To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands >> indivisibley and justice for all. >> Good evening and welcome to the December 16th regular meeting of the Jackson Township Council. Pursuant to the
provision of the New Jersey's Open Public Meeting Act, adequate notice of this meeting was properly provided by transmitting the notice of the meeting on January 28, 2025 for publication. Notice of this meeting in the township council has been posted the corridor of the municipal building and in the office of the municipal clerk. We'll begin with
a roll call. Councilman Brelli absent. Councilman Bresie >> here. >> Councilman Pollock >> here. >> Council Vice President Paul Mary >> present. >> Council President Bernstein >> here. We will now hear opening comments from the township council starting with
council president Bernstein. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk. Um, first of welcome everyone. Good to see another great crowd here. Um, I want to take a moment and just go over a couple things for tonight. Um, by we have tonight we're going to have Mr. Kunliff who's
going to make a small presentation before one of the ordinances. Additionally, Miss Labu, who is our affordable housing attorney at last minute, was unable to come. So, she had her partner, um, Miss Chipriani, who's going to take her place and she'll be joining up us up here on the deis for
those ordinances. And we have Miss Apti, who is our affordable housing planner, who will make a presentation um, before those ordinances are introduced. Um, a couple small quick announcements. Um earlier this week, myself and Mayor Cune met with the county engineer, Mark
Jenkee and members of his team to discuss some of our roadways. Um they gave us an entire list, which we're going to publicize in the next day or two of intersections and street lights that the county is currently looking at. I am happy to announce that the county informed us today that they have
approved hopefully going out in the very near future a project on Hope Chapel right in front of the new high school or Liberty High School, the Jackson High School that would make part of the roadway in Hope Chapel a northbound into a extra lane. So there could be um that's obviously a big traffic area.
Additionally, the county is currently reviewing um two new lights on South New Prospect, one by Citadel and one by Hartfield. And additionally, they are looking at one on Georgian Boulevard um by Bennett's Mill leading into Robin Estates. And they told me they will have an answer by the beginning of January if
those um are approved and have been moving forward. A special thank you I just wanted to say to Shawn Bolinsky and our entire DPW staff. Um, I had the opportunity of really uh, Saturday night spending a lot of time with them and really overseeing
and reviewing and getting a very intimate knowledge of the process that gets involved in snow plowing. I always thought it was a simple one, two, three and I learned very quickly. It wasn't as easy as I always thought it was thought it was. Um, there is a lot of work that goes into the process. this year, not
this year, but this past snowfall, we had um approximately 65 trucks on the road almost at all times plowing our streets. Additionally, we had after the storm ended um I think it was 11 salters on the road assaulting. We are a very large town, but a very big thank you to
Mr. Bolinsky. I know it was hard. I think he wasn't feeling well earlier this week. He stayed up all night with his entire team and they were there um making sure that everyone went out for all their assignments for all their zones and um a big a big thank you to him. Additionally, I just wanted to say
a um when you up here and you have a chance to sometimes see the other side, a special thank you to Mr. uh uh Jose Rivera from code enforcement and to Mr. Campbell. Um there were a couple complaints that came in recently with some housing issues um that they really
researched tremendously and after about 3 to four months of not getting into an address. They were persistent. They actually were able to get into the address and multiple complaints were multiple violations were were issued. Um and I'm happy to learn the process and to better understand the process. Um,
with that being said, we have received in the past two weeks, I think about 75 resumes for people interested in working in our housing bureau. And, um, I know the mayor is in the process of setting up interviews so that department hopefully could be ready ready to run
in, um, in uh, January. Additionally, um, I just wanted to read um, I got a couple emails from various residents asking if things could be read into the record. Obviously, not every um resident request am I able to read. It can be here all night, but I did want to read
one because um the res resident referenced a petition um that I think over 500 residents have um signed pertaining to asking this government to potentially repeal um I think it was ordinance 1423. I just want to read a a
memo that was sent to the to the governing body by um our our LUPA attorney. Dear Mayor Cune and members of the Jackson Township Council, please find this me memorandum as an advisory document in response to the recent online change.org petition that has been posted seeking support to repeal
Ordinance 1423 with the stated purpose to restore environmental protections for sensitive lands in Jackson, New Jersey. The change.org org petition claims that ordinance 1423 fails to protect category C1 protected waterways, wetlands and transition buffers, flood hazard zones,
high groundwater areas, and natural drainage corridors. It is important to note that to note that the New Jersey legislature and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection have enacted a comprehensive statutory and regulatory scheme to address these issues and protect these areas. Neither
Jackson nor any municipality in the state of New Jersey can enact municipal ordinances that deviate from from or weaken the state standards. Ordinance 1423 does not in any way modify any environmental protections. It is my recommend it is my recommendation sorry
as our loopa council that the elected officials refrain from commenting on this change.org petition. Ordinance 1423 was enacted as a result of a settlement agreement that was negotiated by and between the United States Department of Justice. The state of New Jersey and private action plaintiffs to resolve
litigation that alleged that the township amended its ordinances to prevent the development of Jewish houses of worship and religious schools and to otherwise impede the ability of members of the Jewish faith to reside in the township. This settlement agreement was incorporated into a consent order entered by a United States District
Court judge. Pursuant to the to the consent order, any changes to the township's ordinances that would impact the development of houses of worship or private schools and private schools with the residential component must be reviewed and approved by the Department of Justice. Should the township act on the change.org petition, the township
would be in violation of the consent order and we brought into court on an order to show cause and I'd expect would be ordered to resend the action would be subject to monetary penalties and would be subject to further department of justice oversight. For these reasons, I am recommending that the mayor and the members of the township council refrain
from any any comment at this time. I did ask him before I commented if I could read the petition read his memo because I think it's important for the residents to know that we did hear you. We did um we did seek advice from our professionals before um we responded and I just felt that was important to read into the record. Additionally, I just
wanted to comment that January 6 is going to be our reorg meeting um which is the first Tuesday after in in the new year. look forward to seeing everyone there hopefully. And um this is the opportunity in the next couple weeks if you are interested in serving the town. There's always new positions available
um before the new year. Please send in your citizens leadership form and we're looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you and have a good night. >> Council Vice President Paul Mary. >> Thank you. Well, good evening everyone. I just wanted to, you know, make a statement that over the last few weeks I had the opportunity to meet with and
speak with many residents and uh hear their feedback and I truly appreciate those conversations. This past year, a great deal of work was done by this council, and I'm confident the year ahead will bring a full and productive agenda. And to keep it brief, as we close out this year, I'd like to wish
everyone a happy Hanukkah, a merry Christmas, and a happy, healthy, and safe new year. Thank you, >> Councilman Brassie. >> Thank you. First, I want to go back to the snow removal. I think was an excellent job. Public works, the contractors all did their work properly
and and really good. But I got to say, Council President Bernstein kept me informed the entire night what was going on regularly and he was on top of it. And it's great when you have communications like that and uh it paid off long term. And all of you, I wish
everybody a happy Hanukkah, a merry Christmas, and may the season of peace carry through with everybody. Thank you for coming out this evening. Council, >> uh, I'm just looking forward to having a
good discussion tonight about some of these ordinances, uh, and good back and forth with the residents and hearing all their concerns because I I know there's a lot and, you know, we do need to have a conversation and I'm glad that, uh, everybody's willing to do that. >> The next item on the agenda is comments
by Honorable Mayor Kim. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk. Good evening, everyone. I'll be leaving a bit early tonight due to a family obligation, but after the last council meeting, I felt it was important to be here this evening to publicly apologize to Councilman
Pollock and to express that I look forward to working with him and the council on the important issues being raised in Jackson. It has been a pleasure working with the members of council. The administration and the council are actively working on many projects throughout the township. I'm
looking forward to launch of the launch of the new rental housing bureau. the additional uh of new parks, the start of the weekly recycling in January, and the continued pursuit of grants for multiple departments and upcoming projects. As I have gotten to know and work with the
township employees, I have truly appreciated the communication, cooperation, and understanding of how each department operates. I have been working to raise awareness of the new rental housing bureau ordinance, educating landlords, and working in close coordination with uh code enforcement. We have maintained open
lines of communication and I look forward to continuing to work with all township employees in the year ahead. I want to wish everyone a safe, healthy, and happy new year. Thank you. >> The next item for tonight's meeting is an update from the Department of Public
Works. Council President Bernfield. >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Clerk. DPW leaf collection update. Our leaf collection program has been progressing according to schedule. We are currently working in zones two and four on the secondary and final collections. Zones
three and seven are now complete. We are scheduled to begin work in our final two zones six and seven, sorry, six and eight on December 22nd. The snow that accumulated over the weekend may set us back a few days. However, we will continue to do our best to remain on track as weather conditions allow. Thank you for your cooperation and patience.
And I just want to reiterate when I spend the time in DPW on Sunday, I know there were already were conversations as the snow was coming down making sure that we could continue the leaf pickup. Jackson's a very large town and there are a lot of leaves. Um, but I do appreciate the fact that they were a week ahead of schedule that hopefully
this early snowfall will melt and it will enable the workers to get back out to the road and to continue cleaning up the leaves. Thank you. >> Next item of business is a presentation portion of the meeting. Council President Bernstein. >> Yeah, I would ask the camp reps I I'm not sure exactly who's here. I see a
couple of faces to come up to the mic and um and to give a little presentation on on this ordinance. And again, I just want to thank um the members of the the CAM team for putting the time and diligence into spending time, I know, with myself, council, and some of our
colleagues here on council so we could be as informed as possible. So, floor is yours for a few minutes. >> Sure. >> Good evening. I'm Joe Pinowski. I'm one of the camp coordinators for our summer camp program. Um, so we're here tonight to discuss the uh raising of our camp
fees. Uh, next slide. Uh, if we go back from 2013, um, camp the regular camp rate was $400 up to the current day has only been $500. So over a 12-ear period, it's only gone up $100. Um, so we're definitely not accounting for inflation,
salary increases, um, fuel for busing for trips, etc. when you look at the pricing difference. Um, so our proposed rates are in that last column. uh for the regular camp would be $675. For our before camp uh would be $775,
after care would be $810, and then for full day camp would be 910. Uh the different prices for 15, we did an early bird. Registration, it was a little cheaper if you registered within a certain time period. Um and we didn't really see an increase, so we didn't do that again the following year. We we
just went back to the normal registration dates. Uh next slide. So, as I said, if you look, um, the prices have only gone up from 2013 to the current $100 for each program that we offer. So, our regular camp is 9:00
a.m. to 3 p.m. We offer before care starts at 7:30, goes to 3:00 p.m. We have afterare starts at 9, goes till 6 uh 30 6, I'm sorry. And then full day would be 7:30 to 6. But all of those prices only increased $100 from 2013 to
2025. Uh, next slide. So, this is just a chart that breaks down um the regular rates for um the current rates that we have from last summer. So, the first four columns
if you look at the camp rates for regular, beforeare, after care, and full day camp. And then we break it down weekly, daily, and hourly. The last four columns are what we're looking to increase it to. Uh, and then again the weekly, daily, and hourly rate. So the
increases are not I know it seems like a lot, but if you look at what you're getting for a weekly and a daily and an hourly rate, the increase is really not much of a difference. And then we do offer trips on a daily basis for an additional rate um that you can pay. Those range from $10 to about $60, but
they're optional. You do not have to do them. You can stay at camp. Uh, next slide. So again, so what we're looking to do is just raise the regular camp free from 500 to 675. So it's $175 increase. Our
beforeare from 575 to 775, it's a $200 increase. Our regular camp with afterare 600 to810, a $210 increase. And then our full day camp from 675 to $910, which is a $235 increase. The increase will help with
the cost of payroll, transportation, supplies, um pay rates. We need to be competitive with other organizations. Minimum wage, gas, tolls, and distance plays a factor and supplies to run the camp will increase as well. Uh the initial camp fees increased in 2021, but
have not seen a significant increase since 2011 when we added that before care after care full day. Before then it was just the normal 9 to3 camp. We didn't have those other options. Um next slide. And then finally, just a quick
comparison for surrounding towns that offer the same kind of program that we do. If you look at New Egypt, like I said, our 9-to3 we're looking to raise to 675. They charge $1,615 for seven weeks. Freehold, same thing.
Their 9 to3 is ranges from 1280 to 1715 because they offer different windows of when you can register. So, when you look at us, we're only looking to go to 675 is really a bang for your buck for what we offer. And that's the end of the presentation.
>> Any members of the council have any questions? So I just want to um we're this the order of the ordinances is that this is going to be towards the end of the meeting. Um legal council being that we just got the presentation. Could we
vote on this ordinance now or we'd have to wait as a scheduled ordinance? >> Second reading. So >> with you here, I don't want you have to wait the whole night. So I would like to get a motion from one of my council members to move it on the agenda to now.
>> Move. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> You can sit down and if any residents have questions, uh, Madam Clerk, open the public. Madam click want to open to the public.
>> Amending chapter 30438. At this time if any member of the public has any comments, >> Madam Clerk, I think your mic is it on? >> Excuse me. >> I apologize. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> At this time, if any member of the public has any comments to make, please address the council at the microphone and state your name and address clear for the record. You'll have five minutes
to speak and may only speak once. May I have a motion to open public comment? So >> moved. Second. >> All in favor? Any opposed? >> Seeing no one comes forward, I'd like to ask for a motion to close.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? May I have a motion to adopt ordinance 2020551? >> So moved. Second. >> Councilman Brassie. >> Yes. >> Councilman Pollock.
>> Yes. >> Council Vice President Paul Mary. >> So I agree that this the camp needs to pay for itself. But from 2013 to 2025, the summer camp fees only increased by
$100 total, meaning the costs were not adjusted gradually over time. During that same time period, as it was stated, you know, minimum wage more than doubled, rising from 725 to$,549 per hour. This ordinance attempts to make up
for 12 years of inaction all at once, resulting in a 35% increase on CAM fees in a single year. A 35% per child increase places a significant and sudden burden on Jackson families.
I would have supported a phased in increase over two or three years, allowing residents time to plan and adjust. Families already facing historic inflation, rising utility cost, and higher everyday expenses. With energy costs at all times highs, and New Jersey gas tax is set to increase an additional
49 cents per gallon in January, now is not the time for a sharp one-year increase. And for that reason, I believe this ordinance is unfair to Jackson families, and I vote no. Council President By.
>> So, um I had certain feelings and the presentation was very clear and now I'm a little bit more confused. Um what I would request that going forward is that we are ensuring that there's proper um communication with administration and council so we don't have this issue year
in and year out and um because I don't want to be playing catch-up every three, four years. Um, I vote yes, but with a very clear um, speaking out to the public and to the to our reps if we could ensure that we come back more periodically and ensure that after the summer when we're starting to plan for
next summer, there is proper communication because if we come back in a couple years and this is happens again, I'm going to have a hard time. Um, because I do agree that it's a steep it's a small rise over 12 years, but it's a steep rise for one year. So, I vote yes. But and again, thank you guys for coming forward and meeting with
myself and the mayor and uh getting the ball rolling. So, yes, reluctantly. >> Question Paris. >> The next item of business is the second reading of public hearing of ordinance 202535 amending chapter 244 land use and development regulations. >> So, madam clerk, before we move forward,
I I'm going to ask even though this is not this has to do with affordable housing, I would ask Mr. tripani to join us on on the the days. Don't fight who gets to sit next to me. >> Yeah. At this time, if any member of the public has any comments to make, please address the council at the microphone
and state your name and address clear for the record. You'll have five minutes. May only speak once. May I have a motion to open public comment? >> Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Elanar Hanam, Jackson, New Jersey. Um, I just have one question. Why are we
reducing the set aside to uh 15% and 17.5% when customarily it is 20%. >> So, um, Mr. Priyani, if I'm I'm just going to start off and then I'm going to turn the floor over to you. This ordinance was introduced uh about a
month ago or six weeks ago with a um original or the original original zone had a 10% set aside and um we are raising it from the 10% higher but Mr. Trian if you could elaborate on why the numbers were picked that were picked. >> Yeah. So the uh numbers were picked based on as you know we're in the
process now of the adjudicatory process with the pro is that on >> with the program judge and the adjudicator who is a planner appointed by the court and in going through that they pointed out that there is a uh
regulation that provides for a sliding scale which we have incorporated into the ordinance based on the number of units permitted. So we had as you had pointed out a 20% set aside across the board and that
actually under the regulation needs to be adjusted um for the densities that are uh permitted in for each size project essentially. >> Okay. So generally the 15% set aside
would refer to rental projects. Correct. Um yeah, historically that has been the case and the um depends on the nature of the project what the set aside can be required to be.
>> But the wording in here does not state that because generally under uh New Jersey the 15% set aside is for rentals and 20% is set aside for for sale projects. I just would like because
we're looking at this overlay and I'm looking at ordinance 202548 which is allowing that developer um which owns the Pine Barons Golf Club to essentially subdivide the entire property. So therefore, this just
benefits all of these uh investors that um have purchased property that uh is basically carving up Jackson. >> Oh, the the or the ordinance change. Thank you. Um the language in the
ordinance is taken directly from the regulation. This was not an ordinance change that Jackson had been seeking. This was uh recommendation from the adjudicator and the program judge in order to move towards our goal
of getting compliance so uh as to retain immunity. >> So therefore if I were to over request that requirement is your associate Leblau going to deny that over request only because she she denies all of mine.
I um I Miss Leu is a very experienced Oprah >> I'm not counsel so I I I >> for different ways >> the the direction >> and I don't know honestly if the
affordable housing uh mediation sessions are recorded that's where the direction occurred it was not um a written direction >> the legal counsel we can provide for Miss Hannah the administrative code that that referenced is these numbers, right? >> Well, it would be in writing because you're citing that this was a court
order or what have you and that wouldn't just be in a negotiation. It would be legally in writing. You do know that >> the the regulation is in writing and I'd be happy to provide you with regulation >> that you're stating that was court for
order for Jackson Township. I was I'm stating that the program judge and the adjudicator the recommendation when reviewing the ordinance for Jackson to be compliant that the ordinance should
uh be in uh compliant and with the regulation. >> So it was a recommendation you did not have to go with the 15%. The recommendation is, you're right, it is a recommendation, but it is a
recommendation that is from the adjudicator and from the program judge who have the ability to recommend whether Jackson's plan is found compliant or not. And therefore, our immunity from builder's remedy suits
does rest on their recommendation. >> I don't want to hear about the builder's remedy. I I've already been down that road for years. Um, quite frankly, I find that this is only an ordinance to benefit those uh institutional investors
that have definitely invested in properties throughout Jackson Township. So, it's for their financial gain. It is not for the residents of Jackson Township. Anyone else? >> Um, Donna and Paul Schmidt.
>> No, I had to move closer to the mic. >> Oh, Donna and Paul Schmidt, 17 Sidorf, Jackson, New Jersey. We believe that one of these ordinances affects the property behind our home. Um >> Mrs. Mishman, if you don't mind, um I'm
not sure which ordinance this the first this ordinance now is just about the density of the set aides. It's not about it's other there's three still three more ordinances. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> So, you can come back up at the right time. Yeah, sure. >> We weren't sure. >> Sure. Thank
Kim Reali, 547 West Commodore Boulevard. So, my one issue is all of these properties that you've picked have were or were supposed to be schools or religious institutions.
>> Oh, better. >> Yeah, sure. >> Okay. All these properties at Geneva Chandler the one behind. >> So ma'am these are the next ordinances not this ordinance. >> That's not this ordinance. Okay. >> Anyone from council? >> You want to motion to close public comment and then
>> I'll come forward. Motion to close. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I opposed. >> So madam clerk I just want to um just elaborate on one thing and then I'll let the attorney elaborate. So um the initial affordable housing plan um that was introduced had a certain zones in
town which were I'll call it more of the the non-mixuse zones which passed in August had a 10% set aside. This ordinance actually raised the percentage and initially the council wanted to raise it to 20%. And like Mr. Tripani said when we had our mediation with the
courts, the court said being that the density on these developments were, if my understanding is correct, was a lower density, we there was a limit to how high we could raise the affordable requirements and that's an administrative code. Um and and Mr. Granny, do you have any more information on that? >> Yes, I'm sorry. And uh it's new uh the
New Jersey administrative administrative code section 5 col 93-5.6. In relevant parts, it says the council shall generally favor and that it was the council on affordable housing. Now the courts have taken over that um
function of reviewing affordable housing plans that they'll shall generally favor a gross density of four units per acre with a 15% set aside. Municipalities may also seek to zone sites for a gross density of five units per acre with a
17.5% set aside and six units per acre or more with a 20% set aside. And that is what is reflected in the ordinance before you. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk. We close public comment on this one. Yeah, sorry.
>> May I have a motion to adopt ordinance 202535? >> Second. >> Councilman Brassie. Yes, >> Councilman Pollock >> gonna say no. Um, last week we were here and lower density
on certain projects and I'm seeing higher density on these projects. So, it's a no for me. >> Council Vice President Paul Mary. >> Yes. Council President, can I just clarify something with the attorney before I vote? So we wanted initially
this was 10%. We wanted it to be 20. We went to court with the developer and the judge said we should do 15. Um >> is that what we're saying? >> Yeah. So it was 10. The uh ordinances introduced had 20 which was the preference of the governing body. Um, as
a council president said in the mediation sessions with the adjudicator, the courtappointed adjudicator and the program judge, the reference was made to the regulation that I just cited and that the ordinance should be amended to
reflect the uh standard in the regulation rather than always having 20%. The 20% is with the six acre or um six units per acre or more standard only. Um and the reduction for the other
uh densities comes directly from the code on the recommendation of the court. >> And if we do not adopt this and go back to court, what what's the possibility? Could we >> go back to the 10? I mean, could we lose more? >> Yeah. Right. So, um, if we don't
make that change and then we've got the existing ordinance at 10, you'd have to adopt an ordinance at 20. And all of these things go to what I assume we'll talk about in a minute, which is the general status and the the need in order
to preserve immunity for uh by the end of the year for the program judge to make a recommendation to the affordable housing judge that our plan is compliant. So, if we are not if we don't
make the change and we don't make the change to 20, they've already told us that they don't find the 20 is compliant with the regulation and the 10 is obviously significantly under. >> Okay. I mean, I don't like this, but I
have to protect our town with losing more. So, I vote yes. So, I just want to just clarify because I I I'm not sure if if it was clearly understood. Currently, the ordinance in town only requires a developer to give 10% set aside on on some of these lots,
which is less affordable housing. Um, which means we don't get as many units as we can possibly get. The the goal of this council was to raise the amount of affordable units on these so we get more credits. Um, the courts made us compromise a little bit. If we vote no,
at least my understanding is that we only get we get less less affordable units. So, I'm going to vote yes to at least get the 17.5 and not have the 10%. And if we're able to somehow get it up to 20%, I'm all supportive of that in the future because I wanted it to be
20%. So, yes. Try again. The next item of business is a second reading and public hearing of ordinance 202546 amending chapter 244 lang use and development regulation of the code of the township of Jackson County of Ocean and State of New Jersey to establish an
inclusionary zone district overlay entitled AHI providing affordable housing units to be developed subject to certain conditions and requires ments. At this time, if any member of the public has any comments to make, please address the council at the microphone.
>> Madame clerk, before we open to the public, I just want would want to ask Malva apti to come up and uh give us a brief summary if you don't mind. Thank you. >> Good evening, >> Malik. If you don't mind, just if you can move the mic closer to yourself and
if you could just identify your name and your firm. Sure. My name is Maldaka Abd. I'm a a licensed professional planner in state of New Jersey and um my address is that what you >> say? No, no, just your firm. Your firm. >> Okay. Hire Grul and Associates LLC.
>> Thank you. >> All right. So um what we're discussing right now is ordinance number 202546. Uh this ordinance is uh identified as affordable housing overlay zone AH1.
Um and this is to develop inclusionary mixeduse residential developments um in certain portions of the township of Jackson. Um the this uh o overlay is to meet township of Jackson's uh fourth
round obligation and uh overall it basically permits a mix of commercial and residential uses. Uh the key points of this ordinance is it allows the maximum density of eight dwelling units to the acre. Uh it requires 20% set
aside as affordable um housing. It requires commercial uh component to be developed along the major frontage which would be county road uh frontage. Um as well as there is a timing and phasing as to within the after the first 50 units
the commercial uh component of this uh overlay zone has to be developed. Uh there are requirements as to 16% of open space recreation space that has to be provided. Uh there is parking requirements including meeting the RSI
standards for residential developments. uh commercial requirement for parking spaces as well as visitor parking spaces. Uh the ordinance also requires certain design standards such as cohesive development uh high quality durable materials to be used um and it
also requires um um um open sorry I already said open space um details on uh community center requirement as well as recreation spaces. Uh further it requires the all kind of U-Hack requirement which is uh uniform housing
affordability controls uh in terms of integrated affordable housing to be developed. The phasing of that which is for every 25 units that's built one affordable housing unit has to be built and it follows that timetable. Um it
requires that a homeowner association be created in order to maintain this uh type of development. So that's a brief synopsis of this ordinance. >> Okay. And um the I I'll call it the AH there. Really
>> all three ordinances that that are on tonight are all have the same standards. >> Yes, it does. Uh it just has been drafted. Uh it just has three different ordinances because of the location of these sites, but they're essentially the same. They require the mixeduse component and meeting the U-Hack
requirements and state regulations. Okay. Do any of um obviously we're not you'll still stay around a little bit. Any of the count the council have any questions on the planning respect part of this of these ordinances at this point? >> I think we're going to want to solicit
some feedback from the residents and then we'll I'm sure we'll call you back later. >> Sure. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Madam clerk, >> at this time if any member of the public has any comments to make, please address the council at the microphone and state your name and address clear for the record. You'll have five minutes to speak and may only speak once. May I
have a motion to open public comment? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> And and um madam clerk, I just want to say one thing. So, one of the things that I have prided myself since I've become council president is trying to ensure that we we could have these open conversations and hopefully in a
respectful way. So, the way I I way I'm I'm going to be running it is your five minutes are yours. Um you could ask whatever you want. If we would rather you get your questions out first if you want to have a question answer that's is going to count as part of the five minutes. Um but feel free to ask
whatever you want. I'll write down your questions and I'll direct it to the appropriate professional. Whoever was first, >> Jim Seakia. Um, the ordinance that what's in the ordinance is what concerns me is
you use eight dwelling units per usable acre. The problem is when you have open space requirements, you're increasing the density on the land. and what and if you just do the math
you'll it'll come to you. So these ordinances do not exclude open space. It just says not including wetlands and any applicable wetlands transition buffers. So if you have a 300 acre property,
okay, technically you could build 2400 homes. If we have a if we have 50 acres of it is open space, we take that number down to 250 acres. You can only build 2,000. But because of open spaces and they
could actually do 2400 units in the area that that's not considered open space that's buildable. So I think what we need to do first and foremost is to include open space as a
reduction for the gross uh usable acreage within these properties because otherwise you can say you and I've heard you guys all say you want you want lower density projects. Well, if you approve these ordinances, you're approving higher density than you can actually
reduce it by. So hopefully you look at it. Um, are these for comments too or just for questions >> about these about the first ordinance? >> Well, I'll come back first one of the other ones. >> So, if you're done, I'll I'll turn to Mr. >> All three ordinances have
>> the same question. Yeah, sure. >> Mr. Triani. >> Yes. So, the um question Sorry, >> it's okay. I the new microphone. It's very exciting. Um the um question of the usable land.
So as I understood and I wanted to make sure that I understood your question correctly. It's in calculating usable land for density that your uh suggestion or question is why is open space being considered as part of the usable land. >> Correct.
>> Um so under the ordinance first of all any environmentally constrained lands are not considered for usable land and so for the open space. >> Okay. Sorry. So the so the environmentally
constrained lands the buffers wetlands are not part of what is considered for usable land >> for the open space requirement of 30% of the open space can be met through the use of wetlands. So if
you're using wetlands for any of your open space, it still retains its character as wetlands and does not >> That was my question. >> No, I'm I'm getting there. Okay. Hopefully there just in overall. So no,
no matter how you're considering it, any wetlands or buffers are not considered part of the usable calculation. um the open space is considered because that is part of the zoning requirements. It's not a characteristic of the land.
So with the environmentally constrained lands, it's a car characteristic of the land that make it inappropriate for consideration as what is usable. What is usable land is simply land that could be developed. And obviously
um that any land that could be developed, it's there's a portion for open space that has to be set aside, but that's not a quality of the land. That's going to be dependent on the site plan
when it comes in. So it's not part of the calculation for what is usable because what is the lands that are not usable are legally defined not just by our ordinance but um by other regulation including the affordable housing
regulations as nothing environmentally constrained. It's not wetlands. It's not buffer. It doesn't have um easements on it. All of those things would be excluded from the calculation. So you can't exclude open space is what you're >> correct because it's not a quality of
the land. >> Mr. Chipion, if I could just add for a second quick question. I know recently about a a year ago the council passed an ordinance with regard to another zone changing net to gross. Um is this obviously to protect the town? Are we following the same standards that we followed over there?
>> Correct. We're using the same standards of of land that is usable. So it's consistent. Um and usable simply means that it is capable of being built upon. >> Okay. Elanor Hannam, Jackson, New Jersey. Um I
have been extensively reviewing these ordinances and all the land owners. Um what I see is some major conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest that include uh Mr. Bernstein here and Mayor
Cune in which there was a pack that Mr. Bernstein was affiliated with or his wife where he also advocated. He also did fundraisers. He also was reimbursed by this pack while he was fundraising.
At the same time, some of these property owners are also donors such as Morai Sternstein, Arie Cutotler, Rich Roberts, and they are also invested in ensuring that these ordinances are passed because they have direct
affiliations with some of these properties. Not to mention the over $159,000 in anonymous donations that were made to Mort's schools with notations for Mayor Morty or in in honor of Jackson's best councilman. This
takes paytoplay to another level and begs the question as to whether or not these relationships affect his decision-making and therefore I feel he must recuse himself from this vote.
The other concern is that as a member of the planning board, Mr. Bernstein also voted to approve the schools on Chandler Road. These same properties are now included in the affordable housing overlay. Together, these approvals paved the way for highdensity campus style
developing combining schools and housing. The overlay in decision-making raises serious questions about fairness and impartiality. On block 1101, lot 40. This included in
the overlay is owned by Mr. Iicorn also is a pack owner and major property owner. This increases the an immense footprint of ownership. Also, chairman Michelle Campbell as the
planning board chairman publicly stated that she met with these developers to help select these properties to be included. She spoke in support of these developers and applications that she voted on, especially with those schools. Planning board members are supposed to act as neutral decision makers, not
advocates. And her actions combined with Mr. Bernstein's votes give the appearance that decisions are coordinated with developers rather than being made independently, also creating an appearance of collusion. As for Mayor
Cume, she also has a direct conflict of interest. She works for institutional investors who own several properties affected in this ordinance, including 109, 1094, 1060, 1070 Formingdale Road and 1366
West Vets, where her professional role she was involved in the property transactions as both the the buyer and the in seller for the investor along with Farmingdale Road 1101 includes
multiple overlays lots owned by entities registered to Maurice Wolf, who is Jen Cun's institutional investor. Because of these professional ties, Mayor Cune should not approve or sign
off on this ordinance, nor should Mr. Bernstein be also voting on them because for these reasons their involvement raises some serious ethical and legal concerns that warrant further review. My other question is
there are almost 23 lots and blocks that are written into appendix F of the DOJ lawsuit. Has the DOJ been notified that you are changing um the conditions of these properties? Because that is a term of the
settlement. I can give you the actual lots and blocks that are written in appendix in the 33 pages of appendix F of the DOJ lawsuit because you cannot approve this because now you're in violation of that
settlement. Do you want the lots and blocks? >> No, no. I'm waiting for you to finish on this. I'm done. >> Okay. Mr. McGawen, um, if you could answer the question about the overlay. >> The overlay simply allows additional zoning. It does not change the underlying zoning on the property, which is reflected in the conset uh order and
the settlement agreement between the Department of Justice and the township. This adds simply, this simply adds additional zoning possibilities on those properties. It does not underly or prevent the development of the properties in accordance with that which was concluded in the consent agreement.
>> I can I can tell you that it directly states that no decisions can be made on the 33 pages of lots and blocks that have been put into that DOJ consent order. So therefore when I do contact
the DOJ which I do have a contact and let them know that this is going this is happening and you are voting on it that there you are violating the consent order directly because saying whatever you're going to say I'm not buying it
because all I've heard from you lawyers are lies. >> So Miss Miss Hannah thank you. Attorney McGawan, is your professional opinion that we're in violation of the DOJ? >> Of course not. Okay. >> It allows additional zoning. That's all it does. It doesn't change what was already agreed to.
>> Thank you. Next. >> Good evening everyone. My name is Sandre Wombuchano. I am a resident of Jackson. I do not want to give my number and address. I am here on behalf of We Strive for a Place to Ride. Um gentlemen be gentlemen and ladies before I start I
would like to um introduce myself and and also let you know and make you aware um that you sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the state of New Jersey to fa faithfully and partially and justly perform all
duties of your office. The oath includes adherence all New Jersey laws as well as federal laws con codified under the US code USC such as fair housing act 42 USC
subsection 3601 sequence and anti-corruption status like 18 USC sub subsection 2011 bribery. Um, your qualifications for these roles
are based on serving the public trust. Your job is not only to vote on ordinances, but to act as stewards of Jackson's township's finances. Ensuring all procurements of contracts is transparent, legal, and free from
conflict of interest. It is the core responsibility I am speaking to tonight. Moving forward with these proposals and everything you are currently voting for may very well be put uh to council in
position potentially violating that oath, failing your sworn duty to act responsibly for public funds or with public funds, excuse me. Betraying the public trust by ignoring state and federal laws and failing to act
responsibly can can have significant consequences for public officials. Individuals who have their constitutional rights or statutory rights violated by the state or local officials can file file civil
lawsuits for damages under 42 USC subsection 193. Moreover, officials can face federal criminal prosecution under statuses like 18USC subsection 242 for
willfully violating while acting under the code of law. As you are well aware, our township is currently facing significant scrutiny and multiple active investigations by state authorities regarding fiscal
integrity and ethical conducts. We are currently awaiting the result of New Jersey state till today I I went to go find out the New Jersey Department of Consumer Affairs investigation into 200,000 in potential excuse me $200,000 in
potentially fraudulent contract services under the shade tree ordinance. Furthermore, we have recently settled major lawsuits with the US DOJ, including 45,000 limit, excuse me, 45,000 in penalties and 150,000 victim
funds. this NJ AG's office $575,000 excuse me $500,000 settlement over discriminatory is discriminatory practices in land use which violates RLUIPA 42 USC subsection 200cc at sequence the
subst the substantial sub uh excuse me the substantial settlements and ongoing is issues have eroded public trust in the administ administration, decision-making process and procurements of contracts. We must ensure that any
new financial decisions are reproach to to that end concerned residents striving for accountability have commenced an independent audit of recent township operations um and procurements. Therefore, I
formally request that the township council table the decisions or halt these projects tonight effective immediately. We ask that the council commit to waiting until the state audits and investigations are fully concluded and their findings made public. We also
hope all public servants will fully comply with our independent audits. Requests for information demonstrating a commitment of true transparency. This is the only responsible course of action to ensure this new project or projects
adheres to the highest ethical and legal standards and taxpayers money is protected. Thank you for your time and attention in this critical matter. Val Tutor right to bow road. Uh I just asked the woman that uh
sitting on the end there, she just gave a a talk. She was at the uh meeting last Tuesday with the other lawyer and I asked the question, "How many credits do you guys have to offset our thousand
unit requirement?" And the other lawyer said that she'd look into it and get back to us. So, do you have any numbers for me? >> I in terms of the numbers, the comp plan is determined to be compliant. So,
Fairshair Housing has signed off of the plan and the purpose in order for it to be compliant is that there has to be a reasonable expectation that it will yield both the 754th round number and the 250 gap number for the thousand units.
>> Okay. Well, how many units do we have from the first round was that 19 87 to 90 understand the question? >> Yeah. So, you know, my understanding because I actually read the affordable housing document. I think it was like 59 pages, something like that. It only took
me an hour. Um, in the state of New Jersey, you're allowed 30, 50, and 99 years. And in Jersey, I believe, please correct me if I'm wrong, most put an expiration date or a life a shelf life on an affordable housing unit of 30
years. >> That That's correct. >> Okay. So 30 years have passed 198 1987 to 1993 it's passed. So how many of those did the you guys you know anybody anybody town council
anybody look into extending so we could offset the thousand? >> Yeah I understand the question now. So the answer is in terms of controls that we have that are expiring. We don't have them that are expiring now. If you looked back at the first round and we
were actually I was talking about this with council before um if you'll remember back in the first and second rounds there was a possibility of doing regional contribution agreements whereby the town and Jackson did a lot of these for their units would contract with the
city that are exempt from affordable housing um and send money there. So, we didn't have as many units as you would expect because we sent a lot of our units out. In in the upcoming round for the fifth round, we should have around
250 that are expiring, which is not necessarily good news for this round, but it is good news for the round to come. >> What about round two? Because that they've expired, too. >> Okay. So in terms of the I can only tell you the ones that are due for
expiration, not any that have already expired if they were from the first. >> But isn't it your responsibility and the planner here responsibility to look into the stuff before you tell us? >> No. In in terms of what control what
controls there are that are expiring that would be that we will qualify for that extension of controls to get those additional units for the next round. The number is 250. >> Who hired you?
>> The township council >> and you got hired by the township too. >> Please direct the the question through me. So the the township the township um contracted with CME last year um which was Miss Ay's former employer and um we
contracted with her about I say about two three months ago and she switched firms to continue doing the work that she was in in the process of doing >> and you're okay with their the the work that they've done for this town? >> Very very okay. Yes. >> Well, I'm not I'm going to be honest with you. You know what? We we are
obligated to do 1,000 units and she said there's probably 250 but they're not eligible now. They should have been eligible now if someone had actually looked into it before making a presentation. >> I think the attorney responded, "They're not eligible now." >> No, she did say they were.
>> Said they're going to be eligible by the next round, by the fifth round. They're not eligible yet. We're in the fourth round currently. >> Well, like I say, this is this is my opinion is you're not working for us. You know, I heard from both ladies at
the last meeting that, you know, we've done this so many times. We have 10 other 10 other towns we've done this or it was 10 or 12 or something like that. I expected a a better presentation. I was not privy to this information, so I can't validate what you're saying is
true or false, but I I honestly feel that there's some shenanigans going on. Thank you. >> Thank you. Julie Mone, Jackson Township. I'd like to take my time and focus on one specific proposed site from the plan.
Site 2 named Hawkins block 1820 lot 17 through 25 located at the intersection of Hawin Road and West Veterans Highway. I could spend all night discussing the underlying issues on the site, but I will touch on the glaring errors in these short few minutes. I'm not sure of what professionals work with the
developers in township on the research of naming this a forefront affordable housing site. But as a resident of over 20 years living off Hawin Road, I was shocked to see this site listed in the township housing plan element and fair share plan. When taking a deeper dive into the proposed plan and ordinance,
few things jumped out that don't even make this a realistic opportunity to fulfill the township statemanded forefront affordable housing obligations. In chapter 3, page 37 of the fair share plan, it states the proposed site fronting West Veterans Highway is located in the western area
of the township is currently undeveloped. That last part again, it says is currently undeveloped. Now, I don't know if any of you actually know what is currently on these lots, as well as the residents and I do that live in this part of town, but I guess I'll educate you on the fact that the majority of these lots already have
single family homes built on them, except three of the nine lots being 18,17 and 23. So, right there, things are not adding up. Now, the proposed plan states that the total size of this site is 20.78 acres. However, we need to consider the lots that the developers
actually own as the accurate acreage of this proposed plan. Because only five of the nine lots are owned by LLC's while not stated directly who the developers are in the township's fair share plan. Through deed searches, I'm able to narrow down who the developers are and which lots they actually own.
That being block 18201, lot 19, owner address 4706 18th Avenue, Brooklyn. Lot 18, 40 Clifton Avenue, Lakewood. Lot 17, 4706 18th Avenue, Brooklyn. Lot 22, 1500
Avenue of the States, sweet 414 Lakewood. Lot 23, 18, 4706 18th Avenue, Brooklyn. The rest of the lots, lots 20, 21, 21, 24, and 25 are all owned by individuals and families that have
single family homes already on their lots. So, of the LLC owned lots, they only make up for a combined acreage of 17.17 acres, not the 20.78 that are stated for this site on the township's fair share plan. Only lot 18, 17, 23 are the
current undeveloped lots that are owned by the LLC's and they only combine to have an acreage of 10.93. It's concerning the fair share plan states that the site is currently undeveloped. When I just stated there are single family homes on six of the nine
properties, only five are owned by developers and the 20.78 acres stated on the plan is really only 17.17 acres or if we're talking about undeveloped lands owned by the LLC's 10.93. Now let's talk about the developability
stated in the fair share plan. In the plan, it states the developers professionals indicate that there is adequate water and sewage capacity for the site. The development footprint does not interfere with wetlands or flood plan. The site is proposed to be within the sewer service. Again, that last
part, the site is proposed to be within the sewer service. It's as if whoever published this fair share plan has no idea about what this side of Jackson looks like and are only taking the word of mouth from the developers and not factecking anything about the proposed site. Ask any resident that lives over here. It's well and septic only. Use
some GIS data. Even look at the master plan that was approved over the summer. You'll see it's nowhere near a sewer service area. So, the developers professionals are inaccurate in saying there's adequate water and sewer capacity in its current state. In the proposed ordinance, site improvement standards state under letter B, the
scale and mass of buildings shall be complimentary to its surroundings. Look around in this area of Jackson. You'll see only single family homes, tens of thousands of acres of state protected forests, and on the border of Plumstead across the street, much of the same rural restricted land, single family homes, all on well and septic. There are
no sidewalks on Hawin Road and on West Veterans. This is not a part of town that should even be a thought to consider affordable housing, let alone highdensity housing. How is this sustainable to have 130 plus units on the very edge of town where there is nothing within walking distance? Any big box store is at least a 25minut drive
and there's no infrastructure of water or sewer lines. The entire proposal lacks transparency, not just from the township to the public in its fair share plan, but also checks and balances of the township and with these developers. On page 74, map 12 with the buildout analysis in the township's new master
plan. These parcels are not even listed as potential developable parcels. Very odd since it says undeveloped land in the fair share plan. In the master plan, page 139, figure 10, future proposed sanitary sewer map, there is no future proposed sanitary sewer where the site
is located. These are just some of the glaring concerns that jump out when looking at this specific block in lots. Thank you, Miss Chiffriani. Um, quick question. When, um, a developer writes, um, I guess that something is considered
part of the sewer system, does that mean that it's currently or that they are proposing to extend a sewer system to include it? >> I'm sorry. So I if it if it is proposed to be part of the sewer, if they're saying it's going to be on sewer, obviously it cannot be developed if it's
not. So then if they're saying that they that it is on that the proposal is that they're going to extend sewer to that system. And I would also point out that two things. One, that this is an overlay. So if there's existing
properties that are developed, they are developed. They remain developed as they were. So the overlay would only be for potential development. And on the sewer question, one, if they're saying that it's there, either they're going to extend it there or they're not going to be able to develop it there. And also
that if they're saying that, we should consider um that it is if they are able to do so that it's permissible. If you go back to the Toll Brothers case, which is one of the main affordable housing cases, in that particular case, a
builder's remedy was granted. Um, and one of the court's finding was that the township sewer policies presented a significant impediment to potential development and the developer was entitled to a builder's remedy in part because of that. So, if they're saying that they're going to be able to bring
it, they have to assume that that's the case. If they are not able to bring it, then they will not be able to develop. Thank you. >> Please, please, if you want to speak, climb up to the mic. >> Holly Reynolds, >> Mary Beth Jackson. I am a member of the
environmental commission, but I'm here only as a resident. Jackson Township contains highly environmentally sensitive infrastructure that supports critical ecological functions across multiple municipalities in Ocean County. These landscapes and
waterways, many protected under state and federal law, are active functioning natural systems, not vacant or developable land. Highdensity housing by its nature requires connection to either existing or newly constructed wastewater infrastructure including septic systems
in areas characterized by high groundwater aquifer recharge, wetlands and flood hazard constraints. Such infrastructure poses unacceptable risk to water quality, public health, and environmental stability. On behalf of the Jackson Conservation Coalition, I
urge that the following environmental infrastructures be formally excluded from all affordable housing and land use ordinances, including but not limited to aquifer recharge areas and rural high groundwater zones critical to both
private and m municipal drinking water supplies, pylons, forest corridors, and conservation overlay zones that preserve ecosystem connectivity, biodiversity, and wildlife m movement. wetlands. New Jersey D map flood hazard areas and flood plane storage zones that
provide natural storm water management and flood mitigation. Category 1 C1 protected waterways and associated repairarium buffers which are essential to statewide water quality protection in aquatic habit integrity. Safeguarding these environmental infrastructures is
essential to ensuring safe drinking water, effective flood and storm water management, and the longterm preservation of wildlife, natural resources, and community resilience for Jackson Township and neighboring municipalities. The council should also take formal notice that the New Jersey
Pilands Commission issued a letter dated December 4th, 2025, expressing substantial concerns with the township's affordable housing ordinances and specifically requesting that the council table the ordinances and engage in consultation with Piland's commission staff. Proceeding without resolving
those concerns risk in inconsistency with the Pylon's comprehensive management plan and exposes the township to legal and regulatory conflict. Given these unresolved in inter agency conflicts, the Jackson Conservation Co coalition respectfully urges the council
to seek appropriate extensions or adjustments to its affordable housing compliance obligations as contemplated under recent state legislation and administrative guidance. This should include working through the state's affordable housing dispute resolution program to address conflicts between
housing mandates and pilence protections. Specifically, the council should pursue one or more of the following actions. Utilize the AHDRP process to revise or amend housing plans prior to the December 31st, 2025
deadline in coordination with the Pilates Commission and other relevant agencies. and or if necessary, enter expedited court proceedings in early 2026 to resolve outstanding disputes while maintaining municipal immunity from builder's reneomy lawsuits as
provided under current statutory timeline procedures. These mechanisms exist precisely to address circumstances where state environmental protections in housing obligations intersect in conflict. Seeking relief through established legal channels is both prudent and responsible and far
preferable to advancing ordinances that may later be invalidated or subject to enforcement action. Affordable housing obligations must be met in a matter that is environmentally responsible, legally compliant, and coordinated with all governing agencies. Environmental
constraints are not obstacles to be overridden. They are critical public infrastructure that protects water quality, public safety, and regional ecosystems. >> So, Mr. Criyani, um, a couple things. First of all, thank you, um, Mr. Reynolds. Um, if you could elaborate on
some of, first of all, I think the big question I think a lot of residents want to know about is about that Pinelands letter. So, if we can start with that and then circle back to some of the other environmental um, questions that she asked. >> Sure. So, I'll talk about the Pine Lens letter. I just do want to uh remind the council and the public that this first
ordinance that is up for uh vote AH1 is the non-pinelands version. So, the other ones um that follow uh AH3 and AH3.1A are in the Pineelands, but this particular ordinance is not. However, so
if you don't mind answering it anyways because she spoke I was going to say however the issue has been raised and and I know it's important to a lot of people. So the basic thing and I and I think that there was um an illusion um in last speaker to this. So, the reason
that we're here at all is because of the affordable housing line and and I think she said correctly there is a there there are two main public policies that are at issue here. One of them is the
public. >> Excuse me, madam. >> I I I I Okay. So, I'm going to ask the knock, but I did not >> ma'am ma'am ma'am asked me for the chair. Okay. >> No, I said that she alluded to that she
the last speaker made a reference. she made an illusion to the fact that there is a policy um in requiring us to have an affordable housing plan and also there's an important public policy regarding environmental protection and
that the both of those things are true. So an illusion with an A. Um so where we are right now on the affordable housing section is that by December 31st we are in the process. There is in this round a
new legislative requirement for process which we are engaged in. We have developed a plan. That plan was um approved by the planning board, developed as part of the master plan and it has been endorsed by fair share
housing which is very important in terms of getting a finding of compliance ultimately um which will give us the protection for builder's remedy and other exclusionary zoning litigation. And that's important because it allows
us to retain some local control. I know right now it doesn't feel like local control, but when there are those lawsuits, we lose all control, including over zoning aspects, not just in terms of densities, but in terms of setbacks
and building height and all sorts of the other zoning restrictions that the council has worked to put into place. So that's where we are now. So right now and I will address the question about the process and trying to get more time
um right but right now by the end of this year 12:31 a recommendation will be made to the affordable housing judge and there will be a hearing most likely in January potentially in early February at which we if we have do not have a
compliant plan we will lose that immunity. Um, in terms of getting extensions, we have asked and will continue to ask for extensions. And though the law does provide that process and in past rounds, we have been
successful thus far in this process. In this round, the courts have been uh very slow to give extensions of any kind. We were able to get at one point a 30-day extension. That has not been the case now and fair share is not cooperating
thus far with any requests for extensions. So though we will make those requests, we cannot rely on getting them in terms of what the council does tonight. So in terms of the letter from Pinelands and and as I said that's not this first
ordinance, it's the second two. Um, as was correctly said, the township received a letter from Pinelands having reviewed the two Pinelands ordinances, which encourages the township to encourage tableabling these ordinances
in order to address these issues in consultation with the commission staff. The commission staff is willing to meet and discuss all the Pinelands area sites contained within the township's fourth h round housing plan and work with the township to address its affordable
housing obligation in a manner consistent with the Pineland's CMP comprehensive management plan. So that's going to happen no matter what. Um, this is a a common process and I where an
ordinance is adopted, it's sent to Pinelands for review. Pineland says, "We have concerns." And from Pineland's perspective, since they only have that one concern, their concern is protecting the Pinelands comprehensive management plan and the Pinelands regulations. That
is their sole concern. So, from their perspective, it makes sense to table the ordinances. But the township has to balance both those concerns and the need to have a compliant plan. No ordinance
in the Pinelands is enforcable or effective until it has been certified by Pinelands. So, if the governing body does proceed with adopting the ordinances tonight, including the Pinelands ordinances, that is protecting
the plan, the affordable housing plan to um be determined compliant to keep immunity while that process of meeting with Pinelands and seeing if an agreement can be worked out that meets Pineland's concerns and the township's
concern can be done. If not, the P the township has preserved its immunity and will then have to come up with replacements for any units that cannot be uh worked out with Pinelands. But it does give that preservation. In terms of
the other issue that was raised regarding um environmental protection and keeping things um the and there were a list of wetlands re aqua for recharge um the pineelands obviously >> C1
>> the C1 and the buffers there is nothing in the affordable housing plan or the affordable housing overlay that can change or uh the quality of lands I spoke earl earlier when another gentleman came up about the quality of
the lands. If something is unbuildable, it's a wetland, it's a wetlands buffer, it's a category one buffer, it's impermissible because of interference with the aquifer. There is nothing in this ordinance which allows someone to build on lands that are environmentally
constrained and unbuildable. And as so that does not change if lands are uh constrained in that way environmentally because of needs of environmental protection, they remain constrained and not buildable. And
additionally, any project um if it's an an aspect where it's not environmentally constrained, but because of certain aspects of a particular site, there are environmental concerns. Every application has to go through site plan
and review and those additional environmental issues that don't amount to an environ environmental constraint under state law um will may be considered in that regard. But if it is
a wetlands buffer, if it's an um a category one buffer, all of those things remain protected regardless of the ordinance. Uh, Adamite. Um, I just want to make a point. I am on the Township Environmental Commission. I actually do
want to make a a comment in my formal capacity for just 10 seconds uh to express my disappointment in our township, uh, the mayor, the entire council, um, strictly for the purpose that that Pineland's letter um, never
made its way to the environmental commission. Uh, furthermore, it actually never made its way to the public. So, um, thank God it was made public because residents of the town would just assume that all these outside agencies that we need approval from have no have no
problem. Uh, and for the record, uh, the the Pinelands isn't an iron dome. They govern 50 plus towns. They they depend on our boards to be the safety net before bad applications get to them. and
they can't just catch everything. Uh, and now I would like to speak in an informal capacity as a concerned resident. Um, what day was that Pineland's letter received uh by our township? >> I can also the letter is dated December
4th. >> Okay. And what day did our township hold an affordable housing round table event? >> It was last Tuesday. What date is that? Tuesday is the 17th or the 10th. >> I think it was the 9th.
>> So would you So our our township >> particularly um what is the affordable housing specialist uh name? >> Miss Miss Apti. >> Miss Apti. Okay. Miss Apti and attorney Robin Leu from your law firm would have been privy to those concerns. Correct.
>> So Adam, I'm going to I'm going to it's connected to your first question. I'm going to respond to that. Yeah, sure. Okay, >> I'm going let you continue asking your questions. I don't want to waste your time. >> Okay. Because the law firm that's representing us was informed of these concerns, but when
residents at that meeting specifically asked about the Pineland's concerns, there was no mention of it. >> Right. I miss Miss Apti, I specifically asked you, how does the township plan to mitigate outside agency approval? >> Please specifically Adam, please direct
me. specifically the Pinelands. >> Excuse me. With all due respect, direct it to me. I will direct it to the profession. >> Why would our township officials who are privy to outside agency concerns not address them when directly asked about them?
Wouldn't Yeah. Your law firm was CCed on it. Attorney Robin Levu and Miss Ay were CCed on it. Mr. Bernstein, you were CCed on it. Why didn't you make this public? and why when directly asked about it, the truth
was not disclosed. >> So, you ready for me to answer? I don't want to waste your time. Sure. So, first of all, with regard to the environmental commission, I actually did speak to the chairman of the environmental commission this afternoon. Yeah. >> Um and we had a very good conversation because he sent an email. >> Um the environmental commission, I think
under this council and administration is is has has been getting a lot of support, but there's a process and a process in place and that process is everyone has their bite at the apple at the appropriate time. So you didn't feel like the environmental commission needed that >> at that point. The environmental commission does is the environmental commission the envir environmental
commission is and Miss Shipyani correct me if I'm wrong is the environmental commission will will have its due time and due process to to ask the appropriate questions with regard to >> doesn't major development require submission to the environmental commission. >> Can we can we address the environmental commission question? >> Sure.
>> So as far as the environmental commission um >> actually before you I would like my time. What um were the specific concerns that the Pylons mentioned? Because you stated it's the Pylon's jobs to protect their corridors ultimately
saying it's their job to say no when people develop in their but that's not the case. What were the three specific reasons the pylons mentioned? And I have them if you'd like me to. I just want to be clear what the pylons was concerned about. They were concerned
about the intensity. Correct. Can you confirm that the Pinelands was concerned about the intensity of the affordable housing ordinance? >> So I just want to be clear. So the sorry >> the three things the No, actually I'm going to take my time back respectfully. There were there were three particular
there were three Mr. Please I only have 40 seconds. >> Yeah, that's why I don't want to take your time. >> There were there were three particular >> problems subst quote concerns that the Pinelands had. One was the intensity. Two was the lack of environmental
infrastructure relative to septic and water quality. And the third, I can't remember it right now, but the paper's in front of you. There's specific reasons they mentioned. It's not just they said no to say no.
They have particular concerns and I think you should notify the residents what those particular concerns are. >> Yeah. Right. I rest my case. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Just in case you have questions for me. >> Yeah, sure. No, no, no. You can sit
down. Miss M Miss Mr. Chapi will respond. >> It's not a question answer session. >> Okay. So, uh in terms of the issues that were raised, um I'll take them in reverse order, the um the letter, which I understand is uh has been posted and
raises several concerns regarding ordinances. So there's the uh intensity of development in rural development areas and Pinelands villages. Talks about management area redesation and talks about the fact the area and
I'm obviously summarizing um the area does not include significant environmental limitations and the use of primeands development credits is required for a percentage of the development units permitted. Um so there sorry the finance does express a number
of concerns and they are specific about those concerns and the process remains the same whether the process or uh now or after adoption the process remains the same. the township is going to have to meet with the commission
staff, go through the concerns in this letter, go through any additional concerns that the commission staff has um and then try and meet those concerns and that either would be, you know, by
going through the existing ordinance and the result of that conversation is that Pinelands um does not feel that they have continuing concerns on certain things or the ordinances may have to be amended in the future. As I said, an
ordinance that is not certified by Pineelands in the Pinelands area is not effective. So, absolutely their concerns have to be addressed in terms of uh the environmental commission and the role of the environmental commission. The role of the environmental commission is to
con on is to comment as I think you said on major applications. when those applications come in, they will have that opportunity to comment on those applications and with regard to any ordinances that are in effect. Those may
or may not be these ordinances depending on what the process with Pinelands are. The purpose of the ordinance is the and the reason the ordinance is on now has to do with the affordable housing portion. But the environmental concerns, the specific ones raised with Pinelands,
concerns raised today are all things that will they have to be addressed before the ordinances are enforcable. As far as what happened at last week's meeting and whatever the frame of the question was, I was not there and I do
not know. But right now, all I can say is that the the the letter was received. It is not unexpected. Um this has been a process that has been in place with Pinelands ordinances in
many of the municipalities and certainly in Jackson in the past where an ordinance in the Pinelands is adopted and then the process is engaged in with Pinelands. Ultimately, there is an agreement reached. the ordinance is amended and then Pineland certifies it.
But no ordinance, including these, and I'm talking about A3 and A31, are effective until certified by Pineland. What the township is doing is demonstrating its commitment to an affordable housing plan approved by the
planning board and found compliant by Fairshare Housing. But the ordinances are not effective until and unless approved by Pinelands. And if they are not, then hopefully we'll remain uh immune and have to come up with an
alternate plan. But the ordinances will not be effective until issues are worked out piling to the extent that they can certify and will certify ordinances. >> Um Mr. Mcken, I want you to elaborate for a second. Many people in this room were present
for the hearings and ordinances on the uh religious schools and religious facilities and the Peland zoning changes and the non-Pand zoning changes. The township adopted those ordinances. They were referred to Pinelands. They did not take effect and could not take effect until Pinelands approved them. It took
at least a year before Pinelands after meetings with the township approved an amended version of that ordinance. And we've all been through a lot of people in this room have been in those hearings. That's the purpose of the Pine Lands regulations. That's their job. And that's exactly what the township did. We adopted the ordinance. We met with them.
We addressed their concerns. And they agreed in the end that these types of ordinances with these changes were acceptable. And I anticipate something like that would happen here. They will properly address their concerns. The township has to address their affordable housing concerns in consultation with them. And this ordinance cannot take
effect until they approve this version or an amended version at some point in the future just like we did for religious institutions and houses of worship in the pylons area in 2024 and 2025. >> So Mr. McGucken, Mr. Briani, so what you're saying is all this is doing is
protecting our immunity and moving everything to the Pelands to see where they go with it. And if the Pineland doesn't move on it, nothing can happen. >> That's correct. But it does still we have the ability to protect our immunity from builder's remedies in this process
and then present it to the pylons. >> That's correct. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Order. Okay. Mr. Koner. >> Ray Katoner. Uh I live in Jackson. I am on the environmental commission. I'm here as a resident. I do agree. Uh that
should have been disclosed in the round table. we were throwing out ideas and we should have actually had that letter um so we can discuss it especially it's all about what we're going to do for affordable housing and an
explanation a very good one from um Council President Morty I'm glad that you uh held the meeting but I also want to know under the current metrics of the 10% and 20% to meet our thousand affordable housing obligations
How many homes has to be built >> Mr. Bri? >> So to a certain extent it it's going to depend on the individual projects and and the densities for the projects but you know
it's so I can't give you a definite number but you can do a range. I'll accept a range. >> Yeah. I mean I would say 4,000 to 5,000. That's it. 5,000 on those ratios.
>> Isn't that 20%? >> I mean, >> yeah. >> Okay. >> Because I found the uh even though the round table was interesting, um I found your legal council's narrow conventional
approach pretty bland to be honest. There's other townships doing much more than what we're doing. In fact, I did uh give a proposal that we can float a municipal bond and actually m and build our own uh
units to cover our affordable housing mandate versus having to build 5,000 homes. We can borrow money at a very cheap rate. we can issue a municipal bond, become actually collect the rents, and we would throw out positive cash flow and not have to destroy our
township with 5,000 units throughout the whole township. I was hoping that would be explored. Um, I think we need to table this to uh actually look into that. I think the cost of building an infrastructure to handle those 5,000
units. Have you done any research on how many children we're anticipating and what will need to be done to accommodate the additional housing over those 10-year time frame? Do we have a number? Do we have an estimate of how many kids per household?
>> Don't worry, I don't want to take your time. I I'm just writing down your questions, so >> Okay. Yeah, >> that's pretty much. And then also I was disappointed. Um I asked for the affordable housing fund that we have from your legal counsel and I couldn't be provided total.
>> I thought if you're going to be at a presentation, we should know how much cash is sitting in our account. >> Sure. >> Right. Let me know when I'm ready. Yeah. Uh, and also I brought up a DCA affordable housing trust fund that most
towns apply for on an annualized basis. Um, you got uh, townships getting $3 million to help in their affordable housing. Um, your attorneys did not seem to even know that existed. So, if you could answer those questions, I would appreciate.
>> Sure. So, I'm I'm going to start off right. So, um, I think first of all, let's just talk about the round table. I think it was a step forward. I I I don't think it was a step backwards. I think it was something that was never done before and I'm not going to say that we are perfect here. Um we're trying and I think really um to speak for I don't
want to speak for all my colleagues but I but I think I I I could definitely um portray a certain sentiment here is that we're we are definitely trying we are trying to balance all the various um elements that we are we have various responsibilities to whether it's
environmentally sensitive areas whether it's the pro it's the issues that we have with the affordable housing mandates. I think it's important to point out is the a thousand and the plan was adopted already by the planning board and yes the only member of the current council who sit who sat in the planning board was myself that planning
that that that plan was adopted unanimously by the members of the planning board um multiple months ago and we did um you brought up some valid ideas by that round table and I went back and I have answers on some of them um but that like I said that round table came up it was an idea that I had I
discussed with some of my colleagues we thought it was a good idea It was the first time and like I said, we could have maybe in certain parts been more prepared and I'll admit when we could have done better, but I think overall it was a step in the right direction. I did check in. We have approximately $6.2 million in our affordable trust fund
which has various different parts of how it gets spent and I'll let um Mr. Chapani respond to I know there's a percentage of it that has to go to rehab. There's also a percentage that needs to go to other expense uh rental um um subsidies if I remember correctly.
Um, so we ha we definitely we have money so but it's not a lot of money and um based on the research that I did after speaking to you and we spoke a couple mornings early in the morning um is it cost approximately between $150 to $200,000 per rental per unit to build um
that's based on the initial research that I did um in order to build um if we have if we knock out out of the six million let's say get it down to five after some of the other expenses involved we're not talking about building a lot of lot affordable houses. I'm not arguing that maybe we could
build a couple. I'm I am not disagreeing with with with your calculation, but if we look at the water sewer expenses that cost to build units, and I've never built anything besides for, you know, light bulbs in my house. Um it's extremely expensive, water and sewer and and some of those um calculations. So, I
think the town did look into it, and um my understanding is generally we don't try to give government more jobs. Um, and we believe in small government and if we're going to give the government the job of building and developing, we'd also have to require giving up some of our open space inventory in order to
build some of these affordable um, plans. >> Have we verified that? Do we have additional space? Secondly, let's say there's two kids to a house. >> So, right. So, right. Sorry, I'm answering. You can come back the next time. So, um, and now, Mr. Strian, if
you could just, uh, add anything more. >> Yeah. Uh, just a couple of things. So to stick with the trust fund for a second that uh by our statute I'm sorry by our ordinance which echoes the regulation and our spending p plan that's been
approved by the state 30% of the affordable housing trust has to be used for subsidies for low and low low right >> uh residents and we also have to use that for our rehab obligation for the rehabilitation of substandard units
occupied by people meeting the affordable income standards. Um, so two separate >> I understand where that goes. I just asked for the amount, not the usage. >> And I would like to add your ad talking about cost. >> Right. Right. Right. It's we're we we we
give you extra time. Let attorney answer and then you come back again for >> No, she's answered the question. I just wanted the total amount. You want to go further, you can. >> Oh, no. That's it on the spending plan. Um, as far as the all affordable, that was something that we had looked into,
but there are a couple of things. One, to get near a thousand units, um, you in doing an all affordable project, um, the courts and fair share and the state will not approve anything. It's usually they want to see no more than 60 to 80 units.
Um, even let's say magically we could get them to approve a hundred unit project. They're never going to approve a thousand unit project. And I think there's a real question whether you would want a 1,000 unit all affordable project. But since that wouldn't be approved, let's say we could get
approval for 10 uh 100 unit projects, then we have to go and not only provide the land and the costs for building them. And the problem is there are a couple of problems, but one um is that in terms of the cost
under the law, the the municipality does not have an obligation an obligation to spend its own money for affordable housing because even with the plans that are available, and there's a lot of of towns that are putting in for that,
there are some state funds available. It's not going to cover an obligation. We can do a mixture. In other words, with a builder also utilize their properties. We >> Ray Ray, we heard the idea. Let let Mr. Bounty finish and then >> and the problem you know with the
bonding obviously we have the debt service now we're building and running the affordable housing projects on the taxpayers which we try and avoid. Um and in terms of open space, council president mentioned you you going into our open space inventory as I think
you're aware we have to be really careful with that. some of that open space is an arasi then it would require a diversion so then that's the acquisition of of additional space so that becomes a a complicated at any scale that becomes a complicated uh
issue as far as the number of children calculated if the township had run any such numbers we would not uh be allowed legally to make that any part of our calculation that is not legally a consideration that a municipality can
use when assessing its affordable housing. >> I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting the cost of building schools >> if you have two. >> Mr. Kona, come back by by the next ordinance. It's the same question you have. Okay. Yeah. Now, I just want to answer Thank you for your time. I just
want to answer the exact amount as of four days ago was 6,178,79341. That was >> Do you have a total 12 months ago or no? I I I I didn't get that. No, >> but I can get that for you if you >> you know how to find me.
>> Yeah, thank you. Who's next? >> Hello, Jennifer Galarsa, Tom's River, formerly of Jackson. Um, I just want to know if you guys are aware of the lawsuit that was settled with Tom's River as far as their affordable housing obligations are concerned.
um they've taken a lot of the units that they already have. They've extended the deed restrictions. They're making a lot of the units that they currently have affordable. Um I understand that Jackson 21 doesn't currently have any affordable units or or it's not what it was
initially supposed to be. Um are you guys aware of that? How they kind of consolidated the units and made them kind of segregated from the rest? So, I don't know if the residents are aware of the the lawsuit that was won by by Tom's River, but if I could just read a little
bit of it to explain it. Tom's River Mayor declares victory an affordable housing lawsuit. Tom's River has secured a 10-year affordable housing deal that limits new construction to 186 units while looking in affordable for hundreds of existing apartments, avoiding what
officials called a building boom. On Wednesday, which is today, no, last week, the township council approved a settlement for the Fair Share Housing Center to resolve a lawsuit over the municipality's obligations under New Jersey affordable housing rules. The
settlement resolves the township's affordable housing commitment for the next 10 years. Mayor Rodrik's administration had challenged the state's latest calculation calculations which set housing targets for all 564
municipalities through 2035. Those figures released called for more than 146,000 low and moderate income units statewide. Tom's River was among 160 municipalities contesting the numbers. We are not contesting the numbers.
>> One second. I I'll let you continue asking. I don't unless you want me to answer middle of I don't want to take your time. >> Okay. Under the settlement, the township will allow construction of 186 new affordable units, 48 apartments, 134 on Route 70 West, and four converted
office spaces. The office conversion will include 20 additional market rate apartments likely to become summer rentals. Rodrik praised the sentiment as a way to prevent overdevelopment. To avoid a larger building boom, Tom's River will also preserve affordability
and existing apartment complexes. While the township's initial plan proposed 470 deed restrictions, the final deed requ the final deal requires 448 extensions on current affordable units plus 70 additional deed restrictions for a total
of 518. A deed restriction, if nobody knows, is a legal argument agreement that keeps a property designated as affordable housing for a set period, preventing it from being sold or rented at market rates. The township will use about $9
million from its affordable housing trust fund to finance these restrictions. They took the challenge headon with a unique and comprehensive plan that initially submitted 470 new deed restrictions on existing apartments.
This plan was not just about meeting state requirements. It was about protecting our community from a continuation of the overdevelopment that has plagued our community. The settlement also revolves resolves a dispute over the gap period between fair
share claim Tom's River owed 1,900 extra units. Instead, the township will add 70 deed restrictions to cover the obligation. Without a deal, Rodri said the town could have faced requirements for 1,765 affordable units, potentially targeting
triggering thousands of market rate apartments under Builder's Remedies lawsuit. The Fair Share Housing Center praises the outcome. The agreement includes a clause that excludes the project that means nothing. The calculation follows a law Governor
Murphy signed in last year. The law standardized obligations for municipalities throughout the state to build more housing while further protecting them from lawsuits. So my question is, have we considered using some of the
highdensity housing that we already have to meet this obligation? And why are we not involved in this lawsuit? >> Sure. So first of all, I just want to make sure because I want to look up that article later. Where was that article posted? If I just want to make sure I got the right
>> nj.com, I believe >> was nj.com. >> NG nj.com. Okay. So thank you. Um, and I'd ask you if you can send it to me after. Um, you you know how to find me. Um, so a couple things. First of all, um, I think the attorney referenced before is that our So, I'm just I want
to make sure I got all all of your your questions in place. Is the process of we we do not currently have expiring um um a substantial number of expiring rentals or units currently in town. It is something the township did look into. Um but our numbers do not reflect that
opportunity that hopefully in the fourth round we will have a sorry the fifth round I apologize. We're currently in the fourth round about 250 um that we could hopefully credit towards our fifth round but currently we do not. And part of the reason for that like Mr. Chipriani said before is Jackson Township sold off their units in
previous rounds when we were allowed to legally to other urban centers which currently doesn't exist. So we we do not have some of those expiring numbers that maybe Tomver has and Toms had a lot of of apartments that were built in Tomserver. With regard to Jackson 21, um
I I'm not aware of that they they they do not have an affordable responsibility of 20%. That's something we definitely could look into. Councilman. Yeah. 21 has their share built so far in the apartments they have their percentage of uh affordable there and on freehole road
they have a standalone of 88 units there >> they ponds does the ponds have any for >> they will be having them as they go in yes they've been you know they're doing their commitment um they held up for years in the county with the roadways and stuff but uh in the apartments that
you see the 21 uh on county line they have their percentage they need in there were affordable. When you go around Freehole Road, you'll see the apartment that they built on Freehole Road. That's 88 units right there. And as they continue, they will add the rest, but that is being done. >> So now, Miss Chapan, if you could just
add because it's the five minutes already. If you could just explain how we got to our number. Um I know former mayor Raina negotiated what the request was, what the gap number is. So just for Miss Garza's, >> but more importantly, why are we not joining the lawsuit fighting this? That's my bigger question.
>> Sure. >> Yeah. So we are in the same kind of litigation that Tom's River was. There's an the exception is regarding the number but what happened with Tom's River is in essence what has happened with us and
when they are trying to work out that agreement that is what we are doing as well when they talk about having reached an agreement with fair share. So the towns, all of the the towns adopted their number. There was a state number. Either they adopted number or they
challenged it. And um then they came up with a plan and then either fair share or fair share and developers challenged the plan. So that's what was going on in Tom's River and that is what is going on with us as well. Um that's why these
ordinance are being considered why we talk about losing immunity because we are in that litigation. We have three developers that have intervened as well as fair share. So we are in litigation now. We've had challenges filed to our plan and that's what we're trying to address.
>> But doesn't it make sense to table it until you're done with litigation? No, no, no, no, >> no, it does not. Because it only would make sense if we could get an extension of our immunity from more lawsuits and
um the what are called builder's remedy lawsuits and there are other kinds of challenges. If we can we right now today we have immunity from those lawsuits still coming from the third round and our immunity there. So what we're looking to do is continue that immunity
to keep the control. So that's somebody else had said you why weren't aren't we applying. We are looking to get extensions, but the court has not. Part of the reason that Tom's River settlement is now, and you're going to see, if you look for it throughout the
state, you will see reported of agreements being reached now because of this 1231 deadline for a recommendation to then the affordable housing judge and then you may see some more in January, early February. as far as our number. So
I I you had read Tom Shiver's number um in 2024 in order to try and get in front of the litigation and have that additional time to develop the number uh former mayor had entered into negotiations with Fair Share to set
Jackson's number. So originally fair share had said they thought Jackson's number for the fourth round which is what we're planning for now would be was 15 or 1,600 units and that's just for the fourth round. That number was negotiated down to 750.
So that's the fourth round number that Jackson settled at. You also reference the fact that Tom's River had a gap number >> and they were able to settle that with I think 70 new units >> in here. Jackson had a gap number of 600
>> and the agreement with fair share took that gap number to 250. So when we talk about a th00and that's 750 for the fourth round obligation and 250 for that gap from the third year and there was a gap for the third year because of so
much litigation over the regulations of the third round that instead of being 10 years which as you just referenced is the normal period for a round under the statute the third round was actually 26 years long which is what created that gap. That's not a normal part of the
number. >> Okay, just one more. >> No, no. Can you come back again? I give you extra two minutes, Jen. >> Okay, just one more thing. You might not want to >> You might not want to sell all the schools until we figure out what's going on. >> Carlos Martins's uh Jackson.
Um, once again, I came with a list of things I wanted to talk about and uh related to this ordinance, but um I got sidetracked. I I do have a question, but I got to lay a foundation first. So, if you allow me to lay a foundation, I think that's a legal term. You guys use
it all the time. >> Um, >> and just interrupt a second. On the record, you're not speaking as a zoning board member, right? Usually, you're good about that. >> I'm not speak I'm not speaking as a zoning me as I'm speaking as a resident. Um,
okay. So, I did, so we have very smart residents here and and I know I'll just single out my friend because I do see him as a friend, uh, close friend, Adam. Um, he's very knowledgeable. I think
that's evident, right? Um, he has a lot of energy and a lot of passion and sometimes that me um, reflects itself in ways that aren't as formal as we like to be here. But um I think Chris actually me mentioned this the other time. It was an attorney that kind of called talking
about a child and all that and that's just wrong. And um so I do appreciate the the way you guys um during here have been treating my friend Adam >> and others and others that are back there and it's because um the passion,
right? Because this stuff does impact our lives. We live here, right? I mean, you can't help it but be personal. This is where my family >> Carlos, interrupt a second. Are you talking about the ordinance or are you talking about Adam? >> I'm talking about the ordinance >> because you can talk about Adam by public comment. >> Okay.
>> Uh I just wanted to make that point because it does feed into my final question. Okay. Um so I I would though ask to respect the other residents. So to not speak out when you're explaining something cuz we
want to hear you but we can't if somebody else is yelling from the back. I'll say that. So with that all said um my experience with you has been um it's obviously you're extremely knowledgeable about the facts, right?
And I do think you're you're a straight shooter and honest person. So my question to you is if you are on our side and I was to ask you, has the council, has the township done everything they can to protect our
wetlands, our wildlife, our environment from just, you know, all all the legal stuff aside, have we really done everything possible? >> Please don't call out. Um, that's my question. I hope hopefully I
laid a good enough foundation for you, >> Mr. Brianna. He directed at you, so you can go for it. >> Mr. Os, I would answer you this way. if the in light of the township's
obligation to come up with an affordable housing plan and to draft the ordinances in ways that consider the environment and to consider the environment and how they do it and as I said because the underlying protections
remain in place for the environment then the answer is yes I will say to you that it's a you said this is personal and of force because you you live here and it is of course it's personal for everyone and it's all the development and I had had referenced
this earlier on. It's a very difficult position for the governing body because of the need to balance out all the different things that they're trying to do. one protect the environment, one protect from, you know, the residents
that are here, protect from overdevelopment, and at the same time comply with the law and provide a plan for affordable housing. And there is no way that such a plan, when I've been doing affordable housing for many, many
years, I have never seen a plan, I mean, that that people are going to like because it always involves more development. Always. and and that's not something that is often welcome, but I think that the council has done a very
good job of trying to balance out those protections with the obligation. >> Okay. Thank Thank you. I appreciate that. >> Miani, also no matter what we do here with this those outside agencies, Dylans,
nothing's overlooked. They still have jurisdiction over that no matter what. Correct. >> None of that. That's not erased at all. Pinelands continues to have jurisdiction over what Pinelands has jurisdiction of. Again, the ordinances in Pine, the Pinelands area are not effective unless
certified by Pinelands. And so, their concerns will be addressed. They will have to be addressed or another path will have to be found. D's regulations cannot be impacted by Tashup ordinance. There is no ordinance this council could
uh adopt that would alter pine I'm sorry D's regulations and their requirements in the slightest degree. They are state agency. Their uh requirements and regulations and processes take precedent over ours and there's nothing we could
do to change it nor has the council tried to change it. >> Okay. >> If I could just elaborate for one second. I was planning on saying this at the end um but I'm going to say it now is I think we Mrs. Mr. Mr. Briani, you could attest and I think some of my colleagues on council could attest also is this is a very difficult and uh Mr.
Briani could could relate to the fact or or Mr. McCucken those late phone calls and early phone calls during today where the stress level is is is is enormous um where we we are under litigation where I've had full support of my of the council and the mayor's office to fight
tooth and nail making sure there's not these challenges aren't successful and um some of them have taken a personal toll. I'm just going to be very honest. the I think you can look at me and see I I've aged through the process because it's complicated. It's it's there's a lot of pressure put on the town. We we come to these mediation settlement
meetings where the judges are very pro just settle and just allow for more units. And I'm like why would we allow for more units if we if we hit our number and the judge is like I want you just to consider two of the projects, three of the projects, one of the projects. And I'm like and you can tell Miss I could ask Mr. Briani, I said to her, I said, "The guidance that the
governing body is giving right now, if we feel that our plan um was was signed off by Fair Share Housing, we're willing to go to court and we're willing to battle to support our plan and not to not to allow another ounce of iota because we feel that we are doing what's in the best interest of of complying with that plan and we have the fair
share housing to to so I think this this council to to to just for my sake is is is fighting tooth and nail and doing our utmost best to protect the environment and to comply with our state mandates so we turn into what we don't want to turn into. >> Okay. Am I allowed to respond to that? Next. Later.
>> Okay. Later. >> Later. Later. >> I have more to say later. >> Okay. Only one one one time. Adam, you come you come up. Next ordinance. There's two more. Adam, there's two more ordinances. Okay. >> Hi, Kimali Jackson. So, I I have a
couple of questions. Um, one is I understand what you're saying. We have to do some type of an immunity because if we don't, they're just going to let the state come in and take over and do what needs to be done. But can we only
do approve one the first ordinance which is just the standard ordinance on like I'm assuming that's like county line road where the commercial and the this and that versus the other two ordinance which are the mixeduse with the environmental issues that are going on.
Would you be able to only do one and not all three? >> Mr. Briani. >> Yeah. So, no. In order to provide immunity, we could not. But that that's why I keep making this point. So, the first one is as you said, it's not
Pinelands, it's all that the ones in Pinelands in order to protect the immunity and show the commitment. We need to do that. But those ordinances will not be effective. Nobody can build anything. Nobody can rely on them unless they're certified by Pinelands.
Pinelands does have concerns that were expressed in that letter. So, we're going to have to go and meet with Pinelands. In all likelihood, we're going to have to amend the ordinances in some way. Um and so that they they they do have to be adopted to show the
commitment to the plan that the planning board passed that fair share has signed off on. But they will not become effective because they will not be certified by Pinelands in their current form when we have to we have to satisfy Pineelands or they won't be certified
and they'll never be effective. >> Well, what about the Department of Environmental Protection? >> So the D comes into play on the individual projects. So the D doesn't review the ordinances in the way that Pinelands does but in any project that
go comes in not you know as part of the approval and usually what you see and this comes up a lot um I do the zoning board is they come for local approval first because when you go to D they want to see that you have local approval so
every approval that's ever given at the local level is you're going to see that it is subject to approval of outside agencies. So then then they have to go to D, they have to go to the county planning board, they you know depending where they are, they may have to go to Pinelands, they may have to go to
another agency, but they almost they always are going to have to get the any necessary D approvals. So it's confusing sometimes because people will say, you know, why are you approving this at the local board when it doesn't have D approval? They're entitled to come to us
first and then go. But they always if it's in an area, if where there's something on the site that like a category one stream like wetlands, they're always going to have to go D and D will then be able to put their regulations and their requirements on
that and and they may or may not be able to do what they they want to do. We've certainly had things that come back where a board has approved them. They go off to D. D is like no you can't do this we find there's additional wetlands whatever it may be and then they have to
come back. >> Okay my next one is there are properties that you have chosen um that were originally supposed to be schools or religious and now all of a sudden they're not and these are
the properties that you're trying to turn now into the mixeduse the housing thing. Uh, one is Leville. Leville was supposed to be schools behind the quick check. Now all of a sudden it's 190 apartments with mixed juice or whatever's going on there. Uh, Geneva is
another one. It was supposed to be schools. The the town, the people who lived on Geneva went on a lawsuit against this, lost the lawsuit, and now it wants to be now. one of the lots that's been picked for instead of
schools and religious which is part of the DOJ that we were supposed to do this this and this and now all of a sudden we're not doing schools we're doing affordable housing. Explain that to me. >> Sure. So um my understanding is that the
various developers with regard to the two projects I think you're mentioning the Leville and off of White Road right white road. >> So one's off Geneva which is off of Chandler. >> Okay for that one. Okay fine. So that's one of them. >> So those developers those developers sure I don't think those de I don't
think those developers and Mr. Brian or Mr. McCut can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think those developers lose those approvals. This is an overlay that they've made that decision that they want to consider other options for the property. So they came and they submitted their their plans to the planning board. Again, I just want to reiterate, you mentioned that we put these lots in the council.
>> But these people also came back to sue us to say we're all anti-semitic or etc. and instead they got their approvals for their schools and now all of a sudden they're not going to be schools. So >> they may they may be schools, they may
not. The developer has that choice. >> Well, obviously the ones on Leedsvilles are not going to be schools. They just said it's going to be 190 units. That's not a school, >> Miss Jriani. So as far as as just generally to take it generally and then
go specific for generally with the overlay if there was whatever the existing zoning was or if there was an existing approval that remains in effect and then the overlay just provides an option to do the affordables. So that's basically the way it so the existing
zoning remains there and existing approvals remain in place. The overlay just provides another option as far as any specific site where you know somebody was going to do a school and you know why did they fight for so hard for a school and now they want to do an
affordable project. I I can't answer that. It is you know in terms of what that motivation of the developer was but we are providing the opportunity um to do the housing instead. >> Well I think Mr. Pomeary I think you had
this >> Mr. Mr. Pome just if I could just ask I want to clarify something with our attorney and I was asking a lot of questions in exact session. Um I did I wanted to apologize to my council members. I did take up a lot of those question time but this is new to me because first time on the council we're going through this this only happens
every 10 years. Um, you know, if we and and you can correct me if I'm wrong, if we do not or if we table these ordinances like some of the residents are asking and we lose that immunity, it would be a short-term win
today. We'd feel like we did something because we tabled them. But when the immunity is gone and the builder's remedy kicks in in January, the builders, and if you just let me finish, I hear some noise back there. I was very respectful to everybody else. the builders that did not get into this
master plan could then get get in. And so instead of a thousand units plus the four or 5,000 alto together, we could potentially see in a year or two thousands more and there would be nothing we could do because we took this short-term win today. Is that is that
about right or am I off? >> No, you you are correct. First of all, of course, you're correct in that it always feels good for the governing body to listen to the people in the room that feel strongly about something and and that that does feel good. But you're
absolutely also right about the other side of that because if you don't adopt the ordinances, if you then abandon this plan, you don't get an extension. And as I said, the extensions have not been forthcoming. They really have not in
this round. um then you lose immunity and when you lose immunity what happens is that any builder can come in. So right now we have three that we know that will come in because they have already challenged it. We're in that litigation with them now. We have three
sites that have uh have already said um it's the Lakewood Golf Course Country Club >> Country Club >> um uh project over I think Whitesville Road >> where they're looking for 1,200 units and then um the Shopright Plaza where
they're looking for I think >> between 200 and 400 units >> 24 units >> right they're not in and those are not in our plan they're saying we want to be in your plan instead um And so if we lose immunity, they they're lined up. We
know they're coming. But there are also other developers in town and other parcels in town, either ones that are included in the plan or ones that missed the deadline for the plan. And but now it wouldn't matter. So they can come in
and the thing with the builder's remedies are are real. As I said, if you are a successful developer in a builder's remedy lawsuit and you the court orders the zoning, so then our zoning doesn't matter. The court orders the zoning and that zoning include
density, setbacks, building heights, lot coverage, all the things necessary to >> possible lack of tree permits. >> I mean, I know that's something people brought up. >> I mean, if they allow for the coverage, then that and that's happened before. If
you go to the court and on a builder's remedy, not only are bets are out, but there's also, to add insult to injury, not only is the township paying its own legal fees and professional fees, it's paying the fees if of the builder's remedy uh plaintiff if they're if
they're successful. So, it it is it's a shortterm long-term analysis. And and as I said, you know, even though it doesn't feel this way, in some ways, you are in a good position. You have a plan that's been
approved. You have a plan that fair share signed off on. And even though it is a weird thing to say, the fact that Pinelands has these concerns is, you know, we we are making the commitment
that the township has to that, but those ordinances are not effective. If you don't become effective, we can extend immunity and if we have to have time while still immune to consider additional options or or replacement not
additional replacement options if you have to. So it it really is the additional protection and for the people who that are very concerned about the Pinelands portion as I said and I you know they will those ordinances will not
be effective until certified by Pinelands and so Pinelands concerns which are some of the concerns that have been shared by people in this room on other issues like environmental issues will have to be addressed or they'll never be certified.
Can I can I respond to your question of why somebody would change from a school to housing? I think we all know the answer. Everything is done for money. Like it's whatever they're going to make the most money on and that's what it boils down to. I think we all know that and a lot of the decisions being made are about money and I think we all get
it. I I do think the town is doing some things to protect, you know, the town to protect certain things, but end of the day everything's about the almighty dollar. If I could just >> if I could just add to to what Mr. Pollock said is there are things and I
know we're all talking about the overall concept of development. There are definitely things and I think one of the first speakers addressed some a few of them. There are definitely certain restrictions. Um no ordinance is perfect. There are definitely restrictions that if you go around and look at some of other affordable sites in some of the surrounding towns or even
some of the ones that currently exist in Jackson that one of one of one one of the residents or um one of the people before spoke about. There are things in these ordinances, amenities and other things that do not exist in other developments in town which are going to cost the developer more money than they
would they would primarily and want to want to spend. So, um I think we're definitely caught between like Councilman like you said, we're we have a short-term gain and we have a long-term vision and sometimes um or long-term consequences and uh I think that's part of the question that we have
to balance up here. Anyone else before we get to the next ordinance? If I could just by show by raise of hands, who else wants to speak on this ordinance still before we get to the next one? If you spoke already. Okay, I see one more. Fine. >> I just want to clarify this is for all three public comment. >> No, just the first ordinance.
>> Okay, so not 47. >> Correct. >> Next. I saw one hand in the back. Oh, two hands. So, okay. officer Jackson. Um, listen, when you guys go to meet with the clients, okay, I believe that should be an open hearing. I believe everybody here wants
to hear what's going on in closed doors. Okay, enough of everything with the closed doors. Have it in the open and be honest with us. So, so far I'm sitting here, haven't been at a meeting in a while. It seems like nobody's been honest yet. I'm listening to the attorney speak. I'm not sure if she
works for Jackson citizens or the or the developers. I still haven't decided. But when you guys meet with the Pelands, we want I want to know if we're invited to the meeting as taxpayers and this township that concerns us. >> Okay. The pelines aborted and and this
audience I didn't get any notice from this audience or none which I should have got a notice with this. So everything is trying to go under the table and get it past the citizens. the taxpayers who pay your salary you're supposed to
represent or start doing your job. >> I think I think there is one more person in the back. Uh Gaza Jackson. Um all due respect, I don't need to speak to the attorneys. You guys are just gonna I'm not getting into legal stuff because you're just going to attorney back and talking to
the council directly, guys. You guys are here elected to take care of the people of your town. Okay? It's why you guys are all here, right? You guys have that in your soul that you want to do that for us. Okay? It seems that instead of caring about us, you're looking to care
for out of town landowners, out of town developers, okay, who don't have to deal with impacts to their wells and septic systems, to the overflows in their schools, to the crowding of their streets, right? And everybody here has
is feels very strongly about this guys, but it feels like the people of the council are more concerned about immunity. >> Yeah. >> Instead of caring about the people of their town. Right. There are some of these land owners from out of town, some of these out of town developers, the
land owners, some of them have people uh that currently have properties on those lands and they're not and they're rented and they're not on the rental list that we put together. So, how do I trust that they're going to follow rules when the
properties are actually built? So, you're going to put in ordinances that they're not going to follow and it's it's just it feels like you care more about immunity than actually any of us in this room. >> That's it. >> Councilman Palmer, I think, >> yeah, if I can, I think caring about
immunity protects all of us. I live here. I have three kids in the public school system. If we don't have immunity, instead of a thousand affordable, you can have 3,000. So I do 6,000 >> per the fair share plan. It's 6,000 new units being developed. >> And if we lose immunity, it could be 10
or 12 because all those developers we don't have in could come in. So we have to care about immunity because I live here just like you. We will have double. We could have double. So we need that immunity. It's a balancing act that's forced down our throat by the state of New Jersey. The real fight is at the
state level. So, we have to do what we can to mitigate those problems here. >> Why does it have to be 6,000 with 600 plus thousand square foot for commercial and office space? >> That's what the fair share plan is. >> Attorney, I don't know. >> So,
if I could just I'm make sure I understand your question. Why you saying why did ordinances also include a mixed use of commercial? >> Well, the mixed use of commercial that much commercial as well as 6,000 total units which is going to put a strain on our school systems, our natural greenery
and balls and stuff. >> Sure. So, first of all, I think the number was 5,000 um and and like the attorney said before with one of the ordinances before um there are state um administrative codes um to one of the first questions the first resident asked um that require that say that if you're
going to do a set aside what percentage of set aside you're allowed to require and we are complying with that. We tried putting higher. We actually tried putting 20% when the on the lower density developments and the judge told us pointed out to the administrative code which we missed and that's why we amended it according to the way the
judge said it. So we definitely want the developers to put as many affordable. So we have as many of our units as possible with as least density as possible. Now with regard to the commercial that was a planning perspective that came up through the master plan and the hearings that were held in June and July of last of earlier in the year where the the
plan was and I saw one this is a question residents asked. Are we going to see more commercial? So, it's going to be it's not going to be warehouse commercial. It's gonna be light commercial of pizzeras, grocery stores, things of of the NC type of of commercial. And the planning of that was that if we're going to have more density instead of everyone driving to the same spot for grocery stores, it's the same
spot for restaurants, you spread it out, and you also got the commercial ratables, which from a tax perspective is always good. Um, could we have just set rooftops instead of commercial? Yes, that planning board could have said that. That wasn't the planning perspective that the planning board picked, and we are following through. I don't think we're legally obligated to
have the commercial in there, but that was a planning perspective that we that was that was determined to be wise planning. But I hear your perspective. >> How how can we be so sure that things are going to be followed appropriately if some of these properties are currently being rented and not on the rental list. So, we're not even
following on our existing ordinances. >> So, so I and I know this is about the ordinance, but I want to address that for a second. I think everyone in this council um 100% supports a full crackdown on illegal rentals. And it's something that I mentioned in my opening comments. I've actually been very impressed with the way code enforcement has been going about it. Um, from from
the conversations I've had and I know we are we got I think it's 50 or 60 or maybe even 70 resumes for our new housing bureau. I think your job is to hold this council on the mayor's feet to the fire making sure that these ordinances are enforced. And if you have an illegal rental that you're aware of, please send it to I think the email
address is uh rent um I'm forgetting the exact email. I'm sorry. I'm tired. Um rentals I um I apologize. Um Chris, do you have it on there? >> We we'll get it. There is there is an email address which which is monitored
by code enforcement by Mr. Cheney from code enforcement members and I think Mr. Campbell and I can tell you I've I've seen more than one of those emails this week. Within two hours there was a response and an investigation has started and one of them already got a got some form of of NOV. So, we're trying and and there's always loopholes
that people try to um to exploit. And I think something on this council that we're going to be working on in 2026 is finding whatever legal ways we can crack down because rentals is a tremendous issue that I think everyone unanimously supports cracking down over here. >> Before you vote on these three, think of everybody in this room and everybody in the rest of the town.
>> Thank you. >> Seeing no one come forward. I move to close public forum. Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> I have a motion to drop ordinance 202546.
I'll make a motion to adopt based on the lawyers and their advice and the word immunity. And I think it's getting taken for granted because it's been used so so much to preserve our immunity. is you're preserving the fact that the
state's not going to come in and take over whatever they want to do. Height requirements, design requirements, density. If we lose immunity, we are open to that and build his remedies. They have total control, we have no say.
You say we're not doing our job now. If that comes in, we have no job to do with it because the state takes it over. So the word immunity may might be penetrating enough that it has to be recognized. So if we can get these passed, maybe get the immunity protected
and then work with the pilots of stuff and nothing happens till we work with them. That's how it happens. You can't go to them ahead of time for it. First you have to get it. Just like the DP people say, why don't we get their stuff first for the applicants, the planning board? Well, in 2010, we tried to put
that in a master plan to require an LOI at the time of application. It had to get thrown out because it's illegal. You cannot require it. And these agencies want to see what the final plan is and what you're committed to before they make their decisions. And that's why it's done this way. And for that
reasons, I'm voting yes. >> Second. >> I'll second it. >> Councilman Pressley. Yes. >> Councilman Pollock. >> No. >> Council Vice President Paul Mary. >> So, first I just want to acknowledge the strength of these ordinances before I
vote. >> Excuse me, sir. If you're going to be rude, let me have my time to speak. I gave you yours, Mr. What's the gentleman's name over there? >> Mr. >> I'm sorry, >> Mr. Hog. >> Yeah. >> It's rude. Very rude. Very rude. >> Let me have my time speak, please. It's very rude. >> Yes, sir.
>> Thank you. >> I want to acknowledge the strength of these ordinances. As I stated at our last meeting, these are some of the strongest affordable housing ordinances in Ocean County and possibly throughout the state. Meaning meaningful open space requirements. Right? We had said this
16% open space per development, which is very high standard for affordable housing. Strong deed restrictions to prevent abuse. Affordable housing units will be deed restricted, prohibiting the converting of basements and garages into living space. Basements in all units may
not be accessible from the outside, preventing illegal rental conversions. We have smart development controls, phasing of amenities tied to development completion percentages, increased visitor parking requirements per unit, no on street parking within 100 ft of
any roadway intersection. Public safety protections are built in. Developments with 50 or more units must provide a minimum of two approved fire apparatus access points. Development with 150 or more units must provide a minimum of three approved fire apparatus access
points. There's a lot of good in these ordinances and these are the controllables what we can control and council work hard to strengthen them wherever possible. Now my position and vote I oppose statemandated affordable housing requirements not because
affordability isn't important but because the state mandates remove local decision-making. Despite that opposition, the mandates exist. Doing nothing would invite the state to step in and impose far weaker standards. And from my experience on the board of
education, I've seen firsthand what happens when the state takes over. Local voices lose influence. This vote is about choosing the lesser of two bad options. Passing strong local ordinances keep Jackson in control. And for that reason,
I will vote yes. reluctantly but responsibly to protect our town from a far worse outcome imposed by the state. I want residents to understand clearly. I oppose the mandate, but I will always choose local control over state control.
Thank you, >> Council President Bernstein. >> So, I also really just want to echo um I think everyone up here is in a in a tough position. It's not a secret driver on Ocean County. Ocean County is being overdeveloped. It's not it's definitely not a secret when it comes to that. And
my concern is there are certain things that we put in restrictions that we did put into these ordinances that do not exist in other towns. Um and like the councilman just mentioned, we restricted the design standards to to the basements, making sure that would make it more difficult for someone to cheat and break our rules and rent out their
basements. Um and we put parking requirements there. People have brought up over the years of certain developments that were supposed to build commercial and certain amenities. They drive by, you don't you just haven't seen them being built. And we put in a phasing process to ensure that you see those commercial, you see the community
center, you see the recreation, the active recreation, the passive recreation. My concern is if we vote no on this ordinances that we will have developments that are like developments and and some of our neighbors to the to the west. I apologize. Um, and I want to
ensure that our developments, which we're going to have to build, are going to be smartly built and built in a way that could handle our infrastructure. So, I reluctantly vote yes. Um, madame clerk, before we go further, first of all, um, thank you to it. Um, the email
for rental complaints is rental complaints atjackanttwpnj.net. Again, rental complaints atjackantwpnj.net. Um, I'm going to ask my council if they would be okay with taking a fivem minute break. Um, we're not going anywhere. We're going to come right back. But a fivem minute break. Could I have a
motion to take a fivem minute break? And >> all in favor? >> I >> I >> Thank you. We'll be back. It's a I think there's the clerk's office, but >> yeah. You can turn the live back on it back
on. I want to >> We're just waiting for the We're waiting for the clerk and then we're going to start back. ready. >> We're going to go back into the minute the meeting. >> Chris, you want a coffee? >> We're gonna wait one more minute. Sorry.
I apologize. One more minute. We're getting one more coffee. >> Great. Took his jacket off. He's getting chill. >> I'm freezing. >> Get my jacket. I'd like to do that one day. You and I switch gadgets.
We're going to start back. Madame clerk, it Christian, are we we recorded? >> Yeah, we're back live. Just making sure. Madam clerk, we're back live. >> Yeah, we're back live. >> Madam clerk,
>> the next item is business is the second reading in public hearing of ordinance 202547 amending chapter 244 lang use and development regulation of the code of the township of Jackson County of Ocean and State of New Jersey to establish an inclusionary zone district overlay
entitled AH3 providing affordable housing units to be developed subject to certain conditions and requirements. At this time, if any member of the public has any comments to make, please address the council at the microphone and state your name and address clear for the record. You have five minutes to speak and may only speak once. May I have a motion to open public comment?
>> So move. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Uh, Adam, concerned resident speaking in an informal capacity. I have a simple question. >> The Pineland's letter, the last
paragraph suggested we table the ordinance. Correct. Right. What are you saying? If we followed the guidance of the Pinelands, we would suffer builder's remedy.
What you're saying under oath is the Pinelands suggested advice that would end up in our township getting sued. On the record, >> yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Hi, good evening everyone. Uh, my name is Jason Howell. I'm with Pineland's
Alliance. I'm the public lands advocate. Um, I'm here to ask you to follow the recommendation of the Pinelands Commission and move to table uh these two ordinances. 4748. The township has an obligation to pass laws that are both
legal and enforceable. Based on the letter sent on December 4th from the Piland's Commission, these ordinances these ordinances are neither. Uh the commission, the Peland's commission's executive director has outlined substantial concerns that these ordinances violate the comprehensive
management plan of the Pineel in ways that are likely impossible to fix without a complete rewrite rewrite. Um I'm going to highlight a few instances. Uh as drafted, these are attempting to place high density growth, eight units per acre into rural development and
Pineland's v village areas of Cville. Uh these areas are designated by the commission to maintain the character of the community and to protect natural resources and wildlife. The commission clearly stated that this intensity of eight units per acre is only appropriate within a regional growth area, not the
rural zones where these ordinance ordinances have been drawn to create overlays. The commission explicitly notes that centralized wastewater systems are prohibited in rural development areas and this ordinance would therefore require a developer to build infrastructure that they legally
are prevented from building. Uh also significant areas of these parcels are a critical watershed called the Tom's River corridor. In 2004, this township, Ocean County, and the Pineelands Commission invested years and millions of dollars to create the regional natural resource protection plan for the
Tom's River corridor. The commission has warned that reszoning this specific these specific blocks and lots would conflict conflict with these protections. And by attempting to pass this, the council would be attempting to undo 20 years of conservation planning the Jackson Township Township itself helped to create. This was a massive
effort covering 17,000 acres designed specifically to protect water quality and threaten wildlife like the northern pine snake and corn snake. The state and county invested millions of dollars and the effort here was that the land should be protected and the density would be
lessened, reduced, not increased. Uh in addition, I've been doing this for 10 years and I've I've yet to see a municipality knowingly pass an ordinance that was explicitly in violation of the Pineland's comprehensive management plan. um there's no reason to to do so. I understand you are under some
pressure, but you could simply table these resolutions and introduce uh resolutions that ordinances that conform to the pylon's comprehensive management areas in appropriate uh areas like regional growth areas. So, I urge you to t table these resolutions and and simply
respect the uh the residents here and the law that governs the Pinelands. Thank you. Elanor Hatam, Jackson, New Jersey. Um, I just I guess I want to clarify a few things just for the record. Um, I have had many interactions with the
Pineelands Commission. I've spoken with many members of the Pineelands Commission. Um, and quite frankly, the last one was the two uh major ordinances that um were passed in 2023.
And I actually contacted them and asked them, I said, "Did Jackson send you these two ordinances, the Pinelands and Non-Pelands ordinances that carved up Jackson?" And they said, "No." So, I do know that these ordinances are supposed to be supplied to the Pinelands
Commission long before uh it comes here. So, that is incorrect. You can give me your gibberish, but I know the truth. Um, also, when it comes to the DOJ and the DOJ lawsuit, I just have to put
this on the record because I really really have a problem. I really have this problem trusting in anything that Miss Cypriyani is saying here or the validity or legality of any
of these ordinances being the fact that she is the one that wrote the two unconstitutional ordinances that brought the DOJ lawsuit to Jackson Township. I really struggle with anything coming out
of her mouth. Um, so for the record, I know you're you or Miss Leblau, I know your law firm wrote these ordinances. So quite frankly, I'm sure there's some unconstitutional
pieces in here as I also have found or my lawyers have found in some of our other ordinances that Jackson Township refuses to change knowing that they're completely unconstitutional.
So with that said and the Pinelands region that this applies to, I have to note that with these ordinances, the primary major investors that own these
properties that you negotiated with that you're doing this for that I gained through open sources and a lot of time and research happens to be Morai Icorn. Shagra Shore Newman, Randy Johnson,
Maurice Wolf, who is Genkun's institutional investor hiding up in Brooklyn, Arie Cutotler, and Morai Hirsch. So with that said, we also have Morai Sternstein, another contributor to the
pack by the way, who owns GMME funding, who is also the pack contributor, who actively recorded and finances multiple properties for Morai Iicorn. And I'm not going to go into the list of all of his properties that he has financed that
helped him maintain uh what he has today. Um but this activity censored primarily around block 2301 and all the lots at tel along south hope chapel. In September his assoc the associated
mortgages on these lots were discharged and the recording actively ceased indicating a pause or restructuring of the development footprint. Then in November 2025, a new notice of settlement was recorded invite involving Sternstein's funding firm and
a new counterparty referencing the same geographic area after roughly five years of inactivity, a deliberate re-engagement of land and financing so that he can come into play with this situation because the corridor all along
uh South Hope Chapel is all owned by Morai. ICORN. Um we can then go into the active blocks and lots that are actively in going to be in front of the planning board. Um high school uh sha shavela
high school phase 2 whispering woods. Um all these are filed by entities tied with the same names and addresses. Block 1711701. This overlay includes the land owned by
Morai Iicorn uh Rutherford Estates in which about six months ago this not all of you but you released his bond for Rutherford Estates. Usually when a development is in play and a developer
has to post bond the township holds on to the bond. He never finished the project. The road is in and you release the bond. shows your pet shows collusion by this board. >> No one come forward and to close public
forum. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? I have a motion to adopt ordinance 202547. >> Second. Councilman Brassie, >> same reason I stated at the previous
one. I vote yes on this. >> Councilman Pollock >> going to vote no. Um it's the last meeting of the year and it's like we're being held over a barrel and it's I think this is why people have an issue
with this. It's the last meeting of the year and you're saying if we don't do this the state's going to come in and they're going to give us more development. Nobody feels good about that and it's a huge issue. I don't like how the process unfolded. Um,
this feels late. It feels under pressure and I understand the township is trying to address its obligations. I appreciate that effort, but appreciation doesn't replace scrutiny. I was not involved in the early development of these plans. And I've raised concerns about the lack of
clarity surrounding how these sites were selected, who the developers are, the political connections involved, and who ultimately benefits from these decisions. The reality is that the state has imposed affordable housing mandates on municipalities like Jackson.
And there are consequences for non-compliance. That doesn't mean we should stop asking questions or accept rushed proposals under the banner of urgency. What concerns me is that there's inconsistencies. At our last meeting, we lowered density on one
project. Yet, now we're being asked to increase density elsewhere for other developers. Residents are right to question whether standards are being applied evenly. There's also environmental concerns. Of course, large portions of Jackson are located in
environmentally sensitive areas. These conditions place real and unavoidable limits on what can safely be developed. And we've heard plenty about the Pinelands Commission that's raised substantial concerns and they want it tabled. Now, I want to be clear where I stand. I
don't support higher density development and I don't think most of our council members do either. All right? I don't support four-story buildings. I don't support growth that outpaces our infrastructure, environment, or our quality of life. Jackson is not a developer piggy bank. It's for people, families, neighborhoods, and nature. My
responsibility is fight for this town and keep asking the hard questions when decisions feel rushed or misaligned with our values. And there's ongoing concerns about political donations and relationships that make these votes difficult for many residents to trust even when decisions
are legally permissible. The appearance of influence undermines public confidence. That's why next year I'm going to be pushing for ethics reform legislation. We need clearer rules, stronger safeguards, and real transparency. So there's no question about whose interests are being served.
If we want to restore trust, we must change the way business is done in Jackson and prove that decisions are being made for the people, not for politics or financial convenience. >> Council Vice President Paul Mary. >> Yes. I stated my my reasons before. I
vote yes. >> Council President Bernstein. So, um, I vote yes, but I also just want to piggyback off one thing that Councilman Pollock said. I do think the state intentionally, and Mr. McGuffin could probably address this, intentionally set up the deadlines and the time frames in a ways to put the burden at the end of
the year like you like you very well said. I think it's intentional by the Christmas and and and the Han and the Hanukkah seasons and um I think it reeks and Mr. Mr. McGucken, I think you have a little bit more information as a state legislator. If you could just share the process that went on in the state level when this was amended last uh I think 18
months ago. >> Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. M um the legislation passed in a strictly partisan manner in 2024. In the New Jersey Senate, it passed 25 to 15. There are 25 Democrats and 15 Republicans in
the New Jersey state Senate. Every Republican voted no. Every Democrat voted yes. Um the Democratic governor signed the law the bill into law which set these time frames which set these requirements required answers by before the end of the year and set very
specific timelines as to what had to be done. This whole process with judges and adjudicators all of that is included in that bill. It was vigorously objected to by every Republican member of the legislature. Uh unfortunately we are outnumbered and as a result we
have this statute this framework and we are stuck with having to deal with it. >> Madame clerk continue. So I vote. Yes. >> Thank you. Motion carries. The next item of business is a second reading and public hearing of ordinance 202548
amending chapter 244 land use and development regulation of the code of the township of Jackson County of Ocean and State of New Jersey to establish an inclusionary zone district overlay entitled AH3A providing affordable housing units to be developed subject to certain conditions and requirements. At
this time, if any member of the public has any comments to make, please address the council at the microphone and state your name and address clear for the record. You have five minutes to speak and may only speak once. May I have a motion to open public comment? >> No move. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I.
>> Any opposed? >> Adam Mighty, I live in Jackson. Informal uh concerns. How can a builder uh how would a builder take advantage of builder's remedy in the Pinelands? A builder wouldn't be able to pro uh
build without the Pineland's approval. Correct. Right. So if you guys were to table this or vote to deny it and the builders did get the remedy, they legally they can't build in the Pinelands if the Pineeland says no.
Correct. >> Before Miss Chipriyani responds. Are there any other questions? That's a great question. Any other? >> Uh depends how you answer. >> Okay. So just your time is truthful. >> Uh you don't answer truthfully all the time. It's not a bad comment. That's
that's not that's not true. >> I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole. What I'm going to tell you is yes. Um you are correct that if a development require is in the Pineelands, it requires Pineland's approval. So if we
voted no and the or these ordinances went down or if the ordinances are up, it still needs Peland's approval. But here I'm now I'm getting Scott. You're right. The result would be that without
Pineland's approval, no one can build in the Pineelands. But so a builder could not take advantage to build in the Pinelands. What that would do is make that the all the the units and the builder's remedy suits could be anywhere
else. So, yes, it would protect the Pinelands portion, but it would do so at the cost of opening up the rest of Jackson to the builder's remedy lawsuits. >> Okay. And what exactly uh what what are the parameters for
something to qualify for builder's remedy? There's I imagine there's an exception, right? Let's say there was a sinkhole and we immediately needed to figure out what's going on with the sinkhole. >> I'm not sure that I understand the sinkhole.
>> Are there any is there any exception to the builder's remedy law? >> Sure. So >> or it is what it is. Even if it's the resident's health are at stake immediately, we have to do it so we don't get sued. Even with um the
builder's remedy obviously, you know, if it were say wetlands, let's take wetlands instead of the sinkhole because I could understand it better. Sorry. >> Um that's okay. Um so there's if if a builder came in and said, I have these acres of wetlands. Now they're going to
go to the court and they're going to have to be able to show that their site is buildable. Right? So a wetlands an all wetlands is not buildable. In that case they are not going to be successful in getting a builder's remedy. But it's
those kind of constraints that would have to be. So if they came in and said I have now my I have 40 acres of buildable land and I want to put a thousand units on them and I'm going to
make 200 of them affordable. and our zoning doesn't allow for that. And they say in order to do that, it has to be, you know, six stories high or whatever it is. If the court is convinced that it is a viable project
that will yield affordable units, then it would be approved. So, the wetland sinkhole, no, they would not be successful. But if it's a buildable lot, if there's a hole where we're not in compliance and we don't have an approved
plan and we don't have immunity and their development is going to produce affordable units, then they are likely to be successful. >> What are some examples of uh exceptions to the builder's remedy?
>> Yeah. So, I'm I'm I'm struggling a little bit with the way that you're framing it in terms of exceptions. So the way >> I I just imagine that there are scenarios where a township legitimately needs to modify their ordinance for the sake of resident safety. I can't imagine
>> builders remedy would take place when the safety of residents is at the forefront of concerns. >> So the town always has an obligation for their sum certain number of units. In this case it's the total of a thousand units. But give you just give me a
minute. >> Absolutely. >> So if one of the projects that was contemplated by the plan um all of a sudden it turned out that it was wildly contaminated, full of sink holes, it's going to be a safety issue. Well, then
that would come out of the plan and then the township would have an obligation to offer up another way that that number of units. Say that project was going to yield 100 units. Now you have to come up with another way to deal to do 100
units. So no, nobody is going to make you do a project that is uh truly a public health fair project, but you have to replace it. The problem now at this particular moment is that our plan that
protected us in the third round is expiring and we don't have at this moment we don't need it today but we do need it in a couple of weeks an approved fourth round plan to keep that immunity. So in that case we've got a plan and that's what I'm saying tonight about
these Pinelands ordinances. So >> so you could substitute properties. Why aren't you substituting properties that are nearby? don't have an approved plan, >> right? So, so yes, we can >> approved plan from who? >> I'm sorry. >> You said because we don't have an
approved plan. What does that mean? From who? >> So, we don't have an affordable housing plan for the fourth round that has been approved by the court. That is supposed to take place in I'm saying January. It could go in bleed into February. So what
happens now is by December 31st there's I'm there are two judges at play. One is the judge that's considering things now to make a recommendation who's called the program judge. So that judge makes a recommendation to this judge the
affordable housing judge and they're the one this judge is the one who's going to decide whether we have a compliant plan or not. if they come up with a compliant plan and we are if they say yes Jackson your plan is compliant and then it turns out we go through the whole process with
Pinelands we do everything we can Pinelands isn't satisfied we so we can't count on those units anymore then we will have to replace those units with another plan but we want for Jackson to
be able to replace those units we don't want it to be because we've lost immunity and a developer rushes into court with a builder's remedy suit. >> I personally think you guys are fear mongering builder's remedy and not
appropriately using Adam. A builder's remedy builder's remedy arises from uh misconduct uh uh unethically exclusion uh excluding something. It doesn't it builder's remedy does not arise from guidance.
>> Uh the Pinelands is is saying >> I'm gonna give you 10 more seconds. We've given >> the Pineland said we're not in compliance. So to go with their guidance, I highly doubt that would place us in a position to get sued. They own the jurisdiction of the property.
They wouldn't suggest something that would get our township sued. >> So your time's up. I'm just going to respond for a second. And um Mr. Briani, it looks like you you had what to say. Do you want to respond first? >> I I do want to respond first. Pinelands
is not trying to get us sued because our affordable housing obligation is not their concern. Pinelands hasn't done anything wrong here. They are they've sent a letter protecting what they perceive as their the concerns that they
have regarding an ordinance in the Pinelands. They're not. It's It's not It's It's It's It's apples to It's apples and oranges. That's a Pinelands issue. So, Pinelands isn't trying to get us to lose affordable housing immunity.
That's not their concern. Likewise, the court that is trying to assess whether we have a compliant plan is not concerned with why we don't have a compliant plan, i.e. because Pineland's asset table something. They're only
assessing the plan. So, you've got two entities that are both trying to carry out their missions, but they're not in conversation with each other. So, it's not that Pinelands is trying to get us sued. They're acting appropriately
within who they are and what their mission is, but the court is not going to say, "Well, Jackson, I understand that you don't have a compliant plan because you got this letter from Pinelands." They're just they're separate entities with separate concerns.
>> What do we have next? >> Deb Jones Jackson. Um I'm just a little I guess confused at I almost take offense to everything I'm hearing come across. It sounds like Jackson residents are against affordable housing.
I don't feel that anyone's against it. I just don't understand why we found ourselves in a position where we have two weeks to say we're going to do this. Why hasn't anyone been looking all along
for the areas that you have and have overlays are obviously not good properties. if they're not if you know if they're not approved then you kind of know the Pelands aren't going to approve it. Why haven't we come up with other
properties? Jackson's a big town. There's other places that we can build where it won't infringe on things that it shouldn't be. I I don't get why we're all of a sudden and you know I've been at a lot of the meetings. This has not
been a topic of discussion up until the last few weeks. I I don't understand. >> Can I respond? >> Absolutely. Please do. >> Thank you. So, um the planning board in I think it was June um adopted a master
plan and affordable plan. Unfortunately, those meetings were not well attended and we could debate why they weren't well attended. I think there were very few residents who who came to those meetings. that affordable plan determined the affordable plan which determined where these 17 or 13 lots
that we're currently talking about are um the council if I remember correctly we passed an ordinance in August with the single family units and there were residents who said why are we rushing it then why are we rushing it slow it down don't rush it to the f at the first step we did a couple ordinances then it's takes a lot of work um developing these
ordinances working with our attorneys and our planners and having engagement with with the courts making sure that everything's in conjunction with each Um I would love to have more time on these. We we definitely did not want to have to move move these forward as fast as we did. Um but that's just been the time frame if if you follow it was
August and then obviously um I think it was August and September were were those meetings then October November then we introduced it right after in the end of November December time. So um we only have one meeting in December I think. Right. Yeah. So it was only one meeting in December. So that's really the time frame that we're working with. And like
I said before, I do think these the the deadlines and time frames were intentionally set up in a way to make us have to rush at the end of the year when honestly we have better things to be doing than sitting here um debating these issues because no one wants to be do no one wants to be doing this. This
is a busy season. So um I think we the time frame was condensed by by the by the statute by the courts and by the legislature and unfortunately we've basically internally we've been dealing with affordable housing since since after that affordable plan what happened but it takes time to work on these
ordinances there's a lot of moving parts so I understand it and I from the public yeah it just broke out in three four weeks I think when we passed that in August I remember who the resident was is like why are you guys rushing it and our attitude those were the easy ordinances to do these the more complicated ordinances to do to comply
with the plan that was adopted and we were just working through those those kinks and um having as much engagement as possible behind the scenes. >> I know but respectfully those the lands that were chosen they were no better then than they are now. So nothing
changed on the land. So therefore, we should have pivoted as a town and found better property then cuz it doesn't matter how much time you put into something. If it's not appropriate, it's not appropriate, >> right? So, if the pilot's decision at
the end is that these areas cannot be developed, we'll be back here sometime in 2026 revisiting and going back to the planning board and starting that process again, which based on I think some of the concerns that some residents have, I think there's a lot of residents who feel that the Pelands are going to have those concerns. And then we'll be back
here back by the planning board, I assume, and then back to the council and back to ordinances. And I'm sure we won't find those perfect lots, but if that's where we have to go, that's where we'll have to go. Mr. McCau, you sound like you have something else >> and we'll have immunity during that entire time frame,
>> right? >> I understand that we need immunity, but we need community as well, >> Mr. B. >> Yeah. One second, Mr. Brassie. >> Well, two things. One, there was a little delay also. Would you put off the reading of them to have the round table
that backed up another week or two also? But as far as the pylons with their letter of concern or non-compliance, inconsistent, whichever way you want to do it, over the years, you see many applications come in and their initial response from the pylons is inconsistent
with their master plan. That's common. Then the applicant goes back and they work it out. It's not a definite. They want to see what the final approval is, what your final language is before they say they're going to accept it or not accept it. So there's no guarantee they're going to accept it. No guarantee
they will not accept it. That's something that we'll prove out in the future. >> Next, >> Jim Sakia, speaking as a resident, not a zoning board member. Um hopefully what I'm going to say won't get me in any trouble, but um you mentioned the
planning board in their meetings. Um, I just want to clarify because you made it sound a little >> You don't mind speaking a little if you don't mind a little louder. It was hard to hear. Sorry. I heard the word planning board. That's >> I was I was one of the few residents that were there. Mr. Breie was also
there as a resident. He wasn't on either the planning board or the zoning board or the council. Um, let let's be straight. The planning board scheduled those meetings for five o'clock before the regular planning board meeting and
the residents asked, "Why are you not spreading them out to different times?" They even pinpointed how Middletown did theirs. They were told, "We don't have to talk to the public and five o'clock is the best time for
all of the members of the subcommittee." That's exactly what was said. Mr. Pressy, you can say yes or no, but you know that's what was said. That's what the residents were told. So that's why the residents don't show up. You you not
providing meetings at times where they're going to be available. And when the presentation was made on the plan, Yes. I was I >> think there were three residents there. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And Mrs. Breie. >> So and and that presentation was was not
a we've talked. It wasn't a very good presentation. They really didn't discuss the changes that were made. They just said, "Well, we looked at this. We looked at this. We talked to a lot of people. We we talked to all the people in, you know, that work for the the township, but they never really
discussed what the changes were. So that's why no one no residents had any idea what was coming. So when you say the residents should have been there at those meetings, well, we weren't given any information.
Okay. So now we still have three minutes left. Now about and this this ordinance specifically I'll I'll talk about. So one of the things and I brought it up at the meeting last week is one of the things with affordable housing is we need to have transportation available.
Jackson Township has zero transportation. We have one parking ride and to be perfectly honest with you none of these zones are anywhere near that parking ride. Why? I don't know. That's up to you guys to tell me why. So, why are we going out
to the edge of Jackson by Manchester to put in affordable housing on a golf course, which it won't be a golf course in in his 10-year time frame. Um, when there's no there there's just no transportation for him. So, did we in
any of the ordinances consider saying to some of these builders, we need to figure out transportation methods and get them involved with creating some transportation schedules for. So, if I could just um start off by
answering that um I think there's a I came up by the round table there's a lot of um things that officially affordable housing supposed to be supposed to be close for jobs and we all I think we're all in agreement these really belong in urban centers and not in rural towns like Jackson. The planning board at that point felt that if they're on the county
roads you have the best chance of possibly one day getting some form of transportation. Do we really believe it's gonna happen? I don't think these, like I said, I don't think affordable housing really matches the infrastructure that exists in Jackson. Um, I think the planning board felt at that point that the best plan would be to spread out the development in
different parts of town. Um, those were obviously some of the developments that came in. This golf course, this parcel at this point is at the edge of town, which does not have that many residents living nearby. Um, it is a undeveloped part of town. Again, we have the pine lens restrictions and that's obviously um we're not disagreeing with that, but
it's it's not near it's it it requires a large percentage of the required units at a at a portion of town that least affects many of our residents. Um and that was I think part of the planning perspective on a county road um spread out and not putting all the units in the center of town which is already
developed. >> Okay. And then finally, I know one of the residents brought up the the fact that one was a set up as a school and now it's getting the overlay of of this. Um,
how many of these builders were in previous rounds that didn't complete their number of units that they were supposed to? And if they were, why do we approve them again
since they failed the first time? >> Great question. >> Yes. >> So if I mean if they were in the prior rounds and those projects are still approved, that obligation remains. So the whatever was done for the third
round and if there are the projects that are in the third round if those projects were approved and those obligations are there the expectation still is otherwise that the that they're going to build otherwise they would have to replace. We
talked about a few minutes ago about the replacement um of projects. If a project has failed to the point that it is not realistic that it's going to yield, you know, I think uh Councilman Breie referred to Jackson 21 and the time that it's taken
for them to actually get their approvals and build they were anticipated to have gotten their full affordables out years ago. Um it's they if they're still in the plan for the second or the third round, in this case the third round, then they still have an obligation to do
that. In terms of the selection, I can only uh assume that the projects were anticipated to be realistic enough. As I said, they have been approved not just by the planning board, but by fair share, and they usually do a good job of
looking at whether they think something is realistic or not. >> So, so you just said something that triggers something. I know I'm past my time, so I'll ask >> give you another 15 seconds. So you you said they still have a expectation to complete previous projects, but we got a reduction of
>> I thought it I thought I heard 600 units from previous >> 600 to 250. >> So are are those going to get built and then we're we're going on top of it. So we're not getting the different >> Yeah, that's a it's a it's a good question and it has what I hope is not too confusing an answer. So, remember
how I said the third round, like the rounds are supposed to be 10 years. Like right now, we're planning for 10 years and they're supposed to be 10 years. But in the third round, there were all of these challenges to different regulations that the Council on Affordable Housing, COA, uh, kept
putting up regulations and then they were challenged and they were struck down and it kept going and kept going, kept going. And then finally in 2015, the New Jersey Supreme Court was like, "Enough. We're just going to put it back in the courts. So that that third round
ended up being 26 years. So there's the third round number which was the main number and that's what our plan was. And then there was what's called the gap number. Somebody who was talking about Tom's River, they referenced the gap number. So that was like an extra obligation that was kind
of tacked on to the third round. that wasn't planned for, but the anticipation was that it would be planned for in the fourth round where we are now. So, there was a third round number. If they're still in the plan for the third round number, the expectation is still that
they're going to be built and fair share in the courts and everybody is still saying there's a reasonable expectation. Then there was this gap year number, this extra number that was part of the third round but supposed to be met in the fourth round. That's what reduced
from 600 to 250. That's why I said our fourth round number is 750 plus that 250. That extra number that was reduced from the 600. >> And you wonder why residents have problems. >> I know. I I don't know how to make it.
>> Confusing. >> Jim, one thing I agree with you at the meetings I was there. I was in that corner. You were there. However, you're wrong about one thing. My wife let me out by myself that night. She >> I I brought up your wife,
>> but I wanted to say >> I know that the prior rounds always required the transportation and stuff and yet fair housing still don't push it and we had to contend with them and I heard 21 come up again and you wonder
what takes so long and that was approved on this version around 2007208 but the holdups were from the county they changed the road requirements so many times over they couldn't start moving on the projects. That was the
biggest hold up for that project and they are moving forward. Eleanor Hanam, Jackson, New Jersey. Um, first I have a question. Uh, Mr. Belli is not here. Did he submit a proxy vote? Proxy vote.
>> I'm not sure what a proxy vote is, >> Mr. McGin. >> Proxy votes are not permitted. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, and as for the third round, I believe that there were several very, very large uh projects
that were approved by Jackson Township. Jackson Trails um over 200 affordable housing units. Jackson Park that was over 200 I want to say 80 um affordable housing
units. You have uh Grand Harmony. All of those applications had to do and revolved around the third round. There were other applications as well. So, you know, I never heard any discussion tonight related to all of that. The
other thing is, you know, that's very concerning because for as long as I can remember, Jackson was always talking about readables. We need readables. We need commercial and all this. You wrote many commercial properties into this affordable housing. Many So now you're
taking the commercial off the roles and turning it into housing instead of appropriately. Just wait till I'm done appropriate planning. When it comes to um what Mr. McGuffin said, "As far as the DOJ lawsuit in appendix F, um, I beg
to differ because after I looked it up, some of these properties that are listed in the DOJ lawsuit in appendix F are in the RG3 zone, which is the rural residential zone in the Pinelands region, and that does not include uh, commercial. But in the other ordinance,
you turned around and said it can be mixed use with commercial." So you you just contradicted yourself. When it comes to the Pineland's comprehension comprehensive plan or master plan, it is not a perception.
It is a law. I just want that to be clear. So now when it comes to this ordinance, this ordinance was specifically and solely written for one uh developer Morai Iicorn. And what is concerning and it is the Pine Baron's uh
golf course. And what's concerning to me in this is that on page 6G um it is again this was specifically written for this one parcel for this one developer to make as much money as he
can possibly make. So it is acknowledged that a project to be developed pursuant to this subsection may be of such a size or type as to make sectionalization by subdivision and the
use of different forms of ownership a practical necessity. Therefore a technical subdivision for such a project may be required for marketing or financing purposes. Um and then it goes on more. What is a
technical subdivision? >> Briani. >> Yeah. Um it's uh the term for with townhouse developments which are what are contemplated here. Yeah. It to that allows for each
townhouse to be owned in fee simple um for financing purposes. I mean it's owned in fee simple. can be transferred. Typically, that's in order to get financing to uh purchase something, you have to have C fee, simple ownership. >> Okay. So, basically, the way I read some
of this ordinance is that you're acknowledging the fact that this very large parcel of land, you're granting him the ability to subdivide and sell off pieces to different developers in
order to develop this. No, the technical subdivision, I'm sorry, is just for each individual townhouse. It it's not a subdivision of the projects. I mean, though that may or may not occur, but that portion that you're referencing about the technical subdivision is
simply the subdivision of each townhouse unit. So, each unit can be owned in fee simple. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, I just want to address two quick things with regard to commercial ratables. Um my understanding is that all the ordinances do require actually
an increase in commercial ratables. So I think that's something that we we do stand by over here. And >> and Miss Shepriani with regard to the last point that Miss Hannah brought up, my understanding is the same language exists in all three ordinances that we are voting on tonight. >> That's correct.
>> Okay. >> Anyone else question? My name is Jason How with Pylons Alliance. Um, so is there a current challenge to the municipalities fair share housing plan? Is a current is there a challenge? >> Yes, there's a current challenge. >> Yes.
>> Um, and is it your opinion that uh the township is making a good faith effort to resolve that challenge? >> Yes. >> Yes. And would it not be acceptable to a judge to show the Pilence Commission letter stating that the resolution even
though it was a good faith effort or the ordinance rather um does not meet the CMP? Wouldn't that be um reason for the judge to allow a a um an exemption until a further date where the ordinance could be amended to actually comply with state
law, governing state law? >> I I I genuinely don't think so. I mean that is an application that could be made but there is no requirement I there as I said so far the courts have not
been susceptible to asking for extensions. So that is a basis on which the township can ask for it. It's just it it's it's rolling the dice to a substantial degree because I can't
guarantee and no matter no one can what a court is going to do. I can only get judge on what's happened thus far. >> Okay, I'm just going to read the letter of the law just for the benefit of people in the audience. The program shall facilitate communication between
the municipality and any interested parties for a challenge and provide the municipality until December 31st, 2025 to commit to revising its fair share plan and housing element in compliance with the changes requested in the challenge. I'm going to mention that
word commit to commit. I I think you are committing to by tableabling the resolution. you could still be in commitment with uh addressing the challenge uh but based on the letter of the ball and not in violation of the pylon CMP. Thank you.
>> Mr. Bonnie, do you want to respond? >> That is indeed the letter of the law that is about facilitating that communication and it's also about the definition of an interested party. >> Right. And I think the township has been engaging as per the letter of the law with the mediation with those developers
even if some of us up here don't want to be. Um and there was even um motions filed against the township trying to force us to have further mediation which the judge so far today has did not did not grant the those developers that those requests.
>> Anyone else? >> You know one come forward. I move to close public forum. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? May have a motion to adopt ordinance 202548. >> So moved.
>> Second. >> Councilman Brassie. >> Before I make my vote, I want to say something maybe a little out of line from this ordinance, but it came up during this ordinance and we talked about immunity tonight and somebody brought up Jackson Park North. to let
you know that that that application was turned down by this planning board. It was sold. The township bought a piece of it in the middle. Somebody else bought it and they went for an appeal on it. The judge ordered that they won their appeal.
The judge sent it back to the planning board and said for us and the chairman to put it on the agenda and vote it in. That chairman told them no. The judge said it all due all due respect to the black robe. I have no problem. But the
judge ordered it. Let the judge do it. I don't want it to look like the planning board approved it. And the our attorney was sent there and took care of that and that's how it handled. Correct, Mr. McGucken? >> Correct. >> That's how it happened. So, you talk about people taking over your town.
There's an example of not having immunity even in that application. It was directed by the judge and ordered by the judge and the planning board didn't even vote on it to approve it. And with that, I vote yes. >> Councilman Pollock, >> no.
>> Council Vice President Paul Mary. >> Yes. >> Council President Bernstein. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. The next item of business is the second reading of public hearing of ordinance 202549 amending chapter 24412 entitled fees
with respect to lot consolidations and mergers. At this time, if any member of the public has any comments to make, please address the council at the microphone and state your name and address clear for the record. You'll have five minutes to speak and may only speak once. May I have a motion to open public comment? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I.
>> Any opposed? >> Council forward. I move to close public forum. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> We have a motion uh to adopt ordinance 202549. >> So moved. >> Councilman Breie, >> yes.
>> Councilman Pollock, >> yes. >> Council Vice President Paul Mary, >> yes. >> Council President Bernstein, >> yes. And and again, I just want to reiterate what I said about the last meeting. Thank you to Mr. Maher for bringing this to our attention. It's a small step of charging um the people who are trying to subdivide property instead
of the township paying for it. So yes, >> motion carries. The next item of business is a second reading of public hearing of ordinance. >> Madam clerk, before we go forward in this ordinance, see he's been waiting for a while. I'm going to ask Mr. Conliff to come up and um just give a quick um synopsis of some of the of the
various options that were looked into by the township over the past two years, if I can say so. And um this is with regard to South Boston Road and then we'll open the public after. >> Uh good evening council. Charlie C with TNM Associates detention engineer. Given the error, I'll try to condense this and
keep it quick. Uh South Boston Road is uh approximately 16 to 21 feet wide from Bennett Mills Road to Tilford Street. Uh that currently does not uh meet the minimum width requirements for fire code and RSIs for two-way traffic for emergency vehicles. Um, we've made a
recommendation in consulting with the uh Jackson PD traffic safety unit to restrict uh the traffic on that road in a one-way direction from west to east. So from Bennis Mills, excuse me, Venice Mills Road to Tilford Street. Um this
ordinance also um came in response to uh the township has passed ordinances in the past year uh to uh convert a fire access from the Westlake Muse into Robins Estates to an actually fully improved right away. um both our office
as the engineer and also PD traffic safety unit raised concerns with you know if that was opened would it create some uh ability for those residents to then go down south Boston towards Bennis Mills Road I think there's a history of accidents at that intersection um we
felt that restricting it one way from west to east would help alleviate some of those concerns um in the past year I know the township uh has been reached out by several residents on South Boston with the concerns about making that one way. Um, you know, there's a significant
amount of cut through traffic that occurs on South Boston. So, making it one way, you know, is going to cut down that traffic by half. Um, there was concerns about residents now having to go to Tilford up to Georgian, back out to Bennett Mills to get back onto, you
know, Bennett Mills to go where they need to go. We looked at possible construction of a cold sack to keep it two-way. Um, you know, that cost anywhere from 500 to $600,000 in just construction costs. There would also be rightaway um uh easements or takings that would be required. Um you know
other suggestions with putting ballers at the end of the road. You can't just put the ballers at the end of a public right away especially have the possibility to impact emergency response times. Um you know other questions regarding you know can we widen the road? If you widen the road there's impacts of stormwater management. Um
there's also an increase in pedestrian activity in Robins estates. Uh so you know if you're widen the road while you could accommodate two-way traffic you know it doesn't necessarily accommodate that additional pedestrian traffic you know if you want to put curbon sidewalk there's also additional needs for stormwater management. So um multiple
facets were looked into. Um we felt that this was the most cost-effective first step um in mitigating a lot of those you know potential um side effects that could occur with this. Uh this is just an ordinance. The council does have the ability in the future if they find this
ineffective to repeal that ordinance. We just had one u an ordinance I think from 1979 that had designated Andover road as a one oneway street and then council saw 20 years later to repeal it because it was no longer applicable. So this is just the first step. It's the most cost
effective step. there are other options but um from a dollars and cents perspective we didn't feel like the need to step to 100 if you know 25 or 15 uh could have a measurable impact in uh from a cost cost effective perspective. So that I'm open to any questions from
the council and the public. >> Um council anyone have anything before we open to the public for now? >> I guess if you don't mind to sit in the first row and we'll call you up if if as need be. Um madame clerk. Thank you.
I'm just going to read the title of the ordinance. Uh, Council President Bernstein, Ordinance 202550, amending chapter 103.279 establishing an additional one-way street for South Boston Road from Bennett Mills Road to Tilford Road. At
this time, if any member of the public has any comments to make, please address the council at the microphone and state your name and address, play for the record. You'll have five minutes to speak and may only speak once. May I have a motion open public comment? So move. >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> I I >> Any opposed? >> Come on up. >> My name is Jamie. I live on Castle Lab for about 40 years or so, give or take. Um, this is a brief history of why we are deferring the one-way ordinance. In
2024 2024, residents of Robin Estates, South Boston Road, and the surrounding area were notified by a concerned resident on short notice of a town meeting on May 14th. Short notice. Ordinance 18-24 stated that a portion of land, the Westlake property, would be
donated to the township. Somehow, without a vote from the residents who would be clearly impacted, and only the council's 3 to2 vote, the dedication of land was passed and accepted. Over 20 years ago, Westlake and the Westlake news apartments were established. At that time, a gate, I
think, as stated, was put along the wooded area at the end of Tilford in South Boston. The gate was meant only to be for emergency access and to draw a property line since it is, after all, a gated community. There are no traffic issues at the north gate entrance of Westlake, which means the intention to
want to eliminate traffic from the apartments is clearly a classist one. South Boston, on the other hand, has unnecessary through traffic which spills into the no outlet sections of a residential neighborhood. At the town meeting on May 14th, 2024, many residents voiced their opinions
opposing the land dedication with intent to create a road connecting the private Westlake muse to the back of a residential neighborhood. At the time, the council president gaslet the residents, saying it was our fault for the speeding and excess cars driving through. She said it was our responsibility to keep the road safe. I
reached out on May 22nd, 2024 to all council members by email and received one response back. I believe it was uh Mr. Bernstein. >> Apologies that I remember, but yeah. >> Yes. Um he seemed to appreciate our concern, yet the decision was already made. So really, we were fighting for
nothing. Flash forward a year later, curbs and drainage are being installed at our expense. Creating this road from a private community to a public residential neighborhood does not benefit the public, which is a requirement when opening roads in New Jersey. The only people who benefit are the Northwest Westlake residents who
don't want apartment residents driving through their streets. This isn't a traffic issue for them. It's a social class issue. The township should have provided a petition for the surrounding residents that would be directly affected, not just Westlake residents. This is a clear-cut example of social
and systemic classism. If Westlake wants a separate entrance or exit for the Muse apartments that belong to Westlake, let them pay for it. Make South Boston a private road, not a oneway. Thank you.
Uh Fred Mor, you like to come and fix my fence? On December 14th, my five-year-old granddaughter woke up to look outside at the beautiful snow and said, "Mommy, can you tell the police to turn off the blue and red lights because it's making the
snow look ugly?" With that, I woke up and went outside to a police officer and a tow truck pulling a car off the tree on the side of my house. Fortunately, the tree was there and it didn't hit my house. When I spoke
last last month in the meeting, I told you it was going to put a target on my yard. Not a month later. And you haven't even opened up the road yet. It's not even open. But I'll tell you what, the design was done. The
construction was done. And guess what? >> You don't mind? >> You guys are going to vote yes. It doesn't make a difference. We've heard it all night. It's a joke. Our safety doesn't matter because it's not in your neighborhood. When it comes to your
neighborhood, how will you feel about it? I know my 5-year-old granddaughter is going to have to feel pretty good because I'm going to have to take her on the other side of the house to play because I'm afraid to even have her go over to that side. And before you all
say, well, hey, you know, it was snow inclement weather. You know, the guy hit the curb that was just freshly put in on an angle, okay, and glanced off of that and hit the tree. That's not the first
accident that's happened on that road. There's been dozens of others and you get tired of calling because nobody wants to do anything about it. I've got tire tracks up and down my fence. The stop sign on the corner of
South Boston and Beam Avenue has been knocked down numerous times and nobody's done a thing about it. So, how do I feel safe in Jackson? Thank you. >> Eleanor Hannah, Jackson, New Jersey. I just have a question.
Why did they open up that access from why nobody ever answered that? >> Only only because I I don't use Southwestern. I don't use that road very often. I was aware that something was going on. Um, but
based on what the lady said prior, was this open to accommodate that development? >> Because they didn't want them going through the
gate. >> Yes. >> Can you answer that question? Or maybe I don't know who made because you made the decision. You going to answer it? >> Wait if you finish all your questions. >> No, that was my question. >> The council voted at that point. I think the resident mentioned three to two at
that point to open. >> I'm asking that the vote. >> I asked why. >> Um I would have to go back and have that conversation with our affordable attorneys, but there was a request from um multiple entities involved with affordable housing at that point to
allow for the >> This has nothing to do with affordable housing. >> It did. It was it it did. No, it doesn't. >> It did. >> So, this and based on what I know, especially
as a very very uh with a masters in history, I do know the difference between discrimination as I do teach it. So if this is true, what
the woman said before, we already had a major discrimination lawsuit. If this is what is in fact happening and this is a class struggle between the halves and the have nots because they
don't want to see those cars going through their neighborhood, >> this town has a huge discrimination lawsuit. Good evening. Uh Mike Bod. I live on beam. Been there 38 years. I saw the development being built behind us. We
fought it back then 25 years ago. Um and we've been living with the consequences ever since. Our street is a highway, Beam Avenue. When you come down off of uh South Boston onto Tilford for 30 feet
and you make a right, you come down Beam Avenue, they're doing 60 70 miles an hour and every time you raise up your hands and tell them to slow down, >> they give you the finger, >> you know, they just don't, you know, and and I'm not blaming the the police for
not being there. when they're there, they in five minutes they catch somebody. They speed all the time. I'm a dog walker just like a lot of people in the neighborhood. We walk our dog. You have to jump on the up up on the curb when they're coming down the streets
because people do park on on either side. You can only get one car down the middle of Beam. I feel bad for the people on South Boston because they got to deal with it. That street is 20 miles an hour. Nobody does 20.
What else? the it just the other day, Sunday, after the snow was taken care of, all you saw was Amazon trucks coming down our street. Everybody uses as a cut off street. They cut through just to get to the Cooks Bridge and you got it's a
residential street neighborhood. There shouldn't be any traffic there to with by trucks. It should be residential in and out only for that development. So now that the road has already been paved and it it
worked on to be one way, if that's the way it's going to be, I want stop signs on every corner. I want speed bumps. I want everything to be done because everybody flies down the road. It's not fair to the kids in the neighborhood. They can't even ride their bikes in the
streets. >> Or Mr. Kliff, do you mind coming up for a second? You can stay up for a second. It's still your time if you want. Um could you address um I know we've had these conversations about some of the I think there's two questions obviously that gate opening up there's a separate issue of even if that even if that gate wouldn't open up there are there are
issues in in the neighborhood which we've addressed in the past >> correct so aside from the connector road as I stated earlier the existing cartway with for South Boston Road it does not meet current fire code and RSI RSIS standards for the road with for
two-way emergency vehicles to pass. So regardless of that happening or not happening, it would still be our recommendation from an engineering perspective that that would either have to be made a one-way road or you would have to invest substantial capital improvement to improve that to either be
wider um you know have sidewalks. We felt that the oneway designation would be a more cost-effective approach. We've also uh made recommendations to the township officials that you know, like I said, there's side effects to anything that you do, right? If you make one a
road one way, it's going to potentially force traffic to other roadways, right? In an ideal situation, we would like all traffic to be going to Georgian Boulevard. It's 36 foot wide. It's got 11 foot lanes, 8 foot shoulders. Um, that's where you would want traffic to
go. But realistically, people are using South Boston as a cut through and beam as a cut through. I think we had a resident from by the last meeting from one of the senior developments um off of Cooks Bridge who said everyone uses from his neighborhood uses South Boston as a cut through um which is something which doesn't really make sense.
>> Yes. And there's other you know there are follow-up options traffic calming options uh striping 25 miles an hour. We've just implemented speed tables on another road in Township, Pit Bitney Lane, which was seething, you know, I think the traffic
>> Yeah, the traffic increased sixfold in a matter of three years. So, um there are other measures, right? Stop signs or hallway stops is not the beall endall solution. Those are not traffic calming measures. There's warrants that need to be met in accordance with MUTC for those
to be implemented, but there are other traffic caling measures. >> Mr. Conlift, would you be okay um committing that we from your professional um analysis that we could consider um speed bumps and other stop signs within the neighborhood like the residents requesting? >> Yes, I would say speed tables, speed
humps, those are uh township has more ability to readily implement those with stop signs. There's there's you can go through a warrant analysis and it could come to the outcome that it a stop sign is not warranted. So I don't want to say that you can absolutely implement that because
>> we've been down that road with other towns and other you know municipalities and a lot of times it ends up that they're not warranted. So there are trafficcoming measures. It's all just a matter of matter of capital improvements. We can implement anything that you know the governing body decides that you know if you want us to
implement it we can certainly do that. >> Thank you. I I have I have a question sir. >> You mentioned that it doesn't meet RSIs for being a two-way street. So you would have to condonate land to make it you'd have to take some of the land from some of the sides.
>> So we would certainly if if we were to fully improve it to a 30- foot wide and put sidewalks and curbing, yes, potentially there would be rightway limitations. You know, takeings could be needed combination. There's also a significant amount of mature trees on both sides of the road. So there's that's a significant cost if that would
have to be removed. Um you know, we felt that the one-way designation was the first step. Uh like I said, you know, we're trying to take a measured approach, not going to 100, you know, try 15 or 25 and then reassess additional measures in the future.
>> Thank you. What's next? So to continue I think that um you know we're living with a a huge problem on our development all all the streets across because I I think when people come through they're only going through
just to get to Cooks Bridge and they're not going to go down Tilford all the way to Georgia to go down to Cooks Bridge and make a right or a left or whatever we want to do. They're just going to come down Bean South Boston Tilford. I
mean, all the streets in between Castle and Laurel, they're all they're all affected and people are just driving way too fast. And u that's about it. I know I we talked about Pittney. By the day, got
five speed bumps and um you know, it's a terrible situation we've been living with. So please, if I'd rather you close the road off and make everybody and let everybody go around because the traffic we're going to receive now, even though it said it's going to be half, the
people that live in West Lake, they still use beam. They might not want their, you know, their streets being used by the people live in the uh apartments, but they're using our street, but it's okay for them to use it. That's about all I have to say. Thank
you. My name is Ben. I live on South Boston Road. You guys are so determined to open that road for the muse that you're willing to you're willing to adopt this ordinance and vote yes when you know
it's wrong. You know it's a disaster. Who designs a oneway this way? You Does anybody know anything about a oneway? You design a oneway, you have to have a road leading you back home. This sends me nowhere. I said this last meeting.
How am I supposed to get home? I have to cut through seven different intersections to get back home. If I want to go to my neighbor's house, I have to go all the way around. If I leave my house 10 seconds down the road, I realize I forgot something at
home. I got to go around. It's seven intersections. This new disaster of an intersection you just created with the Muse Beam Castle, Laurel, Georgian, Bennett Mills, back to South Boston. How are you okay with something so backwards
just to accommodate Westlake because that's what they asked for? The only reason why you're turning this into one way is, as the township engineer said, it's the cheapest way. It's the most economic. You won't afford
to spend $10 on us, but you'll spend a half a million dollars to give Wesley what they need. That road costed you a half a million dollars of taxpayer money, but don't give it to us because what? There's only a handful of residents that live on South Boston.
Beam has over 40 houses there. What about them? Are we any different? What is wrong with you? How do you okay this? This is typical township behavior. You come in, you ruin everything and you
leave us. We have to deal with the mess that you leave behind because it doesn't affect you. You don't live here. We have to suffer the consequences of your poor decisions and bad your poor decisions and bad uh sorry it
this is unbelievable. If you vote yes, you're just showing that there's not a single neighborhood that's immune from your destruction because it's just a matter of time you go from one neighborhood to the next. It's just unfortunate that you came knocking on our door tonight. All you can do is to fix this. You have
one last saving grace. is vote no. Go back to the drawing board. Fix this problem. Stop treating it as two separate issues. It's one and the same. It goes hand in hand. You open the muse, you close off South Boston. You
can't close off the South Boston. You don't open the Muse. There is no other option. Do the right thing for once. Vote no. Put a stop to this madness. Thank you.
Hi, Nancy Charella, Castle Avenue. Um, of course, I'm here on the Robinson estate issue with all these other residents. I sat in front of a um house on the corner of Beam and going in from
Tilford into South Boston. I wrote down and videoed how many cars came cutting through from uh South Cooksbridge down beam and out uh South
Boston and vice versa. I have videos. I didn't bring them with me because I didn't plan on getting up and saying anything. Um it had to be I sat there for more than I It had to be seven days the whole week. I sat every night and there had to
be 50, 60, 70 cars a night that cut through that development. We all have children. He has a young grandchild right on the corner. It's ridiculous. I've lived there since 1994. I raised my children in that
neighborhood and I moved to that neighborhood because it was a safe neighborhood for my children. Why I moved to Jackson. It's ridiculous the amount of traffic that comes through there and it's nothing but children in that neighborhood now. The bus stops have
increased from three children to 10 children. It's just not acceptable for you guys to approve that to go through and that's my opinion and I thank you for your time. >> You Mr. Conliff, thank you Mr. Conliff.
Um I don't have the studies in front of me. Which way generally was the traffic that's cutting through this neighborhood was it coming from? Is it both ways, one way? >> It goes both ways and I think it may fluctuate depending on morning versus PM. Uh, and I would just note that the counts that were taken were taken during
the summertime. So, uh, this is in capturing public school traffic. The the daily traffic on South Pollson was 524 trips. It was taken in the summer of 2024. So, if that was during the school year, those numbers would would be likely higher. Yeah. >> So,
>> so and I just want to restate as I said, South Boston as it currently exists, it does not meet the standards for fire code and RSIs for two-way traffic for emergency vehicles. So, something needs to be done. Um, and I like as I also stated, I think we're cognizant that um
Robins Estates is a is a development. It's a gritted development, right? If you alter a traffic pattern on one road, there's going to be some side effects on other roads. So, um you know, this would just be potentially if the council were
to act favorably just the first step. There are additional follow-up steps. We do have real-time costs within the last year of what speeds would be. That's something I could certainly provide for the council's consideration on what the cost that would be. Um and that is something that doesn't require
significant engineering design from surveying things like that. That's something that could be put together on a short order if that is something that council wanted us to investigate further. There are options. Like I said, we just felt that this was the uh the first option. And as I said, it's just
an ordinance. council has the ability to re-evaluate that and reconsider and you know and repeal that ordinance in the future if they find a better option or alternative question. >> It's before anyone else have anything
else before otherwise I'll let otherwise I'll let this gentleman come up one more time. No one else raised their hand. >> I'm sorry. >> Sure. >> It's just something that I keep forgetting. >> Just say your name again for the record if you don't mind. >> My name is Fred Moro Avenue. Um my question is um since the road hasn't
been opened yet um has there been a survey done on emergency vehicles that have run through the Westlake Muse because it seemed like for a long period of time there there was either EMS, fire department, police department, stuff like that that are now going to have to
redirect down Beam Avenue into the new entrance which uh you know everybody knows it's just going to be more perilous for But has anybody taken that into consideration? >> Mr. Conliff, >> that is a very valid concern. And I can
tell you in um >> speak to the mic if you don't mind, Mr. >> That's a valid concern. And in developing our uh the plan for the connector road, uh we met with the Jackson uh Fire District 3. They provided us with their designed firetruck vehicle and we had to provide
them with turning templates to show that a fire truck could come down Bean, make the left onto Tilford, come into uh Mirfield Road, circulate through the muse and then go back out. Um there was a number of resident questions and concerns regarding um you know could we
put uh you know basically terminate Tilford at the at the intersection of a beam avenue and then have you know the connector road traffic all go to South Boston that's an issue as well because um the configuration of Tilford sorry
Bennett Mills in South Boston it's a very sharp you know more >> the difference in response time because now you're going to add response time on because now they're going to have to go through the development at what speeds. I'm just, you know, and my
concern is more for the emergency workers than for anything else because at those speeds trying to avoid stuff, I'm afraid that somebody's going to get hurt. I'm sorry. Thank you very much for your >> No problem. >> Mr. Conlift, do you have an answer? >> Yeah, like I said, we we uh met with a
fire official. We provided circulation plans uh you know if they go through the Westlake there's a gate there obviously that they would have to gain access through uh coming through Beam and through Robin Estates. Those are all public rightaways. There's no
restrictions on having to wait to do something. Um you know they're all public group public rightaways that should remain unimpeded. So that's all I have for you. >> Thank you. No one come for vote. I move to close public bubble forum. Second.
>> All in favor? >> I I >> Any opposed? >> May I have a motion to adopt ordinance 202550? >> So I I want to ask a question for Mr. Conliff um for a second. Um leaving the connector road out for a
second. Um I think there what I see is obviously three competing interests over here. One interest obviously is Westlake Muse. One interest obviously is the greater um Robin Estates neighborhood which has issues no matter what. Um even
if this roadway if we leave the roadway the way it is, it has issues. If we close this roadway, they still have issues. Then you have the the South Boston part um which obviously um like the resident said before um they're
driving to nowhere um to a certain degree. I just want to bring out a scenario. Let's let's say the township at this point was putting a culde-sac or some other form of closure. Um would that alleviate
the cutting through of Robin Estates as as a as as as a general and and I see people nodding. I want to hear from the professional here. Would that alleviate the the general concerns of the of not just the South Boston Road residents or the
beam the entire Robin Estates? >> Yeah. So, it's it's definitely going to reduce any cut through traffic on South Boston and Viv Avenue both east west direction. Right. If we were to convert that to Culdeac, it would would require rightaway takings on South Boston to be able to physically construct the
culde-sac. There would be storm management improvements. So, it would be an undertaking, but >> So, I'm I'm I'm going to ask a question and and I don't know if this this is appropriate right away. I think generally this council and administration are not big believers in taking people's private property. Do we think residents of of South Boston
Roadway because we're we're dealing with this issue on another roadway now. We're waiting to get the easements and it's been literally months and months and months. Do we think if the township would would consent to a culde-sac and South Boston Road that we would get the easements from the residents who live on those on those homes to be able to um we
I think we would need from Westlake. We would also need from a couple of homes on South Boston, right? >> There's at least one private property on the north side of the road. The ownership might be unclear on who owns that. So, uh you know, there's means that a town can acquire right away. Right. I >> I don't think the town wants to go to court to take someone's land.
>> No. No. I I agree. But, you know, >> so I'm going to make a recommendation here. Um, I think this this is an issue we we have, like I said, three competing issues over here. Um, and they're all, I think, valid concerns. And what I what I'm going to recommend is, um, to my
council that we table this for tonight is that, um, we are going to ask you to give us hopefully in the next couple weeks a something needs to be done. Let's pretend the muse didn't exist over here at South Boston Road. Robin Estates has a tremendous issue. Um I think
there's a consensus over here if this is something that's going to help the entire neighborhood and this is going to alleviate some of the cut through traffic from Hullman and from some of the other entities in the area. I think it's something we can most likely get the support to spend a little bit more than 100 bucks like I think Ben said over there. And um I would recommend to
my council to our council to to table it for now. um ask our engineer to to give us a another option. I think then we are going to present it to our council and try to get a consensus which option makes the most sense. Sometimes we have to make tough decisions, but I think a little bit more time and to revisit this
in January would be more appropriate. >> I I have something to say. First off, you're saying you need some more time on it. This is history repeating itself. I can go through a story. When the people at Westlake came in this
room, we were yelling about these people, them people, those people that live in the muse and they're driving through our property. And I sat here for 15 minutes listening to it. And part of that, it was one of my mother-in-law that was sitting there living there. It
was the same thing back then. And the same considerations were the problems back then. I think we have to find a better solution than this and table it. I definitely agree with that. Something may be able to get done. It's history repeating itself. Let's get it done right.
Understood. And I would I would say in making recommendation to council, we did do investigation what the cost of a culde-sac on South Boston. I could present that again and then also look at speed tables throughout the balance. >> Right. So I I think I think what we'd like to see is a comprehensive plan that
alleviates as many of the issues. There are multiple issues and in as many we're not going to find a perfect solution. It is impossible that every single person will be smiling. There will be someone who opposes whatever we end up doing. Something needs to happen hopefully in the beginning of the year January February time. Um I know you you did a
cost analysis. I think one of my concerns over here is is is the easement in right away because it's always complicated taking property. We really don't want to go to court against someone taking that easement. So, I guess our olive branch on council would be to the residents in the area if you can please reach out and help us obtain
some of that potential property so we could if we decide to go down that route of closing the the roadway have an easier time and not to spend six months um tied up in in court trying to get get all those permissions. So, I think we had a motion for Mr. Breie to table it. I
>> make a motion to table. Second. Councilman Breie. >> Yes. Councilman >> Pollock. >> Yes. Council Vice President Paul Mary, >> if I could just add, you know, I would like to see something that again, like Council President Bernstein said, maybe not everyone's completely happy with a compromise where everybody gets
something, but what's most important to me is what that gentleman said about his his grandchild. It's it's got to be safe. The the price doesn't matter when it comes to life. So, let's make it safe for everybody. So, I vote yes. >> Yes. >> Understood. And we will report back to
you after the new year. >> You'll be hearing from me tomorrow. Thank you. The next item of business is the payment authorization of bills and claims. >> Are there any questions by the township council? >> What time is it?
>> No, not yet. >> One second. Anyone who has Mr. Conliff, first of all, feel free to go. Mr. Conliff, but if anyone has any questions, if we can take them in the hallway, we want to continue business here. No questions yet, madam clerk. >> Thank you. May I have a motion to approve the bill's list and claims?
>> Motion. Second. >> Councilman Brassie? >> Yes. >> Councilman Pollock? >> Yes. >> Council Vice President Paul Mary? >> Yes. >> Council President Bernstein. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> The next item of business is the consent agenda listed for tonight's excuse me,
tonight's consideration is resolutions 361 through 383 2025 listed by title. Council President Bernstein, or any comments on the consent agenda? >> So, the only thing I want to just highlight is that um this was added on Monday. Um the mayor contacted myself
and I felt it was important, it was timesensitive to add it get it added to the agenda. So, it was sent to all the council members on Monday um that the mayor would like to um the council support on a new business administrator. His name is Charles um and I apologize if I mispronounced his last name,
Terafenko. U Mr. Terafenkco is currently the business administrator in Tinton Falls. He's been there for the past three years. In addition, he has served there for a couple years as as a director of public safety in Tinton Falls. Um he before that was a um was a
police officer. He served um overseas and um he has a very decorated he served in the Middletown Police Department in the Beayshore uh narcotics task force. Um he also served in um in the New Jersey Office of Homeland Criminal
Infrastructure Subcommittee um and other Homeland Security um entities. He seems to be seems to be we obviously have not seen him in action yet. Um he seems to be someone who would um I think bring honor to the office and do a great job helping to run our town as a business administrator. So I just wanted to
highlight that. Um and obviously if it gets gains the support of council he will be here by reorder because he was tenure would start January 1st which means our first meeting is January 6th. >> I have a motion to authorize the consent
agenda resolutions 361 through 383 2025. >> Motion second. >> Council Brassie >> I have >> one second. I I apologize. I don't know if it's too late. We're supposed to ask Jim if anyone from the public wants anything taken off. So, we just have
discussion. Um, raise your hand. Jim, I saw you raising your hand. Lady in the back. >> Sorry, one second. Hold on. I'm sorry. >> 382 you said. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And 3801. >> 381. Okay. So, um 381 and 382. It's my
my understanding is that um those were um for non-union I think employees that I think the previous administration um took away some of the holidays and times off and the current mayor and administration wanted to go ahead and
give some of those days off for example the day after Thanksgiving and other such holidays and that's that's what it is is it is doing um reestablishing that ability for it to give those days off. We're at this point that's it's just for discussion. You can come out to public comment and give any other any other
Yeah. Yeah. Some of those >> I mean from what I've seen um again I think this is just adding a a holiday. It's just adding more days off for >> Yeah. Madam Clerk. Okay. Could you elaborate on this? I know it's something that we've had conversations on.
>> Just explaining what this what this purpose of this of resolution is if if you're able to. Um it was uh yeah the purpose of the resolution is for the two holidays for the non um union employees that um or as are actually in the personnel manual at this point.
>> Perfect. Thank you. >> I think we had a we had a motion already and would we would take out those two 381 and 382. >> So a motion to authorize the balance of resol of the resolution of the consent agenda. >> Motion. >> Second. Apologize. Councilman Breie
>> going to abstain on 374 2025 for the minutes of November 25th rest. Yes on rest. >> Thank you. Councilman Pollock. >> Um I'm going to say yes, but I would like to see some of the um disclosures of uh political donations on some of
these. Uh I I'll go I'll go through it later with you. >> Sure. So just one thing to add to that. I know there is language. I had a conversation with the clerk. Um there are certain towns that put language in making that part of the resolution that there are no political donations and it's something that we definitely would be open to um addressing in future. I
think the clerk has been very forthcoming with making sure that that these resolutions so I think if we speak to um um I'm sorry our new uh purchasing agent we could have that conversation but yes and again a lot of these resolutions are to help our OEM with some of the new supplies that they that
they requested. So, yes. >> Uh, Council Vice President Paul Mary, >> I would just like to say on, uh, resolution 383 with the appointment of the new BA, it's it's welcoming. Um, I know our mayor puts in a lot of hours here, but of course, this is considered
part-time and she has other commitments in a career. Uh, so having a full-time BA here to support uh, the township is is very good. So, I'm happy to see that. So, I vote yes on on all of it. Thank you, Council President Bergstein. >> Yes. And now for those other two
resolutions, 381 we have to vote for separately and 382. >> Thank you. I have a motion to authorize uh resolution 3812025. >> Motion second. >> Council Brassie, >> yes. >> Councilman Pollock, >> yes. >> Council Vice President Paul Mary,
>> yes. >> Council President Bernstein, >> yes. >> Motion carries. May I have a motion to authorize resolution 382205? >> Motion. Second. >> Councilman Brassie, >> yes. >> Councilman Paulo, >> yes. >> Council Vice President Paul Mary,
>> yes. >> Council President Bernstein, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Thank you. Uh, is there anything further, Council President? >> At this point, um, I think first of all, public comment. >> At this time, if any member of the public has any comments to make, please
address the council at the microphone and state your name and address clear for the record. You will have five minutes to speak and may only speak once. Dan Garrick, Jackson, New Jersey. Good evening, happy Hanukkah, merry Christmas, and a happy new year. Healthy
and peace to all. Um, on the council meeting of November 13th, it was announced that Mr. Pollock had won the election and that he would be certified on November 24th and then be sworn in on
November 25th. Am I correct? Okay. >> Correct. Yeah. >> I We have a part-time photographer, do we not? >> I don't think we have an official part-time photographer. If you're asking if we have a media um a media entity
that currently is in is currently contracted with the township, the answer is yes. I think they do provide photography, but yes. >> Gentlemen, when you were sworn in for the first time, there was a photographer taking pictures of you and your family. All of you. When Mr. Pollock got sworn
in. There was nobody taking a picture of him. Now, last week's Jackson Times that was published on the 6th. And the front page is a picture of Mr. Pollock, his son, and his wife. And the photograph
says courtesy of Mr. Pollock. >> Okay. >> Sure. >> Turn to page eight. S wasn't here when he got business, small businesses of the week, the same council meeting. Page eight, there's a picture of S picture picture getting the
plaque and a photograph says taken by Jackson Township. I think there's a big problem here. That was disrespectful for Mr. Pollock to begin with. I don't always agree with him. A lot of times we disagree, but you
disrespected him and you disrespected the office. >> Sure. So, first of all, I apologize, Mr. Pollock. That did not cross my mind. Um, we don't usually tell anyone to come and take pictures at most meetings. We haven't had >> He's always here. >> We have We >> You know who I'm talking about. >> I I know exactly you're talking to and I
and I will continue to engage with conversation with Mr. Pollock. I think I've gone out of my way to um to try to engage in a respectful way. Myself and Mr. Pollock are not going to agree on everything. Um but he's welcome here and then we've so far I think have gotten off to a great start. So >> I just it it just looks it just smells
wrong. >> I hear that perspective. I'm not disagreeing with you. >> Okay. >> But there was no I want to be very clear. No one told anyone not to come and take pictures of Mr. Pollock if that's the question. >> But he he should have been told to come, please. >> Okay. >> I mean, really, it's an important thing. >> Sure. >> All right. Thank you very much. Have a good good night.
>> Mr. I appreciate you uh speaking up and looking out. Um I will say council president has done a good job working with me, speaking with me. Um you know, I don't feel slighted when it comes to the council, I would say. >> Right. And and I just want to add just for for the record, I I I don't like
always responding to rumors. Last meeting, Mr. Brussi was absent, and I had two people text me, "How come council disrespected Mr. Pollock by putting him over there separate from everyone else?" None of that. We're going to have disagreements and that's fine. We're allowed to This is America. But but yeah, but we completely respect
and uh so far it's been great. It's actually fun. >> In that vein, too, I noticed Mr. Pollock's space outside. His name is not up there. Mr. Pollock actually declined that spot and he wants it to go to a veteran. So, it's going to be being taken care of. Yeah, he was offered
anything any other council member was offered from what I understand. >> Ready? >> Sure. >> Good evening. Edward Kaufman for Solomon Court. Um, I want to bring to the council's attention there seems to be a transparency problem. It's been going on
for quite some time in this town. I think my name is known. I send quite a bit of Oprah requests, but we've moved on from that. We're now into lawsuits and litigation. Um, I've submitted Oprah requests for things such as merging the
schools. I raised legitimate questions about the volume of children being forced into a building that wasn't designed for the number of children. Um, that resulted in a threat by a council attorney telling me that if I went forward with filing an order to show
cause, the town would sue me for a lawsuit that was unjustified. I I would think that warning the town as a construction professional to double check and make sure and get some fire department and police department credentials to verify that that building
can justify the amount of children and people that are in it based on the square footage and the egress and emergency responses. That that would be wellreceived that it wouldn't result in being threatened by an attorney. And if the town wants to threaten somebody like me, I would prefer that you use a
councilman with with a karate school, okay? Not an attorney. I don't I don't take that lightly. My intent was to warn and be reassured because one of my children is in that building. And I hear from other parents through my wife and
social media that kids text their family and their parents and tell them that they don't honestly believe in an emergency that they would ever make it out of that building alive. It is so overcrowded and to date, no one has ever given me any kind of certification from
emergency responders as to the occupancy that's been approved for that building. If it exists, it was never given. >> So, if you want to go just stop the time because >> No, no, I'll let you finish. Use your time first.
>> Um, moving forward, the town was reevaluated. My property was revaluated from 400,000 to 920, 130% increase. I had to file open requests to try to get proof of how they came to that number. I was told there
were no records. I I received literally nothing. I had to file a lawsuit against Jackson in tax court. We're in there now. Jackson Township is paying attorneys to fight me because they don't want to tell me how they came to that
number. I have email from tax assessor communicating with a third party appraiser classifying properties as problem properties. What makes my property a problem property? It would only be a problem if somebody
wanted it for some other means. Again, you you raise my taxes by almost $1,500 and I'm entitled to nothing because that's what I've gotten. Literally nothing. I had to sue. I had to spend my money to take this town to
court and have this town spend money on attorneys to fight me to keep me from getting the records that I'm legally entitled to. You don't have the right to raise my property taxes, take my money, and then tell me to go screw myself and put an attorney in front of me.
I'm currently in Tom's River Municipal Court with code enforcement because Andrew Cheney seems to think that his former police record entitles him to obstruct criminal complaints that were filed against him, James Rand, and Morin Van Bremer. I fought them. They
weaponized their summones and gave me a ticket for dog licenses because I refused to submit to giving them anything until they justified to me that that law is passed across this town without favor. They felt they didn't
have to give me anything. Now, I've taken a $100 ticket all the way into another town because the judge in this town told me that my constitutional arguments couldn't be entertained because it was a small court. It's a joke. But I'm taking it to extremes. I
filed interrogatories and subpoenas against Andrew Cheney, James Ran, and Moren Van Brema. This town paid an attorney to file a motion to quash. They never served on me to avoid having employees of this town not answer
questions truthfully. Why can't they answer them? If they represent this town, one of them has law enforcement capacity to write summones. Why is he entitled to have an attorney defend him to not answer truthful questions about whether or not he targeted me,
trespassed on my property? Falsified reports. Is this council okay with paying attorneys to defend town employees that can't answer truthful questions that want to lie? Falsified reports. Those are criminal acts.
The three of them have committed criminal acts and this town is defending them with taxpayer money. >> So, Mr. Mr. McCucken, I just would ask if you feel that being that seems to be a matter of litigation if we should be responding. >> I've already gotten them. Mr. McCucken is the one that threatened me with suing
me. Okay. >> Because I wanted to file an order that litigation I think to >> make sure that that school was safe. >> I I never I never made any such uh comments. >> You absolutely did. I have the email. You sent me an email told me that the town would sue me if I filed an order to show cause that records. You were asking
us to create a report for you that's not subject to Oprah. That was the answer. >> No, I said I would file in order to show >> court. I think this is a a currently a matter of litigation and uh I I don't think I'm going to respond any further. >> That Jackson School District issue is not a matter of litigation with regard
to the schools. I didn't file order to show cause. I was threatened because I said I would. >> Okay. >> Because I wanted the children in this town are safe in a building that they're forced into. This town's attorney. >> So Mr. Coffin, I'm going to ask Mr. Pomeary to give a quick just response with regard to this district because I
know he's a leazison to the school district. >> So any merging of the schools that would go through a separate entity as the board of education is a separate governing body. This council has no oversight over the board of education. So we can't tell you yes or no if they can or can't merge schools. In terms of
capacity, you would have to go to the board of education. Shoot them an email. I'm sure they can give you that information. Um again, that's not we're we're a separate governing entity. I can't imagine that the board of >> Can I just Can I finish for one second? You had five minutes. I stood quiet. You asked a question. I want to respond to
you as appropriately as possible. >> Um I cannot imagine that the board of education would be so careless to put too many students into one building where it would be a fire hazard. Uh because that that that's just not the way they operate. But if you want to be sure, absolutely email uh the board of
education, Miss Perilian, superintendent. I'm sure she can get you whatever information that you you need necessary. My daughter goes to that school. Um, she has never reported feeling unsafe. But again, that's a matter of opinion. So, you want the facts, you should go directly to the source. >> I filed the open request. I got nothing.
>> Okay. Thank you, ma'am. I think you were waiting next. >> Good evening. Uh, my name is Michelle. I'm a Jackson resident. Um, I just have a few questions that uh have different
topics. All right. Um, last meeting you appointed a QPA, a consultant QPA. Okay. Um, I'd like to ask number one, how many hours is this QPA on site? Number two, I pulled up the website
and I get a notice that says that the clerk, if they want if if you want the the RFP for professional services, contact the clerk. Why isn't the QPA doing that? That that's a question that
I have. Um, also, I don't know if you're aware of it, but in 4A11, NJSA4A11-1, your qualified purchasing agent has the authority, responsibility, and accountability for spending tax dollars
and and adhering to the local public contracts law. We are known New Jersey as one of the most stringent contracting laws in the United States. So my my question is again, you're paying
somebody400 and change a month. How many hours is he working on on this property or for this township? That's that's my one question. Um also
last last meeting it was brought up about uh refrigerator and then there was water that we are paying our tax dollars are paying for for employees. Now I see we bought a coffee pot and K cups for
council members and I'm just sitting here listening to people complain about how the the taxes are going up. We're paying a consultants to do people's jobs that have the
authority to spend our money. So that's another thing. Is that another perk of working for Jackson Township? Now, my understanding is township was closed on uh Black Friday.
Um I don't know if that was by resolution. I didn't see any resolution stating that the township would be closed on Black Friday, but I do know that there was union contracts
that were signed in 2023 resolution 28023 stating that there was no longer Black Friday and there was no longer Lincoln's birthday. So, we went from 14 to 12
holidays. And because of that, they received the employees received an extra personal day in this union contract. And they received a 4% increase. I don't know
about you, but I didn't get no 4% increase in a long, long time. But okay, we have that. So now we're back to the resolutions that um that I had mentioned.
Did we renegotiate the union contracts that we are now allowing people to have these two holidays back? And if we are allowing these people to have these two holidays back, are we taking back the personal day they got for not having it?
And again, I don't understand is if there's a resolution around renegotiating these contracts, I would really like to see it because I don't see why this is all just happening and how we can arbitrarily shut the township
because we feel like it. And also, I would like to uh there was a question last month about using the opioid grant for doors. I I don't know if there was ever an answer. >> So, It wasn't doors. It was for the screens. Opioid was not used for the doors. That was
>> okay. Yeah. I did not hear an answer for that. So, I was just kind of like that. There's, you know, there's that. >> So, I guess my my questions are like, is there any kind of authority? >> Sure.
>> That is just when willy-nilly that things are happening. >> Sure. So, um, some of these question I'm just going to I I don't have answers to. I'm going to have to if I I give you my email and then if we could be in touch and I don't mind getting the answers from the mayor tomorrow and speaking to some of the some of the administrative
staff and the secretaries in the mayor's office. >> What I do know is that the QPA does have a a minimum amount of hours and that they're supposed to be working locally. Um I it's it's it's a department which I'm still a little bit not so um
knowledgeable and I so I have to get more information with regard to that. Um, with regard just I don't remember all of your your your concerns with regard to um the opioid grants. Um, I think I just addressed that. I think it was used for the screens for opioid uh
advertising and things of that form. >> Um, with regard to the days and the union contracts, I'm not aware of any renegotiations of the unions. My understanding was um and I had a very brief conversation with the mayor and I'd have to go back and and further that that conversation what came from the
labor council um who ha I think Jackson always gave off those days and I think last year or two years ago sorry former mayor Raina canceled those days I think it was last year actually um and the current mayor gave back those days but the process I'm not I'm not I'm not equipped enough to to say and I'm not
sure if Mr. McCain has has an answer on all on all those questions. >> My understanding is per the resolution for that approved the union contracts. It states in there that they are not that they were taking away those two days. >> I will discuss >> in the union contract.
>> So I'm I will give you my email after I will discuss with the mayor and I'll get back to you tomorrow. >> That's that's fine. And also just one more quick question. If you close down the If you close down the township, does that mean that the police and everybody else are off too or are we
paying them overtime for a holiday? >> No. >> Okay. >> So, they don't get paid extra for working the holiday when the rest of the >> Not from what I understand. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> But I I'll give you my email after we'll be in touch. All right. Um, resolution 379 2025, the
budget appropriations. That's the background of budget. It's that time of year. Um, I want to speak about the importance of our township budget appropriations. Every year at the end of the calendar cycle, this council adopts appropriations that give legal authority
to spend taxpayer dollars in the coming fiscal year. This isn't just a procedural step. It's the moment when leadership decides how our community's money will be used. Appropriations are tied directly to the property tax levy,
which is finalized in late fall. That means by December, residents deserve a clear, accessible explanation of how revenues will match expenditures. Too often these decisions are rushed through at year's end, leaving the public with
little time to review or comment. We got a resolution that was passed. Nobody got to speak about it until I'm speaking about it after it was passed. My point, transparency demands more than a rubber stamp. It requires open
hearings, honest dialogue, and willingness to adjust priorities based on the community input. When appropriations are handled behind closed doors or pu pushed through without scrutiny, trust erodess. But when they're presented clearly, they are
clearly on this list. With line item accountability, residents can see exactly how their dollars support schools, infrastructure, and essential services. That's how we rebuild confidence in township leadership. I urge this council to take
to treat appropriations not as a formality but as an opportunity. Let's make the end ofear process a moment of clarity, not confusion, a chance to show residents that their voices matter and and that their money is being managed
with fairness and foresight. And as a result of this, I would ask that this council consider doing what other towns do during their meetings, and that is have public comment before you approve
resolutions so that the residents can speak on the resolutions in their viewpoints before you guys vote on it. >> So, I don't want to interrupt if you still have anything to say. So, first of all, I think I appreciate your comment. So I think one of the things that I I I do plan on doing in the next couple
weeks is speaking to each of my council members separately to plan obviously the various liaison and positions that we have. But not just that to see what we can do to make these meetings more open. I'm open to that idea. I have nothing against it. I think it's great. I think you brought up one issue that was going on for years that was that was fixed. I think it was that was a step in the
right direction from the legal end. Um I would absolutely support having a um a opportunity for residents to comment before the resolutions are voted on. Doesn't bother me at all. So you have my commitment if that if council president >> if I'm if I'm president. Yeah. >> All you' be doing is going back to how
it used to be. It used to be any comments on resolutions only and they could speak on any resolution on the agenda. How that went away I have no idea. I got back here is gone. I think it should be there. >> So you just heard two vote two votes. So and I I didn't say shaking his head. So
I'm not he looks like he's shaking his head yes also. So I think he got three. So we don't even have to ask everyone else. So, anyone else if you could just raise your hand if you still plan on speaking so we just uh engage time. Okay, Carlos, all yours. You don't have to raise your right hand. >> Carlos Martins Jackson. Um, okay. I'm
going to keep this really quick because it's late at night and uh but I am going to go through points that I had that I wanted to talk to. Um, so at the last meeting, it was resolution 348-2025. I asked the question,
what does a municipal alliance coordinator do? And someone here on the council, I won't say who, but she reminded me that you guys never answered that question. Um, since then she she got me some
answers on the job description of a municipal alliance coordinator and why the person that was I forget up their name was so qualified to do that. Okay. So my question to you today is did you guys know that information before you
approved it? Right? Because you all said yes or I maybe Chris didn't say yes. Chris might assisted because he didn't have all the information. But it was passed. Did you guys know what what this person was going to do? >> So I could only speak for myself. I did
have a conversation with um an employee and with with administration to get an answer and I had a enough of an answer I felt comfortable with the job description, the specifics of what they do on a daily basis. No. But the general understanding, yes. >> Okay. And and what this Claire I think
why is she so qualified? >> This person has been doing it for a very long time and I >> Okay. I know again um okay I'm when something's not broken and and the systems work and the person is doing a good job and that's what I was told by the people that I trust did I interview the person no I don't interview every every town every person who's who's
working for the town >> gotcha here's my concern right so once I got that information from that >> person >> her that that sent me that information I won't say the name again um it came comes back to these old emails basically
this was something from Raina days Right. And then then now it got here. So, you know, I look at it and I say, "Oh, back to who are the donors and all, you know, all that stuff cuz it makes you just wonder, is this, you know, pay
for play or, you know, give somebody a cozy job because they supported you or something." >> It just feels funny. >> So, so Carl, I just want to respond for a second. Um, >> it's it's not a secret. I've had disagreements with members of the council and even the former mayor, even sometimes the current mayor. Not everyone might believe that, but we
there's always room. There's always disagreements. I don't believe in political revenge. Just because someone was appointed by a former mayor that they deserve to be fired or or not rehired. If they do a good job, they deserve they deserve it on that merit itself. But obviously, if you have any information that would prove that there
is a reason why they're not qualified and they just got it because of political donations, I think or any other reason, we would want to know. >> I I I don't. My real point was did we give it enough scrutiny before you said yes. Right. So the questions that I had, did you know the answers? Even though you didn't give me the answers when I
asked last time, but there was a lot of stuff going on. So, so, so maybe it just wasn't answered. Um, that's really my only point. And then I'll just leave it because it's late. So, um, for for wishing everybody happy holidays and all that stuff, um, politically correct, I I
don't know the right thing to say anymore, but I will just remind you guys maybe if you get four minutes to listen to a song by Mary J. Blah, who um, I'm sure you guys will know the name of the song. Um, and that's what I wish for
next year for all of us, right? No more drama. Um, as bad as this year was with the election and everything, it's probably going to be a lot worse next year because we got more elections coming, but um, we'll live through it. So, that's my wish for you.
>> For one, Jackson, we're we we're doing great up here. So, I appreciate it. >> Thanks. That's it. >> Do we have a motion to close public comment? >> Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I miss Mr. McGucken. I think we have a legal matter to take care of. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In accordance
with our discussions in executive session and a briefing from council, this will be a resolution of the township of Jackson County of Ocean State, New Jersey, authorizing the execution for an employee settlement agreement of mutual release with police chief Matthew Coun. So again, I just want to take a moment
and thank McGucken and our other special legal counsel for working diligently. I think um we we're looking forward to hopefully releasing more information to the public in in the near future and um and uh working to build our department
to be an even better and greater department. We thank the men and women, we thank the chief and we look forward to um continued success for law enforcement here in town. So um if we can get a motion second.
>> Yes. Paul where um listen I'm gonna be honest I did not hear him that well >> this was the um settlement with with the chief that we discussed in exact >> um did is this agreed upon by the chief
>> so attorney mccagen >> we've been in active negotiations we met with him we had an agreement in principle we have submitted the written document to him for his signature and his attorney and we are waiting their response, but this is our last meeting so of the year. So, it was the last meeting we could adopt.
>> But he didn't agree to it. >> I'm sorry. >> But he didn't agree to it yet. >> Well, he agreed to the terms of the settlement. >> All the terms All terms were agreed to by his attorneys and they've been back and forth. Yeah. Yeah. All the terms have been agreed to >> and the settlement is supposed to go into effect at the beginning of January.
So, this is our last meeting to >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm going to abstain. Council Vice President Paul Mary. >> Yes. >> Council President Bernstein. >> Yes. And I'm happy to see that we're working to fix up some of the messes
that unfortunately we were left with. So yes. >> Thank you. Motion. >> Can I get a motion to close? >> May I have a second? >> All in favor? >> I I >> Any oppose? >> Thank you everyone. Have a wonderful rest of your evening or night or
morning.