by the County” and that “work on the matter is ongoing” | Council minutes |
According to TAPinto’s report of the complaint, the township asked the court for proof of required approvals (soil erosion and sediment control certification, freshwater wetlands authorization and Green Acres concurrence), a halt to clearing and construction until those were shown, erosion and stormwater controls, a tree replacement and restoration plan approved by the township and agencies, a stormwater and drainage study, and reimbursement of its costs. LocalWhy has not read the complaint, the orders or the motion papers.
What is not known
- The ruling on the Park Commission’s motion to dismiss, and any 2026 filings.
- Whether the county has committed to replacing trees.
- The township’s legal costs in the case.
- Whether the access drive is complete and the Miller Lane entrance closed.
What residents can do
- Township Council: ask about the case in public comment; the Council President has reported on it.
- Somerset County: the county commissioners govern the park and meet in public.
- The court record: filings in SOM-C-012074-25 are held by the Superior Court, Somerset County.