Article and photos by Barbara A. Preston | June 27, 2025
Montgomery’s two public hearings on the township’s state-mandated Round 4 affordable housing plan this week were emotionally charged and gut-wrenching. At least 100 residents opposed the 810-page plan itself, which calls for a 417-unit inclusive affordable housing development on the current Kenvue corporate site and a 180-unit apartment building next to the 23 Orchard office complex on Route 206. Both properties are in Skillman.
After listening to 5.5 hours of public outcry, Mayor Neena Singh said, in the final moments of the June 26 meeting: "We will fight. We are getting onto the lawsuit, which the other towns are doing, saying that we don’t agree, and that we will push [the state] to change this."
Longtime Montgomery resident Frank Drift at the Affordable Housing public hearing on June 23.
"We have heard the public, and we are doing something about it," Mayor Singh, who is also a member of the Planning Board, told The Montgomery News in a telephone interview today. "We still approved the plan on June 26, because the state requires it [by June 30], and it gives us protection from a builder's remedy lawsuit. But we are going to fight it."
The mayor said the Montgomery Township Committee will vote on a resolution at its meeting on Thursday, July 3. The resolution would permit Montgomery to join more than two dozen other New Jersey towns that have initiated a lawsuit to halt the state's Round 4 affordable-housing mandate.
>> Click here to learn more about the lawsuit Local Leaders for Responsible Planning
It would cost Montgomery $20,000 to join the lawsuit, which argues that the Round 4 requirements are unfair and overly burdensome. The towns seek to reduce obligations to "build" the extra affordable housing units. The dispute also questions the state's methodology for calculating each municipality's "fair share" of affordable housing.
Montgomery Township Planning Board members.
Montgomery residents spoke on the following issues at the public hearings:
Lack of Public Notice and transparency regarding the Round 4 AH public hearings.
Converting a tax-revenue generating corporate campus into a residential development at Kenvue.
Tearing down two world-class corporate buildings on the Kenvue site, which were designed by the architectural firm of I.M. Pei. (Pei designed the Louve in Paris). Kenvue is the former Johnson & Johnson consumer and baby products site in Skillman.
Conceding to a state-mandate that is not sustainable and will lead to overdevelopment throughout the entire state.
And a need to preserve the rural character and beauty of Montgomery Township.
The Montgomery Planning Board still voted almost unanimously to approve the plan. Paul Blodgett was the only no vote.
Blodgett told The Montgomery News, “I voted ‘no’ because I believe deeply in both the spirit of the affordable housing law and the right of our community to have a meaningful voice in how we meet that obligation. We were presented with a false choice: either accept this single, developer-driven plan—or risk losing immunity and face a “builder’s remedy” lawsuit that would strip us of planning control altogether. But if that’s the only option offered, then our residents, and the planning board itself, had already lost control of the process.
"I could not in good conscience vote for a plan that bypassed meaningful public input and risked long-term harm to both trust and town character. I will continue working to ensure this plan is amended to honor the true intent of the affordable housing law and the interests of the people it is meant to serve.”
Planning Board member Paul Blodgett voted no to the plan. "We only had three months to try to come up with a plan. This is unprecedented how much of a rush this is," he said.
Yes votes were cast by Chairman David Campeas, Al-Tereek Battle, Brian Hamilton, Sarah Roberts, Nenna Singh, Patricia Taylor Todd, Anthony Glockler, and Ibad Khan.
Chairman Campeas said the board members approved the plan mainly because of the harsh penalties of not complying. 1. Loss of immunity from exclusionary-zoning lawsuits (builder’s remedy). 2. Loss of full authority over municipal zoning.
GOP Candidate for Township Committee George de Sanctis (left) questions planning board members and professional planners. Planning Consultant Michael F. Sullivan and Township Administrator Lori Savron are on his right.
George de Sanctis, asked, "Has Montgomery ever challenged the state quotas, and if not, why?" The board and planners had no answer.
"My understanding is that the answer is no," de Sanctis said. "Shouldn't Montgomery research and question the model used to calculate the quotas, rather than [relying] on someone who represents a conflict of interest? This gentleman [he referenced planning consultant Michael Sullivan] represents a conflict of interest."
Sullivan then insisted on responding to the accusation. He said, "My firm is hired by the township. We are the township's affordable housing and planning consultant. We work for the town. The [AH] development of the model is not on behalf of the state, but on behalf of all of our municipal clients. ... A decision was made not to challenge the 4th Round Number."
De Sanctis then asked whether Sullivan works with developers.
Sullivan said there are developers who approach the town, and the town must decide whether those developers have a reasonable proposal, and how it could address affordable housing.
De Sanctis said, "Why are we here? It sounds to me like this a fait accompli. It is more of an informative evening. All of the questions and comments made by all of these folks, do they really amount to anything? It sounds like nothing's going to change.
"If we challenge this, then we are legally liable to the developers. The township stands to lose its immunity. It also sounds like a form of extortion to me."
Planning Board Chairman David Campeas responded: "I came to this meeting to learn everything I possibly could. I don't look to make any decisions until I get all of the information from our professionals as well as from questions and comments from the public."
Finally, de Sanctis questioned why the public hearings were only communicated in the Bridgewater Courier News — a newspaper that no one in Montgomery reads. Why didn't the township do a better job communicate it to the public?
It is a state legal requirement for municipalities to advertise in a newspaper that is printed in New Jersey. The paper must be a weekly. Montgomery does not have a weekly newspaper.
Something like this should go beyond a legal notice. Montgomery should have communicated this important matter to the township residents, especially to the neighbors most affected, de Sanctis said.
Barbara Vanning of Grandview asked what kind of public transportation services will be offered to the 417 families on the Kenvue site?
Planning Consultant Michael Sullivan responded, "The township doesn't have to offer any transportation. They have cars."
Vanning asked, "How many cars will be generated by the Kenvue development." The planners did not have an immediate answer. But did say a traffic light would need to be installed at Route 601 and Grandview.
Vanning also asked, "What kind of tax revenue would we get from a housing development versus a corporation?"
Township Administrator and Planner Lori Savron answered, "Some of the projections we've done show that the residential is a more productive ratable by producing more property tax revenue."
Frank Drift, who has lived in Montgomery for 82 years and worked for J&J, said Montgomery would have to switch to all professional first responders, costing the tax payers more money. He said, "We have a volunteer EMS and fire companies, they are stressed to the max. Also, why can't Kenvue sell the property to someone else?"
Maria Kauzmann of Skillman, said “I don’t understand the desire to change the entire character of the area. We chose to live here because of the open vistas and the 10-acre lots. To change the nature of that part of town, in my opinion, will just be the start of the creep that happened on the other side of 206—which is why I would not live there. I chose to live in an area that was rural, and you want to go against that fairly severely and change that dynamic.”
>> Click here to read The Montgomery News story titled "Kenvue and 23 Orchard Properties Eyed for Affordable Housing in Montgomery Township," dated June 17, 2025.
>> Click here to view the 2025 Fourth Round Housing Element and Fair Share Plan, dated 6-13-2025
.
