Southampton Township endorses plan naming ‘Stokes Property’ for affordable housing, amid resident concerns

The Southampton Township Committee unanimously voted June 27 to endorse Resolution 2025-89, the municipality’s Fourth Round Housing Element and Fair Share Plan, designating the Stokes Property as the Township’s area of redevelopment to satisfy state affordable-housing obligations.

Mayor Ronald Heston opened a public hearing on the resolution and stressed that endorsement at this stage is a designation only and not a developer application or building approval. Township Administrator Brandon Umba said any developer proposal would go before the Land Development Board and that, under current practice, roadway and infrastructure work would be the developer’s responsibility.

The plan as presented by ERI, Inc. calls for 44 new units and 33 rehabilitation units; Township Attorney George Morris said 44 new units is the maximum obligation the Township is responsible for in this round. Administrator Umba told residents that developers who do not build units in the Township historically may pay in-lieu funds to the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (DCA) instead of building local units.

Residents used the hearing to press officials on multiple local impacts. Bill Cozzi asked who would maintain roads after construction; Umba replied that roads would be the developer’s responsibility and that any significant road changes would require county or state approval. Several residents, including Pat Topham, raised concerns that narrow local streets such as Mill Street and parts of North Main Street cannot safely absorb higher traffic volumes. Umba said Main Street is a county route and Route 206 is a state road and that the Township could not unilaterally declare those corridors one-way.

Sewer capacity was another recurring issue. Michael Mooney and others questioned sanitary sewer availability and fees; Umba said connection fees would be charged based on usage, and Committeeman James Young noted the Township’s prior requirement that Wawa pay for three sewer laterals annually. Residents also asked whether the Stokes Property had been remediated; Mayor Heston said the property owner is working with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection on remediation and that a Licensed Site Remediation Professional (L.S.R.P.) is involved in delineating wetlands and uplands.

Members of the public also raised concerns about school capacity. Betty Wright, who identified herself as a member of the Board of Education, asked that the school district be kept informed as planning proceeds; Heston said the Committee would keep the schools apprised. Other commenters asked about protections for a nearby fossil field and whether the proposed concept — which the property owner had shown as an example and which mentioned a possible partnership with the Michaels Organization — would include commercial uses under residential units; officials said the Committee was only identifying a site and that detailed use and design standards would be set through redevelopment approvals.

Several procedural and timing issues emerged in the hearing. ERI representatives noted that an appendix showing multiple potential properties in prior rounds was removed for clarity and that this round identifies only the Stokes Property. Resident Tom Haluszczak asked about a 48-hour window to submit the plan; Township counsel George Morris said the governing body needed to endorse the plan by June 30 to avoid exposure to a builders’ remedy and that the judge denied a request for more time. Morris also said endorsing the plan confers 10 years of immunity for the Township.

After the public hearing, Committeeman William Raftery moved to approve Resolution 2025-89; Deputy Mayor Elizabeth Rossell seconded the motion. At roll call, Committeemen Arnold Harrison, William Raftery, James Young, Deputy Mayor Rossell and Mayor Heston voted yes, and the resolution passed unanimously. The endorsement advances the Township’s legal compliance with state affordable-housing obligations but does not itself authorize construction; any developer must submit plans and secure approvals through the Land Development Board and required state agencies. The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.