Residents Raise Questions on EKAHN/Kenvue Litigation, Possible Site Activity During Public Comment at Feb. 9 Planning Board Meeting

Nicholas Mistretta

During the public comment portion of the Montgomery Township Planning Board’s Feb. 9 meeting, several residents asked questions centered on the former Kenvue/Johnson & Johnson property—often referred to in township discussions as the EKAHN site—including the status of related litigation and reports of activity at or near property holdings.

Question about contingencies if court ruling changes development outlook
Jennifer Winell asked whether the township had a “backup plan” if a judge were to rule in a way that would allow housing to be built at the EKAHN site. Township attorney Wendy Rubenstein responded “if circumstances change, we will be back with a new plan”.

Request for more detail on lawsuit involving a “general development plan”
Another resident asked for details about a lawsuit connected to the Kenvue site, including what the property owner sought to submit, what the Planning Board denied, and why.

In response, Planning Board attorney Karen Casey said the township had not yet been formally served in the matter at the time of the meeting, but that officials understood the complaint to involve the Planning Board’s decision not to accept what is known as a General Development Plan (GDP) submission.

Casey explained that the Planning Board’s position was based on advice from counsel that Montgomery Township does not have a local ordinance authorizing the board to accept or review GDP applications, and therefore lacks local standards and requirements to process them. She said a GDP is generally used for large properties to outline multi-phase development in a broad format, but it does not replace the need for later, detailed submissions.

Casey emphasized that, under the township’s existing ordinances, a developer may pursue development through the established site plan process, which typically requires detailed review of issues such as traffic, layout, environmental impacts and landscaping. She said the developer remains free to submit a site plan application consistent with the current zoning regulations.

A brief exchange followed about whether the developer could still seek general feedback. Planning Director Lori Savron noted that concept plan review—an informal process permitted by state law and local ordinance—would still be available for early discussion, but said that differs from a formal GDP application.

Resident notes digging activity; officials direct inquiry to engineering department
Later in the comment period, another resident reported observing what appeared to be digging activity and multiple holes in areas described as north of Grandview and around a lake, including the presence of equipment. The resident said they were unsure what the activity represented but wanted the board to be aware.

In response, township representatives suggested the work could potentially be related to septic testing, while also noting they could not confirm the purpose. Officials advised the resident to contact the Township Engineering Department, which they said would be the appropriate office to review or track engineering-related activity. The chair thanked the resident for raising the concern and reiterated the importance of reporting observations through proper channels.

To view entire meeting click here.

Photo Credit: Nicholas Mistretta/headlinenewsmontgomery.com