The crux of the meeting centered around Old Bridge’s affordable housing obligations, spurred by the 1976 Mount Laurel decision, which requires municipalities to address their affordable housing needs. The township’s planner, Vina Savin, outlined the township’s history of compliance with previous rounds and introduced the fourth round housing element and fair share housing plan. This new regulatory cycle was prompted by Governor Murphy’s 2024 regulations, which aim to streamline the process for municipalities to meet their obligations.

Old Bridge’s present need was assessed at 318 units, with a projected need of 685 units from 2025 to 2035. However, Savin challenged this figure, arguing that it was derived from aerial imagery that overlooked environmental constraints. Her analysis proposed reducing the obligation to 333 units, but a court ruling ultimately set the requirement at 673 units. This necessitated the development of a comprehensive housing plan to meet the obligations, as fair housing regulations stipulate that a portion of new development must include affordable housing.

A significant part of the discussion revolved around the township’s strategies to meet these obligations. Savin presented a vacant land analysis, evaluating approximately 1,700 parcels to determine realistic development potential. This analysis identified only 40 private parcels viable for development after excluding those under conservation easements or owned by the municipal utility authority. The planning board focused on bridging the gap between the assigned obligation and realistic potential, having historically rehabilitated five to six units annually, with increased activity during the pandemic.

Several projects were highlighted as part of the housing plan. Approved developments included a project on Poor Farm Road with 35 units, seven of which are designated as affordable, and the Oak Tree Plaza project, contributing five credits towards the affordable housing requirement. Age-restricted housing developments were also mentioned, such as a project on Old Matawan Road contributing ten additional credits.

A contentious point arose during discussions about the state’s approach to identifying developable land. State authorities mandated that a small piece of land near the police parking lot, approximately 10 feet wide, be developed, despite local representatives arguing it was merely a side lawn. This directive was part of a broader state mandate that overlooked local opinions and conditions, leading to approximately 564 potential appeals against such state directives. Officials expressed frustration, stating that the state disregards local input, with one remarking, “The state is mandating this to be done. They don’t care what the township engineer, the township planner, the zoning officer, or the elected council has to say.”

The meeting also covered potential development sites aimed at meeting the housing needs. These included underutilized properties such as a residential zone property on Texas Road and a significant tract near Plaza Grande. The township explored sites like the transit village near major commercial centers, eligible for additional development credits, and the Summers landfill, identified for potential residential development.

A legal appeal concerning the township’s affordable housing obligation was also noted, with an ongoing motion for a stay to delay the housing plan adoption pending resolution. However, the motion was denied, necessitating compliance with the court’s assigned numbers.

The board’s dialogue included the importance of balancing development with community needs, noting past negotiations that adjusted proposals to fit the township’s character better. A member highlighted previous decisions, such as opting for developments that align with the town’s long-term well-being, avoiding excessive residential units that would strain local infrastructure.

The meeting continued with discussions on specific development applications, like Vision Bridge for Urban Renewal LLC, which proposed 14 affordable housing units. Modifications were made to address community concerns, such as increasing setbacks from property lines, ultimately leading to a request for preliminary approval.

In another application, Oldbridge Regency Village LLC sought a minor subdivision for tax purposes without altering the existing operational dynamics. Despite these technical adjustments, the board ensured all existing operational arrangements, such as easements for parking and utilities, remained intact.