Township Committee — June 18, 2026

What happened

The meeting opened with a vacancy. Mayor Neena Singh announced that Deputy Mayor Vince Barragan had resigned from the Township Committee effective that day. Dennis Ahn nominated Patricia Taylor Todd as Deputy Mayor, seconded by Mike Martin; she was elected and sworn in. Every roll call in the minutes that night is therefore a four-member roll call — Martin, Ahn, Deputy Mayor Taylor Todd and Mayor Singh.

Ordinance #26-1779 was the main business. It amends Chapter 16 of the Land Development Code, Subsection 1.5 “Prohibited Uses,” to add two lines: “Data centers are specifically prohibited throughout Montgomery Township” and “Detention centers are specifically prohibited throughout Montgomery Township.” It also adds definitions of both terms to Subsection 2.1, with the detention-center definition reaching private and government facilities alike, including immigration detention. The recitals cite electrical demand, noise from cooling equipment, water consumption and incompatibility with surrounding land uses for data centers, and public safety and emergency-services demands for detention facilities.

After the public hearing, the Committee closed it and adopted the ordinance 4-0 — ayes Martin, Ahn, Deputy Mayor Taylor Todd, Mayor Singh; none opposed, none abstaining. The tally is four rather than five because the fifth seat was vacant from that morning, not because a member was absent.

One change the Planning Board had asked for is not in the adopted text. On June 8 the Board recommended that the governing body exempt the Montgomery Township Police Department from the “detention center” definition, having noticed that the draft appeared to reach the township’s own holding cells. The ordinance printed in these minutes contains no police carve-out — the definition covers facilities “established and maintained by a private or government entities for the purpose of confining and holding individuals.” Nothing in the record explains whether the omission was deliberate; we state the fact and make no prediction about its legal effect.

Late in the evening the Committee went into executive session under Resolution #26-6-193 to discuss the SOA contract, the affordable housing litigation (docket SOM-L-153-25) and a potential property acquisition. It returned at 10:18 p.m. and adopted one added item, also 4-0: Resolution #26-6-194, authorizing a written Fourth Round settlement agreement with Fair Share Housing Center on the terms of the Amended Housing Element and Fair Share Plan the Planning Board adopted on March 9, 2026.

Why it matters

The ban applies to the whole township, but the argument in the room was about one property. E. Kahn Development’s lawyer told the Committee that the company’s by-right site plan application for the former Kenvue campus had already been deemed complete, so the ordinance would not reach it; his stated concern was future effects, including the risk that an otherwise approvable use becomes a pre-existing nonconforming one. No one on the Committee disputed or endorsed that reading on the record.

On July 31, 2026, E. Kahn sued in Somerset County Superior Court seeking a declaration that Ordinance 26-1779 is invalid and unenforceable and an injunction against its enforcement. Widely repeated reports that the suit demanded $300 million were wrong; the township attorney said on the record on September 17 that no such demand exists in Montgomery’s case and that the figure came from another municipality’s lawsuit. The complaint also alleges the Planning Board’s June 8, 2026 recommendation lacked a documented discussion of Master Plan consistency. The Board’s own June 8 minutes say “The Board found the ordinance to be consistent with the Master Plan.”

Resolution #26-6-194 is the quieter item, and it is not the end of the housing case. Its recitals confirm that challenges to the original plan were filed in 2025 by E. Kahn, Montgomery Neighbors United and Savemontgomery.org, and that Fair Share Housing Center found the amended plan compliant subject to conditions. But a settlement is not a judgment: as of September 2026 no compliance hearing had been held and no Judgment of Compliance and Repose or Compliance Certification had issued, so the township’s immunity from builder’s-remedy lawsuits remains contingent.

Worth watching

• Resignation and a new Deputy Mayor, 1:01
• Ordinance #26-1779 hearing opens; E. Kahn’s objection, 1:10:51
• The site’s power, cooling and buffers, 1:14:50
• The Watershed Institute on water and energy, 1:33:40
• The 4-0 vote, 1:44:10
• Fair Share Housing Center settlement approved, 2:12:19

Public comment

General public comment came before the ordinance. Catherine Gural and Mary Reece both thanked Barragan for his service. When Reece began on data centers, the dais interrupted to suggest she save the remarks for the ordinance hearing so they would be part of that record.

At the ordinance hearing, Craig Gianetti of Day Pitney, representing E. Kahn Development/Kenvue Property, asked the Committee to reject or carry the ordinance. He argued a blanket prohibition must bear a reasonable relationship to a legitimate planning objective and not be arbitrary or capricious, and that the Municipal Land Use Law contemplates asking whether a use can be accommodated somewhere rather than eliminating it outright. A partner in the Grandview Road property followed with the site’s technical case: dual 69 kV transmission lines feeding an on-site substation, fiber along the rail corridor, and closed-loop cooling that he said uses far less water and makes less noise than the evaporative systems in the news. Gianetti had already told the Committee there is roughly 2,000 feet between the existing buildings and the property line.

Six speakers supported the ordinance. Dawn Cohen pointed to Roxbury, where a warehouse was sold to a private prison operator and local officials had to respond after the fact. Mary Reece, chair of the Environmental Commission, cited electricity demand, water use, heat and noise, and few local jobs for the footprint. Nancy Herrington said the Kenvue property is exactly where such a facility could land. Mike Pisauro of the Watershed Institute said even closed-loop systems use significant water, noted the state’s drought, PJM cost increases and a noise lawsuit at a Vineland data center, and said his group supports a statewide moratorium. Jenny Psaki, who said she is not a Montgomery resident and is working on a similar ordinance in her own town, spoke to both halves of the ban. Kendra DiPaola asked for a halt on data centers until safeguards exist.

Sources: Montgomery Township Committee minutes of June 18, 2026 (adopted July 16, 2026), which carry the full text of Ordinance #26-1779 and every roll call, and the meeting video on the township’s archive. Names follow the minutes. Planning Board findings from the June 8, 2026 minutes.