Planning Board Responds to Residents Concerns. Joins Lawsuit with other Municipalities.

Nicholas Mistretta

Thursday’s session marked the continuation of a heated three-hour hearing on June 23, now stretching into what some residents say feels like an unrelenting rush toward adoption. The plan, which fulfills the township’s affordable housing obligations as set forth by New Jersey’s Fair Housing Act and enforced through Superior Court oversight, has left the board caught in a difficult bind — between legal compliance and local backlash.

Board Members Respond to Public Concerns
The meeting marked a departure from the June 23rd meeting, where long-time resident Harold Wasserman asked each board member whether they were comfortable with the plan and urged them to be honest. At that time, none responded. On Thursday, however, several board members chose to share their perspectives, offering context for their decisions and the constraints guiding the process.

Board Chair David Campeas directly addressed the toxicity swirling around social media.

“We know what social media does to kids. It does it to adults too,” he said, urging civility in public discourse. He proposed quarterly affordable housing updates at scheduled meetings, with advance online notice to improve transparency.

Board member David Blogdett struck a defiant tone, questioning whether the town’s autonomy had already been stripped away by the state’s rigid legal process.

“This is a Hobson’s choice. We’re being strong-armed. Legal blackmail,” Blogdett said. “If we’re only voting yes to avoid a lawsuit, that’s not real planning. I say bring it on — sue us.”

“This is Not Easy for Us”
Planning Board member Patricia Todd offered a candid explanation before casting her vote in favor of the plan.

“We live in this town. We’re homeowners. We’re human,” she said. “It is not easy for us to sit here and listen to the feedback when it becomes very personal.” Todd, who also serves on the Master Plan Committee, stressed that the board had reviewed all feasible options before arriving at the current proposal. “We get that it’s not ideal. We hear you. I hear you,” she said, adding, “My vote tonight will be yes, but it’s because of a compliance standpoint, an immunity standpoint, and a builder’s remedy standpoint.”

Todd, an attorney, emphasized the legal pressure the township faces. “I cannot in good conscience, with all the passion that has been expressed in this town, expose this town to litigation,” she said. “There are no extensions, no injunctions we can do right now. All we can do is comply at this stage.” She repeated this point for emphasis: “At this stage.”

She also acknowledged concerns raised by residents that she had not previously been aware of. “I was not aware of any historical significance to the building. I was not aware of some of the things raised here tonight.” Despite her vote in favor, she expressed a willingness to explore creative solutions going forward. “I am committed to thinking outside the box, to try and find additional solutions. To put together the best package we can with the options we have,” she said.

Todd closed her remarks with an appeal for understanding. “This is not something we want to do or don’t want to do, it’s something we must do to comply and I ask that you please extend a little bit of grace to the board.”

Public Passion, Private Frustration
While board members sought to convey the weight of their legal constraints, the public turnout once again overwhelmed the chambers with concern. Lifelong resident Michele Parise, whose family roots in Montgomery stretch back to the late 1800s, issued a blistering rebuke over what she described as a lack of transparency and community respect.

Long time Fairview Road resident Edward Silverman raised concerns about the accuracy and thoroughness of the plan. He questioned its claim that the development would not impact any historic or architecturally significant sites. “A simple ChatGPT or Gemini search will give you that answer,” he said, pointing out the building’s architectural importance. Reading directly from the plan, he highlighted the statement that “there are no historic or architecturally important sites on the property or the immediate vicinity,” calling it “false or misleading” and urging its removal. Silverman also expressed unease with the lack of alternatives. “Having only one option is never a good option,” he said. Maria Kauzmann, of Skillman, echoed similar concerns, clarifying that she’s not against affordable housing itself, but troubled by the scale. “It’s the Sourlands,” she emphasized. “Even 200 houses would be too much.” An East Ridge Road resident questioned the township’s dependence on private developers to fulfill its housing obligation. “Why not consider vacant land, self-funded projects, with grants and aid that are available?” he asked. “By relying on builders, we’re increasing the housing fivefold.”

A Legal Bind and Moral Crossroad
Montgomery’s affordable housing obligations are not new. The township has already satisfied requirements for prior rounds (dating from 1987 through 2025), delivering hundreds of affordable units across multiple developments.

But the Fourth Round (2025–2035) introduces 260 new units — a figure determined by the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. Board attorney Wendy Rubinstein Quiroga explained that while some neighboring towns, like Hillsborough, appear to have lowered numbers, the difference is largely technical. “Their obligation hasn’t changed, it’s just moved into a category called ‘unmet need,’” she said. Essentially it just kicked the can down the road.

Mayor, and Board Member, Neena Singh, expressed her own reservations.

“We, as a board, have spent hours trying to find another way out, and we were told we can’t,” Singh agreed with residents we don’t have the infrastructure adding “I love the idea of affordable housing, but this isn’t helping our town.”

Singh also confirmed that, while voting in favor to avoid compliance issues, Montgomery would be joining other municipalities in a lawsuit against the state, challenging the current housing mandates.

Photo Credit: Nicholas Mistretta/headlinenewsmontgomery.com