Piscataway Council approves first reading of Affordable Housing 7AH‑7 zoning amid neighborhood protests

The Piscataway Township Council on June 30 approved on first reading an ordinance to establish an Affordable Housing 7AH‑7 zoning district — a step officials said is required by a court settlement to meet the township’s affordable‑housing obligations.

Township attorney Raj told the council the ordinance is time‑sensitive under ongoing litigation and settlement oversight and urged the council to pass first reading to preserve the town’s legal position. “We have worked hard working with the developer to lower that number so far. Right now, we’ve agreed with them at 50 units,” Raj said, adding that the ordinance’s zoning maximum lists 83 units but the negotiated development is expected to be smaller.

Why it matters: officials said failing to move forward could expose the township to “builders’ remedies,” meaning developers could challenge local density limits in court and seek higher‑density approvals. The attorney said the town has negotiated design, parking and traffic mitigations with the current developer and that township planners and outside counsel are working intensively to limit neighborhood impacts.

Residents pressed safety and scale concerns during public comment. “This issue is about the housing project being too large for this location. It is close to the school, only a half a block away, 400 feet,” resident Andrew Morris said, arguing the added vehicle trips would endanger children. Saiu Ahmed, another resident, said, “Our children’s lives are absolute, non‑negotiable,” and urged the council to halt the proposed high density at that site.

Council members sought clarifications on process and timing. Officials said the ordinance will go to the planning board for review after first reading and that property owners within 200 feet will be notified when the developer submits detailed plans. The administration cited a court deadline to demonstrate progress — the attorney said he had been told a July 31 deadline to meet certain settlement milestones — and the council scheduled second reading and a public hearing for July 21, 2026. The administration also agreed to a resident meeting, provisionally set for July 20 and offered to move it earlier if residents requested.

Votes and procedure: Councilmember Gabrielle Cahill moved to accept first reading and Councilmember Uhrin seconded. Roll call recorded Cahill (yes), Carmichael (no), Espinosa (yes), Liebowitz (abstain), Rashid (abstain), Uhrin (yes) and President Lombardi (yes); the motion passed (4–1, 2 abstentions). Earlier in the meeting Councilwoman Sharon Carmichael had asked that the item be postponed so residents could meet with the mayor; the attorney explained the litigation timetable and recommended moving forward with first reading.

What’s next: The ordinance goes to the planning board for review after first reading; detailed development plans (if submitted) will be noticed and subject to public hearing at the planning board. The council’s second reading and public hearing on the ordinance is scheduled for July 21, 2026; the administration also expects to meet with residents about neighborhood concerns before that second reading.

Authorities and limits: the council framed the ordinance as part of compliance with court‑ordered fair‑share housing obligations (referenced in meeting remarks as the fourth‑round fair‑share process and related settlement). Officials emphasized that the first reading does not authorize construction — actual building proposals and required traffic/utility studies will be evaluated when and if the developer files a planning application.