Document library

What to look for

• Item V: “Commercial Transit Site Presentation – Lori Savron, Township Administrator.” The video carries the substance.
• Closed Session: “Personnel matter – Special Planner and Litigation Update.”
• Item IX: E. Kahn Development Corp. – 199 Grandview Road listed as a future item.

What to look for

• Item 24, Resolution #26-6-194 — the settlement recitals: the Program decision of March 4, 2026 recommending the court set a process for the township to present proofs and challengers to contest them; Judge Mennen’s March 5, 2026 order accepting that recommendation; the amended plan filed with the court on March 11, 2026; and FSHC’s advice to the court that it found the amended plan compliant subject to conditions.
• Item 18.A — the ordinance heading and motion form for the data-centre and detention-centre prohibition.

A note on the record: this packet is the version revised 6/22/26, whose own header says Resolution #26-6-194 was an additional agenda item — matching the minutes, which record Mayor Singh announcing one additional item from the floor. So item 24 was added to the posted agenda after the meeting, not published in advance; item 18.A was. The resolution was adopted 4-0 that night, with the fifth Committee seat vacant.

What to look for

• Resolution #26-3-113 — the full recital chain, useful as a citation source for any date in the Fourth Round timeline.
• The affordable housing litigation update — the township attorney’s account of the rescheduling and filing, including a note that one delayed resolution would be supplemented to the court with an explanation of the weather.
• The closed-session resolution — lists Docket No. SOM-L-153-25 (affordable housing) and Docket No. SOM-L-1215-24 among the matters discussed.

Roll call that night: Mayor Singh, Committee Member Taylor Todd and Committee Member Martin present; Deputy Mayor Barragan and Committee Member Ahn absent.

What to look for

• Item III — the hearing itself. The roll call on adoption: Ayes Battle, Blodgett, Khan, Mani, Roberts, Schuldiner, Singh and Glockler; none opposed. The memorialising resolution passed on the same vote.
• Sullivan’s rationale — preservation over construction, framed as reducing pressure on sewer and water capacity and avoiding development on undeveloped land.
• The legal context questions — township representatives said the amended plan would be filed with the state within 48 hours and no later than March 16; that the June 2025 plan had been adopted under time pressure from potential builder’s remedy litigation; that a recent court order extended the township’s immunity during the amendment process; and that the plan “will ultimately require approval by the Superior Court.”

That last point matters: adoption by the Planning Board is not the end of the process. As of September 2026 no compliance hearing had been held and no Judgment of Compliance and Repose or Compliance Certification had issued.

Before you click

This file is roughly 1,700 pages and about 58 MB, including the supporting documentation for each control extension. Two faster ways in:

• the February 9, 2026 information session slide deck, which gives the removals and the site-by-site credit tables on four slides; and
• the March 9, 2026 Planning Board minutes, which record the adoption hearing and the 275/260 credit arithmetic.

The plan itself is organised with an editorial note in bold italics at the head of each section stating whether the content that follows replaces, adds to, or removes part of the 2025 plan.

Adoption of this plan is not the end of the case. A settlement with Fair Share Housing Center followed in June 2026, but as of September 2026 no compliance hearing had been held and no certification of compliance had issued.

What to look for

• Slide 12, “Removed From the Adopted Plan” — and the note that the E. Kahn site is left “available for reuse or redevelopment in accordance with existing zoning,” which is the township’s position before the September 2026 redevelopment-study vote.
• Slides 13–15 — the credit tables. Pike Run has 210 affordable family rental apartments in total, of which 96 are extended here; McKinley Court has 60 senior rental apartments, of which 58 can be credited because of the state cap on age-restricted units.
• Slide 19, “Important Dates” — still shows the public hearing set for February 23, 2026. That date was lost to a blizzard; adoption happened March 9, 2026.
• Slide 12 also records that the Township Committee had already directed a non-condemnation redevelopment-area investigation of 23 Orchard Road in October 2025 — the same mechanism later used for the Kenvue site.

What to look for

• Item III — the presentation itself, including the point the township has made repeatedly since: a Master Plan element sets policy and does not by itself change zoning.
• The public comment exchange — Chip Crider asked about the lawsuit, and counsel explained that E. Kahn had sought review of a General Development Plan, that Montgomery has no ordinance authorising GDP review, that the Board therefore declined to hear it, and that the applicant sued. Counsel noted the applicant retains the right to file a site plan application or seek informal concept review.
• Resident Carolyn Hoeschele reported excavation activity on the E. Kahn property.

The minutes state the public hearing on the amended plan was then scheduled for February 23, 2026. That meeting was cancelled because of a blizzard; the hearing and adoption happened on March 9, 2026.

What to look for

• Executive summary (first pages) — the Fourth Round obligation as accepted by the township: present need 73, prospective need 260, per Resolution #25-1-54 of January 27, 2025.
• Page 66, the “Kenvue” subsection under Inclusionary Developments — the site description, the 417-unit figure, the hybrid on-site/off-site affordable structure, and the proposed SSIZ-6 zoning standards. (Appendix 28, “Fourth Round: Kenvue,” holds the supporting documentation.) This is also the authority for the site’s size: the plan states the Kenvue site is 382.771 acres, comprising Block 14001 Lot 2 and Block 13001 Lot 15. The ~257-acre figure quoted elsewhere is not from the plan: at the September 8, 2025 Planning Board meeting E. Kahn’s engineer described the Limited Manufacturing core as a “257 plus or minus acre” parcel, and at the June 23, 2025 hearing a resident reading the assessor’s records put 160 of those acres in the commercial class and an adjoining 97 acres in farm qualification.
• The compliance tables listing every mechanism the township was counting on, including the 23 Orchard Road inclusionary site later removed.

The township’s June 18, 2026 settlement resolution recites that this plan was adopted on June 26, 2025 and endorsed by the Township Committee by Resolution #25-7-226. It is a large file (roughly 800 pages, 43 MB).

What to look for

• “Key Milestones” — the statutory calendar: obligation resolution by January 31, 2025; declaratory judgment filing within 48 hours; challenges to the obligation by February 28, 2025; plan adopted and filed by June 30, 2025; implementing ordinances by March 15, 2026.
• The allocation-factor slides — the land capacity factor rests on a finding of 202 acres of developable land townwide.
• The crediting table — minimum family units (98), rental units (49), family rental units (25), very-low-income units (26) and three-bedroom units (20), plus the 58-unit cap on age-restricted credits that later shaped the McKinley Court numbers.

The township notes on its own slide that the March 15, 2026 ordinance deadline in the statute conflicts with Administrative Directive #14-24, which had required ordinances to be included with the June 30 plan.

Why start here

If you are new to the subject, this page is the township’s framing of it: what the law changed, what the deadlines were, and why officials say the timetable drove their decisions. Read it alongside the primary documents rather than instead of them — it is an official summary, not a record of any particular decision.

The linked meeting videos run from the January 2025 introduction through the June 2025 hearings and the August 2025 town halls. The February 9, 2026 information session is linked as slides only.

What to look for

• Item V: the Grandview study update. See the video at 1:05:32 for the Board attorney’s account of the process.
• Item VI: “Professional Services Appointment,” which was eConsult Solutions, Inc., as economic adviser on the 23 Orchard Road redevelopment plan, not Grandview.
• Item VII: future items: Springpoint at Montgomery, 23 Orchard Redevelopment, and E. Kahn Development Corp. – 199 Grandview Road.

What to look for

• Resolution #26-9-260, paragraph 3 — the Planning Board’s consultant, Clarke Caton Hintz, is directed to prepare a map and a report and to hold a duly noticed public hearing at which anyone interested in or affected by a designation may object and put evidence on the record. That hearing is the next public step.
• The scope limit — the study area is defined as Lot 2 in Block 14001 only. Block 13001, Lot 15, the second parcel that made up the 382.771-acre Kenvue site in the 2025 plan, is not included.
• Resolution #26-9-261 — the ownership breakdown: 199 Grandview Partners LLC 47.5%, Grandview Skillman LLC 42.5%, Skillman Investors LLC 5%, Grandview Investors LLC 5%.
• A parallel item, Resolution #26-9-259, covers an escrow agreement with GTP Acquisitions for Country Club Meadows.

The vote outcome is confirmed from the meeting recording: on both resolutions, Herring yes, Ahn yes, Deputy Mayor Taylor Todd yes, Mayor Singh yes; Committeeman Martin absent (the mayor said on the record that he was sick). The minutes, approved October 15, 2026, record the same vote.

Two things the packet does not tell you, both stated on the record that night. Asked whether the resolutions were the developer’s request or the Committee’s own idea, the answer from the dais was “That’s his request. Yes. It’s his request.” And the township gave two stated reasons for agreeing. The legal one came first: the attorney said the judge would not entertain a compliance hearing until the township sat down with E. Kahn. The mayor’s was fiscal: Kenvue ceases operations at the site by the end of 2026, an expected gap of roughly $1.4 million a year in tax revenue, with the owner having already told staff he would seek relief on the assessment.

What to look for

• Resolution #26-9-260, paragraph 3: “The Board Consultant, Clarke Caton Hintz, is directed to prepare a map of the Study Area … to prepare a report containing the Board’s findings; and to hold a duly noticed public hearing.” The text matches the agenda version.
• Resolution #26-9-261: the blank “by Resolution ________” now reads “by Resolution No. 26-9-260”. The ownership split is unchanged: 199 Grandview Partners 47.5%, Grandview Skillman 42.5%, Skillman Investors 5%, Grandview Investors 5%. “Within the Borough” and “the application for long-term tax exemption” remain.
• The vote: on both, “Motion by Deputy Mayor Taylor Todd, seconded by Ahn”; ayes Herring, Ahn, Taylor Todd and Singh; Martin absent.
• Public comment: summaries of each resident who spoke on the Kenvue site, and of the statement read for Save Montgomery’s attorney.
• Resolution #26-9-257: Scarinci Hollenbeck retained for “Special Projects/Affordable Housing,” up to $45,000 through December 31, 2026.
• Executive session: Docket No. SOM-L-153-25, the township’s affordable housing case.

What it tells you

• The site holds about 765,000 square feet of buildings, sits in the sewer service area and adjoins CR 601 — the physical facts the township relied on in treating it as developable.
• Under the 2025 plan’s concept the township was negotiating for the land north of Grandview Road to be dedicated to it as open space.
• The Pike Run sequence is part of the reason for the 2026 amendment: the board planner told the March 9, 2026 hearing that extending controls at Pike Run “was not available during the preparation of the June 2025 plan” and that later discussions “made the amendment possible.” The record does not say why the owner’s position changed, and the township’s own FAQ gives public comment as a further reason.

The full set of township affordable housing FAQs is at montgomerynj.gov/m/faq?cat=29.

What it tells you

This is the clearest statement in township-published material that the objections raised in 2025 were heard. It stops short of saying the plan was changed; the removal itself was adopted at the March 9, 2026 Planning Board hearing. Read it with the February 9, 2026 slide deck, which formally lists the E. Kahn site among those removed from the adopted plan, and with the March 9, 2026 Planning Board minutes, which record the adoption of the amendment.

The zoning point is worth noting separately: removing the site from the housing plan did not rezone it. Block 14001, Lot 2 is still zoned Limited Manufacturing, which is why the by-right industrial use remains live. The September 2026 redevelopment-area study is a separate track: it proceeds under the Redevelopment Law, and the township said from the dais that it was the developer’s request.

What to look for

• Ordinances — Public Hearing/Final Adoption — the full speaker list and the roll call, plus the complete text of Ordinance 26-1779 as adopted. That text contains no exemption for the Montgomery Township Police Department, which the Planning Board had recommended on June 8 after noticing that the draft definition of “detention center” appeared to reach the township’s own holding cells.
• The opening item — Deputy Mayor Vince Barragan’s resignation, and Patricia Taylor Todd’s election as Deputy Mayor. This is what makes every roll call that night a four-member one.
• Resolution #26-6-194’s recital chain — the declaratory judgment action filed January 29, 2025; Judge Mennen’s March 27, 2025 order setting the obligations; the Program decision of March 4, 2026 and the court’s acceptance of it the following day; the amended plan filed March 11, 2026. The docket number, SOM-L-153-25, is not in the recitals but appears earlier in the same minutes, in the executive-session resolution listing that night’s litigation.
• Resolution #26-6-194 — the Fair Share Housing Center settlement. Its recitals name every party that challenged the 2025 plan with the Program: E. Kahn Development Corp. (August 29, 2025), Montgomery Neighbors United (August 29, 2025), Fair Share Housing Center (September 2, 2025) and Savemontgomery.org (September 2, 2025). They record that the parties “failed to reach a settlement within the confines of the Program,” that the township then advised it would amend the plan to remove the property challenged by Savemontgomery.org and Montgomery Neighbors United, and that FSHC later advised the court it found the amended plan compliant subject to conditions. Note that the resolution identifies the parcel by who challenged it and gives no reason for the removal; the reason the amendment was possible at all is in the March 9 Planning Board minutes.

The settlement resolution is a step, not a conclusion. It authorises the mayor and clerk to execute a written agreement and directs the Township Attorney to file it as the court directs; a compliance hearing is still required before any certification of compliance can issue.

What to look for

• Sections 1 and 2 — the operative prohibition and the two new definitions. These carry the ban E. Kahn Development Corp. has sued to have declared invalid and unenforceable.
• The recitals — the township’s land-use rationale, which is the record it will defend on.
• Section 5 — the ordinance takes effect on passage, publication, and filing with the Somerset County Planning Board.

Adopted June 18, 2026 on a 4-0 roll call (Martin, Ahn, Deputy Mayor Taylor Todd, Mayor Singh) — four rather than five because the fifth Committee seat was vacant that day, following Vince Barragan’s resignation, not because a member was absent. The Planning Board had recommended adoption on June 8. The adopted text does not include the express exemption for the Montgomery Township Police Department’s holding cells that the Planning Board recommended; the detention-centre definition reaches facilities “established and maintained by a private or government entities.” We state that as a fact in the record and make no prediction about what, if anything, a court would do with it.

What to look for

• Item IV — the ordinance recommendation, the Master Plan consistency finding, and the 9-0 roll call on a motion to recommend adoption with the suggested police-department revision (Campeas, Khan, Mani, Roberts, Schuldiner, Singh, Taylor Todd, Glockler, Sharma).
• The police-department point — the Board recommended that the governing body add language expressly exempting the Montgomery Township Police Department from the detention-centre definition. That exemption does not appear in the text of Ordinance 26-1779 as adopted on June 18, 2026.
• Item VII — the closed-session resolution, which names the pending E. Kahn suit against the Planning Board (the General Development Plan dispute, separate from the later data-centre suit).

What to look for

• Note 2: “Proposed Lot ‘A’ area = 406,551 S.F. or 9.333 AC. Proposed Lot ‘B’ area = 803,764 S.F. or 18.453 AC.” The application calls the 18.452-acre lot “Lot A”. The sizes agree; the letters are swapped.
• Note 7: “No variances or waivers were required for this subdivision at this time.”
• Note 9: “The site was under construction the time of this plat.”
• Note 4: bulk standards are measured “by tract” for the whole 53.55-acre shopping complex, not lot by lot. The bulk table shows “NO CHANGE” on every line, including floor area (0.124 FAR, 289,462 sq ft, against a 0.175 maximum) and the 100-ft setback to existing residential lot lines (102.4 ft provided).
• List of variances already granted: 5 loading spaces for 14 buildings; an 82.5-ft setback where 100 ft is required; supermarket sign variances from the November 5, 2018 sign package.
• Use list: the zone’s permitted and conditional uses, including hotels “containing up to one hundred and fifty (150) rooms.” This is the ordinance’s list, not a proposal.
• References 5 and 7: the Phase 1 and Phase 2 site plans last revised October 28, 2022, and the 2017 subdivision plat last revised August 2, 2024.
• Sheet 2: the lot lies south of Nevius Boulevard, west of Route 206 and north of the airport property (Block 34001, Lot 57). The legend includes a “Prop. buffer screening area” symbol. The existing Route 518 lots (Block 34008, Lots 51–55, 81 and 82, formerly Block 34001) are labeled on sheet 1.

What to look for

• Page 1, the parcel: “Block 34009 Lot 1”, “NJSJ US Route 206”, 27.786 acres (1,210,315 sq ft), 2,248 ft of frontage, zoned “Planned Shopping Center Complex (Optional Development Alternative Overlay)”. Acquired by the applicant “12/31/2021”.
• The split: “Lot A: 18.452” acres with 7 buildings, 87,756 sq ft, height under 35 ft, about 66.67% impervious cover and 1,044 parking spaces; “Lot B: 9.334” acres with 5 buildings, 125,514 sq ft, height under 55 ft, about 91.13% impervious and 330 spaces. Lot B’s five buildings and 125,514 sq ft match the approved Phase II program (five buildings, about 125,500 sq ft).
• Prior approvals: subdivision “12/19/2023”; variance “10/10/2022”, case “PB-02-22”.
• Blanks to notice: “Are there any existing or proposed covenants or deed restrictions on the property?” is left blank. The 2021 and 2022 applications for this project answered “N/A”. “Is a variance requested?” is also blank; the plat states none is needed.
• Waivers: design and submission waivers “N/A”.
• People: signed by Jeffrey A. DeHart, Manager, for Princeton Promenade Manager, LLC, the owner’s manager. Engineer: Bohler. Attorney: Eric S. Goldstein, Esq.
• Notice rules (in the packet): a preliminary major subdivision requires notice “at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing date,” published and served “by personal service or by certified mail” on “all property owners within two hundred feet (200’)”. Since March 1, 2026, applicant notices go in “an eligible online news publication.”
• Not included: any reference to agreements with the neighboring Route 518 owners.

What to look for

• Resolution #23-12-335 (p. 6): a Sewer Capacity Reservation Agreement with “TGA SJC MONTGOMERY PROMENADE OWNER LLC, f/k/a Princeton Promenade, LLC, related to sewer capacity in the Stage II Sewage Treatment Plant for the Montgomery Promenade Development Phases 1 and 2, Block 34001, Lots 46.01, 56, 57, 77, 78, 79, and for 7 existing residential lots along Route 518, Block 34001, Lots 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 81, and 82,” subject to the Township Engineer’s and Township Attorney’s approval.
• The vote: motion by Deputy Mayor Singh, second by Taylor Todd. Ayes: Taylor Todd, Deputy Mayor Singh, Mayor Keenan. Abstain: Ahn. Absent: Barragan.
• Context: the 2021 Planning Board approval requires the developer to “comply with any agreements with neighboring owners regarding installation of sewer.” This resolution shows the seven Route 518 lots were included in the township’s sewer planning for the project.
• Not here: the agreement itself, its charges, or who pays for the house connections.
• The PDF is a scan. Search will not find text in it.

What to look for

• Project history (planner, §2.0): approvals on January 29, 2018 (memorialized March 5, 2018); November 19, 2018 (memorialized December 17, 2018); and December 13, 2021 for SJC’s Princeton Promenade, LLC, “the contract purchaser” (memorialized January 24, 2022).
• “Compliance with Resolution PB-05-21” (planner, §6.0): each of the 13 conditions with its status. Condition 7: “The applicant shall comply with any agreements with neighboring owners regarding installation of sewer.” The planner: “Comments are deferred to the Township Attorney and Township Engineer pertaining to any agreements with neighboring owners regarding installation of sewer.” Condition 13: “All conditions of the Prior Approvals shall remain in effect.”
• Condition 5: marked “NOT SATISFIED” (12 EV charging spaces where 60 were required). This is how the planner reports open conditions when a new application comes in.
• Engineer, waivers: “An 8-foot-high round top stockade fence is proposed east of residential Lot 20”; “a 6-foot-high board on board fence is proposed along the perimeter of the proposed northern residential lots.”
• Engineer, comment 24: “Lots 6 through 20 depict a 30 FT proposed rear frontage buffer along with a 20 FT sanitary easement. The proposed rear frontage buffer should be 50 FT … A fence is proposed with in the sanitary easement.” These are lots inside the project. The memo does not say whether this is the fence the Route 518 neighbors describe.
• Engineer, general comment 4: “The Applicant should provide testimony as to the status of compliance with all conditions of the prior approvals for this project.”
• Open space coordinator: the plan included “535 buffer trees” among 1,411 trees, and a tree-bank payment for a shortfall. The applicant proposed to use the Phase 2 area as temporary open space “while they evaluate the commercial/retail climate.”

What to look for

• §3.0, Resolution PB-04-17: “Pursuant to a December 20, 2019 memorandum prepared by this office, the applicant has currently satisfied all of the planning related conditions.” This and a May 13, 2019 phone call are the only 2019 dates in the planner’s account of the project. No 2019 Board hearing on the project is listed.
• Conditions 1–37 of PB-04-17: most are “deferred” to the township professional responsible for them: the Township Engineer (soil, stormwater, sewer), the Township Attorney (deeds, easements, homeowners’ association documents), the Zoning Officer (parking).
• Condition 18: comments “deferred to the Township’s Planning Department pertaining to a ‘Developer’s Construction Sequence Agreement’.” Under Condition 1, item 4.2.2 notes “additional evergreen plantings as screening between parking areas and Route 206,” marked satisfied.
• §4.2, phasing: quotes §16-6.5h.3f: a phased plan “shall only be approved by the Planning Board if the phasing plan is submitted to the Board and approved by the Township Committee as part of a developer’s agreement,” and the first phase must include the Master Plan loop roads and the Route 206 and 518 improvements.
• §4.4.4: the residential setback variance “previously granted pursuant to Resolution PB-04-17, dated December 17, 2018.”
• Environmental Commission: “We trust that the applicant plans to remove the unsightly north-south oriented mound along the western border of the subject property, as was promised in the previous incarnation of this application.” This is the western border, not the Route 518 side.
• Not here: any mention of the Route 518 neighbors’ agreements. The condition on them (Condition 7) came out of this hearing and appears in the June 2022 memos.

What to look for

• The objectives (pp. 6–8). The report says they “remain valid at this time” and were “first formulated in 1989.” Objective 9: “Industrial, research and office acreage should be controlled with appropriate regulations, without denying the needs of modern research and manufacturing activities and without threatening the existing balance between residential and non-residential development within the municipality and the benefits of a balanced tax base.” Objective 10 covers preserving “farmland, open space and woodlands areas.”
• Growth nodes (p. 7, Objective 5). Commercial and higher-density housing are to be guided to “specific areas of concentrated land uses”: the Rocky Hill node near Routes 206 and 518 and the Belle Mead node on northern Route 206. The 2026 planner said she will revisit “the proposed nodes that were in the 2017 re exam” (uncorrected captions, October 12, 2026).
• Open space (p. 11). “Since 2008, an additional 1,375 acres have been preserved within the Township bringing the total preserved land area to 7,645 acres, representing 37% of the Township.”
• Redevelopment (pp. 27–28). Past and pending studies, and two sites recommended for study. The Skillman campus is not among them.
• “LM” (p. 15). The one LM reference is to the Sculpture House property, called “Light Manufacturing - LM” there. It is not the Kenvue campus.

The same report is also posted as DocumentCenter/View/598.

What to look for

• Item X, Correspondence: “An email was sent in by a resident regarding deer population concerns.” The agenda lists one email from one resident. On October 15, the Township Committee liaison described it as “correspondence from residents” (video, 1511 s, uncorrected captions).
• The opening statement: the Board “is an autonomous body appointed by the mayor,” operates “under the regulation of the New Jersey State Department of Health, not the township,” and can “enact local health ordinances.” It has no power to run a deer hunt. The letter asked it to urge the Township Committee to act.
• Item IV.A.2, “Communicable Disease Report – September 2026” and item VIII, “2025 Annual Report.” These are where the Board sees tick-borne disease numbers. Neither report is attached to the posted agenda.
• Liaison: “Township Committee Liaison – Douglas Herring.”
• What happened: the email was discussed at the start of the meeting (video, 155 s). The Board did not vote (“we’re not going to vote,” 930 s, uncorrected captions).
• Next meeting: “Remaining 2026 Board of Health Meetings are October 14th, 2026 and December 9th, 2026 at 7:30pm.” The proposed 2027 schedule is also listed.

What to look for

• The wording: “Resolution memorializing the adoption of ‘Montgomery Township’s Comprehensive Municipal Farmland Preservation Plan’ dated August 2026 as an element to the Montgomery Township Master Plan.” The vote was taken on October 12. On September 28 the Board had heard the plan and put off the vote. The October 12 agenda lists the item as a “Resolution adopting” the plan.
• Where the resolution is: “filed in the office of the Planning/Zoning Department, Montgomery Township Municipal Center, 100 Community Drive … available for inspection during regular business hours.”
• The hearing notice that came before it (ADID=168, dated September 11, 2026) set the hearing for September 28 at 7 p.m. It said the plan could be read on the township website and at the Planning Board Secretary’s office: https://www.montgomerynj.gov/Archive.aspx?ADID=168
• The vote on video: https://montgomerynj.new.swagit.com/videos/403603/159. The Chair asked whether anyone had questions, saying “THAT’S ONE OF THE REASONS WE DEFERRED IT TO THIS MEETING” (uncorrected captions). No one did, and the roll call was all yes.

What to look for

• Resolution #26-10-273 (p. 11): reserves “150 gallons per day” at the Skillman Village Sewage Treatment Plant for the “Somerset County Maintenance Facility in Skillman Park, Block 26001, Lot 1.10.” The Park Commission had paid the $7,714.50 capacity charge. Passed 5-0.
• Resolution #26-10-274, executive session (pp. 12–13): “Potential Acquisition of Property for Open Space, Conservation, Recreation and/or Municipal Purposes: a. Block 34001, Lot 7 (‘Rossbach’).” The resolution says acquisition “shall only be approved by the Township Committee in a public session.” No public action had been taken as of October 15.
• Committee reports (p. 8): the Open Space Committee liaison reported no updates. A member announced the county’s October 13 Skillman Park hearing in Room 117. The Agricultural Advisory Committee’s next meeting was listed as October 12.
• Resolution approving an outdoor assembly permit for a family farm day on October 17 at 1932 Route 206.

What to look for

• The land: “1.2 acres of Skillman Park (Block 26001, Lot 1.10 in the Township of Montgomery) … from open space/parkland to a park maintenance facility.”
• The building: “a new 2,730 square-foot maintenance building with an associated parking lot and a bioretention basin,” with “an office, three garage bays, a kitchenette, a restroom and storage space.”
• The legal basis: N.J.A.C. 7:36-25.6(a)1, the Green Acres rule that requires a public hearing before parkland changes use.
• Deadlines: comments “during the public hearing or until October 27, 2026.” “On or after January 12, 2027, the Somerset County Park Commission may take formal action to approve the proposed change in purpose or use and commence construction.”
• Where to send comments: the Park Commission at 355 Milltown Road, Bridgewater, NJ 08807, with a copy to the NJDEP Public Land Compliance Section in Trenton. Full addresses are in the notice.
• Where to read the file: “the Somerset County Engineer’s office on the 2nd floor of the County Administration Building located at 20 Grove Street, Somerville.”
• Addressed to: the Somerset County Open Space Advisory Committee, from the county’s Principal Planner for Preservation, dated August 19, 2026.

The plan is dated “August 2026.” It is a large file (about 93 MB) of 254 pages, including maps.

What to look for

• Section 4, Table MFP-2 (p. 64): acreage by program. Thirty-four farms and 2,281.63 acres, split among county easements, the municipal Planning Incentive Grant, non-profit easements, 13 “hybrid” township agricultural easements (625.07 acres) and four easements granted by legislation or donation (585.24 acres). The dollar columns do not add up. The rows sum to about $24.8 million in total cost and $11.7 million in township share. The printed totals are $13,720,035.03 and $3,579,483.35, and the township figure equals the municipal-grant row alone. Page 62 gives a third figure, “over $16,161,737.62.”
• Section 5, Table FFP-1 (pp. 79–80) and Attachment C (p. 169): the 19 targeted farms. The largest is listed as “Johnson & Johnson,” Block 13001 Lot 15, 125.71 acres. That lot is part of the former Kenvue holding, sold to the four Grandview LLCs in December 2025. The list was last re-approved on September 11, 2025, before the sale. Being on the list does not restrict an owner.
• Goals (p. 80): 170.6 acres by the end of 2027, 341.2 by 2031 and 341.2 by 2036.
• Table FFP-9 (p. 92): $21,325,000 to preserve every targeted acre, split 60/20/20 among the state, the county and the township ($12,795,000, $4,265,000 and $4,265,000). The $25,000 figure is the county’s ten-year range ($12,281–$34,201 an acre) averaged and rounded up.
• Funding (pp. 88–90): the open space tax of four cents per $100, set by a 1998 referendum and unchanged since 2008, collected $1,621,732 in 2025. Bond ordinances for open space and farmland total “over 56 million dollars since 1986.”
• Statewide Farmland Preservation Formula (p. 64): adopted by the state in April 2025. It can offer landowners 80 to 90 percent of fee value.
• Attachment B (pp. 165–167): every preserved farm, with dates. The newest entry is June 16, 2020. Two “portion” entries are state land in Skillman restricted by a 1988 law (Assembly Bill A-3401).
• Section 9 (pp. 147–160): Right to Farm. Covers the county board’s jurisdiction, the township’s 1990 ordinance (§ 8-5), and a table of local cases from 2000 to 2025.
• Section 3 (pp. 35–37): the Master Plan. It quotes the 2017 reexamination’s objective to “safeguard and promote the preservation of farmland, open space, and woodlands.”
• Attachment A (p. 163): 4,364.33 undeveloped or farmland-assessed acres by zone, including 333.02 in Limited Manufacturing and 1,838.57 in R-5.

What to look for

• Resolution #26-7-209 (pp. 13–14): the county “has awarded $125,000.00 toward the cost of the Township’s acquisition” of Block 13001 Lot 21, 690 Route 601, “subject to the execution of a grant agreement.” Ayes: Martin, Ahn, Deputy Mayor Taylor Todd, Mayor Singh. Herring abstained.

• Resolution #26-7-204: Block 34001 Lot 40 (Jefferson) was bought May 15, 2024 “with funds from the Municipal Open Space Trust Fund” (deed book 7558, pages 1171–1178). Green Acres authorized “approximately $88,609 in reimbursement,” but the deed “did not include the restrictive language required by Green Acres.” The resolution adds it.

• Administrator’s report: the township is exploring a community garden partnership with the Harlingen Church at Route 206 and Harlingen Road, and is talking with Green Acres about the rules.

• Public comment: a resident spoke in support of the use of the state lands by SAVE.

• New and Unfinished Business (p. 16): officers of SAVE, A Friend to Homeless Animals, described interest “in exploring expansion opportunities only if adjacent properties become available,” citing capacity concerns.

• Open Space Committee report: that month’s meeting was cancelled because of weather.

• Resolution #26-7-207 (pp. 11–12): the Orchard Road Phase 3 grant application, Opossum Road to Lilac Way, for “pavement rehabilitation, pedestrian route extension, shared-use lane bicycle accommodations, signage, striping, stormwater improvements.” On video, staff said: “I don’t think it’ll be a dedicated lane because we scaled back the full scope of the project” (uncorrected captions, video).

What to look for

• Resolution #25-12-387 (p. 18): “Authorizing Land Purchase Agreement (Block 13001, Lot 21 – ‘Forbes/Rader’).” It authorizes due diligence on “the potential acquisition” of about 11.42 acres “for agriculture, open space, recreation, conservation, public pathway and other municipal purposes.” Ayes: Martin, Ahn, Deputy Mayor Barragan, Mayor Singh. Taylor Todd was absent.
• Resolution #25-12-389 (pp. 19–20): easements and restrictions for Country Classics at Montgomery (case PB-07-20), a 54-unit subdivision on Block 6001 Lot 33.01. It “specifically excludes property dedications such as the proposed open space and pump station lots anticipated to be dedicated to the Township.” In August 2026 the township accepted 8.868 acres there as a gift (Ordinance #26-1780).
• Ordinance #25-1765, adopted (Chapter 8, “Building, Housing and Farming”): the fee schedule for structures on farms, including a new cap “for structures on farms” of $2,290 (from $1,100).
• Not about open space but on the same night: the housing-plan statements and Ordinance #25-1766, covered in the meeting summary.

What to look for

• “PRESENTATION – Deer Management Program” (first item after the flag salute): by the Chair of the Wildlife Committee and the Open Space and Stewardship Director. The bullet list covers public health, public safety and forest ecology; the annual safety orientation; “zero incidents/accidents to date”; statewide issues (“aging hunter population,” “prior disease outbreak”); harvest trends; and Hunters Helping the Hungry.
• The survey line: “2025 Deer Population Study – conducted by Raritan Valley Community College’s Center for Environmental Studies in February-March 2025 with the use of drones indicating 3017 deer across the Township or 93 deer per square mile.” The minutes list “2021 vs. 2025 Deer Population” but give no 2021 figure. On video it is 69 per square mile (967 s).
• “Upcoming Changes”: a “NJDEP model program,” “2025-2026 changing back to two antlerless deer,” digital applications and harvest reports, and “continue with grant applications.”
• Resolution #25-8-267 amends Regulation #14 of Resolution #25-5-157 (the minutes’ heading says “#25-7-157”; the body says #25-5-157, adopted May 1, 2025). Hunters who take “two (2) or more antlerless deer” keep their property for 2026-27.
• Resolution #25-8-269: “Deer Management Grant $7,650.00,” a special item of revenue from NJDEP.
• Roll call: Martin, Ahn, Deputy Mayor Barragan and Mayor Singh voted yes on each; Taylor Todd was absent.
• Video: the presentation starts at 55 s, and the survey results are at 935 s. Video quotes are from uncorrected captions.

What to look for

• Old / New Business: “The deer hunting season ended 2/15/2025. The final deer tally was 236 (188 antlerless/48 antlered) with 82 donated. The municipal program has 54.6% of the total Township-wide harvest on 8.01% of the land.”
• The stated limit: “We can continue to improve our deer harvest numbers if more private landowners hunt their land or open their properties to hunters.”
• Grants: “The 2024 Community Based Deer Management Grant density study final report is expected this week from Raritan Valley Community College.” Later Environmental Commission minutes (August 5, 2025) say the study was emailed to members. It has not been posted.
• Scheduling: the “deer density presentation to the Township Committee is scheduled for July 17, 2025.” It was in fact given on August 21, 2025.
• For comparison: the 2025-26 season ended with 204 deer, which staff called “less than previous years” (Environmental Commission minutes, April 7, 2026).

What to look for

• Permit summary: a non-major individual NJPDES permit for a publicly owned treatment works at 192 Inverness Drive. Expiration 09/30/2026, status “Admin Continued.”
• Enforcement and compliance: four state inspections (latest June 25, 2025); a Notice of Violation on April 24, 2024; a “State CWA Penalty AO” and settlement agreement on September 26, 2025, for $2,000. No quarters in “significant noncompliance.”
• Three-year compliance history: “Violation Identified” every quarter. Part of that is a permit-schedule item, “Complete Permit Renewal Application,” dated 10/02/2020 and coded “unachieved and not reported.” Effluent exceedances are listed for TSS (June 2024: 140% and 193% over the limit), BOD (April 2024 and February 2026), and E. coli (May 2025).
• Water quality section: the receiving assessment unit, “Beden Brook (below Province Line Rd),” is “Impaired - 303(d) Listed - With Restoration Plan,” for impaired biota, metals, nutrients and pathogens (2022 cycle). See the EPA waterbody report.
• For comparison: the Skillman Village report (NJ0022390) shows that plant discharging to “Rock Brook to Beden Brook,” with a $1,000 state penalty order on August 7, 2025.
• Caution: ECHO depends on what the state enters. The settlement’s terms are not shown.

What to look for

• Heading: “Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan w/ Variance,” with an expiration date of 9-30-26. “Deemed complete by the Development Review Committee on April 15, 2026, and the required public notice requirements had been satisfied.”
• Purpose: “alleviate existing capacity constraints at the Sunnymead and Mount Rose substations, accommodate anticipated increases in electrical demand, including electric vehicle growth, and provide capacity for approximately 35 MW of solar generation.” It would serve “approximately 6,000 customers in the area, including East Mountain Hospital and the Carrier Clinic.”
• Facility: an “unmanned 69/13 kV substation,” remotely monitored 24 hours a day, with about two employees visiting weekly for 20 to 45 minutes. It includes an emergency mobile-transformer area and a construction laydown area that will be restored afterwards.
• Stormwater: bioretention basins, catch basins and piping. Compare the board engineer’s May 4 memo, which says no groundwater recharge is provided because the soils do not infiltrate.
• Screening: 264 new trees and evergreen buffers of 40 to 60 feet “at maturity.” The board planner asked for a darker, earth-toned wall veneer.
• Board questions: emergency response and coordination with the Office of Emergency Management, future demand, and “whether expansion of existing substations had been considered.”
• Timing: construction from “approximately June 2027,” lasting about two and a half years, with completion “by the end of 2029.”
• Public comment: T. Kharrubi asked where PSE&G would tap the water line for the hydrant recommended by the Fire Marshal. The answer was that the Fire Official would decide.
• Vote: motion by Singh, second by Sharma. Ayes: Campeas, Khan, Singh, Glockler, Sharma.
• Not in the minutes: noise and EMF were not discussed. The video (https://montgomerynj.new.swagit.com/videos/395640/103) has the full testimony.

What to look for

• Why the use was allowed (§2.1): public utility uses are a conditional use in the LM zone (§16-4.8a7; N.J.S.A. 40:55D-67). There are six conditions, including that the location be “reasonably necessary for the satisfactory provision of service” and that buildings “not adversely affect the safe, comfortable enjoyment of property rights in the surrounding area.”
• Fences and masts: a 10-foot anti-cut, anti-climb fence that sits on a 7-foot retaining wall along the rear, “for a total height of 17 feet.” Ten lightning masts at 45.5 feet, reduced from eight at 50 feet. Both count as required “safety devices,” so no height variance was needed.
• Variances (§10.1): front setback, 125 feet required and 81.2 feet proposed. Front-yard accessory structures: crushed stone at about 8.5 feet, utility trenches at about 78 feet, cameras at about 81 feet. Side and rear setbacks for crushed stone. Front buffer, 40 feet required and about 8.5 feet proposed. Retaining-wall height.
• Design exceptions: crushed stone and a basin inside the buffer, and light fixtures without cut-off shields.
• Trees (§3): 209 trees removed and 360 proposed, against 256 required by the planner’s count. Some trees were exempted for “powerline conflicts,” which “may not be a sufficient reason.”
• Lighting (§4): 46 equipment lights at 8.5 feet, 21 aimed up and 25 down, plus 16 lights on the buildings. The average is 0.7 footcandles.
• Neighbourhood (§1.4): the remaining Lot 28 to the east is listed in township open-space data “as unrestricted open space and as a potential acquisition.”
• Signs (§6): a detail reads “PSEG Trent Place Substation.” PSE&G said at the hearing that no monument sign is proposed.

What to look for

• Page 52 of the enrolled text (search “Township of Montgomery”): Department of Community Affairs, 04-8030 Local Government Services, State Aid, Special Purpose. The line reads “Township of Montgomery - Wastewater Treatment Plant Consolidation … ($600,000).”
• The cover page: “As approved by the Governor on June 30, 2026, with line item veto.” Vetoed amounts are marked with superscript 1 and brackets. The Montgomery line has no such marks.
• Neighbours on the list: dozens of municipal special-purpose grants sit in the same section, for example “Township of East Brunswick - Infrastructure Upgrades ($550,000).” This is the usual route for legislative district grants, which the Department of Community Affairs pays out under a grant agreement.
• What it does not say: which legislator requested the line. The bill’s sponsors are the budget committee chairs.
• The same text is on the Legislature’s site as A5327.

What to look for

• “Existing WWTPs” (p. 55): Pike Brook 0.67 MGD (0.829 MGD after expansion), Skillman Village 0.5 MGD, Cherry Valley 0.286 MGD, Stage II 0.68 MGD.
• “Construction Progress” (p. 57): Stage II, $20 million, “$4M from FEMA, $3M from Rocky Hill,” complete April 2026. Pike Brook, $13 million, due January 2027, with “New effluent limits must be met in April 2027.”
• “Future Project” (p. 58): “Cherry Valley WWTP Consolidation with Skillman Village — Required to avoid major upgrade of CVWWTP – reduce overall cost … bring total Montgomery WWTPs to three … Improve Beden Brook water quality … $15 Million.” Compare the Water Bank’s $11,000,000 (January 2026) and $10,656,000 (May 2026).
• “Cost Impacts” (p. 59): “Small Streams = Stringent Permit Limits … Advanced treatment Processes = High Cost.”
• Sewer Utility budget (pp. 61–63): $8,537,800 in 2026 (up from $8,258,500), of which debt service is $3,933,000. Capital improvements from the operating budget are $100,000. The Cherry Valley project is not in the 2026 sewer capital list (pipe lining, submersible pumps, maintenance holes).
• “Sewer Rate History” (p. 64): the base fee rose from $266 (2016–2022) to $288 (2025–2026). The usage fee rose from $13.26 to $15.96 per 1,000 gallons, which the slide calls ”≈ 2.0% per year.”
• “New Cell Tower Leases” (p. 26): lists “Cherry Valley: $46,212 annual + 41% of revenue share.” See Cherry Valley cell coverage.
• The video of the wastewater segment starts at about 5403 s.

What to look for

• The project name: “Cherry Valley to Skillman Village Wastewater Treatment Plant Consolidation.” The recipient is Montgomery Township, 100 Community Drive.
• The stated purpose: “improve wastewater treatment efficiency, reduce operational costs, and eliminate discharge into local waterways.” This matches the township’s September 2026 resolution almost word for word.
• The federal hook: “Title VI of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C 1381 et seq.,” which governs the state revolving funds that also back the NJ Water Bank.
• The amount is not in the letter. It is on the request list: “Amount Requested: $3,000,000.”
• What it does not show: whether Congress funded it. A request is not an appropriation.

What to look for

• Resolution #26-1-49 (pp. 13–14): “Rejecting All Bids for Bid #13-2025 – Lease of Public Property for Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Authorizing Re-Advertisement with Adjusted Scope (Cherry Valley).”
  • “The Township received two sealed bids in response to Bid #13-2025.”
  • The consultant, working “in coordination with the Township Administrator, CFO/QPA, and Township Attorney,” recommended “revising the bid specifications to enhance competitiveness to result in more favorable financial terms to the Township.”
  • The re-advertisement uses “revised specifications reflecting the adjusted scope and term.” The minimum rental bid stays at $44,000.
• What is missing: the minutes do not name the bidders or give their amounts, and do not say what changed in “scope and term.” Request the Bid #13-2025 tabulation and both sets of specifications from the Township Clerk.
• Roll call: ayes Martin, Ahn, Taylor Todd and Mayor Singh; Deputy Mayor Barragan absent.
• Video: the Administrator’s explanation starts at about 38:26 (“given market conditions … we modify a few of our bid specifications”; uncorrected captions).

What to look for

• Appendix A, alphabetical list (p. 74): “Montgomery Township, S340130-04, [rank] 25, [legislative district] 16, Cherry Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant Consolidation Project, $11,000,000.”
• The township’s other projects on the same page: S340130-03 Stage II Wastewater Treatment Plant Flood Protection Project ($29,000,000) and S340130-05 Pike Brook WWTP Upgrade and Expansion Project ($19,750,000). Together the three come to about $60 million in sewer plant work.
• The by-rank table repeats the Cherry Valley line at rank 25.
• The companion document: NJDEP’s Final Clean Water Intended Use Plan, May 2026, Appendix 4A (p. 52), breaks the project into $8,521,000 of “Advanced Treatment” and $359,000 of “Sewer System Rehabilitation” building costs, with an estimated cost of $10,656,000 and a funding status of “2027.” Stage II and Pike Brook are marked “ST Funded.”
• What it does not show: loan terms, any principal forgiveness, or the effect on sewer rates.

What to look for

• Montgomery’s row (Somerset County, page 31): “Orchard Road Phase 2: Reconstruction, Widening, Pedestrian Route and Bicycle Lanes Extension | Pedestrian Safety | $537,522.00 | $0.00 | $537,522.00.” The title still says “Widening.” The township has since described the project as keeping “generally” the existing width.
• Context in the county: the other Somerset County awards on the same page run from about $200,000 to $600,000, so Municipal Aid grants of this size are typical. A project costing several times that needs several grants or local money.
• The program rules are in the NJDOT Municipal Aid Handbook. The construction contract “must be awarded by the municipality within 24 Months from the date of grant notification.” Engineering and right-of-way costs are mostly ineligible, apart from up to five percent for design. The state pays 75 percent at contract award and 25 percent on completion.
• Earlier phase: the fiscal 2022 list gave Montgomery $379,500 for “Orchard Road Improvements” (NJDOT FY22 list).
• Next list: the fiscal 2027 awards, which would include Phase 3 if it is funded, are expected in November 2026.

What to look for

• Page 2, “Presentation – Cherry Valley Cell Tower”: the Township Administrator calls it “Phase 2 of an initiative that began two years prior,” with Phase 1 being “a new cell tower at the municipal complex.” The drone photo simulation was flown at 120, 130, 140 and 150 feet, “both as a mono pole and tree pole,” and photographed from 15 street locations. The Administrator advised there are “no performance differences between the two types of poles just visual,” and that the bid specifications can include both.
• Pages 2–3, public comment: Rich Smith (Cherry Valley HOA president), Craig Rogers (for “the 89 residents in Clubside”), John Kelsey (Clubside) and former Mayor Devra Keenan all support the tower. The minutes record a resident’s emergency call that “dropped twice” and dropped calls “when walking and driving past 5 Otter Creek.”
• Resolution #25-11-373 (pp. 22–23): “Authorizing Lease of Public Property by Submission of Sealed Bids for Wireless Telecommunications Facility – Cherry Valley Cell Tower.” Look for:
  • the finding of “substantial gaps in wireless communications service and emergency services communications coverage in Skillman”;
  • the parcel: Block 31001, Lot 191, 5.275 acres, with about 2,500 square feet “not needed for public use”;
  • construction “at the sole cost and expense of the successful bidder,” and “the Township shall have the right to locate its antennas to said tower”;
  • the $44,000 minimum rental bid, and the township’s right to reject all bids.
• Roll call: ayes Martin, Ahn, Taylor Todd, Deputy Mayor Barragan and Mayor Singh.
• Numbering: Swagit’s video index labels this item “#25-11-372.” The minutes print it as #25-11-373, and so does the clerk’s read-out on the video.
• Not in the minutes: the photo-simulation slides, the bid specifications and the lease term.
• Same night, other issues: the McKinley Court and Montgomery Glen affordability extensions (#25-11-374 onward).

What to look for

• Nearest neighbours (p. 2): a home just west of the site, “approximately 400 feet from proposed on-site noise sources.” Homes on Boehm Way are about 1,300 feet away, and Carrier Clinic about 2,000 feet.
• Equipment (p. 6): two 69/13 kV transformers with sound power of 82 and 83 dB(A), four wall-mounted HVAC units, and two small station transformers. Ratings assume full load with cooling fans running.
• Limits (p. 7): the state noise code, N.J.A.C. 7:29, allows 65 dB(A) by day and 50 dB(A) at night at homes. Montgomery’s own noise ordinance is qualitative, and its land-development chapter defers to the state limits.
• Existing sound (p. 9): surveys on the night of September 3 and the morning of September 4, 2025. Once insect noise is filtered out, night-time background lulls were about 31 dB.
• Prediction (p. 10): “maximum sound emissions from the substation are 38 to 41 dB(A)” at the nearest homes, complying “by margins of 9 to 12 dB.” Site sound “will not be audible in the presence of local traffic but will likely be detectable during lulls.”
• Worth asking: the model is for worst-case summer conditions. The study gives no figures for construction noise or for a mobile transformer in use. The file has no electric- or magnetic-field (EMF) study.

What to look for

• The deed (Instrument 2025027230, Book 7641, p. 3304; recorded October 1, 2025): “This Deed is made on September 29, 2025 between 601 AND READING, L.L.C.” and PSE&G, for “THREE MILLION and No/100 ($3,000,000.00) DOLLARS.” Realty transfer fee: $33,775. Block 4001, Lot 26.01, “commonly known as 151 Trent Place.” The account number is “QFARM.”
• Prior title: the land is “a part of the premises conveyed to 601 AND READING, L.L.C. … by Deed … dated January 2, 2006,” Deed Book 5861, p. 1454.
• Schedule A: 309,043 square feet, or 7.095 acres, with 608.15 feet along Trent Place (County Route 601). The surveyor was PSEG Services Corporation, working from a “Minor Subdivision Plat” dated September 10, 2024 and last revised July 21, 2025.
• Easements: a reserved 30-foot access easement for the seller’s remaining Lot 28, and a variable-width driveway easement for neighbouring Lot 27. Both driveway agreements say no part of PSE&G’s lot may be used for the neighbours’ stormwater facilities.
• Dedications: a Deed of Dedication to Montgomery Township for right-of-way at Reading Boulevard and Trent Place. It was “made pursuant to … Case Number PB-07-24 and the Resolution memorialized on April 14, 2025” and recorded September 25, 2025. A separate dedication went to the Somerset County Planning Board.
• Not in the binder: any restriction on what PSE&G may build, or any agreement with the township beyond the dedications.

What to look for

• Resolution #25-7-232 (pages 15–16): “pavement rehabilitation, widening, pedestrian route extension, bicycle lanes, signage, striping, and miscellaneous construction on portions of Orchard Road.” The application is identified as “MA-2026-Orchard Road Phase 2: Reconstruction-00514.”
• No limits or dollar figure in the text. The resolution does not name the segment or the amount. Both are on the video: “this phase is Orchard to Opossum Road … it’s about $1.4 million that we’re applying for” (uncorrected captions, video at 6276 s). NJDOT later awarded $537,522.
• The vote: Deputy Mayor Barragan moved and Committee Member Taylor Todd seconded. It passed 5-0, with Martin, Ahn, Taylor Todd, Barragan and Singh voting yes.
• Compare this wording with Resolution #26-7-207 (July 16, 2026), which drops “widening” and “lanes,” and with Resolution #26-8-223 (August 20, 2026), which says “generally maintaining the existing roadway width.”

The Cherry Valley consolidation (historic-site survey):

• Resolution #25-7-231 (pp. 13–15), adopted 5-0 by separate vote (Martin, Ahn, Taylor Todd, Deputy Mayor Barragan, Mayor Singh).
• Funding: “the project will receive federal funding from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the NJDEP’s Water Bank, requiring compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.”
• Route clues: the Phase 1 study covered “various locations along the project limits within the Blawenburg Historic District and Maplewood historic property.”
• The two sites: the Maplewood (John A. Voorhees House) Site, Block 26001 Lot 1.08, needs a Phase 2 study; the Fernwood (J. Voorhees House) Site, Block 26001 Lot 1.10 in Skillman Park, is to be protected with “engineering controls and matting.”
• Permits named: the Freshwater Wetlands Act (N.J.A.C. 7:7A) and the New Jersey Register of Historic Places Act (N.J.A.C. 7:4). The state historic preservation office must approve the work plan before fieldwork starts.
• Accounts charged: five sewer capital accounts, including 08-215-55-901-1685A.

What to look for

• The application: Case PB-07-24, Block 4001, Lots 26 and 28, “Minor Subdivision to create a 7.095 acre lot for the future development of an electrical substation.” “NJDEP approvals will be applied for after the subdivision of the lot.” “Lot 28 is agriculture and will remain so.”
• Why: PSE&G was “the contract purchaser of Lot 26.” When a title problem turned up, it applied to “formalize Lot 26 as a separate parcel.”
• Sidewalk: PSE&G’s planner called a Trent Place sidewalk a “sidewalk to nowhere” on a road with speeds of 45 to 50 mph. The Chair noted the township’s sidewalk and pathway plan. The waiver was granted “for the subdivision only,” and the sidewalk was built into the 2026 site plan.
• Public comment (named in the minutes): Kevin Wilkes of Reading Boulevard supported the substation and raised driveway and truck-traffic concerns on Reading Boulevard. Michael Soltis asked about the substation’s location relative to his home, “possible radiation exposure,” and “who the substation would benefit.” No response is recorded.
• Board comments: Board member Taylor Todd: “there are a lot of unanswered questions” and asked for “a high level of detail” in the site plan. Board attorney: “This is not an approval for the substation.”
• Vote: 7-0 (Mani, Roberts, Singh, Taylor Todd, Campeas, Glockler, Kahn).
• Typos: the page footer reads “March 11, 2024 Planning Board Minutes.” No video of this meeting appears in the township’s Swagit archive.
• Related: submission waivers granted January 13, 2025 (https://www.montgomerynj.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_01132025-128) and the resolution memorialized 6-0 on April 14, 2025 (https://www.montgomerynj.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_04142025-131).

What to look for

• “PRESENTATION – Pedestrian Connectivity to Municipal Building” (pages 2–3), by Township Engineer Mark Herrmann and Open Space and Stewardship Director Lauren Wasilauski. The timeline slide reads: “2023 – Orchard Road ½ mile new sidewalk plus crosswalk; 2024-2025 DOT upgrading traffic signal” and “February 2025 kickoff meeting for Orchard Road Feasibility Study to study connectivity to the Municipal Center from the public schools; about one-mile connections; and tie in to pathways.”
• The video adds what the minutes leave out. According to the uncorrected captions, survey crews were measuring “the existing right of way” to “see where we’ll need … property acquisition, where we can fit bike lanes, where we could fit sidewalks” (video, from 1659 s).
• Not the same project: the same presentation weighs three path options to the Country Club Meadows / Thrive concept site off Route 206. One runs “through the 23 Orchard Road property.” That option is about a footpath, not the Orchard Road street work.
• Administrator’s report (pages 11–12): the state is “initiating the sale” of state land “located at the intersection of Burnt Hill Road and Orchard Road,” the west end of the corridor.
• What is not here: the name of the feasibility consultant, the study’s cost, or the study itself.

What to look for

• Section V, “Capital Review” (p. 2): “Applicant: Montgomery Township/Sectorsite, Block 20001 Lot 10.05 – 100 Community Drive, Communications Tower.” “Sectorsite was the successful bidder.” It was heard as a capital review of a township project, not as a Zoning Board variance case. The minutes note “the property is in the Municipal Complex Redevelopment Zone.”
• The design: “designed for four carriers”; “Verizon will take the top spot and Dish will be located two levels below”; a 60’ x 40’ gravel compound with an 8’ chain-link fence; a “135-foot monopole … with the ability to be extended to 150’”; and a 30 kW generator in a sound enclosure, exercised about once a month for 15 minutes.
• Carrier interest: “This area has been an area of concern for the carriers … it is expected that all the major carriers will locate on this pole. There are two carriers now and a third that they are negotiating with.”
• Emergency use: “The bid had a requirement for emergency communications equipment to be installed on the tower,” which could add 10 to 15 feet.
• A Zoning Board case: “Once the tower is under construction, the application for the tower before the Zoning Board will be withdrawn.” The case is not named here. On January 27, 2026 the Zoning Board dismissed, without prejudice, SectorSite and Verizon’s application BA-02-20 for 26 Dead Tree Run Road (minutes).
• The vote: to recommend, 9-0 (Battle, Blodgett, Glockler, Hamilton, Keenan, Mani, Matthews, Roberts and Singh). The resolution was memorialized on November 25, 2024.
• Compare with Cherry Valley: the township’s ordinance (§ 16-6.1p) caps new towers at 125 feet, or 135 with extensions, for private applicants. The township simulated 120 to 150 feet for Cherry Valley. No Planning Board review of the Cherry Valley tower appears on any agenda through October 2026.

What to look for

• Resolution #24-3-117 (pp. 21–22): “Authorizing the Award of Bid No. 01-2024 – Lease of Public Property for Wireless Telecommunications Facility.” The township leases “ground space for the installation of communication equipment … with simultaneous leasing of additional carriers at the site” on Block 20001, Lot 10.05.
• The two bids:
  • SectorSite Tower Assets, LLC: “$41,000 annually,” plus a “30% revenue share (from 2nd broadband subtenant and any subtenant thereafter).”
  • Diamond Towers V, LLC: “$41,111 annually,” plus 25% from the third subtenant on, plus a “$25,000 one-time upfront fee.”
• Who reviewed them: “the Township’s Consultant Ace Telecom, Township CFO/QPA, Township Administrator/Planning-Zoning Director and Township Attorney.” Award to SectorSite “as it will generate the higher revenue over the term of the lease.”
• Roll call: 5-0. Ayes Ahn, Taylor Todd, Keenan, Deputy Mayor Barragan and Mayor Singh.
• Compare with Cherry Valley (Res. #26-3-117, March 19, 2026): the winning terms there were $46,212 a year plus 41% from the second subtenant.
• Not in the minutes: the lease term and the minimum bid for this round.

What to look for

• Need Number PSEG-2023-0009, “Harlingen Area.” Driver: “Customer Service.” Assumption: “Localized Load Growth & Contingency Overloads.” The need was first presented on September 5, 2023.
• The overloads (2021 data): Sunnymeade, “in the Hillsborough area,” serves over 21,400 customers, with a peak of 63.4 MVA against 61.43 MVA of capacity (“Contingency overload is 103.2%”). Mount Rose serves over 11,800 customers, with a peak of 65.0 MVA against 61.47 MVA (105.7%).
• Proposed solution: a new 69-13 kV station “on new property” with two transformers. It would “Cut and loop” two existing 69 kV lines, Bennetts Lane-Montgomery and Montgomery-”Customer Sub.” A second 230-69 kV transformer would go in at Bennetts Lane.
• Cost: “$105.1M” for the package. The alternative, with a new 69 kV line from Montgomery substation, was put at “$152.1M.”
• Timing: “Projected In-Service: 12/2029”; status “Conceptual.”
• What it does not say: the site, and which customer the “Customer Sub” serves. PSE&G’s witness told the Planning Board in August 2026 that one 69 kV feed goes to Johnson & Johnson (uncorrected captions).
• Follow-up: PSE&G’s Local Plan submission for the 2024 RTEP (February 26, 2024) lists the same solution as project s3090, “Engineering and Planning”: https://pjm.com/-/media/committees-groups/committees/srrtep-ma/postings/2024/pseg-local-plan-submission-for-2024-rtep.ashx

What to look for

• The first “WHEREAS” of Resolution #23-5-138 (p. 6): Resolution No. 20-12-245, adopted December 17, 2020, hired Kleinfelder for design, permitting and financing work on the consolidation, “as well as additional design services for upgrades at the Skillman Village WWTP,” for $717,601.00. The 2020 minutes are not online, so this is the only public text of that decision.
• The added scope: “a Level 2 Environmental Planning Report and associated work required by NJDEP” (the Water Bank planning document); freshwater wetlands and flood hazard area applications; a Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission application; a Cultural Resources Investigation; and “coordination and permitting with Green Acres and Somerset County Parks.”
• The pump station language: work “to modify the sewer servicing Bedens Brook Country Club and prevent the need to construct a new pump station at the existing Cherry Valley WWTP site.” Compare the January 20, 2026 Environmental Commission notes, which describe the plant site being “turned into a pump station.”
• The money: the contract rises to no more than $794,723.00, charged to account “CV WWTP 08-215-901-1685A.”
• The vote: Todd, Barragan, Singh and Keenan in favor; Ahn absent.

What to look for

• Resolution #23-1-53 (item 15, about page 8): the full bid tabulation from the January 10, 2023 opening. DeSantis Construction, Inc. bid $458,771.39 and Top Line Construction Corp. $461,970.82. The high bid was Stilo Excavation Inc. at $710,743.69, and Capital Paving’s bid is marked “INCOMPLETE BID TABULATION.”
• The funding accounts: “02-213-41-900-2022 and 04-215-55-901-1686B, 04-280-56-264-022.” Account 04-215-55-901-1686B shows up again in 2026 as one of the accounts paying for the design of Phases 2 to 4 (Res. #26-8-223).
• Resolution #23-1-54 (item 16): the township “recommends to the New Jersey Department of transportation that the contract … be awarded” to DeSantis, “subject to the approval of the Department.” That step is how a state Municipal Aid contract works.
• The votes: both 5-0. Deputy Mayor Singh moved and Committee Member Barragan seconded, with Ahn, Todd, Barragan, Singh and Keenan voting yes.
• What is not here: the state grant amount. That is on NJDOT’s fiscal 2022 list ($379,500 for “Orchard Road Improvements”).

What to look for

• Pages 6-7, the presentation. Lieutenant Andy Perry’s slide topics are listed, from “ALPR Deployment – history of the program; number and type of cameras; cost” to “Surrounding Municipalities Utilizing the Flock System.” The cost figures and camera counts are in the video, not the minutes.
• The questions. Committee Member Martin read questions “On behalf of Committee Member Ahn,” who was absent. They covered “intimidating misuse,” whether use is limited to stolen vehicles, whether retention “can … be limited to six months,” storage and security, and how to “limit or prohibit outside agencies from accessing the Township’s stored data.” Martin’s own questions were whether the data can be shared outside the state and whether the system is “worth the investment.”
• Retention. “The data retention period is three years per the Attorney General’s Policy and the Township does not have the authority to change that period.”
• Sharing: read these two sentences together. “Per State policy, the Department is only allowed to share data with other NJ agencies.” And: “the PD has access to the national system so any information within will be shared nationally.” In the video, the second remark answers a question about an out-of-state fugitive. It describes looking up national warrant lists, not sending Montgomery’s plate reads out of state.
• Committee Member Herring’s figure. The minutes say the “Flock System in New Jersey has read the license plates of 252,000 cars.” In the video, Herring and the lieutenant agree that the number came from Montgomery’s own transparency portal, covering the previous 30 days.
• Page 7. The township attorney asked whether the police track “randomly.” The answer: “a valid case number is required.” Chief Bet called the cost “a very small price to pay for the safety of this community.”
• Page 9, public comment. Resident Biren Saraiya asked “about the percentage of audits of the system and whether the audit is internal or by the Attorney General’s Office.” The mayor said public comment “is not a question-and-answer forum.” Later minutes reviewed, through October 1, 2026, record no answer.
• Roll call. Present were Herring, Martin and Mayor Singh. Ahn and Deputy Mayor Taylor Todd were absent.
• Video. The presentation starts at 1,403 seconds: https://montgomerynj.new.swagit.com/videos/395498/1403 . Public comment starts at 5,067 seconds.

What to look for

• First page. “P.L. 2026, CHAPTER 4, approved March 25, 2026, Assembly, No. 4070 (First Reprint).”
• Section 5(b)(1), the core rule. A government entity “shall not sell, share, or transfer” plate-reader data except to another government entity “when permitted by law,” under a judicial order or warrant, with written consent, or to another jurisdiction’s police “for the purpose of a criminal investigation” after the receiving agency certifies the three conditions in (d)(i)-(iii).
• Section 5(b)(2). Sharing agreements are public records under the Open Public Records Act, and the Attorney General may cut off an agency that misuses the data.
• Section 5(b)(3), vendors. Using a vendor like Flock does not count as sharing, unless the vendor makes the data searchable to others outside these rules.
• Section 5(d). People must be told within 90 days when their data is disclosed under a court order, a warrant or federal law, unless notice would compromise a criminal investigation.
• Section 5(e). Agencies must update their policies within one year and post them “prominently” on their websites.
• Section 5(g). A person may sue in Superior Court over knowing misuse.
• What it does not contain. The text does not change the three-year retention period set by the Attorney General. Reproductive-health language, which the police cited on August 6, 2026, was not found in this text. Bill history: https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2026/A4500/4070_R1.PDF

What to look for

• Pages 15-16, Resolution #25-8-259. “Authorizing Agreement with Flock Group, Inc. for One Additional Fixed Camera.” Flock Quote Q-143569, dated July 24, 2025.
• Price and term. “24-month subscription term at a total cost of $7,650.00,” billed as $4,150.00 at signing and $3,500.00 at the start of the second year.
• Why a vote was needed. The amount is below the bid threshold, but “contracts exceeding 12 months require authorization by the governing body.”
• Funding. The same police operating account as the main contract, 01-201-20-240-200.
• The vote. 4-0, with Martin absent.
• Video, not minutes. In the uncorrected captions at 3,791 seconds, an official said “Montgomery Promenade has agreed to purchase one of the cameras” and that it “will be tied into the system that we have.” A Committee member asked for a progress report: https://montgomerynj.new.swagit.com/videos/351975/3791

What to look for

• Pages 22-23, Resolution #25-6-219. “Authorizing Award of Contract to Flock Group, Inc. for Flock Safety Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Cameras.”
• The sole-source recital. Flock Group, Inc., 1170 Howell Mill Road, Suite 210, Atlanta, “is the sole manufacturer and developer of the Flock Safety ALPR camera, as well as the sole provider” of the related monitoring and processing services.
• Amount and term. “Not to exceed $36,000.00 for a two-year term commencing on August 1, 2025.” On that basis the term would end about July 31, 2027.
• Funding. The CFO certified funds in Account #01-201-20-240-200. The program is paid from the operating budget, not a grant.
• Who signs. The Township Administrator is authorized to sign the contract. The contract itself is not attached.
• The vote. Motion by Deputy Mayor Barragan, second by Taylor Todd. Ayes: Martin, Ahn, Taylor Todd, Barragan and Singh.
• Video. https://montgomerynj.new.swagit.com/videos/346320/6048 . In the uncorrected captions, the first two years are said to have cost “$31,600.”
• Compare. On August 6, 2026, the lieutenant described this resolution as authorizing spending “from 2023 until the current budget year.” The adopted text gives a two-year term starting in 2025.

What to look for

• Page 2, “Police Captain Report.” Captain Silvio Bet and Lieutenant Andrew Perry presented “the Flock Safety Automatic License Plate Reader fixed camera system.”
• What the cameras do. They “monitor ingress and egress into the municipality twenty-four hours a day” for crime investigations, missing persons and stolen vehicles.
• What the police said the system does not do. It “does not utilize facial recognition and is not used for traffic enforcement.” The data “is owned by the municipality and will not be sold or utilized by a third party.”
• Transparency. A “Transparency Portal will be coming soon.” The mayor asked that the presentation be posted on the website.
• Video, not minutes. In the uncorrected captions, starting at 494 seconds, the lieutenant said four fixed cameras were in place, that data not tied to a crime is “purged” after 30 days, and that the State Police had approved each camera location: https://montgomerynj.new.swagit.com/videos/272274/494 . The Attorney General’s directive then in effect set a three-year retention period. In 2026 the police said three years applies.
• Earlier the same summer. The July 20, 2023 minutes (Resolution #23-7-202) record the donation of an older ELSAG plate reader to the Somerset County Sheriff’s Office: https://www.montgomerynj.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_07202023-16
• Not found. No 2023 resolution awarding the first Flock contract appears in the 2023 minutes.

What to look for

• Page 1, the State v. Donis framework. Access to personal identifying information tied to a plate requires “a particularized basis.”
• Section 2, deployment. Readers are for “official and legitimate law enforcement purposes” only and may scan only plates “exposed to public view.” Each fixed camera’s name and latitude/longitude go to the State ALPR Coordinator before it is installed or moved.
• Section 3, “be on the lookout” lists. The permitted reasons go beyond serious crime. They include “Vehicles with expired registrations or other Title 39 violations” and drivers on the suspended list.
• Section 4.2, searching stored data. Data that did not trigger an alert may be searched only for a lookout query, a specific indictable crime, or approved crime-trend analysis. Searches “may not be conducted to review data based on general crime patterns.”
• Section 5, sharing. New Jersey agencies share through a statewide system. Sharing out of state requires a written agreement “with the approval of the State ALPR Coordinator.” Private entities “cannot receive law enforcement-owned ALPR data.”
• Section 6, ownership and retention. “ALPR data shall be the property of the agency and not any ALPR vendor.” “Records and ALPR data covered by this Section shall be retained for three years.”
• Section 7.1. Stored data are “criminal investigatory records” and are not released under OPRA.
• Section 8, complaints and audits. Citizen complaints go to the County Prosecutor. Each agency audits itself every year by January 31 and certifies “that a random survey of ALPR accesses revealed no misuse.” The state publishes the results each year.
• Related. The State Police’s 2023 audit lists Montgomery Township Police Department among the 517 agencies that completed it: https://njsp.njoag.gov/wp/wp-content/uploads/20240716_2023_Audit_Automated_License_Plate_Recognition_(ALPR).pdf

What to look for

• Resolutions #26-9-227 and #26-9-237: the appointment and the contract amount.
• Legal Updates: “as of meeting time, the Township has not been officially served.”
• The Clerk’s election notice: vote-by-mail ballots from September 19, early voting October 24 through November 1, and a no-electioneering zone widened to 200 feet.
• Correspondence: an August 17 email from a resident concerning the Kenvue property.
• Executive session: Docket No. SOM-L-153-25 (affordable housing) and “Municipal Actions.”

What to look for

• Legal Updates (page 5): the township has “not been officially served,” and the $300 million amount “is a mistake as there are two other lawsuits that have been filed in the State but that is not the amount filed against the Township.”
• Resolution #26-8-224: retains Jonathan E. Drill to defend Fernandes v. Township of Montgomery. The minutes do not say what the case concerns.
• Resolution #26-8-225: Rubinstein Quiroga’s appointment, August 20 to December 31, 2026.
• Roll calls: 4-0, with Deputy Mayor Taylor Todd absent; Committee Member Herring voting.
• Executive session: Docket No. SOM-L-153-25, the affordable housing case.

What to look for

• Page 1 and ¶1: the only plaintiff is E. Kahn Development Corp., a Pennsylvania corporation, and the only defendant is the Township. The four LLCs that hold title are not parties.
• ¶¶15–18: E. Kahn’s chronology. The GDP was filed around October 6, 2025 and dismissed December 8, 2025; that dispute is SOM-L-000096-26. The site plan was filed April 15, 2026 and deemed complete June 9, 2026.
• ¶¶23–25 and Count Two: the claim that the Planning Board did no Master Plan consistency review. Compare the Board’s June 8, 2026 minutes, which state the finding in terms.
• ¶40: “clearly based upon public hysteria and political attention rather than sound land use planning.”
• Count Five and its relief: alleges harm, including diminution in property value, and seeks a declaration, an injunction and counsel fees. No damages figure appears anywhere.
• Exhibits A and B: the published notices of the ordinance’s introduction and adoption.

What to look for

• “Statement — Affordable Housing” — the attorney’s report on the Program’s recommendation and the fairness hearing still to come.
• Ordinance #26-1771 — the full replacement text of Chapter 15, which sets affordability control periods, income eligibility, affirmative marketing and administrative-agent duties. This is one of the implementing ordinances the statute required by March 15, 2026.

Some reporting described the early-March Program action as a recommendation that the court find the amended plan constitutionally compliant. These minutes do not say that. What the township attorney reported is that Judge Miller found no consensus and recommended a fairness hearing before any order issues — she added that the adjudicator had indicated the township “seem[s] to have a compliant plan,” but that is her characterisation of a recommendation, not a finding of compliance. Treat that characterisation as reporting, not as a primary-source fact.

What to look for

• Resolution #26-4-138 (pages 12–13): the recitals, the six numbered paragraphs, and the 5-0 roll call (Martin, Ahn, Taylor Todd, Deputy Mayor Barragan, Mayor Singh).
• Paragraph 3: the designation does not take effect until the Commissioner of Community Affairs has reviewed it; it is deemed approved after 30 days without action.
• Paragraph 5: the 45-day window for owners to challenge the designation.
• Paragraph 6: the Planning Board is directed to prepare a redevelopment plan.
• Administrator’s report: the April 27 informational meeting on the 23 Orchard plan.

What to look for

• Section II — the filing mechanics: declaratory judgment complaint, case type 816, filed within 48 hours of the municipal obligation resolution or by February 3, 2025.
• Section II.B–C — how an outside party challenges a town’s fair share numbers, the February 28, 2025 cutoff, and the standard a challenge must meet to survive.
• The Program’s settlement-conference track, which is where Montgomery’s plan and the objections filed against it were heard. The parties “failed to reach a settlement within the confines of the Program”; the Fair Share Housing Center settlement came afterwards, through the court, once the amended plan was filed in March 2026.

A June 2025 addendum to the Directive is also published on the Judiciary’s Affordable Housing Dispute Resolution Program page.