JACKSON – Multiple ordinances establishing specific zones for development in alignment with the township’s recent updated master plan in reference to affordable housing were approved during the latest council meeting despite a Pinelands Commission recommendation to table them.
The Township Council submitted Ordinances 2025-47 and 2025-48 on November 13 that would establish the AH-III and AH-III A Affordable Housing Overlay Zones within the Pinelands area portion of Jackson.
A roundtable forum was not required by law but it was held anyway to provide further public discussion on the subject. The public hearing and final passage of the ordinances was held during a December 16 council meeting. Council President Mordechai Burnstein, Council Vice President Giuseppe Palmeri and Councilman Ken Bressi voted in favor of the ordinances while new Councilman Christopher Pollak voted against it. Councilman Nino Borrelli was absent.
What Is An Overlay Zone?
Every parcel of land is in a zone that determines what is allowed to be built there. An overlay zone is another layer placed on land. It allows additional types of development on that property.
A property owner has the option to develop under the pre-existing zoning, or with the type of development permitted by the overlay. Site plan approval is still required.
According to Council President Mordechai Burnstein “overlay zoning gives the property owner the chance to assess whether the existing zoning – or the overlay zoning with higher density and the affordable requirement will yield more money. As with any neighboring development, the value of the adjacent properties may be increased or decreased depending on the nature of the development, whether the new development heightens or reduces desire to live in the area.”
Affordable Housing Agreement
By law, every town in New Jersey is required to provide for a certain number of housing units for people of low-to-moderate income. The number is calculated by a complicated formula every 10 years.
The 1,000-unit affordable housing obligation agreement was negotiated by former Mayor Michael Reina with Fair Share Housing Center which set the Township’s Fourth Round number at 750 and reduced the Township’s Third Round gap obligation from 600 units to 230.
This agreement was negotiated with the assistance of the Affordable Housing Counsel and then approved by the entire Council last year. The township formed a Master Plan Subcommittee and developers were invited to submit concept plans for potential inclusionary developments.
Consideration was focused on environmental impacts, traffic patterns, impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods, and best possible access to public transportation. As is standard for any potential development, all outside agency approvals, including environmental, are required and if they are not obtained, the project cannot proceed.
The landowners/developers whose properties were among the 17 sites included in the overlay zones can be found within the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan located at the following link: jacksontwpnj.net/DocumentCenter/View/17679/2025-Jackson-HEFSP-?bidId=
Pinelands Commission Letter
Adam Haidi, founder of the Jackson Conservation Coalition contacted the Pinelands Commission as a concerned resident and told The Jackson Times that he believes there has been a lack of transparency regarding this issue.
“Jackson Township is currently clear-cutting approximately 811 acres while neglecting existing apartment and redevelopment opportunities, relying instead on the designation of environmentally sensitive lands as ‘vacant’ – despite residents asking for this infrastructure to be excluded from the obligation.” he added.
Haidi said, “this is especially concerning given that residents specifically asked about outside agency approvals and environmental objections during the recent housing ‘roundtable’ event, and no mention was made of the Commission’s December 4 letter. Had I not reached out independently, this information would likely have remained undisclosed.”
He added, “residents deserve to know what is happening behind the scenes and how critical environmental constraints are being dismissed in decisions that will permanently reshape the community.”
The Pinelands Commission hadn’t made any final determinations regarding the ordinances’ consistency with the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) prior to the council’s final vote. The Commission sent a letter to the township on December 4 outlining substantial concerns with the introduced ordinances as they related to the CMP.
New Jersey Pinelands Commission Communications Officer Paul Leakan told The Jackson Times on December 16 prior to the council meeting, “We haven’t received any response from the Township to our December 4, 2025 letter regarding Ordinances 2025-47 and 2025-48.”
“Nor has the Commission been advised as to whether or when the Township intends to proceed with adoption of the ordinances. No meetings between the Township and the Commission have been held or scheduled since the letter was transmitted,” Leakan added.
According to the December 4 letter sent by Pinelands Commission Executive Director Susan R. Grogan to Mayor Jennifer Kuhn, Burnstein and the township’s attorney and planner, “the Pinelands Protection Act and the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) require that any amendment to the township’s certified master plan or land use ordinances affecting the Pinelands Area be reviewed and certified by the Pinelands Commission before it may take effect.”
Ordinances Must Be Reviewed Together
Because Ordinances 2025-47 and 2025-48 are intended to implement the township’s fourth round Housing Element and Fair Share Plan, the ordinances, the housing plan, and any other implementing ordinances of the housing plan affecting the Pinelands Area must be reviewed together,” Grogan explained.
She noted that Jackson officials had not yet submitted its Fourth Round Housing Element and Fair Share Plan to the Commission and that while these ordinances remain pending adoption, “the township should submit the housing plan as soon as possible. It would also assist our review to know whether any additional implementing ordinances affecting the Pinelands Area portion of the township will be forthcoming.”
Ordinances 2025-47 and 2025-48 establishes an affordable housing overlay zone with identical zoning standards. The only difference between the ordinances is the specific lands included within each overlay. Grogan stated that both overlays permit inclusionary mixed-use residential development and that townhouses are permitted at a density of eight dwelling units per “net usable acre” (excluding wetlands and wetlands transition areas).
Multifamily affordable dwelling units equal to at least 20% of the market-rate units are required, and Pinelands Development credits are required to be redeemed for 30% of the market-rate residential units. Mixed-use buildings and clubhouse/community centers are permitted to reach maximum heights of 50 feet and 40 feet, respectively, while townhouses are limited to 35 feet.
Ordinance 2025-47 establishes the AH-III Overlay Zone, which comprises of two discrete areas: (1) approximately 46 acres split between Jackson’s PV (38.5 acres) and PVC-2 (7.5 acres) zones, and (2) approximately 78 acres split between the Township’s PM-1 Zone (74 acres) and RD Zone (4 acres).
Grogan noted that Ordinance 2025-48 establishes the AH-III.A Overlay Zone, consisting of a single 477-acre lot in the Township’s RD Zone. The PM-1 Zone is located in a Regional Growth Area, the PV and PVC-2 zones are located within the Pinelands Village of Cassville, and the RD Zone is located within a Rural Development Area.
Environmental Concerns
“Our primary concern with these ordinances is the intensity of development permitted in a Rural Development Area and within the Pinelands Village of Cassville. In Rural Development Areas, the CMP allows residential development at a density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre, clustered on 1-acre lots, with the remaining lands deed restricted as open space,” Grogan wrote in the letter.
“Centralized wastewater treatment and collection facilities are permitted in Rural Development Areas only in limited circumstances to address an identified public health problem and may serve only existing development,” she added.
The letter also states that “within Pinelands Villages, centralized wastewater treatment and collection facilities are permitted, but permitted development must be compatible with the character and magnitude of existing structures and uses within the Village of Cassville. The CMP also requires that municipal zoning plans for Pinelands Villages do not provide for “an additional increment of development which is greater than the number of non-accessory structures that currently exist in the village.”
“More commonly referred to as the ‘doubling rule,’ this standard is intended to ensure that when the minimum lot size requirements in a Pinelands Village are applied to the vacant developable land in that Village, the potential amount of new development does not exceed that which existed in 1979,” she added. In both Rural Development Areas and Pinelands Villages, the maximum permitted height of structures is 35 feet.
“Given these limitations, the development intensities allowed under these overlays zones are only appropriate within a Regional Growth Area and, even there, would need to be evaluated in the context of the township’s existing Regional Growth Area zoning plan and applicable CMP standards,” Grogan added.
“The Commission is similarly unlikely to support a formal CMP amendment to redesignate these areas as Regional Growth Areas. Accordingly, the Rural Development Area and Pinelands Village portions of the overlay zones do not appear suitable for any management area change. This is particularly true for the entire AH-III A Overlay Zone, where a redesignation would conflict with extensive land use planning undertaken by the Commission, the Township, the County and other stakeholders to protect the Toms River Corridor,” the letter states.
Grogan’s letter notes that the Regional Growth Area portion of the AH-III Overlay Zone could potentially be rezoned to allow residential development at these densities. “Since these are densities greater than what the CMP requires for the Township’s Regional Growth Area, the Township would need to demonstrate that infrastructure (water and sewer) is available or can be provided to serve the area; the area does not include significant environmental limitations; and use of Pinelands Development Credits is required for a percentage of the dwelling units permitted.”
The Commission specified that if additional zoning changes within Jackson’s Regional Growth Area are forthcoming to implement the Fourth Round Housing Plan, those zoning changes must be evaluated comprehensively with those in the AH-III overlay and even with that, certain sections of the ordinance will still need to be revised.
Tabling Ordinances Suggested
Grogan’s letter recommended Jackson officials consider tabling these ordinances in order to address these issues in consultation with Commission staff.
Tabling just means when the Council takes it off the agenda to discuss it at another time.
At the latest Jackson Environmental Commission meeting, the Commission formally advised the Township Council – consistent with the Pinelands Commission’s letter – to table the ordinances in order to address environmental and public health concerns through proper planning and review.
Haidi said, “Jackson’s own ordinances require that all major developments demonstrate submission to and review by the Environmental Commission, raising serious questions about where compliance and documentation have broken down and why these materials were not transparently shared with all required parties.”
Meeting The Deadline
Township Zoning Board Attorney Jean Cipriani noted during the meeting that failure to pass the ordinances before the state’s December 31 deadline might open the township up to a builder’s remedy lawsuits and more comprehensive development. Methods of extending that deadline were mentioned but not acted on.
Builder’s remedy lawsuits are when a town is forced to provide a certain number of affordable housing units, but they don’t, so developers sue. Then, the courts take away the town’s ability to control what gets built on the land.
Several residents present voiced their concerns with passing the ordinances expressing the accuracy of the site selection process and whether there was in fact adequate water and sewer service capacity.
Cipriani explained “that every approval that is given at the local level you are going to see is subject to approval of outside agencies (such as the state Department of Environmental Protection or Pinelands Commission). I think the council has done a very good job of trying to balance out those protections with the obligation.”
She added the Pinelands Commission’s “concerns will be addressed or another path will have to be found.”
“We feel our plan was signed by Fair Share Housing and we are willing to go to court and we’re willing to battle to support our plan,” Burnstein added.
Palmeri said “these are some of the strongest affordable housing ordinances in Ocean County and possibly throughout the state.”
“It’s the last meeting of the year and you are saying if we don’t do this the state is going to come in and they are going to give us more development. Nobody feels good about that. I don’t like how the process unfolded. It feels late,” Pollak said.
Pollak added, “It feels under pressure. I understand the township is trying to address its obligations. I appreciate that effort but appreciation doesn’t replace scrutiny. The Pinelands raised substantial concerns and they want it tabled.”
Burnstein responded to Pollak saying, he felt the state deliberately put the burden on municipalities to address the affordable housing issue at the end of the year.
