Jackson planning board approves site plan for religious school with dormitory amid resident concerns

Jackson Township’s Planning Board voted on Nov. 17 to grant preliminary and final major site plan approval for a two‑story religious school with an attached post‑high‑school dormitory on a parcel along Frank Applegate Road, but only after the applicant accepted more than 20 conditions and the board required the applicant to secure several outside‑agency permits.

The board’s approval follows hours of testimony from applicant witnesses — including the applicant’s counsel Salvatore Alfieri; engineer Graham MacFarlane; environmental biologist Brian Du Bois; architect Shimon Greenbaum; and traffic consultant Scott Kennel — and extensive public cross‑examination and comment from neighboring residents. The approved plan calls for a roughly 50,000‑square‑foot building housing a boys’ high school (about 160 students) and a higher‑learning program with 22 dorm rooms (up to 66 residents), 80 parking spaces on site and staggered bus drop‑offs to limit on‑site bus stacking.

Why it mattered: Board members and residents focused on three technical thresholds that will determine whether the project can be built as approved: (1) a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection letter of interpretation (LOI) and any subsequent jurisdictional determinations for wetlands and the 300‑foot riparian buffer that applies to the mapped stream corridor; (2) a state Egyptis/discharge permit and/or Ocean County Health approval for the proposed on‑site septic/disposal system; and (3) any Ocean County roadway or sight‑distance improvements tied to the project’s driveway on county‑controlled Frank Applegate Road. The board required the applicant to obtain and supply those outside approvals as conditions of any final permit.

What the applicant said and conceded: Applicant attorney Salvatore Alfieri introduced the design team and asked the board to focus on engineering details. Engineer Graham MacFarlane testified that the developable portion of the roughly 24.8‑acre parcel is about six acres and that the submitted plans show compliance with the R‑3 overlay standards the township adopted following federal litigation. He described the stormwater scheme as a combination of underground recharge plus multiple small infiltration basins and said the applicant intends to seek any required DEP or Ocean County approvals. Environmental consultant Brian Du Bois said his firm submitted an LOI application to DEP in March/April 2025 and expects the agency review to take many months; Du Bois agreed to submit a jurisdictional determination (JD) package to the board’s professionals and to forward any agency findings to the board.

Operations: Rabbi Moshe Nirenberg described the daily schedule: morning arrival staggered from 07:30–08:00, evening departures staggered between about 20:30 and 21:30 for different grades, catered meals (no on‑site cooking), security cameras, a dorm counselor on site overnight and a policy that dorm residents will not be permitted to have cars. “They will not be permitted to have cars,” Rabbi Nirenberg said of the post‑high‑school residents (Rabbi Moshe Nirenberg). The applicant testified that buses will be hired from third‑party carriers and that parking is sized to accommodate occasional parent attendance and special events.

Board and public concerns: Neighbors repeatedly pressed the applicant on wetlands delineation, the absence of an issued LOI (application filed but LOI not yet issued), septic design details, potential impacts to a mapped Category‑1 riparian buffer and cumulative lighting, noise and traffic effects. Several residents asked the board to delay action until DEP and other outside approvals are in hand; the applicant and board professionals said those outside approvals are separate processes and that the planning board is required under state law to accept a technically complete application while conditioning the resolution on outside‑agency signoffs. Multiple residents also asked for stronger security measures, fencing, and guarantees about guest access; the applicant agreed to fence the school parcel around the developed area and to work with professionals on security and operational conditions.

Traffic and safety: Traffic consultant Scott Kennel testified that morning and afternoon counts taken June 4, 2025, show peak traffic near the site and that the proposed driveway provides sight distance that exceeds county standards; he estimated the site would generate about 64 AM peak hour trips under the applicant’s operational assumptions (four school buses and a conservative 10% allowance for parent drop‑offs). Kennel said the driveway would operate at a Level‑of‑Service A under those projections, but he emphasized that Ocean County must review and approve any off‑site improvements because Frank Applegate Road is under county jurisdiction.

Vote and conditions: Board member Sal Bressi moved to approve the application with the applicant’s recorded stipulations and the board professionals’ technical conditions; Mr. Heller seconded. Roll call produced a majority: Brezi — yes; Heller — yes; Rogers — yes; Tremor — no; Rose — yes; Weingart — yes; Sullivan — yes; Dr. Campbell — yes. The motion carried. The board’s approval is explicitly conditioned on (among other items recorded on the record): submission and review of the DEP LOI/jurisdictional determination and any DEP comments; Ocean County Soil Conservation District certification; Ocean County roadway review for sight lines and any required half‑section improvements; Ocean County Health and/or DEP permitting for the on‑site septic (Egyptis/discharge if required); a final stormwater management certification; a landscaping and buffering plan and maintenance bond; lighting shields/timers and limits for after‑hours lighting; specific security measures (fencing, overnight on‑site counselor, cameras); and inclusion of the professional comments in the final resolution. If outside agencies refuse required permits or raise material concerns, the board’s resolution requires the applicant to return to the board for revisions.

What’s next: The approval is contingent on the applicant obtaining the outside‑agency permits and complying with the board professionals’ remaining technical comments. Several residents said they would monitor agency review closely and consider appeal rights if they believe procedures or ordinance requirements were not followed.

Ending: The board closed the hearing after the vote; the applicant and professionals said they will supply the agreed documents to the board’s consultants and the public file as the next step.