The East Brunswick Township Council will hold a public hearing on Ordinance 26-25 tonight. The same agenda has two emergency repair contracts, a $1.1 million road-paving bond and a new police superior officers contract.
Township Council meeting: Monday, Sept. 28, 2026, 7:30 p.m., Municipal Courtroom, East Brunswick Municipal Building, 1 Jean Walling Civic Center. The full agenda and packet are posted on the township’s website.
The Brunswick Square redevelopment plan comes back to the East Brunswick Township Council tonight for a public hearing and final vote. That is the second and final step for Ordinance 26-25, which the Council introduced 5–0 on Sept. 14.
If adopted, the plan becomes the zoning for four lots at the mall property on Route 18, about 47.7 acres. It would replace the township’s regular zoning rules there. The plan covers the central mall building and the small retail building at 1177 Route 18 (Phase I), and the former Macy’s and the Olive Garden parcel (Phase II).
We covered the basics in our August report on the Sept. 30 deadline, our preview of the Sept. 14 meeting and what residents said that night. Tonight’s packet adds something new: the plan attached to the ordinance is not word-for-word the plan that was in the Sept. 14 packet.
What changed in the plan
The plan in the Sept. 14 packet was stamped “DRAFT” and dated August 2026. The plan in tonight’s packet is dated September 2026 and is not marked draft. Eyes On EB compared the two documents line by line. Much of the rewording is formatting and cleanup, but several changes affect what could be built and who pays for it.
The traffic signal. Both versions require a new traffic signal at Rues Lane and Hillsdale Road. The Sept. 14 version said “the Phase II Redeveloper” would be responsible “for all costs associated with the design and installation of the traffic signal.” Tonight’s version assigns the job to “the Redeveloper(s) of Phase I and/or Phase II” and makes them responsible “for costs associated with” the signal. The word “all” is gone. A new sentence says “the specific responsibilities of the Redeveloper(s) and the Township shall be finalized as part of a Redeveloper Agreement.” The plan does not say the township will pay any part of the cost. It leaves that question to a later agreement.
Route 18 setback. The minimum distance between a commercial building and Route 18 drops from 35 feet to 25 feet. The 250-foot setback for the residential building is unchanged.
A required public plaza. The Sept. 14 version showed a “new public plaza / open space” on its concept map but had no specific requirement. Tonight’s version requires a publicly accessible plaza of at least 10,000 square feet in Phase II, generally between the two new retail buildings, with seating, shade and space for community use.
Signs. The Sept. 14 version set hard limits: no more than three freestanding signs along Route 18 and two along Rues Lane, and pylon signs up to 35 feet tall. Tonight’s version replaces those counts with a sign-location map. It says “some variation in location and/or number of signs may be permitted” through a common signage plan and a redeveloper agreement. The tallest pylon sign allowed drops to 30 feet. Review of signs for the residential building moves from the Planning Board to the Redevelopment Agency.
Fast food. The Sept. 14 version listed “fast-food restaurants” among permitted uses and banned only “freestanding” fast-food restaurants with drive-throughs. Tonight’s version drops fast food from the permitted list and bans all “fast-food restaurants with drive-through facilities.”
Lighting. Dark Sky-compliant LED lighting was “encouraged” in the Sept. 14 version. Tonight’s version says it “shall be provided.”
Smaller changes. Tonight’s version adds that a second NJ Transit bus stop “should be considered,” with the redeveloper’s and the township’s roles set in the redeveloper agreement. It also raises the minimum size of a new pad-site building from 4,000 to 4,500 square feet.
How the changes are being handled
The ordinance in tonight’s packet is still headed “INTRO: SEPTEMBER 14, 2026.” At the Sept. 14 meeting, Mayor Brad Cohen said “a lot of this was done with updates and changes up until this morning.” So the text the Council introduced that night may not have matched the packet posted in advance. Which version the Council is voting on, and how the changes are being treated, is a fair question for tonight. Eyes On EB is not drawing a legal conclusion about it.
The Planning Board, which must review the plan for consistency with the township’s master plan, listed a presentation and a resolution on the plan on its Sept. 23 agenda. The Board’s report is not in tonight’s packet, and its minutes from that meeting are not yet posted.
Township Attorney Anthony Iacocca said on Sept. 14 that a court order in the township’s affordable housing case requires the plan to be adopted by Sept. 30. Eyes On EB has not yet seen that order.
What did not change
Both versions of the plan:
- cap housing at 250 units, all in Phase II, with no residential units allowed in Phase I;
- require at least 20% of the units to be affordable;
- limit the residential building to four stories or 55 feet;
- stay in effect for 30 years;
- permit eminent domain, because the area was designated a “condemnation” redevelopment area in 2025, while stating that “no acquisition is anticipated at this time”;
- contain no PILOT or other financial-agreement language. Officials said on Sept. 14 that any financial terms would come later, after a redeveloper is chosen.
The 300-versus-250 question
The township’s revised Housing Element and Fair Share Plan from February 2026 lists Brunswick Square as “Minimum of 300 rental and/or sale units with 20% affordable set-aside.” The plan up for a vote tonight caps the site at 250.
Asked about that on Sept. 14, planner Kate Keller of Phillips Preiss Grygiel Leheny Keller, who prepared the plan, said the site was zoned for a maximum of 250 “because we believe we can meet those other 50 units elsewhere in the township on other sites.” Which sites was not said. The question remains open.
Emergency contract: Nenninger Lane water and sewer mains (Resolution 26-292)
On Sept. 9, according to a certification by Business Administrator Joseph Criscuolo in the packet, a private contractor installing a sewer connection for a new house on Nenninger Lane exposed too long a stretch of the street’s asbestos-cement water main without supporting it. The main collapsed, and the sewer main broke as well. The certification says “the entire street was without water and fire protection.” Township crews “worked through the night to restore water service to the block.” The certification names the contractor as Salinas Supreme Excavating and describes its work as “extremely poor practice.” It says the sewer was too deep for township equipment and “remains compromised.”
Resolution 26-292 approves an emergency contract, without public bidding, with Black Rock Enterprises LLC of Old Bridge, capped at $100,000. The certification puts the estimated cost at $103,294.59.
At the Sept. 14 meeting, Criscuolo told the Council the repair was “not going to be borne by the cost of the township” and that “we plan to bill the contractor and his insurance company.” The resolution and certification in tonight’s packet do not mention billing the contractor or recovering the money.
Emergency contract: police entrance slab (Resolution 26-291)
A second emergency contract with Black Rock, capped at $60,000, covers repairs at the police station entrance in the municipal building. On Sept. 17, rusted steel decking under the concrete slab failed in a section directly under the Police Department’s front vestibule “and the above office.” Criscuolo certified that it “posed an unhealthy and unsafe condition for members of the public.” The packet does not say whether anyone was hurt or whether the entrance is closed.
Both emergency contracts are on the consent agenda. Black Rock also holds the township’s 2026 pavement contract, which the Council awarded in April.
$1.1 million road-paving bond (Ordinance 26-26)
The Council will introduce a bond ordinance for “road repaving of various roads.” It appropriates $1,100,000: a $55,000 down payment and $1,045,000 in bonds or notes. The roads are “set forth on a list on file in the Office of the Engineer”; the list is not in the packet.
The ordinance’s title says “$1,045,700.00 in bonds or notes,” while the body of the ordinance and the agenda both say $1,045,000. The public hearing is scheduled for Oct. 12.
Police superior officers contract (Resolution 26-293)
The Council is also set to approve a new contract with the Superior Officers Association, which covers the police department’s superior officers. It runs from Jan. 1, 2026, through Dec. 31, 2029. The previous contract expired Dec. 31, 2025. The resolution says the agreement covers rates of pay, compensatory time off and health benefits, but the packet does not include any of its terms. It says copies are on file in the Municipal Clerk’s Office.
Other business
The rest of the consent agenda includes:
- permission for the Winter Wonder Lights holiday display at the Middlesex County Fairgrounds, Nov. 20 through Jan. 3;
- two property-tax cancellations for 100% disabled veterans;
- a property-maintenance lien and a tax-lien redemption refund;
- a bill list totaling $3,673,280.16.
Consent items pass together in one vote unless a council member asks to pull one for separate discussion.
Tonight
Ordinance 26-25 is scheduled for its public hearing and final vote tonight. Council President Dana Zimbicki will open the floor to the public on the ordinance before the vote. Residents can also speak during the general public comment period later in the meeting, which is limited to five minutes per speaker. Eyes On EB will report the outcome.
