Middletown adopts ordinance implementing settlement, allows up to 136 townhomes on Nut Swamp and preserves Red Hill as open space

MIDDLETOWN — The Middletown Township Committee voted Jan. 20 to adopt an ordinance implementing a court‑entered settlement that allows a maximum of 136 townhome units on the Nut Swamp property and transfers the Red Hill Road parcel to the township to be preserved as open space.

Township attorney Brian Nelson summarized the litigation history before the committee, saying the matter began in 2022 when a developer sought permission to build 478 rental units across two parcels. Courts and a court‑appointed special adjudicator reduced the realistic development opportunity; Nelson said the adjudicator’s May 2025 report and subsequent settlement limited development to 136 townhomes on the Nut Swamp site and provided for donation of the Red Hill parcel to the township as open space. “This is solely on the ordinance that would allow for a maximum of 136 townhome units to be built only on the Nut Swamp site, and nothing further,” Nelson told the committee.

Why it matters: The decision resolves a protracted builder’s‑remedy dispute that town officials said required extraordinary legal and technical work over several years. The settlement narrows the scale of potential development compared with the developer’s original proposal and sets detailed, restrictive zoning standards that township counsel described as more prescriptive than typical ordinances.

Public concerns and process: The meeting featured extended public comment from neighbors worried about transparency, traffic, school capacity and the long‑term affordability and management of included affordable units. Two residents, Sofia and Olivia Raciope, asked the committee to preserve the open land, saying it “is one of the last remaining pieces of natural environment in our town.” Resident Sean McGrath said he was surprised that the settlement contemplates for‑sale townhomes rather than rentals and pressed officials about when the special adjudicator’s findings became known. Nelson said the adjudicator’s report was issued in May 2025 and that settlement negotiations were confidential until finalization.

On transparency, several residents requested that the township publish non‑privileged expert reports filed during litigation. Officials said reports filed with the court are public record and the township will work with its communications team to make reports available and respond to OPRA requests. “The reports that were filed with the court are all public record,” Nelson said.

Legal context: Nelson repeatedly framed the ordinance as required by court order and settlement negotiations governed by Mount Laurel‑related jurisprudence and recent state amendments to the Fair Housing Act. He warned that objectors sometimes risk increasing the number of units if litigation is reopened: “Be careful what you wish for,” he said, noting the Fair Share Housing Center has filed a motion seeking more units and is an automatic intervener by Supreme Court order.

Vote and next steps: After public comment the committee moved and seconded the ordinance and recorded a roll‑call vote: Committeewoman Kratz — yes; Committeeman Sedambrino — yes; Mayor Perry — yes. The motion carried to adopt the ordinance on second and final reading. Nelson and other officials said the ordinance only establishes zoning standards; any detailed traffic, environmental and engineering questions will be addressed if and when a formal site‑plan application is filed with the planning board, which will notify neighbors within 200 feet by certified mail and accept public testimony and cross‑examination of professionals.

The township also noted the Fair Share Housing Center filed a motion to reopen the case and seek more units; Nelson said a hearing on that motion was scheduled later in the month and the township intends to oppose that motion. The planning‑board site‑plan process — not the township committee’s ordinance vote — will be the venue for detailed engineering, stormwater, traffic and school‑impact reviews.

What the ordinance does not do: Committee members and counsel stressed that the vote does not approve a site plan, alter specific engineering decisions, or set final unit sizes or prices. Those details will be established later in planning‑board review if an applicant files a site‑plan application.

The committee encouraged residents to attend upcoming planning‑board hearings to review expert reports and provide testimony. The ordinance was adopted Jan. 20, 2026; introductions of other ordinances and a consent agenda passed later in the same meeting.