Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents press council over transparency as it considers redevelopment designation for Inman Avenue site

Edison Township Council · August 28, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council took public comment on Resolution 487, which would designate Fairway Country LLC as the redeveloper for property around the golf range on Inman Avenue. Speakers asked who the principals are, whether the draft agreement is publicly available before adoption, and whether the proposal adheres to zoning and density limits in the redevelopment plan.

The Edison Township Council heard extended public comment on Resolution 487 on Aug. 28, a measure that would designate Fairway Country LLC as the redeveloper for the area around the golf range on Inman Avenue.

Resident Nick Fagan pressed for transparency: “Can you tell me more about the principals of Fairway Country LLC?” Council and legal counsel responded that draft redevelopment agreements are treated as draft work product and, under counsel’s advice, are not subject to public disclosure until after adoption. "Draft agreements are not subject to OPRA," counsel said; after adoption, the public may access the draft.

Fagan also asked whether the redevelopment agreement specifies unit counts or density limits. Councilmember Forner and others said the agreement before council did not set a specific required unit number and that the redeveloper still must seek planning‑board approvals consistent with the redevelopment plan. Councilmember Pointer explained this authorization is “technically the second‑to‑last step” before a developer goes to the planning board for site‑level approvals.

Several residents expressed unease about proceeding without seeing the final agreement and asked for clarity about the developer’s principals and the expected housing type; councilmembers said those details are available in the redevelopment plan and that the planning board will review specific site plans. The council did not adopt a redevelopment agreement at the meeting; the item remained subject to process and further review.

Next steps: If council adopts the resolution, the redevelopment agreement would become public and the developer would still need planning‑board approvals consistent with the redevelopment plan.