The most prominent topic of the meeting was the request for a height variance for the proposed three-story office building, planned to reach 38 feet, surpassing the township’s maximum height limit of 35 feet. The board scrutinized the necessity of this variance, with members suggesting a potential reduction in building size to eliminate the need for multiple variances. Concerns were raised about the project’s scale relative to the lot size, with one member remarking on the excessive nature of the proposed development for the space available.

Environmental considerations were also central to the discussion. The board highlighted the need for Phase One and Phase Two Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) to ensure compliance with environmental standards. One board member insisted on obtaining a “letter of no concern” from the environmental commission. The applicant acknowledged this requirement, agreeing to provide the necessary documentation. Additionally, the proposed development’s impact on local vegetation was scrutinized, with the developer conceding that the project would affect plant life, contradicting earlier claims of minimal environmental impact.

The connection to the municipal utilities authority’s (MUA) sewer system emerged as a issue, with concerns about the existing lines’ capacity. The applicant outlined plans to upgrade the force main line, pending final approval from the MUA. The board emphasized that construction could not proceed without this essential sewer connection, underlining the project’s dependency on infrastructure improvements.

Traffic considerations and site access designs were thoroughly examined. The board questioned the design of the access aisle, which was narrowed due to non-parallel side property lines, and the absence of a specific loading area. The applicant argued that the traffic generation from the site would be minimal, and the design was adequate for operational needs, including deliveries from service providers like FedEx and UPS. However, the board expressed concerns about the implications of left turns out of the site, particularly in relation to a nearby school’s traffic flow.

Public comments revealed a community divided over the proposed development. Deborah Jones, a resident, expressed dissatisfaction with the prevalence of variances in development projects, arguing that they threaten the character of Jackson. Adam Heidi, another resident, voiced environmental concerns, criticizing the applicant’s approach to managing local ecosystems and questioning the number of requested variances. He emphasized the need for the Pinelands Commission’s involvement, given the site’s location within its jurisdiction.