Planning board pauses controversial Green Street subdivision after questions about basins, easements and roadway frontage

The Old Bridge Township Planning Board paused and carried testimony on a proposed 19‑lot subdivision off Green Street on May 28 after a late‑arising legal and technical question about whether the new internal roadway would create frontage or variance conditions for neighboring lots.

Attorney Matthew Pada, representing the applicant, said the project has been under review for several years and that the current plan proposes 18 single‑family homes with one environmentally encumbered lot containing wetlands and floodplain. Civil engineer Josh Seawald presented site plans and stormwater designs that include dry wells, infiltration basins and modeled compliance with state standards, including an allowance for projected future storms.

Seawald told the board the plans remove four pre‑existing houses from the riparian/floodplain area and restore that buffer; he said the stormwater systems are designed to reduce post‑development runoff compared with existing wooded conditions and meet New Jersey’s standards for groundwater recharge and quantity control. He added the applicant will form a homeowners’ association (HOA) and a declaration of covenants and restrictions (DCCR) to govern basin maintenance.

Board members, staff, the fire official and public works director expressed substantive concerns about putting basins and maintenance easements across private lots. Planning staff said easements that straddle property lines could become “no‑man’s‑land,” make fences and rear‑yard use impractical, and leave long‑term maintenance and liability to the township if HOA enforcement fails. The public works director said liability and access for basin maintenance are significant issues and cautioned that maintenance equipment could cross private yards.

Another technical point emerged late in testimony: whether the proposed internal cartway would be a public right‑of‑way, a private roadway or a shared driveway. That classification matters because it could change the setback/frontage calculations for adjacent properties and therefore create variance requirements that were not part of the original submission. The board’s attorney advised that the legal/technical question must be resolved before testimony continues.

The board carried the application and a related Tytown matter to the October meeting for further review and directed staff and the applicant to work together to address outstanding technical and legal issues. The public will receive notice if the matter is rescheduled to a different date.