Kenvue Future Dominates Public Comment as Residents Urge Caution, Preservation and Greater Scrutiny

Nicholas Mistretta

MONTGOMERY, NJ — The future of the former Kenvue campus at 199 Grandview Road dominated public comment at the Montgomery Township Committee’s Sept. 17 meeting, as residents raised questions about redevelopment, existing zoning, environmental protection, the property’s ownership structure, pending litigation and whether the township should pursue alternatives that preserve or repurpose the site.

The discussion centered on two resolutions before the committee involving a potential non-condemnation redevelopment designation for a portion of the former Kenvue property. One would authorize the Planning Board to conduct a preliminary investigation into whether the property meets the statutory criteria for an area in need of redevelopment; the other establishes an escrow arrangement under which EKahn Development would fund the township’s professional costs associated with the study. Authorizing such an investigation does not itself approve a development project or redevelopment plan.

While speakers approached the issue from different angles, most of those addressing the Kenvue property during the general public-comment period urged the committee either not to move forward with the resolutions or to place greater emphasis on preservation, adaptive reuse and the existing zoning before considering a new redevelopment framework. The comments also prompted several important clarifications from township officials about why the study was being considered, who requested it and how the township views the financial implications of Kenvue’s departure.

Residents Question Process and Direction of the Site
Nancy Castelino opened the extended discussion by sharply criticizing what she characterized as misinformation surrounding litigation involving the property and questioning the township’s handling of the issue. Her remarks included allegations about the motives of township officials and questions concerning possible conflicts of interest. Township representatives disputed those accusations during the exchange and said there was no evidence supporting them. Castelino also returned to a previously circulated claim that the township faced a $300 million lawsuit. During the meeting, officials clarified that the pending data-center litigation had been filed but had not yet been served on Montgomery and that the Montgomery lawsuit did not seek $300 million in damages.

Jacobson Calls for Preservation and Adaptive Reuse
Shelly Jacobson, of Grandview Road, focused her remarks on the physical and environmental character of the property and the internationally recognized architecture of the former corporate campus. Jacobson questioned why nearby residents had not been involved earlier in discussions about a possible redevelopment study and said the neighborhood had already experienced significant uncertainty over previous proposals for the site. She expressed concern that redevelopment could ultimately result in substantial clearing, new construction, additional traffic, noise and lighting, and impacts to wetlands, streams and wildlife. Jacobson also emphasized the architectural significance of the campus, which includes buildings associated with architect I.M. Pei, and argued that the township should be thinking in terms of repurposing rather than demolition. “Please use the word repurpose,” Jacobson told the committee, urging officials to consider an approach capable of preserving and adapting the existing campus. Committee members responded that they, too, would prefer options that preserve the property if they can be made workable.

Ahn Says Redevelopment Study Could Give Township More Options
Township Committeeman Dennis Ahn responded to Jacobson’s calling for preservation of the former Kenvue campus, saying township officials would prefer to preserve the existing buildings and property if a viable path can be found. Ahn said he and other township officials have reached out to outside entities, including the New Jersey Economic Development Authority and Somerset County, to explore whether there might be interest in acquiring the property and maintaining the campus in its current form. “We would love to be able to preserve all the buildings on the site and preserve the property as is,” Ahn said. He added, however, that the property owner has expressed an interest in redevelopment. According to Ahn, the developer’s initial proposal to township officials involved a light-industrial development that would require demolition of the existing buildings. Ahn said the proposed redevelopment study should therefore be viewed as a way for Montgomery to explore alternatives rather than as approval of any particular development plan. “By us doing this redevelopment study, it’s actually for the town, for you, for everybody,” Ahn said, explaining that the process could provide both the township and the property owner with additional options while creating opportunities for public input as proposals are developed.

Fernandez Questions How Property Ownership Is Being Described
Lloyd Fernandez of Skillman raised a more technical issue, challenging repeated references to EKahn Development as the owner of the property. Fernandez said his review of public records showed several limited liability companies as the property owners rather than EKahn Development Corp. itself. He named four LLCs and argued that township officials and counsel should establish precisely what ownership or contractual interest EKahn holds before proceeding. Fernandez also connected that question to EKahn’s participation in the township’s affordable housing litigation, arguing that the legal status of the developer’s interest in the property should be clearly established. His remarks did not resolve the ownership question, but they raised a distinction between the entities holding title and EKahn Development’s role in representing or developing the property. “I expect you to prove it,” Fernandez told the committee, arguing that the township should complete that due diligence before moving further with the redevelopment resolutions.

Wasserman Suggests Medical Use as an Alternative
Harold Wasserman of Skillman took a different approach, acknowledging the difficulty of finding a viable future use for a large corporate campus and offering a specific alternative. Wasserman suggested exploring whether a hospital or health-care provider could establish a satellite medical facility at the property. He noted the distance Montgomery residents must currently travel for hospital care and suggested a medical use could potentially preserve at least some of the existing buildings while bringing a community-serving function to the site. A township representative thanked Wasserman for the suggestion and said it was an idea officials had not previously considered.

Speakers Say Developer’s Investment Should Not Dictate Township Policy
Another resident, identified during the meeting as Jennifer Winell, argued that EKahn made a private business decision when it acquired the property and that Montgomery taxpayers should not be responsible for making that investment financially successful. She said she opposed changing township policy simply because the owner may prefer uses that are not available under the existing zoning. Winell also urged the committee to challenge what she called the assumption that substantial new construction is inevitable. Instead, she asked officials to seriously consider open-space preservation, citing environmental protection, wildlife, traffic and infrastructure among the reasons she believed preservation should remain part of the discussion.

Questions Produce Key Clarifications From Township Officials
Resident Paul Shao used his time primarily to ask questions, producing several of the evening’s clearest explanations about how the redevelopment proposal reached the Township Committee and how it relates to other legal proceedings involving the former Kenvue property. Shao first asked whether the proposed redevelopment investigation originated with township officials or had been requested by E. Kahn Development.

Mayor Singh responded the developer requested it. 

Shao then turned to the separate lawsuit involving a potential data center and asked about its current status. Township counsel explained that the complaint had been filed with the court but had not yet been served on Montgomery.

Township attorney David Minchello said that by filing the complaint, the developer had preserved its legal rights, but because Montgomery had not yet been formally served, the case had not begun moving forward procedurally against the township. “The case doesn’t really — it doesn’t get underway,” counsel explained. “We have to be served with the complaint in order for the case to be initiated.”

The distinction is significant because the discussion at times involved two separate legal matters that could easily be confused. The unserved complaint concerns the dispute over a potential data-center use. Separately, EKahn is an intervenor in Montgomery’s affordable-housing case, and township counsel said the judge in that proceeding directed the township and EKahn to meet and confer regarding the property. 

Later in the public-comment period, Minchello again addressed that distinction, saying the court had directed Montgomery to meet with EKahn in connection with the affordable-housing case. Counsel said the settlement reached with Fair Share Housing Center does not include the Kenvue property in Montgomery’s affordable-housing plan, but EKahn remains an intervenor in the case.

Shao also asked about the approximately $1.4 million figure Mayor Neena Singh had referenced earlier in the discussion. Singh said the amount represents revenue the township currently receives while Kenvue remains at the property and that the company is expected to leave by next year. She said the departure could leave an approximately $1.4 million gap and added that township staff had been advised the property owner intended to seek a reduction in its tax obligation once the campus becomes vacant. “So that would be a gap of $1.4 million in the budget,” Singh said, adding that a reduction in revenue from the property could ultimately affect taxpayers

Nearby Resident Questions Benefits of Redevelopment Designation
Fairview Road resident Maria Kauzmann said her home is approximately 1,900 feet from the portion of the site he associated with a possible data-center proposal. She questioned why Montgomery should consider a redevelopment designation that, in his view, could eventually provide additional zoning flexibility or financial incentives. Kauzmann also referred to an earlier community meeting held by the developer, saying she initially came away with a more favorable impression after hearing possibilities such as a coffee-roasting operation or community-oriented recreational use. She said the subsequent data-center litigation changed his view and left him concerned about whether future development would be compatible with the surrounding residential area. Her comments reflected a theme repeated by several speakers: concern not merely about a particular proposal, but about how much discretion a future redevelopment framework could ultimately provide.

Haftel Frames Debate Around Montgomery’s Identity and Representation
Jack Haftel approached the issue from a broader community perspective, beginning not with zoning or litigation, but with what he said makes Montgomery distinctive. Haftel spoke about the township’s mix of cultures, businesses and institutions and described the education he received in Montgomery as formative in overcoming learning challenges and preparing him for college. He used that personal experience to frame his concern about the Kenvue property: development, he argued, should be considered not only as a real-estate or financial question, but in relation to the character and priorities of the community that surrounds it. Haftel said he did not fault EKahn Development for seeking to make its investment profitable, describing that as the developer’s business role. But he drew a distinction between the developer’s responsibility and that of the elected governing body. “Eli Kahn’s job is to buy property and make money,” Haftel said. “But it’s your job to represent us — our values, our priorities, our needs.” Haftel urged committee members to listen to residents asking them not to advance the resolutions, while making clear that his comments were rooted in his attachment to Montgomery rather than personal hostility toward the developer. “There’s nowhere like Montgomery, New Jersey,” he said.

Sourland Conservancy Urges Preservation
Laurie Cleveland, executive director of the Sourland Conservancy, thanked the Township Committee for its earlier action prohibiting data centers and urged it to maintain that environmental focus when considering the Kenvue property. Cleveland said the Sourland region’s forests, streams and water resources warrant particular protection and argued that data centers would present significant water and energy concerns in a headwaters region. She praised Montgomery’s data-center ordinance and said the Conservancy has pointed to the township’s action when speaking with other municipalities. Cleveland then turned specifically to the redevelopment discussion, urging the committee to consider preservation of the property rather than proceeding toward a redevelopment plan. She also cited the presence of state-listed threatened and endangered species within the broader Sourland region and emphasized the Conservancy’s longstanding work with Montgomery on environmental projects.

Keenan Challenges Legal and Procedural Basis
Devra Keenan focused heavily on the legal process surrounding the township’s affordable housing case and the proposed redevelopment study. Keenan said she had reviewed a state judiciary directive governing affordable-housing dispute resolution and questioned whether the court had authority to require the township to engage with EKahn in the manner described by township officials. Township counsel disagreed with her interpretation and reiterated that the court had directed, rather than merely advised, Montgomery to meet with EKahn as an intervenor in the affordable housing matter. Keenan also criticized the placement of the redevelopment resolutions on the agenda and argued that residents should have received greater attention and notice regarding an issue she viewed as having potentially major consequences for the site. She then read a statement she said was supplied by an attorney representing SaveMontgomery.org. The statement argued that any redevelopment designation would need to satisfy the statutory requirements for an area in need of redevelopment and warned that the organization could pursue litigation if it believed the township improperly used redevelopment law to circumvent existing zoning. Those were the attorney’s assertions and legal position; no court has made such a determination regarding the Kenvue property. Keenan urged the committee to reject the resolutions.

Leonard Focuses on Existing Zoning and Redevelopment Standards
Dave Leonard said he was concerned about terminology being used to describe the property’s current zoning. Leonard said the applicable designation is Limited Manufacturing, rather than simply “light manufacturing,” and argued that the existing zoning contains specific restrictions governing what can be built and the relationship between office and manufacturing uses. Rather than changing the regulatory framework, Leonard said EKahn should submit a plan that complies with the existing zoning and allow that proposal to proceed through the normal Planning Board review process. Leonard also cited a 2023 New Jersey Supreme Court decision involving West Orange and offered his interpretation of the standards that must be satisfied before property can be designated as an area in need of redevelopment. He argued that the township would need evidence not simply of maintenance or building conditions, but that those conditions make the property detrimental to the safety, health, morals or welfare of the community. Leonard said he did not believe the existing Kenvue campus meets that standard and asked the committee where it believed such a detrimental condition existed.

Residents Ask Who Would Conduct the Study
Kathy Lynch asked a practical question about who would perform the redevelopment investigation if the committee moved forward. Township officials explained that the Planning Board, working through its existing retained professionals, would conduct the review. The board’s professionals would examine the statutory criteria, prepare their findings and report back to the Planning Board. Officials said the work would not involve selecting a separate outside group through a new bidding process.  That exchange underscored another distinction that sometimes became blurred during the public discussion: a redevelopment study is not itself a redevelopment designation, and neither is the same thing as approving a specific development plan.

Newman Continues Call for Repurposing Campus
Chris Newman closed out the Kenvue-related public comments by continuing points Jacobson had been unable to finish within the three-minute limit. Newman proposed converting the campus into a cultural or community-oriented destination rather than replacing it with housing or industrial development. She argued that arts and cultural uses could generate economic activity while preserving both the existing buildings and the surrounding neighborhood. “Think less of redevelopment or destruction and more toward repurposing the site,” Newman said. She urged the township to explore adaptive reuse of the existing I.M. Pei campus and to consider the long-term value of preserving the property’s landscape and buildings.

The committee ultimately voted 4-0, with Committeeman Mike Martin absent, to authorize the Planning Board investigation and the related EKahn-funded escrow arrangement. The investigation applies to Block 14001, Lot 2 and is for a potential non-condemnation redevelopment designation, meaning the action itself does not grant eminent-domain authority or approve a particular development project.

Photo Credit: Nicholas Mistretta/headlinenewsmontgomery.com