The most notable issue at the meeting involved the Adventure Crossing project, where the board revisited the debate surrounding zoning ordinance interpretations for residential density. The discussion centered around whether the entire Adventure Crossing project should be evaluated as one unified tract for density calculations, or if each phase should be considered individually. The applicants argued that the original project approvals, which included multiple phases, should govern the density calculations, even though phase two had been removed from the General Development Plan (GDP) following litigation. The applicant maintained that the entire project, including phase two, should be evaluated together due to shared infrastructure and utilities, asserting that the project had been developed as a cohesive unit.

A critical point of contention was the interpretation of ordinance section 24457.2, which specifies the calculation of residential units allowed per acre. The applicants insisted that their interpretation of the ordinance entitled them to develop at a density of four units per acre across the entire tract, not just the specific phases currently under review. They argued that past approvals viewed the project as a unified entity, and thus, the gross acreage should be used in their calculations for permitted residential units. This stance faced pushback from some board members who questioned the consistency of the applicants’ position, particularly given the removal of phase two from the GDP. The debate was further complicated by the historical context of the project’s approvals and amendments to the ordinance, which included provisions for non-residential uses like warehouses.

The board was tasked with navigating these complexities and determining whether to treat the current application for phase one the same way it had treated previous phases. Suggestions were made to defer the decision to allow for further testimony and clarification on the matter. The board ultimately agreed to reconvene for additional discussions, scheduling a follow-up meeting to delve deeper into the tract’s implications and the ordinance’s interpretation.

Parallel to this discussion, the board addressed a request from Kai Lifeline NJ Inc. for sign variances on North County Line Road. The charitable organization, which supports families of sick children, sought approval for a 16-foot-high ground sign with an area of 247 square feet—significantly exceeding the township’s maximum allowed area of 30 square feet for ground signs. The proposed sign included animated elements and donor recognition, which required several variances due to its size, location, and the prohibition of animated signs in Jackson Township.

While the sign’s animated portion was intended to promote events related to Kai Lifeline, concerns were raised about its compliance with municipal ordinances and potential distractions to drivers on nearby roads. The board deliberated on the necessity of the animated features and the possibility of moving the sign to a different location on the property to mitigate safety concerns. Suggestions were made to consider placing the sign in a parking island to achieve a compliant setback and reduce the need for variances. Additionally, the board examined the sign’s brightness, animated features, and how frequently the messages would change, emphasizing the need for adherence to industry safety standards.

The board members highlighted the importance of balancing the community’s needs with existing zoning regulations, expressing a willingness to consider adjustments that would align with ordinance requirements while addressing the organization’s visibility needs.