Major Land Use Changes Advance in Berkeley Heights as OPRA Dispute and Transparency Questions Surface

Laura’s Notes on the March 3 Berkeley Heights Town Council Meeting

The meeting of the Town Council on March 3 saw two impactful ordinances that promise to fundamentally change Berkeley Heights for decades presented for initial adoption.

Members of the pubic presented concerns over land use and the possible negative environmental impacts of building and urged council to take proper steps to ensure all buildings in our Township be guided by the towns master plan.  A concern was also raised regarding the allowance of impervious surface allowance for the property at Connell.  A consultant from Harbour was present and reassured the public that all planning is being considerate of the existing master plan and commented that approximately 600 apartments are slated for the Connell property.

During the adoption of resolutions, particularly a settlement agreement regarding an OPRA case (which the Township – and District lost) Council VP Poage made a comment about what she claims to be “Serial OPRA Requesters” and how ‘they’ are taking valuable time and money from the Township. She voted against paying the bill.  

The Township Administrator claimed that there have been “erroneous” comments made regarding the new buildings being PILOTS.  We attempted to locate these claims and were unable to find them.  She also mentioned that referring to the CMS Sports Complex project as a ‘sports complex’ was misinformation, yet this was a term used by Harbor Consultants in a letter to the Township.

I have reached out to Mrs. Poage and Ms. Viana (on 3/3/26) to obtain insight into their remarks, they have not replied.  

Email to Council-member Susan Poage:

Good evening, Susan.

At tonight’s council meeting you referred to a local journalist and taxpayer as being one “of a few” “SERIAL OPRA REQUESTORS.”

1. Can you please identify what you designate as “serial” in terms of OPRA request?
2. Can you please identify how many OPRA requests Mr. Migueis made that constitutes “serial” behavior?

You also made a comment that these “serial requesters” are taking away township funding.

1. Did council members vote in favor of fighting Mr. Migueis’ OPRA case?
2. Could the Township have immediately settled, remitted the requested documents, and spared the township spending any money on frivolous expenses?

In terms of transparency, which you claim is of utmost importance to you as an elected official, are you aware of the struggles residents face in obtaining simple records and documents?

1. Would you be in favor of a system that remitted documents on the first ask or making documents and records readily available for the public?
2. Similarly, why are settlement agreement added to agendas at the last minute and used as your personal soap box to talk about a commitment to being transparent instead of enacting it.
3. And, where was your commitment to transparency regarding the multiple DEP citations made at our wastewater treatment facility regarding matters of public health and safety?

Thank you and I look forward to your response.

Laura Kapuscinski
Editor, NJ21st

Email to Township Administrator Liza Viana:

Good evening, Ms. Viana.

I wanted to address a few comments from tonight’s council meeting and request your response to each.

1. You mentioned members of the community were “erroneously” referring to the Lower Columbia project as a “sports complex.” This term was first used (and not corrected) at a December 2025 Council meeting. And, as you are likely aware, a letter from the townships consultants refers to the project as a “sports complex.” So, can you please explain where these erroneous statements are being made and set the record straight?
2. You also mentioned that there are inaccuracies surrounding some members of the public claiming the proposed housing developments are PILOTS. Can you please cite where this information came from?

Laura Kapuscinski
Editor, NJ21st

When asked about Ms. Poage’s comments, NJ21st Editor John Migueis indicated he would welcome a one to one, public discussion with Ms. Poage on the OPRA case and plans to publish a statement in the future.