Councilman: Trophy Park team suites are not dormitories

JACKSON – Township Councilman Ken Bressi, who also serves on the Jackson Planning Board, has sought to reassure a resident that Trophy Park will not have dormitories.

The Planning Board recently approved a General Development Plan (GDP) for Trophy Park, an athletic complex proposed for development on 194 acres at Route 537 and Hawkin Road, Jackson.

Trophy Park, an indoor and outdoor complex, is expected to feature baseball and softball fields; batting cages; lacrosse, soccer, field hockey and practice fields; a two-story indoor facility for basketball, volleyball, cheerleading and wrestling; and an outdoor stadium with 6,000 seats. There will also be three restaurants, a building with retail space and hotels.

Representatives of Trophy Park testified the complex would be able to host 2,000 athletes per week as the youngsters participate in tournaments and sports camps. They said the athletes would stay in a facility that would not have a kitchen.

During the Feb. 26 meeting of the Township Council, resident Denise Garner asked officials what they planned to do about the dormitories in the Trophy Park application.

Council President Robert Nixon deferred to Bressi, who said the question of whether the team accommodations were dormitories had been discussed during the Planning Board meetings. He said board members determined the team accommodations are not dormitories.

Garner asked Bressi to explain what the team suites are.

“The Planning Board has already addressed this,” Nixon said.

Garner said she wanted an answer on the record.

Bressi told Garner, “The (team suites) were not dormitories and the (Trophy Park) application had the correct land use for (the zone). … Once again there was a motion put on the table to bring up the question of (the team suites) as dorms … The vote went 7-2 that they are not dorms, they are suites and that is settled. That is in the record here (at the council) and there (at the Planning Board),” Bressi said.

Nixon told Garner the council would not re-litigate the board’s decision.