Sayreville's Borough Council voted not to advance a proposed nonbinding referendum asking residents whether Block 252, Lot 2 should be removed from the borough's Housing Element and Fair Share Plan, after the borough attorney and the municipality's planning consultants warned the measure could threaten the town's pending court compliance in the fourth round of affordable-housing review.

The issue surfaced during a special meeting after the borough attorney told the council he had been directed to draft a resolution but had legal concerns about issuing a referendum while the municipality remains in litigation over affordable-housing compliance. "By putting out this referendum ... it could potentially undermine our case with the program, with any objectors" and could expose the borough to builders'remedy litigation, the attorney said.

The attorney and the borough planners urged caution. Peter Vandencois, the borough planner, told the council, "we'd strongly recommend that the borough obtain that court compliance status before doing anything." Dan Levin, a planner with Acuity, warned that removing the site would require the borough either to identify replacement sites or to use significant trust-fund dollars or bonding to create off-site 100% affordable projects, each of which carries cost and implementation implications.

Nut graf: The referendum would have asked whether a specific site identified in the borough's adopted planning documents should be removed from the plan submitted for court review. Council and staff cautioned that taking that step while a court order on the borough's compliance is pending could change the factual record available to objectors and judges and increase the town's legal and fiscal exposure.

Planners described several practical complications if the site were removed. Levin said the borough has already used a vacant land adjustment that reduces its realistic development potential and that removing the age-restricted site could require zoning changes, higher-density overlays on other parcels, or substantial cash subsidies to create replacement units through 100% affordable projects. "The cost for those is significant," he said, and noted those alternatives could trigger a requirement that the borough bond to secure the units if tax-credit allocation or other subsidies do not materialize.

During the public-comment period several residents urged preserving the tract as open space. Jim Robinson, a Parlin resident, said, "Saving open space is not political. Protecting our environment is not political," and urged the council to preserve and acquire the parcel. Other speakers cited local history and prior land-banking by the current owner.

Council members debated legal risk, political pressure and the town's long-term planning options. Multiple council members said they opposed placing the referendum on the ballot after hearing the attorney and planners. After discussion the council did not advance the referendum resolution (the motion's final status was recorded as not adopted at the meeting).

Ending: Council members and planners repeatedly said the borough can amend its Housing Element and Fair Share Plan later, but they recommended obtaining a court compliance order first to secure protection against builders'remedy lawsuits. Council members also discussed pursuing a separate municipal resolution urging state-level reform of the affordable-housing framework, which the council later approved.