Maxwell Court and Cherry Tree drainage, explained

How the study grew

The study began as a single-street question. On July 2, 2025 the Township awarded Remington & Vernick Engineers a contract for engineering services for the Maxwell Court Drainage Improvement Project feasibility study (Res. 2025-182, recited in Res. 2026-117). On Dec. 11, 2025 RVE presented findings on conditions in the Maxwell Court and Cherry Tree Lane drainage areas and recommendations. The presentation is attached to the meeting minutes; LocalWhy has not reviewed its contents.

At the same meeting Frank Kane of Maxwell Court asked about next steps. Administrator Mark Krane said meetings would be scheduled with RVE and the Department of Public Works to determine immediate maintenance needs and discuss costs and plans. Mayor Lontai suggested that DPW review all culverts for which the Township is responsible and create a maintenance schedule. Joseph Faro of Sage Drive asked the Township to address ongoing drainage maintenance and repairs on Mount Bethel Road.

The scope widened in 2026. Introducing Ordinance 26-13 on March 12, Krane said that during the initial Maxwell Court study it became apparent the downstream area, including Cherry Tree Lane, also needed to be addressed. Res. 2026-117, adopted April 16, recites that Cherry Tree Lane has also flooded in extreme rainfall events. The added area runs from Cherry Tree Lane and upstream of Mount Bethel Road to Warrenbrook Golf Course.

Residents returned to the subject at the Planning Board on March 25, 2026, when Joe Farro asked that the Department of Public Works clear storm debris along roadways and make sure inlets are not blocked before another storm. Engineer Christian Kastrud said he would contact the DPW Superintendent.

Engineering and bond actions

Engineering fees grew with the scope. Res. 2026-117 awarded RVE a change of scope of $93,110.00 and states that ‘the total cost of the contract’ is $183,040.00. The resolution does not separately state the original contract amount. It says the amended contract could not be executed until Bond Ordinance 26-13 took effect.

The bond amendment moved on its own track. Ordinance 26-13, introduced March 12, 2026 by a 4–0 roll call with Committeeman Croson absent, amends Bond Ordinance 25-13 to fund the Cherry Tree Lane drainage engineering feasibility study. It makes a supplemental appropriation of $100,000 and authorizes $95,000 in bonds or notes. The Committee adopted it April 16, 2026, 5–0, after a public hearing with no comments.

The reviewed records do not state the amount Bond Ordinance 25-13 originally authorized for Maxwell Court. Therefore, the total bonded amount for the study cannot be calculated from these records. LocalWhy has not reviewed a construction appropriation or contract. The engineering contract covers study, design, and permitting, according to the statements in Resolution 2026-236. Construction would be a separate step.

The $3.5 million grant application

On Sept. 24, 2026 the Committee agenda listed Res. 2026-236, authorizing an application to the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs Resilient Communities Program for $3,500,000 ‘to address flooding and drainage issues in the area of Maxwell Court and Cherry Tree Lane.’

The resolution text recited on the agenda states that RVE was hired to study, design and permit the work, that a public hearing on the application was held Sept. 24, 2026, and that the application and plans were posted on the Township website as grant rules require. LocalWhy has not reviewed the application or plans, or minutes for the meeting. An agenda listing proves the item was scheduled; it does not prove adoption.

Two figures that the request rests on are not in the record. The resolution text does not state the construction cost estimate behind the $3,500,000 request. It also does not state the local share the Township would fund. The program’s cost-share terms were not reviewed. The engineering contract totals $183,040.00. The bond amendment added $100,000.

What the records leave open

The feasibility study’s conclusions are not established here. The December 11, 2025 presentation is an attachment to the minutes. It included conditions, recommendations, and probable costs. The presentation was not read. Its recommendations therefore cannot be reported. The record describes flooding in extreme rainfall events but gives no frequency, depth, or property-damage figures.

Interim maintenance is also unrecorded. After December 2025 the minutes show discussion of blocked inlets and storm debris and the Mayor’s suggestion of a culvert inventory and maintenance schedule, but no work order, schedule or completed cleaning. Whether any culvert work has been done since is not in the records reviewed.

The outcome of the September 24, 2026 meeting is not confirmed. The minutes were not reviewed. Therefore, it is unconfirmed whether Resolution 2026-236 was adopted. It is also unconfirmed whether the application was filed. The grant program’s decision calendar was not reviewed. LocalWhy has not seen the application, the plans, or any award notice.