Township Committee — December 4, 2025

What happened

All five members answered the opening roll call — Mayor Singh, Deputy Mayor Barragan, and Committee Members Taylor Todd, Ahn and Martin. The Mayor moved the Affordable Housing Update to the top of the agenda and asked the township attorney to report.

The attorney said the township had held its first mediation session with the Program — the administrative process that replaced COAH — shortly after the November 13 meeting: a Zoom call, parties in separate breakout rooms, the substance confidential. What is public is that the township had formally notified the Program and all interested parties, by letter, that it would be amending its plan. The reason: a verbal agreement in principle, not yet executed, with the owner of Pike Run to extend affordability controls on at least 96 rental units. That, she said, gets the township to a full plan on its own — which is why no other development would remain in the housing plan, naming Kenvue and the already-approved Thrive project as the ones coming out.

On the posture of the case: Fair Share Housing Center did not object to the township’s plan; two citizen groups objected to the inclusion of Kenvue; and Kenvue objected to those objections. The judge had decided further mediation was pointless, so the parties would make oral argument — no testimony — at a session referenced on the dais as Friday, December 19, 2025. She added that no party had yet been declared right or wrong about anything, and that the plan itself would not be amended until the new year, after a publicly noticed Planning Board hearing she expected in late January or February. (The Planning Board in fact adopted the amended plan on March 9, 2026.)

The Committee then held the public hearing on and adopted Ordinance #25-1766, the bond ordinance funding the extensions: a $1,100,000 appropriation, including $650,000 from the township’s COAH fund and authorization to issue $450,000 in bonds or notes. It also adopted Resolution #25-12-387, a purchase agreement for 11.42 acres at Route 601 and Grandview Road — Block 13001, Lot 21 — for open space, with Somerset County contributing funding. That is a different parcel from the former Kenvue campus, though on the same block, and due diligence comes before any acquisition ordinance.

On the tallies: the recording has yes votes on each item from Martin, Ahn, Deputy Mayor Barragan and Mayor Singh, and no no-votes. The approved minutes are the authority for the count.

Why it matters

This is the meeting where the township said on the record that the Kenvue site was coming out of the Fourth Round housing plan — and said exactly what replaced it: extended deed restrictions on existing units, paid for with a $1,100,000 appropriation — $650,000 from the township’s COAH trust fund and $450,000 authorized as bonds or notes. One member framed the trade honestly: there had been opportunities where other parties might have fully funded the extensions in return for staying in the plan, and it was clear the community did not want that, so the township took on the debt instead.

It also matters for what it did not settle. A letter putting the program and the parties on notice is not an amended plan, an agreement in principle is not an executed one, and nothing had yet been ruled on by the court. And the turn it rests on is unexplained: staff had told the Planning Board on June 23, 2025 that the same Pike Run owner “were not able to agree to extend the controls,” and the public record does not explain why that position changed. We offer no theory about it.

Worth watching

• Affordable Housing Update — 0:58
• Pike Run, 96 units, and why Kenvue comes out — 5:01
• Public comment — 45:16
• Bond ordinance #25-1766, hearing and adoption — 1:09:27
• Open space purchase, Block 13001 Lot 21 — 1:21:01

Public comment

A Skillman resident questioned a $35,000 increase in the CFO’s salary; staff said it is tied to a shared-services agreement under which another municipality pays the township more than the increase costs.

A McKinley Court homeowner said the notice letter she and her mother received was dated November 7 and postmarked November 10, for the November 13 meeting at which controls were extended, and asked why homeowners were not told in June when the housing element was adopted. She asked whether extended controls amount to real ownership or “a 30-year lease,” whether the resolution could be voided for inadequate notice, and whether the $10,000 payment was negotiable. The township replied that personal notice was not legally required, that the decision to extend is the Committee’s discretion under the deed restriction each original buyer took at purchase, that $10,000 is the regulatory minimum, and that money was set aside to repair failing systems found at inspection. Of 54 affordable condominiums across two developments, staff said, 44 had scheduled or completed inspections.

At the bond hearing, resident Ramon Diaz said the state Department of Community Affairs page showed a trust balance of about $588,000 against the $650,000 the ordinance appropriates — a $62,000 gap — and asked the Committee to hold the ordinance until that was reconciled. Citing what he called a Piscataway/Society Hill precedent, he also questioned whether the deed language gives the township a unilateral right to extend. The township answered that state reporting is not monthly so the posted figure lags, and that the trust replenishes from development fees on projects under construction and cannot be spent on general budget items, so repayment would not fall on general funds. The ordinance was adopted.