Sayreville planning board adopts amended housing element; owner objects to inclusion of former Rite Aid site

The Borough of Sayreville Planning Board on March 4 adopted an amended fourth‑round housing element and fair share plan designed to meet the municipality’s 240‑unit affordable‑housing obligation, board consultants said.

Dan Levin of Acuity Consulting, the board’s planner for the amendment, told members the borough is “no longer taking what's called a vacant land adjustment” and instead would rely on redevelopment — including a Transit Village designation and expansions at sites such as Gillette Tower and Lakeview — to meet and possibly exceed the obligation. Levin said the plan commits, among other things, to a 60‑unit project on Ernston Road with a 20% affordable set‑aside (12 affordable units) and carries several credits from prior rounds into the fourth round.

Why it matters: The amendment changes how the borough will account for its fair‑share obligation by shifting from a vacant‑land argument to municipal‑led redevelopment and other compliance mechanisms. That approach ties potential affordable housing production to large redevelopment areas, which can affect individual property owners and tenants in those areas.

During the public‑comment portion of the hearing, James Burns of the law firm Dembo, Brown & Burns, representing the owner of 3553 Washington Road (the former Rite Aid), asked that the triangular, roughly 2.4‑acre parcel be excluded from housing yield calculations. “This property is simply not suitable for residential housing, affordable or otherwise,” Burns said, and noted the site is leased to Samex Properties and is the subject of a pending site plan for a commercial reuse.

Tyler Prime, counsel for Spotless Flagship — the proposed tenant for the site — said the company’s model is to “come where they're wanted,” and asked the board to note the owner's objection so the tenant could proceed without fear that redevelopment designations would undercut its investment.

Board members and Acuity staff discussed the potential impact of excluding the parcel. Levin said his analysis had tentatively assigned the site a density of about 25 units per acre, which would have yielded approximately 13 affordable units at a 20% set‑aside; he said the borough’s fourth‑round tables showed a total supply above the 240 obligation (one table listing 277 units), meaning the loss of that site could be absorbed by increasing yields elsewhere or carrying bonus credits forward. Levin cautioned, however, that the mediation agreement with Fair Share Housing Center and the special adjudicator’s terms should be reviewed to confirm there would be no legal consequence to removing a specific parcel.

Several members emphasized process constraints and deadlines in the mediation agreement. The board and counsel advised the owner and tenant that exclusion could be pursued through the redevelopment study and borough council action, that the planning board could note the objection in the hearing record, and that the special adjudicator (Beth McManus) could be consulted for guidance.

The motion to adopt the amended housing element and fair‑share plan passed on a roll‑call vote; board members answered affirmatively when polled and the chair declared the amendment approved. The board recorded the property owner's objections and discussed following up with a redevelopment study or a formal request to the special adjudicator or borough council for exclusion if necessary.

The board’s endorsement is a planning‑board action; Levin and others noted the plan will also be forwarded for council endorsement and may require further review if any mediation agreement amendments are needed.

The board completed several administrative items, voted to cancel its March 18 meeting and adjourned.