Residents urge alternatives, question inclusion of Kenview in township housing plan

Edward Silverman, a longtime Montgomery resident, opened public comment by challenging the information used to include the Kenview property in the township’s fourth‑round housing and fair‑share plan, saying the submission contained “false and misleading information” and asserting that planned development would require demolition of an architecturally significant headquarters building designed with involvement from noted designers including I.M. Pei. “The plan says, and I quote, the site will not affect any historic or architecturally important sites and districts. That statement is false and misleading,” Silverman said.

Other speakers echoed concerns about traffic, services and community character. Chris Dollard told the committee the municipality risks losing an employment anchor and faces infrastructure costs if redevelopment proceeds: “To trade this for 250 units of low income housing is a downgrade to the township of immense proportions,” he said. Multiple commenters raised road safety on narrow two‑lane bridges and questioned whether transit, sewer and other services exist near the site.

Town staff responded that Kenview is not slated to absorb the township’s entire obligation and that the township’s overall obligation is 260 units; the official also said Kenview has announced layoffs and is leaving the site. The staff response clarified that the Kenview proposal before the township involves 70 on‑site units plus use of “extension of controls” on other units to meet obligations — a distinction committee staff argued makes the public characterization of ‘250 units at Kenview’ inaccurate. Staff added that developer‑funded infrastructure would be required before construction and that the plan as adopted on June 30 preserves the township’s ability to amend the plan if a site proves unbuildable.

Residents pressed for alternatives and a transparent process. Dave Leonard asked the committee to pass a resolution directing administration to prepare an alternative plan within 30 days in case Kenview cannot be used. Deborah Keenan, speaking about the legal framework for challenges, told the room that interested parties may file a challenge to the housing element and fair‑share plan by Aug. 31, 2025; timely challenges are reviewed by the state program and late filings generally are not considered.

The committee announced town‑hall style meetings for early August to provide more interactive discussion of the fourth‑round plan and to gather input on alternatives and site‑specific concerns. Officials said project‑level environmental, sewer and stormwater analyses would be required before any zoning or site approvals and that those studies — and developer commitments on infrastructure — would be part of any future application.

Next steps: the township will hold town halls in early August to hear additional public input; the statutory window to file a challenge to the fair‑share plan closes on 2025‑08‑31, and staff said the plan can be amended later if a site is found to be unbuildable or otherwise inappropriate.