Politics & Government

Neighbors Sue Raritan Over Agway Site Redevelopment Plan

Two Raritan residents say the borough acted unlawfully in adopting a redevelopment plan for 77 Thompson St.

Two Raritan residents have filed a lawsuit against the borough over its approval of a redevelopment plan for the former Raritan Valley Agway Garden Center off Thompston Street.
Two Raritan residents have filed a lawsuit against the borough over its approval of a redevelopment plan for the former Raritan Valley Agway Garden Center off Thompston Street. (Google Maps)

RARITAN, NJ — Two Raritan residents have filed a lawsuit against the borough over its approval of a redevelopment plan for the former Raritan Valley Agway Garden Center off Thompston Street.

The complaint was filed May 21 in the Somerset County Superior Court by Brittany Eriksson and Ryne Timms, who live at 1 La Grange Street, directly across from the Agway property at 77 Thompson St.

The Borough Council adopted an ordinance on April 7, which amended the redevelopment plan for the property as a non-condemnation area in need of redevelopment.

Find out what's happening in Bridgewaterfor free with the latest updates from Patch.

The plan initially proposed for the property included a four-story mixed-use apartment building with 75 units. It was then scaled down to three stories and 60 units on just over an acre of property.

The lawsuit says the property is in the R-4 Medium High Density Residential Zoning District.

Find out what's happening in Bridgewaterfor free with the latest updates from Patch.

It states the amended redevelopment plan changed bulk standards by reducing the front yard setback from 25 feet to five feet, reducing combined side yard setbacks to 10 feet, increasing maximum building height from 35 feet to 52 feet, and increasing maximum impervious coverage from 35 percent to 95 percent.

The filing also states the amended redevelopment plan permits uses beyond those allowed in the R-4 zone, including commercial, general business and retail stores, personal service establishments, and public and private parks.

The lawsuit also recounts Planning Board reviews in March 2026. According to the complaint, the board found issues remained with proposed setbacks in the redevelopment ordinance, while the Borough Council later concluded the setbacks were adequate and that any remaining issues should be addressed during site plan review.

Eriksson and Timms are asking the court to declare the ordinance and resolution invalid and contrary to law.

They are also seeking attorney's fees, costs, and other relief, and include claims tied to spot zoning, the Open Public Meetings Act, and alleged violations of property rights under New Jersey law.

See the lawsuit below:

Civil Case Jacket by Alexis Tarrazi

Have a news tip? Email alexis.tarrazi@patch.com.

Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.