The Federal Reserve campus, explained

The site and first approval

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York owns about 118 acres at 15 Mountain View Road, Block 8, Lot 2, in Warren. This land was formerly the Chubb Insurance headquarters. The applicant’s attorney told the Planning Board that the property had been vacant for several years before the bank purchased it.

The township has treated the site as a redevelopment project since 2021. On December 16, 2021 the Township Committee adopted Resolution 2021-297 designating the property a non-condemnation redevelopment area under the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law. On September 19, 2024 it adopted Ordinance 24-24 approving the “Redevelopment Plan For 15 Mountainview Road” and creating the MRRP 15 Mountainview Road Redevelopment Plan District.

In 2025, the bank applied for preliminary and final major site plan approval. This was case PB 25-01. The application proposed demolishing all existing site structures. It also proposed building a Cash Services Center. This center would include an accessory law-enforcement training facility, secured loading and vehicle processing areas, a secured driveway entrance, security fencing, parking, stormwater facilities, lighting, and signage. Later records from the Township and the Board mention a June 9, 2025 resolution approving this plan. The June 9 minutes need a browser. LocalWhy has not reviewed them.

As originally approved, the project at the February 2026 hearing was described as a 391,315-square-foot Cash Services Center (OCR). It also included a separate law-enforcement training center, a secured courtyard for cash delivery vehicles, a lower courtyard for office-supply vehicles, a guardhouse, and 326 parking spaces. The redevelopment plan sets two building height standards. One applies to 85 percent of the building, and a taller standard applies to storage areas.

What the amendment changed

The February 11, 2026 hearing was about an amended preliminary and final major site plan, case PB 25-01A. The applicant’s attorney explained the changes in an opening statement in the meeting transcript.

The footprint of the cash services building decreased from about 256,300 square feet (OCR) to 250,900 square feet (OCR). The law-enforcement building size decreased from about 8,770 square feet (OCR) to 2,454 square feet (OCR). The attorney stated that the functions of the building remained the same, only the space was reduced. The portion of the building under the 85 percent height standard dropped from 59 feet 2 inches (OCR) to 52 feet 3 inches (OCR). The storage portion increased to 69 feet 7 inches (OCR). The attorney said this height remains within the redevelopment plan’s 70-foot standard for that area. The canopy over the site entrances was changed.

The attorney told the Planning Board about the amendments “require no variance relief from the redevelopment plan or the underlying zoning.” Access remains from Mountain View Road through Block 8, Lot 1.01. The wooded buffer around the property is kept. Two witnesses testified under oath for the applicant. The Board’s planner and engineer also testified.

The attorney said the cash-services and training uses did not change. The space for these uses is smaller. The record does not restate the parking count after the amendment. The original approval had 326 spaces. The February statement only mentions the original figure.

Board votes and Township actions

The Planning Board approved the amended site plan on February 11, 2026 by a 9–0 (OCR) roll call: Serra, Kian, Lindner, Lippitt, Argiro, DiBianca, Scuderi, Esposito and Ganta voting yes; the names match the meeting’s agenda roll-call roster.

On March 25, 2026, the Board adopted the resolution that memorialized PB 25-01A. The vote was 6–0. Kian, Lindner, Lippitt, Scuderi, Esposito, and Ganta voted yes. The minutes list Fine, DiBianca, Argiro, Puglisi, and DiGrande as excused. No public comment was made on the resolution. The names match the meeting’s agenda roll-call roster.

The Township Committee followed on April 16, 2026. Resolution 2026-125 appears in the consent agenda with resolutions 2026-114 through 2026-128 and passed 5–0 (OCR): McCarey, Blick, Croson, Deputy Mayor Kian and Mayor Fine voted yes. The minutes record it in the consent agenda without discussion. It designates the bank as redeveloper and authorizes a redevelopment agreement and a stormwater facilities maintenance agreement. The resolution’s recitals trace the 2021 designation and the 2024 redevelopment plan.

On May 14, 2026 the Committee adopted Ordinance 26-16, 5–0 (OCR): McCarey, Blick, Croson, Deputy Mayor Kian and Mayor Fine voted yes. It releases and extinguishes an existing sanitary sewer easement within the property and accepts a new easement. The minutes do not record a discussion of the ordinance.

The approval amended the 2025 site plan. It did not grant a new application. The original approval remains in effect as amended. The hearing transcript from February 11 shows questions from Board members and professionals. No member of the public spoke on the application. The file reviewed contains no petition, letter, or objector.

Plans and agreements access

The township’s pending-applications page says that, because of the sensitive nature of the application, the plans “will not be available online” and directs visitors to the Land Use Office during 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The page’s statement does not establish whether copies are available elsewhere; LocalWhy has not reviewed the plans.

LocalWhy has not reviewed the site plans, the architectural drawings or the executed agreements. The redevelopment plan adopted by Ordinance 24-24 and the 2021 designation resolution are cited in Resolution 2026-125 but were not reviewed in full. The June 9, 2025 Planning Board minutes need a browser and LocalWhy has not reviewed them.

The record also carries small inconsistencies. Resolution 2026-125 describes Block 8, Lot 2 “(prior to consolidation Block 8, Lots 2 and 3),” while the Board resolution and pending-applications page use “Block 8, Lots 2 & 3” for the same tract. The original approval is described as 391,315 square feet, while the two amended buildings total 253,354 square feet; the record does not explain the difference, so the figures are reported as stated. The hearing transcript calls the case “PB25-018” at one point, against PB 25-01A elsewhere.