Jackson planning board approves 118‑home Grama development despite resident traffic and safety concerns

The Jackson Township Planning Board voted on June 15 to approve a variance‑free preliminary and final major subdivision for Grama Development — a 118‑lot single‑family project that includes 12 affordable units — while granting two waivers for landscaping/tree requirements.

Salvatore Alfieri, representing the applicant, asked the board to grant the application and said the proposal would remain subject to outside agency approvals, including a TWA/DEP sewer permit and Ocean County intersection work. Ian Borden, the project planner, told the board the property covers 44.3 acres along the Jackson–Lakewood border and that the plan provides the required 10% open space (4.4 acres) and a community center sized to the AH‑4 overlay rules. “The property contains 44.3 acres,” Borden said, describing two proposed access roads and a split‑building option for a 6,000‑square‑foot community center intended to avoid variances.

Board professionals testified the application complies with the township’s AH‑4 affordable‑housing overlay and with New Jersey Residential Site Improvement Standards (RSIS). Graham MacFarlane, the municipal engineer, said the site’s stormwater design follows current rules using 16 small‑scale infiltration basins distributed across the parcel and that remaining test pits and technical items would be addressed during final engineering. “The project complies with current stormwater management regulations,” MacFarlane said.

John Ray, the traffic engineer for the applicant, said traffic counts were taken on Dec. 4, 2025, and that the study projects to a 2035 design year required by Ocean County. Ray testified the two unsignalized access points to White Road would operate at acceptable levels of service with the Ocean County improvements that the county has programmed, noting that off‑site intersection design and left‑turn warrants are county responsibilities. “They will operate at level of service B,” Ray said of the proposed access points, adding that the county will ultimately review and require any off‑site intersection improvements.

Residents and commenters pressed the applicant and engineers in extended cross‑examination and public comment rounds, focusing chiefly on traffic, school‑bus volumes and safety on White Road. Multiple neighbors described frequent speeding and bus stops on White Road and urged the board to reconsider the number and location of access points to the new subdivision.

“One of our community members lost her life on White Road,” said David Pollack, who lives on White Road, invoking a past fatality to argue for greater scrutiny of access and pedestrian safety. Several residents questioned the traffic counts’ timing and whether counts captured local private‑school schedules and bus activity. John Ray said the study counts included peak periods and school buses and that the county’s ten‑year projection standard was applied.

Neighbors also raised environmental and land‑use concerns, including tree removal, the potential presence of northern pine snakes (Borden said the site is not suitable as critical pine snake habitat and that a single occurrence dated to 2002 was the only record), and the project’s density under the AH‑4 zoning overlay. Eli Newman and others cited a prior land‑swap dispute in general terms; Alfieri and the applicant team responded that they have complied with the ordinance and the application was submitted in that regulatory framework.

The applicant proposed two design waivers limited to tree‑buffer and per‑lot shade‑tree requirements, arguing they were impractical for 9,000‑sq‑ft lots. Borden also said the applicant will eliminate one basement from the clubhouse footprint option to address a parking shortfall created by the split‑building approach. The application’s parking plan shows roughly 80 spaces overall and an allowance for shared parking between the multifamily affordable building and the community center.

Board members repeatedly noted their limited jurisdiction on off‑site traffic and encouraged neighbors to bring roadway safety concerns to Ocean County, which controls White Road and programs intersection improvements. Several board members said the internal circulation and compliance with RSIS supports approval; others expressed sympathy for resident safety concerns but pointed to the ordinance and state standards that govern the board’s review.

After deliberation the board voted to approve the application with the two landscaping/tree waivers. The applicant agreed on the record to address outstanding technical comments from board professionals and to abide by the outside agency reviews required before construction. The applicant also stipulated on the record that the community center would not be used as a house of worship.

What happens next: the developer must secure outside‑agency permits and any county approvals for intersection work and sewer/water connections (JTMUA/DEP/TWA and Ocean County). The board’s approval is conditioned on the final technical compliance items discussed on the record.

Vote at a glance: the board approved the Grama Development subdivision application and granted two landscaping/tree waivers by roll call (motion and second on the record). No variances were requested; the approval was described on the record as a variance‑free application with two waivers for trees/landscaping.