Oceanport board reviews updated Monmouth Park redevelopment, including future casino plans

The Oceanport Planning Board on March 10 held an advisory “courtesy review” of updated redevelopment plans for Monmouth Park, including Phase II youth sports fields and an expanded residential component.

Board counsel and project representatives said the agenda item was not an application hearing and the board had no authority to approve or deny it. Counsel described it as a state-agency presentation required under New Jersey law when a governmental or state agency is using public funds and appears before the planning board for recommendations. In the meeting, attorney Jennifer Phillips Smith said she appeared on behalf of the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority (NJSEA) and described NJSEA as “the state entity that owns the” property.

The discussion also previewed issues likely to carry into a broader public forum: multiple speakers referenced a presentation to Oceanport’s Mayor and Council scheduled for Thursday, March 12. The planning board later voted to send a letter summarizing its comments because its next regular meeting would be after that workshop.

---

What changed since the last public version

Based on statements made on the record March 10, the updated concept differed from the earlier version in several specific ways:

• Residential unit count: presenters said the earlier Phase I concept was 298 age-restricted rental units; they said NJSEA has since approved an additional 200 units for 498 total, with the extra 200 not age-restricted.
• Sports-field layout: presenters said the youth-sports complex “transitioned” to three smaller baseball fields plus two full-size fields.
• Hotel concept tied to tournaments: presenters described a conceptual 175–200 room “youth sports” hotel, with the brand not yet selected.
• Site circulation/egress revisions: Mayor Thomas Tvrdik said he requested safety-related circulation changes, including converting one access point to emergency-vehicle-only and restricting a movement he described as dangerous near a building.

Who controls what (as described at the meeting)

Several different entities were referenced during the discussion, and the relationships are easy to confuse.

• NJSEA: Smith said she represented NJSEA and described it as the state entity that owns the property. She and other speakers also described NJSEA as the authority making approvals referenced during the presentation.
• Bailey family: Nick Talvacchia, an attorney with Cooper Levenson, told the board he represents the Bailey family, “one of the principals of the subtenant,” which he identified as MBD Development LLC. He also described Dennis Drazen as a member of that subtenant and said the subtenant would “actually undertake the development.”
• Darby Development: Drazen identified himself as “Dennis Drazen, Darby Development, LLC,” and said he is “chairman CEO of Darby Development” and “a member of MBD.” During the meeting, speakers also described “the Darby entity” as the racetrack operator that would receive a share of revenues from the contemplated projects.
• Oceanport (Mayor and Council / Planning Board): board professionals emphasized the planning board’s role that night was advisory only; the Mayor and Council were referenced as holding a separate public presentation March 12.

Why the meeting was advisory

Early in the meeting, board counsel told attendees that “New Jersey law” requires a courtesy review when a governmental or state agency is using public funds, and that the planning board “ha[s] no authority to approve it or deny it,” characterizing the evening as a chance for the board to offer recommendations from an advisory posture.

At the end of the discussion, the board voted on a motion, and counsel explained on the record that the board was proceeding “on as a resolution” in order to memorialize comments in a letter before the March 12 Mayor and Council presentation. Counsel said the letter would be sent to “the attorneys of record.”

Phase I housing, added units, and what “approved” meant in the meeting discussion

Talbacchia told the board that the earlier Phase I concept that previously came to the planning board for courtesy review was 298 age-restricted rental units plus a hotel. He then said that “since then, the authority has approved another 200 units for a total of 498 residential units,” and that the extra 200 “are not age-restricted.”

A separate presenter also referred to the additional 200 units as “approved,” but said the development team had not “fully developed that plan yet.”

Phase II youth sports complex and hotel: operator not identified

Presenters described Phase II as a youth sports complex focused on baseball fields. They said the complex had “transitioned” to three smaller-sized baseball fields and two larger full-size fields and that the team had partnered with a “substantial national group” that operates youth sports complexes across the country.

When asked to name the operator, a presenter said he had not finalized the deal and did not identify the company in the public meeting.

Presenters also described a conceptual, tournament-oriented hotel of about 175 to 200 rooms and said a brand had not been selected.

Outstanding issues raised: list of changes, traffic study, and written agreements

“Do we have a list of all changes?”

Board members pressed for clarity on what had changed since earlier versions of the plan.

In one exchange, a board member asked whether there was “a list of all changes.” A presenter said “absolutely” and suggested the site plan had been submitted previously, but the board’s administrative staff indicated they did not have that list in hand during the meeting.

Traffic study for the added 200 units

Traffic was a recurring theme, particularly with the expanded residential count.

In response to a board question about whether traffic studies had been completed for the additional 200 units, a presenter said a traffic study was provided for the first 298 units but “we haven’t done one yet for the additional,” and confirmed: “So no traffic study on the additional 200. Correct.”

Site circulation and emergency access

Mayor Tvrdik said he requested safety-related circulation and egress changes. He described a change that would convert one access point to emergency-vehicle-only and restrict a movement he characterized as dangerous near a building; he referenced Oceanport Avenue in describing the location of one requested change. A presenter responded that the team had discussed fire and police concerns with the mayor and “acquiesce[d]” to the requested changes because the mayor believed there were safety concerns.

PILOT, pro formas, and revenue-sharing: what was said on the record

Speakers also discussed project economics, including a possible PILOT—a “payment in lieu of taxes,” a negotiated arrangement that can change how a project is taxed compared with standard property taxation.

On the record, Drazen said the development team had previously come to the borough seeking a PILOT, that it would return “in a formal sense,” and that he did not want to discuss it during the planning board courtesy review.

In discussion about the overall deal structure, a speaker described an arrangement in which the developer would build the project and “the Darby entity,” described as the racetrack operator, would receive 50% of the revenue generated by the projects being contemplated. The same exchange included acknowledgments that the planning board did not have pro forma details in front of it that night and that the team said it would bring financial materials at a later appearance.

Casino-related concepts were discussed as contingent on legislation and a referendum

Although the courtesy review focused on the residential component, youth sports fields, and the hotel, presenters and board members also discussed casino-related concepts framed as contingent on changes in state law.

Drazen said legislation had been introduced that would permit casino gaming at Monmouth Park and the Meadowlands, and he described a process that would include legislative action and a voter referendum. In doing so, he used the phrase “super majority” during the meeting; the article does not characterize the required legislative threshold beyond what is stated in the resolution text.

The legislation referenced in the meeting was Senate Concurrent Resolution 66 (SCR 66), pre-filed for introduction in the 2026 session and sponsored by Sen. Vin Gopal and Sen. Paul A. Sarlo. SCR 66 proposes a constitutional amendment to allow the Legislature to pass laws permitting casino games at the Meadowlands Racetrack and Monmouth Park Racetrack, subject to statewide voter approval at a general election.¹

Public comment and bidding questions

During public comment, a local resident asked whether the developer selection was competitively bid. Drazen responded that it was not, and offered an explanation referring back to an earlier state bidding process tied to racetrack privatization. Later, Drazen also said subcontractors would be competitively bid.

Racing dates bill briefly referenced

The meeting also touched briefly on racing economics and state policy.

A related bill introduced in Trenton—Assembly Bill 4356 (A4356), introduced February 19, 2026, sponsored by Assemblywoman Luanne M. Peterpaul—would amend current law governing minimum thoroughbred race dates and outlines circumstances under which the minimum could be reduced (including written consent from the New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, or changes in state purse subsidy appropriations).¹²

What happens next

Speakers repeatedly referenced a public presentation to Oceanport’s Mayor and Council scheduled for Thursday, March 12, at 7 p.m. at the Clement V. Sommers Municipal Building. The planning board voted to memorialize its advisory comments in a letter to be sent to counsel of record because its next regular meeting would be after that presentation.

Context: where Monmouth Park redevelopment fits

Monmouth Park Racetrack is in Oceanport in Monmouth County. The redevelopment discussion before the planning board on March 10 centered on a residential component, youth sports fields, and a tournament-oriented hotel, with additional casino concepts discussed as contingent on separate state legislative and voter-approval steps. Previously submitted plans and resolutions can be found on the Borough of Oceanport website.

---

Notes

1. Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 66 (SCR 66), 222nd Legislature, pre-filed for introduction in the 2026 session; sponsors listed as Sen. Vin Gopal and Sen. Paul A. Sarlo; text describing statewide voter approval requirement and ballot question.
2. Assembly Bill No. 4356 (A4356), introduced February 19, 2026; text and statement describing minimum race dates and circumstances for reduction.