417 Homes Proposed for Kenvue Site—Residents Push Back Hard

Master Plan Hearing Draws Packed Room, Sharp Criticism

Nicholas Mistretta

MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP — The Montgomery Township Planning Board heard more than three hours of public comment Monday evening during a contentious public hearing on the township’s proposed Fourth Round Housing Element and Fair Share Plan—drawing a packed room and unanimous opposition from residents.

The session was a continuation of a process mandated by the state of New Jersey, which requires municipalities to meet affordable housing obligations as outlined in the Mount Laurel doctrine and the Fair Housing Act. The plan, presented by Township Planner Michael Sullivan of Clarke Caton Hintz and Township Administrator Lori Savron, details how Montgomery intends to meet those requirements by 2035.

The proposal includes the addition of 597 total housing units across several sites, with 106 units designated as affordable housing. Among them is the former Applied Data Research/Computer Associates property at 23 Orchard Road, which would see 180 residential units—36 of them affordable.

But it was the plan for the 160-acre Kenvue property on Grandview Road—formerly owned by Johnson & Johnson—that drew the most ire. The site is proposed for total demolition and redevelopment into 417 housing units, 70 of which would be affordable. Residents say the scale and nature of the project threaten to permanently alter the character of the rural, low-density area.

Public Opposition
Public comment was overwhelmingly critical. Many residents expressed frustration at the short notice for such a consequential meeting. Township staff clarified that legal notice had been published in the Courier News on June 12 and posted to the township’s website.

Harold Wasserman, a 40-year resident, directly challenged board members, asking whether they personally supported the plan and whether Montgomery intended to join a growing coalition of 27 municipalities pushing back against the current law. Without answering the first question Planning Board Chair David Campeas dismissed the second as “not for tonight’s discussion.”

Fairview Road resident Doug Hill inquired about a contingency plan should the Kenvue site fall through. Savron responded, “We would look at other properties—but just so you know, something will happen at that Kenvue property.”

Grandview Road resident Shellie Jacobson raised concerns over the plan to demolish the world renowned Architect I.M. Pei–designed building at the site. “It would be a shame if that were done,” she said.

Skillman resident George DeSanctis, who has lived in town for 25 years, asked whether Montgomery had ever challenged the state’s affordable housing quotas and, if not, why. Savron explained that current board members were not in office during previous rounds of planning and might not be able to speak to those decisions. DeSanctis replied, “I’m sure this must be common knowledge. Given the gravity of the situation and the amount of housing being put into Montgomery, I would think people would know that answer. I have it on good authority the answer is no.” Township Planner Michael Sullivan followed up, noting that in the Fourth Round, Montgomery accepted his methodology because the differences were minor and not worth the risk of litigation. He added that during the Third Round, numbers were negotiated through lawsuits.

DeSanctis questioned whether developers had played a role in the planning process and expressed frustration with what he saw as a foregone conclusion. “It sounds to me like this is a fait accompli. This feels more like an informative evening. All of the questions and comments made by these folks—do they really amount to anything? Because it sounds like nothing is going to change. If we challenge this, then we are legally liable to the developers. Montgomery Township stands to lose its immunity and we can be litigated. It almost sounds like a form of extortion to me.”

Perhaps the most pointed critique came from former Montgomery Mayor and Skillman resident Devra Keenan, who challenged the inclusion of rural-zoned land in the plan. She explained that the state’s methodology specifies which types of properties can be included in a municipality’s obligation—and rural lands are not among them. “We are opting in properties that were not included in their own calculations. Is the town concerned that by including properties that the State of New Jersey stated do not need to be included, it will open the door to even more development of this type—that all of Montgomery would be in play?”

Keenan also addressed the financial implications of zoning changes, particularly the imbalance between residential and commercial tax contributions. While residential generates more revenue “Generally, commercial does not use a lot of the services in town. Residential does. It’s huge, it’s massive, it’s not equal,” she said. “It’s how the dollars are used.” She questioned whether alternative sites, like the old municipal building, had been considered.

Breaking down zoning potential, Keenan explained that under current classifications, the 160-acre site in question could support between 16 and 80 homes—depending on zoning. “Now we’re suddenly saying 412 is fine? That’s very problematic.”

Maria Kauzmann of Skillman echoed those concerns. “I don’t understand the desire to change the entire character of the area,” she said. “We chose to live there because of the open vistas, the large housing lots. To change the nature of that part of town, in my opinion, will just be the start of the creep that happened on the other side of 206—which is why I would not live there. I chose to live in an area that was rural, and you want to go against that fairly severely and change that dynamic.”

What’s Next No vote was taken. The hearing will continue Thursday at 5:00 PM—a time that overlaps with the township’s annual fireworks celebration. Given the level of public opposition, another high turnout is expected.

Photo Credit: Nicholas Mistretta/Nicholas M. Mistretta/headlinenewsmontgomery.com