Planning Board — June 8, 2026

What happened

Chair Dave Campeas opened at 7:03 p.m. The minutes record nine members present — Campeas, Vice Chair Arun Mani, Ibad Khan, Sarah Roberts, Mayor Neena Singh, Marvin Schuldiner, Patricia Taylor Todd, Anthony Glockler and Om Sharma — with Board Attorney Karen L. Cayci and Assistant Planning Director Cheryl Chrusz. Two names called on the video’s roll call, Battle and Blodgett, do not appear in the minutes’ list of those present. No one spoke during public participation.

The Board memorialised one unrelated resolution, Case PB-01-25 (Pai-Clo, LLC, Block 3005, Lots 11, 14, 16 and 20 on Route 206, minor subdivision with variance), on a seven-aye roll call.

The night’s substantive item was a referral under the Municipal Land Use Law: before the Township Committee could adopt a zoning amendment, the Planning Board had to review it and report on whether it is consistent with the Master Plan. The ordinance was #26-1779, amending Chapter 16, subsection 1.5 “Prohibited Uses” and subsection 2.1 “Definitions” to prohibit data centers and detention centers throughout Montgomery Township.

Most of the discussion was about wording, not policy. One member noted that the draft definition of “detention center” appeared to capture the Montgomery Township Police Department’s own holding cells, in the building the Board was sitting in; the Board agreed to recommend that the governing body add language exempting the local police. Another member argued the data-center definition said nothing about scale and might sweep in an ordinary employer with a large server operation — Bloomberg was the example. The response from the table was that the definition turns on a facility’s primary service, so a company whose primary business is something else would not be caught. The Board accepted that.

The minutes then state, in terms: “The Board found the ordinance to be consistent with the Master Plan.” The motion to recommend adoption, with the police-department revision, was made by Marvin Schuldiner and seconded by Arun Mani, and carried 9-0 — Campeas, Kahn, Mani, Roberts, Schuldiner, Singh, Taylor Todd, Glockler and Sharma, no nays.

The Board approved the May 11 minutes, took subcommittee reports on Bloomberg’s proposed walking paths and on the Route 206/518 loop roads, then went into closed session from 7:24 to 7:42 p.m. to take legal advice on litigation captioned E. Kahn Development Corp. v. the Township of Montgomery Planning Board — the developer’s earlier suit over the Board’s refusal to hear a General Development Plan. Adjourned 7:43 p.m.

Why it matters

This 12-minute discussion is now the subject of a lawsuit. The Township Committee adopted Ordinance #26-1779 on June 18, 2026, 4-0. E. Kahn Development Corp. has since sued over the ban. Press reports date the filing to July 31, 2026 in Somerset County Superior Court and describe it as seeking a declaration that the ordinance is invalid and unenforceable plus an injunction against its enforcement; the township attorney told the Committee on September 17, 2026 that the complaint had been reviewed and that the township had not been served.

One of the complaint’s arguments, as described in the reporting on it, is that the Planning Board’s recommendation lacked documented discussion of the ordinance’s consistency with the township Master Plan. If that is what the complaint says, the June 8 minutes do not bear it out as written. The minutes state the consistency finding explicitly, the Board Attorney framed the motion around it, and the motion as voted was that the ordinance complies with the Master Plan. What is fair to the developer’s side is that the finding was stated rather than argued: the Board’s debate was about definitions and a police carve-out, not about which Master Plan goals the ban serves. Whether a court treats a stated finding as sufficient is the open question, and it is not one this page can answer.

One other thing the record shows: the Board’s recommended revision did not survive. The ordinance as adopted on June 18 contains no exemption for the Montgomery Township Police Department — the definition of “detention center” is printed without the carve-out the Board asked for.

Worth watching

• The ordinance comes up (2:27) — what #26-1779 actually changes.
• The police holding cells problem (3:20) — the drafting flaw the Board caught.
• Does it catch Bloomberg? (8:00) — scale versus “primary use.”
• Why the township is doing this (13:20) — Kenvue, 23 Orchard Road, and Montgomery’s limited industrial zoning.
• The motion is framed and voted (14:10) — Master Plan consistency, plus the police recommendation; 9-0.
• Closed session on the Board’s own lawsuit (20:20) — E. Kahn Development Corp. v. Montgomery Township Planning Board.

Public comment

There was none. The Chair opened public participation and no one came forward; the minutes record “None.” The Board took no public testimony on the ordinance before voting.

Residents did turn out ten days later. At the Township Committee’s public hearing on June 18, 2026, the minutes name six speakers in support of the ordinance — Dawn Cohen, Mary Reece, Nancy Herrington, Mike Pisauro of the Watershed Institute, Jenny Psaki and Kendra DiPaola — mostly on energy, water and environmental grounds. Craig Gianetti of Day Pitney, appearing for E. Kahn Development, spoke in opposition. The Committee closed the hearing and adopted the ordinance that night.

Sources

• The township’s archive: Jun 8, 2026 Planning Board meeting video and transcript. Remarks here are summarised rather than quoted.
• Montgomery Township Planning Board minutes, June 8, 2026.
• Montgomery Township Committee minutes and Ordinance #26-1779, June 18, 2026.
• Patch: Montgomery faces lawsuit challenging data center ban