Planning Board — June 26, 2025

What happened

This was a special meeting, called for 5:00 p.m. and intended to end by 7:00; it ran until about 7:41. It was the second and final night of the public hearing on the 2025 Fourth Round Housing Element and Fair Share Plan dated June 13, 2025, prepared by Clarke Caton Hintz. The first night was June 23; the statutory deadline to adopt was June 30, 2025.

After finishing the questions left over from the first night, the Board heard roughly two more hours of public comment, then deliberated and voted. On the motion to adopt the plan, the roll call recorded eight ayes and one no — board member Blodgett voting no. The memorializing resolution was then adopted on an eight-aye roll call. Counsel summarized it on the record: it recites the 2024 legislation and the court-assigned obligation, notes the hearings held June 23 and June 26, records the Board’s objection to the timeline the state imposed, and states that the plan may be amended or supplemented if the need arises. The May 12, 2025 minutes were approved.

The plan adopted that night is the one that placed roughly 400 homes on the former Johnson & Johnson campus at 199 Grandview Road — 417 units, 70 of them affordable, in the figures reported at the time — against a court-assigned Fourth Round obligation of 260 units.

Two board members framed their yes votes as a legal judgment rather than a planning one: failing to adopt by June 30 would end the township’s immunity from builder’s remedy suits and hand zoning control to a court. The member who voted no said he could not square a 260-unit obligation with a plan he believed had holes in it, and invited the state to sue.

Why it matters

This is the decision residents spent the next eight months contesting, and the township’s reasoning is laid out plainly on this recording: the state’s 2024 framework gave municipalities about ninety days to write a ten-year plan, and missing any deadline in that chain forfeits protection from builder’s remedy litigation. Counsel called the timeline unreasonable on the record, and the adopting resolution says so too.

The Board and its professionals also said repeatedly that the plan was policy, not an approval: it rezoned nothing that night, and any development would still have to return for a site plan, traffic study and hearings. Residents were right to doubt this was cost-free — the implementing zoning was itself due by March 2026 — but the plan was in fact amended. In early 2026 the township removed the Kenvue site in favour of preserving existing affordable units, and the Planning Board adopted that amendment on March 9, 2026. The case is not finished: no compliance hearing has been held and no certification has issued.

Worth watching

• The chair sets the scope (1:27) — what the vote is and is not.
• Four proposed corrections to the plan’s text (32:10) — Edward Silverman’s recommendations.
• The township’s case for the Kenvue allocation (1:31:10) — density, dedication and the developer’s payment.
• A Committee member answers the room (1:36:00) — immunity, and a pledge to join the challenge to the mandate.
• Why Pike Run was not in the plan (1:56:40) — the owner would not extend controls.
• The vote (2:34:30) — eight ayes, one no.

Public comment

More than twenty residents spoke, nearly all of them opposed. The recurring arguments:

Notice. Several speakers objected that the legal notice ran only in the Courier News when the township emails residents about blood drives and farmers’ markets. The Board answered that weekly newspaper publication is a state requirement, and invited residents to the January organization meeting where the paper is designated.

The building. Edward Silverman read out the plan’s finding that no architecturally important building exists on the site and asked that it be struck, describing the headquarters as the work of Henry N. Cobb and Steve Wood of I. M. Pei & Partners. He also asked the Board to weigh the developer’s roughly $1 million contribution separately from the plan’s merits, saying that to many residents it looked like a payoff. The attorney’s answer was that the money let the township extend controls elsewhere, and so bought down the density proposed at Grandview Road.

Alternatives. Repeated requests for a Plan B: vacant or township-owned land, a fully affordable municipal project, the empty municipal building, accessory dwelling units. The professionals answered that a municipal project would require bonding and a tax increase, that accessory units have never produced a unit in their experience, and that Hillsborough’s widely reported “reduction” was a vacant land analysis leaving an unmet-need obligation behind.

Everything downstream. Wetlands permitting, a stopped CSX train blocking County Route 601, school enrolment, one-lane bridges, fire flow, and the loss of the township’s remaining commercial tax base. One speaker supported the plan as reasonable given the constraints.

---

Sources: the township’s archive — meeting video and its transcript; Round Four Housing Process Explained; the 2025 Fourth Round plan; Planning Board minutes, June 26, 2025. The roll calls above are taken from those minutes. People are named here only where the record identifies them unambiguously.