7/29/26
At Monday night’s committee meeting, I was surprised to learn that residents were not aware of the recent brush pickup. Stay informed by signing up for Mendham Township email alerts, SMART911, and by checking the Township website regularly for the latest news, updates, and announcements.
https://www.mendhamtownship.org/370/Sign-Up-for-Email-Alerts
https://www.mendhamtownship.org/303/Smart911
https://www.mendhamtownship.org/
7/28/26
What I heard at Monday night’s committee meeting:
A proposal was made to ban data centers in Mendham Township on the grounds that they would raise energy costs for New Jersey residents. While energy use was cited, the primary rationale presented was the water consumption associated with data centers. Although it was acknowledged that building a data center in the Township is unlikely, proponents argued that adopting a ban now is prudent “just in case.”
If water use is a reason to prohibit an industry, why were other high-water users not discussed: automotive plants, paper and chemical mills, power generation facilities, or large-scale breweries? An AI search indicates these types of facilities can consume water at levels comparable to data centers, and like data centers, they are also unlikely to be built in Mendham Township, but wouldn’t it also be prudent to ban them “just in case”?
For perspective, an average 18-hole golf course can require 312,000 to 1,000,000 gallons of irrigation water per day, which rivals the water use of an active server farm.
It’s also worth noting that local bans on data centers in New Jersey are already being challenged in court, with well-funded developers pursuing litigation.
A more effective and defensible approach to limit commercial development in Mendham Township would be a comprehensive review of our zoning regulations by a professional planning firm, in collaboration with the Planning Board and Township Committee. That engagement is costly, but likely far less expensive than defending a narrowly targeted ordinance against a deep-pocketed developer in court.
Watch the meeting here: https://www.mendhamtv.org/on-demand
7/21/22
I was asked, "What is your position on shared services with Mendham Borough? How do you start to make things happen?"
Mendham Township, Mendham Borough, neighboring municipalities, and Morris County should pursue shared services whenever doing so can reduce costs or improve efficiency without sacrificing the quality of services provided to residents.
The Township shares municipal court services with Chester Borough and Chester Township, tax administration services and an emergency animal shelter with Randolph, and utilizes Morris County’s 911 dispatch system. Mendham Township and Mendham Borough also have mutual aid and road maintenance agreements.
The first step is to evaluate each department and its cost structure to identify opportunities where the Township could provide services to other municipalities or where it would be more cost-effective to receive services from neighboring communities. Once those opportunities are identified, establish a working group with the Borough, surrounding municipalities, and Morris County to explore potential partnerships.
The objective would be to achieve savings in staffing, operations, and equipment while maintaining, or improving, the level of service and convenience residents expect. The group should also pursue available county, state, and federal grants that help municipalities implement shared service initiatives.
It’s important to recognize that consolidating services may require upfront investments and could increase costs in the short term.
That said, shared services are not without challenges. Home rule, shifting political priorities, and the potential costs of unwinding an unsuccessful agreement can all make these partnerships more difficult to establish.
If you have a question, gary@garykapner.com
7/14/26
What I heard at Monday night’s Township Committee meeting:
The proposed banner policy appears to be moving forward. Under the current concept, a proclamation issued by the Township Committee would allow the recipient to display a banner either in front of the municipal building or at the new annex/community center (final location to be determined). The committee discussed which groups would be eligible for proclamations and the allowable banner size and type, and emphasized that they will not approve or regulate the content of the banners.
However, the committee did not address the proclamation process itself—specifically, whether proclamations would be approved in advance or ratified at the time of presentation by the Township Committee, or how those decisions might affect a recipient’s ability to display a banner. My understanding is that, at present, issuing proclamations is at the Mayor’s discretion.
Because banners on municipal property are presumed to reflect the community and values of Mendham Township, I believe their placement should require approval by a majority of Township Committee members.
6/23/26
Let me begin by wishing Committeewoman Moreen good health and a speedy recovery.
Thank you, Committeewoman Moreen, for accurately framing this discussion on banner policy.
I can’t help but think this was a political stunt, given the ordinance’s introduction at the June 8th committee meeting and the attempts to portray committee members as anti-LGBTQ. I hope that I am wrong and it was not. Watch the video.
Committeewoman Moreen’s banner, tied to a proclamation, is an idea worth exploring. That said, Mayor Neibart's concern about who sits in the mayor's chair is valid. If a committee member with extreme political views, such as the democratic socialist Zohran Mamdami, ends up in the mayor's chair, it's not difficult to see how a BDS proclamation could be added to the Township Committee’s agenda, resulting in an anti-Jewish banner being placed in front of the municipal building. If you don’t like my example, plug in your preferred political extremist.
To echo Committeewoman Spirig's concerns about transparency, what will be the process for adding proclamations to the agenda? Who can request a proclamation? Will there be a vote to add proclamations and their language to the agenda? Will the Township Committee vote to adopt the proclamation? How will the Township Committee determine which proclamations are worthy of a banner? Who will approve the banners and their language?
As Deputy Mayor Monaghan points out, the Township Committee shouldn’t be in the business of approving banners. In my opinion, tying banners to proclamations simply moves the banner-approving goalposts to proclamation-approving.
I would have no problem with a "Love is Love" Pride banner, a "Stop Antisemitism" banner, or an “Hispanic Heritage” banner placed in front of the municipal building. Unfortunately, I do think it opens a Pandora's box of unintended consequences. I think that maintaining and formalizing the current policy is the best option.
6/9/26
What I saw at last night's committee meeting was passion, an attack on the Mayor, bullying, and vilification of people's viewpoints. Watch the video.
I think municipal property should be neutral, but as was pointed out last night, we have already crossed that threshold. If the township committee moves to allow religious symbols, political speech, and social messages on municipal property, it should establish a nonpartisan committee of residents to set clear rules that will withstand legal scrutiny.
I am sure that most township residents, myself included, would agree with the message “Love is Love" and would be comfortable with it on a banner in front of the municipal building. But how would residents feel about “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” on a banner in front of the municipal building?
I think, as our municipal attorney pointed out last night, that even with clear rules, regulating the messaging will be difficult.
6/5/26
From: The Mendham Township Republican Municipal Committee
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
As many of you know, the Township Committee recognizes Pride Month each year through a Proclamation and has hosted Pride events in our community for several years. This will continue this year, with a Pride event on June 25th.
Recently, the Township Committee has received a number of requests asking that a Pride banner be displayed at Town Hall.
I wanted to share some background on the issue. The Township’s long-standing practice has been to not permit banners or similar displays at Town Hall, regardless of the organization or message being conveyed. Over the years, requests have been made by individuals and organizations seeking to place banners or flags at Town Hall, and those requests have consistently been declined.
The Township has been advised that permitting one banner or flag on municipal property creates legal and constitutional considerations regarding future requests for displays and expressions. For that reason, the Township has maintained a content-neutral policy of not allowing banners or flags on municipal property, other than the United States Flag, the New Jersey State Flag, and the POW/MIA Flag.
If you support maintaining the Township’s long-standing policy regarding banners and flags on municipal property, I encourage you to share your thoughts with the Township Committee or attend the June 8th meeting.
Committee members can be reached at:
Sarah Neibart – sneibart@mendhamtownship.org
Nick Monaghan – nmonaghan@mendhamtownship.org
Tracey Moreen – tmoreen@mendhamtownship.org
Amalia Duarte – aduarte@mendhamtownship.org
Lauren Spirig – lspirig@mendhamtownship.org
Kindest regards,
Your Mendham Township Republican Municipal Committee
5/27/26 - Open Space Tax
During Tuesday night’s committee meeting, there was a discussion about open space funds and whether the tax could or should be increased. Should the funds be used only for land acquisition or also for the maintenance of open space already owned by the township? There was also a discussion of what constitutes open space: parks, playing fields, trails, or unimproved land.
While I agree that carefully crafted language on how open space funds should be spent should be part of any ordinance amendment, attempting to change the ordinance with language that accounts for every contingency, positive and negative, can have unintended consequences similar to those of an ordinance with overly broad language.
According to the Mendham Township Open Space and Recreation Plan Update – DRAFT 4/24/25, there are 3,422 acres of preserved land, covering 31% of the Township. Of this open space, 1,112 acres are preserved municipal parkland.
There was no discussion of how much land the township should preserve, or of when the push to preserve land could erode or cap residential tax base growth. Fully preserved land generates $0 in property taxes. The acquisition of 3 Tinley Rd will remove approximately $18,000 in annual tax revenue from the township tax rolls.
I agree that the township should acquire land for open space when the right opportunity presents itself, but it has to make solid fiscal sense.
Thank you to all the members of the open space committee for your hard work and commitment to preserving Mendham Township.
5/11/26 - Tree Workshop
I want to thank all the members of the tree committee for their hard work and commitment to this project. Satisfying everyone is an impossible task.
Here are a few things I heard at last night's tree ordinance workshop.
The ordinance appears to be written to stop the worst offenders. Unfortunately, this is done at the expense of the average property owner. This view was reinforced to me by the examples of violations given by members of the tree committee and the township committee.
The purpose of the ordinance appears to be to prevent property owners from removing trees. The tree committee stated that the new ordinance must be approved to stop what is currently permissible under the existing ordinance.
I guess I’m naive to think the purpose of this ordinance is to work with property owners to preserve trees, improve compliance, and achieve the best possible outcome for the property owner and the township.
There was a discussion of what constitutes a hazardous tree and what constitutes proof of hazard. There was general agreement that a tree that has fallen on your house is a hazard that can be immediately removed, allowing you to file a tree removal application after the removal.
What was less clear is whether a tree that is 10 feet from a property owner's home, which the property owner considers a hazard, is one in the eyes of the tree committee. If the tree is healthy, is it a hazard? Who decides? How does a resident fight a tree committee determination and at what cost? If the tree does eventually fall on the home, is the township liable? What constitutes proof of hazard?
If the property owner's insurance company requires a healthy tree to be removed because of its proximity to the home, is that proof of hazard?
Another example raised was when the roots of a heritage tree invaded a property owner's septic system. The tree committee's position seemed to be that if the roots cannot be cut back to resolve the septic problem, the tree can be removed. Who decides that, and at what expense to the property owner?
Quality-of-life issues were briefly discussed last night. Examples included what happens when a property owner wants more sunlight on their pool or wants to expand their backyard to create a larger area for their children to play. Do trees in these examples trump property rights and quality of life?
Lastly, the final public commenter via Zoom implied that the 6 pm meeting time favored older property owners, who are not in favor of the proposed tree ordinance, and put younger property owners who support the tree ordinance at a disadvantage. I would ask that the township committee address these accessibility concerns.
These are a few of my takeaways from the workshop. I encourage you to read the current and proposed ordinances, read the minutes, and watch the video of last night's session.
Protect your Property Rights - Blog Post 5/5/26
The email below is from Deputy Mayor Nick Monaghan. Please take the time to read it and share your thoughts with Nick (or me). nmonaghan@mendhamtownship.org
Dear Gary,
(Gary, I know you are active on this, but I wanted you to be informed)
I am writing to ask for your help regarding the revised Tree Removal ordinance, which is being considered by the Township Committee. Apologies for the length of this email, but I feel that it is an important topic, worthy of your time.
In my view, the proposed ordinance is far too restrictive of our rights as homeowners to manage our properties without interference from your municipal government.
The current version of this proposed ordinance is available here:
Proposed Tree Ordinance - Current Version.
The ordinance is 14 pages, and there is much that I find objectionable, however here are a few highlights:
-
The ordinance restricts your ability to remove any tree over 4” (in a conservation zone) or 6” anywhere else on your property, without permission from the Tree Committee. Permission can be withheld except in certain circumstances.
-
The ordinance requires a rather convoluted tree replacement system for trees they allow you to remove:
-
A Tree replacement system is required by the State DEP, however each municipality can determine what system is best for them.
-
The proposed system “allows” residents to remove 2 trees over a 5-year rolling period without replacement. This does not apply in the conservation zone (every property has a conservation zone), where all trees removed must be replaced.
-
The tree committee, not you, the homeowner, has the right to determine if you should plant replacement trees on your property or not, and they can tell you where on your property to plant them.
-
The ordinance specifies a graduated number of replacement trees to be planted; the larger the tree removed, the higher the number of replacements required.
-
The ordinance requires 1.5” caliper replacement trees, which are more expensive than a “whip” or “sapling”, and more difficult for a homeowner to plant. Our own experience in the Township shows that there is no difference in survivability by planting the smaller trees.
-
-
It is anticipated that the revised ordinance will be so difficult to administer that there has been $5,000 added to the 2026 budget to hire a forester to administer it. I voted against this Budget amendment, however it passed by a 3-2 vote.
-
We have had a tree ordinance for over 20 years, and there have been very few permits denied. This demonstrates that our neighbors have historically acted responsibly in managing their properties. We don’t need this heavy handed ordinance.
There is much more in this ordinance that should be changed, however for the sake of brevity I will not list them all. Please do review the draft.
What I am asking from you: I have been arguing against this ordinance for a year and a half, and we are now in the home stretch. I believe that the ordinance has the votes to pass on a 3-2 vote. I am asking you to please send an email to the Township Committee with your comments. You can use the following email addresses:
Thank you in advance!
Please forward this email to your friends and neighbors, the more community support for modifying this proposed ordinance the better!
Finally, on Monday May 11 at 6pm, the Township Committee will be meeting with the Tree Committee to review the latest revisions to the ordinance, based on comments from the public. There will be a public comment session. Please consider joining this session, either live or via zoom (if you would like the zoom link reply to this email. I will send it when it is published).
Thank you,
Nick Monaghan
Mendham Township Deputy Mayor
4/30
From my home on N. Gate Rd in Ralston, it took me 50 minutes to drive 11 miles to Summit Health off Park Ave in Florham Park at 11 am yesterday. Think traffic in Mendham and Morris County is bad now? It's only going to get worse.
While Mendham Township is largely exempt from state-mandated large-scale, high-density affordable housing developments until public infrastructure (water and sewage systems) is developed.
Surrounding communities, such as Mendham Borough, are required to meet their affordable housing obligations. The state has no plan to help municipalities address the traffic its high-density affordable housing mandate will create.
The power to stop the madness in New Jersey lies with the Governor, an advocate of high-density, affordable housing, and the State Legislature, a body controlled by the Democrats for the past two decades.
4/28/26
Interesting budget presentation at last night's committee meeting. Thank you to Jason Gabloff, Mayor Neibart, and the finance committee. The municipal portion of our property taxes, including the total trash utility bill, was held to a near-zero increase. After much talk of fiscal restraint and the finance committee's outstanding job, budget amendments were proposed.
Increase the township's $235,000 donation to the library, despite limited information on how the money is spent. There was discussion about the number of programs run by the library, but no data on the need for those programs, how their effectiveness is measured, or how many residents use the library. It was also briefly discussed to fund the library through a tax assessment, similar to the open space tax.
An amendment was proposed to increase the arborist or tree professional budget line item. No job description was discussed. The budgeted amount proposed by the finance committee has historically never been spent. The increase will seemingly be used to enforce the yet-to-be-agreed-upon tree ordinance. Thank you to Deputy Mayor Monaghan for trying to hold the line here.
Both amendments were passed.
Also discussed was the possible need to raise the municipal portion of your property tax in 2027 to increase the fund balance and maintain fiscal stability. The municipality's goal is to maintain a fund balance between 10% and 15%; we are currently at 12.5%. Committeewoman Duarte suggested raising taxes this year.
Watch the meeting on Mendham TV https://www.mendhamtv.org/on-demand
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 23, 2026
Gary Kapner Announces Candidacy for Mendham Township Committee
Mendham Township, NJ – Today, lifelong New Jersey resident and longtime community leader Gary Kapner officially announced his run for the Mendham Township Committee. A Republican committed to preserving the township’s rural character, fiscal responsibility, and high quality of life, Kapner aims to provide strong leadership and common-sense solutions to the five-member governing body.
Kapner currently serves as Chair of the Mendham Township Zoning Board of Adjustment and President of the Oak Knoll Property Owners Association. Since moving to North Gate Road in 2019, he has been actively involved in local land-use decisions and neighborhood preservation. Before Mendham, he served the Borough of New Providence for more than a decade — including 10 years on the Planning Board, and two terms as Borough Councilman..
I am running for Township Committee because Mendham Township deserves leaders who listen, act with integrity, and prioritize residents," said Kapner. “Having served on the Zoning Board and seen firsthand how important balanced, thoughtful governance is for our future, I am prepared to bring that same dedication to the Township Committee. We must protect our open space, keep taxes affordable, support our first responders, protect property rights, and ensure that any growth respects the quiet neighborhoods and rural charm that make Mendham so special.
Kapner, 65, was born in Newark and grew up in West Caldwell. He and his wife, Rachel, have been married for 38 years and own CWI Design, a custom home furnishings company serving clients across the New York metropolitan area, the New Jersey shore, and South Florida. The couple chose Mendham for its large lots, open spaces, and strong sense of community.
For more information www.kapner4mendhamtwp.com