Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the General Development Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery planning board dismisses general development plan application for lack of ordinance
Summary
The Montgomery Township Planning Board voted to dismiss an application for a general development plan, following legal advice that the township lacks an ordinance authorizing such plans; a public commenter urged protection of an ecologically sensitive area near the site.
Get email alerts on the General Development Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Montgomery Township Planning Board voted on Nov. 1 to dismiss an application for a general development plan (GDP) filed by the Econ Development Corporation after board counsel advised that Montgomery has no local ordinance authorizing GDP approvals under the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL).
Board counsel told members the absence of a GDP ordinance leaves the board without jurisdiction to consider a GDP’s completeness, a protective term of years, or the substantive elements of a plan. Counsel noted the applicant had submitted legal argument asserting the board does have jurisdiction and that the applicant’s letter dated Nov. 7, 2025, was entered into the record.
‘‘Without an ordinance, you can't hear the application,’’ board counsel said, urging the board to consider a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The board moved and carried the dismissal by roll call.
During public comment preceding the legal discussion, Deborah Keenan of savemontgomery.org urged the board to reject a GDP or developer’s agreement for the Ken View property, saying the site adjoins the state-recognized ‘‘Sarah Lynn's Region’’ and is one of New Jersey’s most ecologically sensitive areas. ‘‘No reasonable or proper basis exists for this application,’’ Keenan said, arguing that a 20-year lock-in for manufacturing zoning would conflict with the township master plan and the community’s environmental goals.
Board counsel said that an applicant can challenge a dismissal in court and that one prior GDP approval in the township was tied to litigation and a settlement order rather than regular practice.
The dismissal means the board did not review or vote on the underlying site plans, environmental inventories, phasing or related development details. Counsel and staff indicated the applicant may withdraw the filing or pursue legal remedies outside the planning board process.
The board moved on to other agenda items after the dismissal.
