The Edison Municipal Council on Sept. 10 adopted ordinances authorizing acquisition and transfer of a parcel in the Thomas Place redevelopment area to a redeveloper, part of a multi-step plan to replace a long-vacant gas-station site and adjacent property.

The clerk read an ordinance authorizing acquisition of Block 692.05, Lot 8.03 and transfer to a redeveloper under the Thomas Place redevelopment agreement. A public commenter asked whether the acquisition would cost the township money, whether the ordinance constitutes a pass-through and whether any of the proposed 66 housing units would be designated as affordable.

A township attorney and staff said the transfer is expected to be treated as a pass-through; the attorney said the question of affordable housing on the 66 units had not yet been decided and that set‑asides or designations would be addressed through the redeveloper agreement and planning-board process. The attorney noted that the site still requires planning-board site-plan approval before construction can proceed.

Council members described the property as a longstanding blight — a former gas station and motel site along Route 1 — and voiced support for moving the stalled site toward redevelopment and new housing, including senior housing. The council discussed due diligence steps such as environmental review for the former gas-station parcel; the council vice president said he had followed the matter and that the township had ensured the agreement would not make the township liable for remediation costs.

Later in the meeting, several residents asked broader questions about Edison’s affordable-housing obligations and litigation. One resident summarized the township’s past and current legal approach and read excerpts from a court order that, he said, references a presumptively valid DCA (Department of Community Affairs) calculation establishing a prospective need of 727 units. He asked how the township’s declaratory-judgment litigation and decision to litigate rather than enter the state’s dispute-resolution program affects the town’s exposure to builder’s‑remedy suits and costs for planning experts, noting that other municipalities used the dispute-resolution route earlier in the year.

Township counsel responded that the litigation is ongoing and that the administration believes the DCA number is unreasonable; the attorney said the township’s action seeks a court determination of an appropriate number and stressed that commonly the court process includes a special master and may allow intervening parties. Counsel said the township currently retains a measure of immunity under the court’s order while the case proceeds and that the intervention of other parties is routine in such litigation.

Council members asked planning and legal staff to continue coordinating with the planning board and with counsel as the redeveloper agreement and site plan move forward. The council adopted the ordinances authorizing the acquisition and the funding appropriation tied to the redevelopment transfer; the planning board retains final site-plan authority and any affordable-housing set-asides remain to be determined by the planning process and applicable law.