Document library

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

• 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). Minutes for this meeting had not yet been posted as of September 20, 2026.

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 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• “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

• 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.