Montgomery Planning Board Drops Kenvue – Area General Development Plan, Grants Extension to Haven at Princeton

Nicholas Mistretta

The Montgomery Township Planning Board on November 10 voted to dismiss a proposed General Development Plan (GDP) for the former Kenvue property, after its professionals concluded the board has no legal authority to hear such applications without a local GDP ordinance on the books. In separate action, the board unanimously approved a one-year extension for The Haven at Princeton townhouse and apartment development on River Road, citing lengthy state wastewater review.

The meeting, held at 7 p.m. at the municipal center, opened with the usual roll call, flag salute and public comment period, where environmental concerns about the Kenvue site dominated early discussion.

Environmental group urges rejection of long-term manufacturing plan

During public participation, Skillman resident Devra Keenan, speaking on behalf of grassroots group SaveMontgomery.org, urged the board to reject any long-term development agreement that would lock in manufacturing uses on the Kenvue tract, which lies near the Sourlands region.

Keenan described Save Montgomery as “a grassroots organization comprised of many residents” whose mission is “to ensure responsible development that respects the environment, maintains our quality of life, and gives residents a voice in shaping Montgomery’s future.”

She emphasized the ecological sensitivity of the nearby Sourlands, noting that the state master plan recognizes the region as “one of the most ecologically sensitive” in New Jersey and “still largely uncompromised by environmental harm.”

Keenan argued that the current limited manufacturing zoning on the Kenvue property is outdated and inappropriate for a rural area adjoining such a sensitive resource. She said a General Development Plan would give a developer “a 20-year right of protection against zoning changes” to build multiple manufacturing plants on the site.

“No reasonable governing body or planning board would today approve manufacturing for a property adjoining this sensitive ecological area,” Keenan told the board, adding that locking in the use for two decades “violates all modern land use and environmental practices.”

She urged the board to deny the GDP “if it comes in front of this board.”

Board attorney: No GDP ordinance, no jurisdiction

Immediately after public comment, the board turned to the agenda item labeled “Jurisdictional Dismissal” for Case PB-03-25, an application by E Kahn Development Corporation for a General Development Plan on Block 14001, Lot 2.

Board attorney Karen Cayci summarized an October 29, 2025 letter from township staff to the applicant, which advised that Montgomery does not have a General Development Plan ordinance and, therefore, the Planning Board lacks jurisdiction to hear the application.

Under the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), municipalities may adopt ordinances authorizing the use of General Development Plans for large, multi-phase projects. The attorney explained that Montgomery has never adopted such an ordinance, and that all consulted counsel — including the township attorney and the Zoning Board of Adjustment attorney — agreed that without one, the board cannot act on a GDP.

Although some courts have referred to GDPs as conceptual plans, the attorney characterized them instead as comprehensive frameworks for development, typically including circulation, open space, stormwater, environmental inventories and, where relevant, housing plans. Crucially, a GDP can also grant developers up to 20 years of protection from zoning changes, subject to local ordinance.

“In the absence of a General Development Plan ordinance, you don’t have jurisdiction to hear it,” the attorney told board members, adding that without such an ordinance the township has no standards to judge application completeness, plan content, or the length of any protection period.

Counsel noted that the applicant’s attorney, in a November 7, 2025 letter, argued that the MLUL does not clearly require an ordinance for GDPs in all circumstances. However, township counsel interpreted multiple statutory references to ordinances as evidence that a local law is a prerequisite.

When one board member asked who would have jurisdiction if the Planning Board did not, the attorney replied bluntly, “Nobody… The concept of a General Development Plan doesn’t exist in Montgomery” without an enabling ordinance.

The board was advised that its only decision that evening was whether to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction; it would not hear any testimony about the project’s design, phasing or environmental impacts.

A motion was made and seconded to dismiss the E Kahn Development Corporation GDP application for lack of jurisdiction. The roll-call vote was unanimously in favor of dismissal.

Arun Mani, Vice Chair – Yes
Paul Blodgett – Yes
Ibad Khan – Yes
Sarah Roberts – Yes
Neena Singh – Yes
Patricia Taylor Todd – Yes

Haven at Princeton wins one-year extension after DEP delay

The second major item of the evening was an extension request for Case PB-07-20, The Haven at Princeton, LLC, concerning Block 37003, Lot 7 (460 River Road, County Route 605). The project is a townhouse and apartment development tied to Montgomery’s third-round affordable housing (COAH) obligations.

Attorney Richard Schatzman, representing the applicant, requested a one-year extension of the project’s preliminary and final major subdivision and site plan approvals, from November 1, 2025 to November 1, 2026, under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-52(d). That provision allows extensions when a project is delayed due to the actions of other governmental agencies.

Schatzman detailed a 16-month delay at the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in adopting a relatively narrowwastewater management plan amendment needed for the site. While the township’s Stage II sewer plan had capacity, the original wastewater management plan did not include the entirety of the development lot.

The board heard a chronology prepared by the township’s wastewater consultant, Jim Cosgrove, outlining work from mid-2023 through September 23, 2025, when the DEP finally adopted the amendment. During that time, the applicant and professionals addressed submission requirements, threatened and endangered species issues, and conservation restrictions.

Schatzman stressed that despite the DEP-related delays, the developer had been actively advancing other aspects of the project, including:

• Negotiating and executing a construction sequence agreement with the Township Committee
• Finalizing a municipal services agreement (to be executed once the homeowners’ association is formed)
• Recording a restrictive covenant for a greenway area and correcting an outdated sanitary sewer easement
• Preparing and recording COAH-related restrictive covenants and development agreements
• Securing multiple DEP permits, including wetlands transition waivers, sanitary sewer crossing permits, and general permits affecting state open waters and road crossings
• Advancing easements for sidewalks and walking paths, and working toward final subdivision mapping and bonding

“We’re 95 percent there,” Schatzman told the board, adding that the team expects to have all remaining approvals in place and to begin construction by summer, with the project contributing to the township’s affordable housing obligations.

Board members asked few questions and expressed general agreement that the state-level delay justified the request. With no public comment offered on the matter, the board unanimously voted to extend The Haven at Princeton’s approvals through November 1, 2026.

Arun Mani, Vice Chair – Yes
Paul Blodgett – Yes
Ibad Khan – Yes
Sarah Roberts – Yes
Neena Singh – Yes
Patricia Taylor Todd – Yes

Photo Credit: Nicholas Mistretta/headlinenewsmontgomery.com