The debate around the referendum focused on a property identified as block 252 lot 2, which is integral to the borough’s current affordable housing plan. A council member highlighted the potential risks of moving forward with the referendum. The member explained that any amendments to the plan should be postponed until the borough secures a favorable court order to avoid exposing the municipality to “builder’s remedy” lawsuits—legal actions that could force approval of undesirable developments if the borough fails to meet its affordable housing obligations.

A planner corroborated these concerns, advising against altering the housing plan without court compliance. He noted the challenges of replacing the contentious site with alternative land, given the borough’s limited available space. The planner emphasized that removing the site could complicate planning processes and increase financial burdens, especially if bonding becomes necessary to accommodate the housing plan’s requirements.

Public criticism also emerged during the meeting, targeting the mayor and perceived political maneuvering within the borough’s governance. One resident accused the mayor of favoritism, citing the creation of a “secret dark money committee” and subsequent appointments that raised ethical questions. Allegations extended to the appointment of a law firm that had contributed to a political fund as the borough attorney and the replacement of a local engineer with an Ocean County firm linked to the Republican chairman.

The resident further criticized the mayor’s influence over council votes. The speaker urged the council to consider the historical context of political decisions in Sayreville and called for transparency and accountability in governance.

The council also grappled with broader issues related to affordable housing. A council member noted the borough’s historical neglect in addressing affordable housing laws, which has led to legal disputes and the approval of developments contrary to zoning laws. The member stressed the need to comply with affordable housing requirements, highlighting the potential for using existing properties for affordable housing, though such conversions would demand substantial funding.

Discussions on the proposed referendum underscored skepticism about its necessity and effectiveness. Some council members argued that the referendum would not resolve the underlying issues of the affordable housing program, while others expressed support for a resolution to convey the borough’s dissatisfaction with the current structure of the program and advocate for legislative reform.

Infrastructure concerns were another focal point of the meeting, with residents raising issues about local parks and the borough’s ability to handle population growth from new housing developments. One resident highlighted the need for improvements at Jackson Avenue Park and Kennedy Park, citing accessibility challenges and inadequate tree coverage.

Another resident expressed concern about the borough’s sewer system, particularly in light of recent flooding caused by heavy rainstorms. The council member assured that infrastructure improvements are planned in conjunction with road reconstruction projects and that developers are required to address infrastructural inadequacies before new constructions are approved.

The meeting concluded with discussions on the condition of the local dog park, with suggestions for enhancements such as synthetic turf to improve the park’s usability. The council member encouraged residents to provide feedback and contact information for follow-up on these community concerns.