My name is Adam Haidi from Jackson Township, reaching out as a concerned resident. I am reaching out to highlight a significant lack of transparency regarding “substantial concerns” raised by the Pinelands Commission over proposed affordable housing developments in our community.
In brief, the Pinelands Commission expressed “substantial concerns” about these ordinances, citing excessive density, inadequate wastewater infrastructure, and environmental unsuitability—issues that directly impact local drinking water & verbatim advised the Township Council to TABLE the vote.
The letter (December 4th 2025) was addressed to Mayor Jennifer Kuhn, Township Council President Mordechai Burnstein, legal counsel Robin La Bue (RMSCH Law), and others, but it was not made available to the Environmental Commission or, more importantly, the public, despite multiple residents raising pertinent questions at a recent housing roundtable (maybe December 9th or 11th?) prior to the vote & ultimate approval.
The Jackson Times covered this story in its most recent edition and confirmed both the legitimacy of the events and the chronological timeline of correspondence with the Pinelands Commission. The letter was originally posted by a grassroots non-profit called the Jackson Conservation Coalition.
I’ll attach the letter to this email. Once you tarnish the environment — it’s gone.
Strong suspicion that Jackson Township intends to strong-arm the Pinelands Commission through litigation. Its explicit defiance of the Commission’s guidance, coupled with its refusal to meet or engage in responsible planning discussions, speaks volumes about the Township’s approach.
Despite hours of residents raising serious public health concerns, the Jackson Township Council nonetheless voted to approve all Affordable Housing Ordinances, with only Councilman Chris Pollack dissenting.
n explicit defiance of the Pinelands Commission’s guidance to ‘table’ Affordable Housing Ordinances 2025-47 and 2025-48 due to excessive intensity and lack of septic or water infrastructure, the Jackson Township Council voted to APPROVE them—unequivocally insisting that tabling the ordinances, even to address Pinelands, environmental compliance issues, or even public health concerns — would trigger ‘builder’s remedy litigation’.
Even more alarming, the Pinelands Letter of Concern addressed to Mayor Kuhn and Council on December 4th, 2025 was withheld from residents and the Township Environmental Commission — citing “no jurisdiction”.
Attorney Cipriani characterized the Pinelands Commission’s objections as mere “perceived concerns,” suggesting they exist only to protect land, not to ensure Jackson meets its affordable housing obligation
Happy New Year!
Adam Haidi
Pinelands Letter:
Dear Mayor Kuhn,
The Pinelands Commission is in receipt of Ordinances 2025-47 and 2025-48, which were introduced on
November 13, 2025, and are scheduled for public hearing and final passage on December 16, 2025.
These ordinances establish affordable housing overlay zones within the Pinelands Area to implement the
Township’s Fourth Round Housing Element and Fair Share Plan. Based on a preliminary review,
Commission staff have substantial concerns with the ordinances as introduced.
Comprehensive Review of Master Plan Amendments and Implementing Ordinances
The Pinelands Protection Act and the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) require that
any amendment to the Township’s certified master plan or land use ordinances affecting the Pinelands
Area be reviewed and certified by the Pinelands Commission before it may take effect (N.J.A.C. 7:50-
3.45). Because Ordinances 2025-47 and 2025-48 are intended to implement the Township’s Fourth
Round Housing Element and Fair Share Plan, the ordinances, the housing plan, and any other
implementing ordinances of the housing plan affecting the Pinelands Area must be reviewed together.
The Township has not yet submitted its Fourth Round Housing Element and Fair Share Plan to the
Commission. While these ordinances remain pending adoption, the Township should submit the housing
plan as soon as possible. It would also assist our review to know whether any additional implementing
ordinances affecting the Pinelands Area portion of the Township will be forthcoming.
Ordinances 2025-47 and 2025-48
Each ordinance establishes an affordable housing overlay zone with identical zoning standards. The only
difference between the ordinances is the specific lands included within each overlay. Both overlays
permit inclusionary mixed-use residential development. Townhouses are permitted at a density of 8
dwelling units per “net usable acre” (excluding wetlands and wetlands transition areas). Multifamily
affordable dwelling units equal to at least 20% of the market-rate units are required, and Pinelands
Development Credits are required to be redeemed for 30% of the market-rate residential units. Mixed-
use buildings and clubhouse/community centers are permitted to reach maximum heights of 50 feet and
40 feet, respectively, while townhouses are limited to 35 feet.
2
Ordinance 2025-47 establishes the AH-III Overlay Zone, which comprises two discrete areas: (1)
approximately 46 acres split between the Township’s PV (38.5 acres) and PVC-2 (7.5 acres) zones, and
(2) approximately 78 acres split between the Township’s PM-1 Zone (74 acres) and RD Zone (4 acres).
Ordinance 2025-48 establishes the AH-III.A Overlay Zone, consisting of a single 477-acre lot in the
Township’s RD Zone. The PM-1 Zone is located in a Regional Growth Area, the PV and PVC-2 zones
are located within the Pinelands Village of Cassville, and the RD Zone is located within a Rural
Development Area.
Intensity of Development in Rural Development Areas and Pinelands Villages
Our primary concern with these ordinances is the intensity of development permitted in a Rural
Development Area and within the Pinelands Village of Cassville. In Rural Development Areas, the CMP
allows residential development at a density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre, clustered on 1-acre lots, with
the remaining lands deed restricted as open space. Centralized wastewater treatment and collection
facilities are permitted in Rural Development Areas only in limited circumstances to address an
identified public health problem and may serve only existing development (N.J.A.C. 7:50-5.26).
Within Pinelands Villages, centralized wastewater treatment and collection facilities are permitted, but
permitted development must be compatible with the character and magnitude of existing structures and
uses within the Village of Cassville (N.J.A.C. 7:50-5.27). In addition, the CMP also requires that
municipal zoning plans for Pinelands Villages do not provide for “an additional increment of
development which is greater than the number of non-accessory structures that currently exist in the
village” (N.J.A.C. 7:50-5.16(a)). More commonly referred to as the “doubling rule,” this standard is
intended to ensure that when the minimum lot size requirements in a Pinelands Village are applied to the
vacant developable land in that Village, the potential amount of new development does not exceed that
which existed in 1979. Lastly, in both Rural Development Areas and Pinelands Villages, the maximum
permitted height of structures is 35 feet (N.J.A.C. 7:50-5.4).
Given these limitations, the development intensities allowed under these overlay zones are only
appropriate within a Regional Growth Area and, even there, would need to be evaluated in the context of
the Township’s existing Regional Growth Area zoning plan and applicable CMP standards.
Management Area Redesignation
Changes to Pinelands management areas are rare, typically limited in area, and require offsetting
management area changes. The CMP provides two mechanisms for management area redesignation: (1)
through the municipal conformance process and (2) through a formal CMP amendment adopted by the
Pinelands Commission. Based on the location of the overlay areas, existing environmental conditions,
and the intensity of development allowed under the overlay standards, a redesignation through the local
conformance process would not meet CMP guidelines (N.J.A.C. 7:50-5.11(b)). The Commission is
similarly unlikely to support a formal CMP amendment to redesignate these areas as Regional Growth
Areas. Accordingly, the Rural Development Area and Pinelands Village portions of the overlay zones do
not appear suitable for any management area change. This is particularly true for the entire AH-III.A
Overlay Zone, where a redesignation would conflict with extensive land use planning undertaken by the
Commission, the Township, the County and other stakeholders to protect the Toms River Corridor.
Regional Growth Area Portion of the AH-III Overlay Zone
The Regional Growth Area portion of the AH-III Overlay Zone could potentially be rezoned to allow
residential development at these densities. Since these are densities greater than what the CMP requires
for the Township’s Regional Growth Area, the Township would need to demonstrate that: (1)
infrastructure (water and sewer) is available or can be provided to serve the area; (2) the area does not
3
include significant environmental limitations; and (3) use of Pinelands Development Credits is required
for a percentage of the dwelling units permitted. If additional zoning changes within the Township’s
Regional Growth Area are forthcoming to implement the Fourth Round Housing Plan, those zoning
changes must be evaluated comprehensively with those in the AH-III overlay. Even with these
demonstrations, certain sections of the ordinance will still need to be revised.
Based on the concerns noted above, I encourage the Township to consider tabling these ordinances in
order to address these issues in consultation with Commission staff. Commission staff is willing to meet
and discuss all of the Pinelands Area sites contained within the Township’s Fourth Round Housing Plan
and work with the Township to address its affordable housing obligation in a manner consistent with the
Pinelands CMP.
If you have any questions or would like to set up a meeting to discuss these matters further, please
contact Chief Planner Brad Lanute, of my staff.
Sincerely,
Susan R. Grogan, P.P., AICP
Executive Director
DBL/CJA
c: Mordechai Burnstein, Township Council President (via email)
Gregory P. McGuckin, Township Attorney (via email)
Robin La Bue, Township Housing Attorney (via email)
Sandra Martin, Township Clerk (via email)
Laura Morrison, Township Planning Board Secretary (via email)
Note: This article is a reader submitted opinion and does not represent the opinions of Shore Media and Marketing, LLC. To send a letter to the editor, email news@shorenewsnetwork.com