Brick Developer Sues to Overturn Denial of 60 Unit Townhome, Apartment Community

A rendering of the entrance to a 60-unit multifamily complex proposed in Brick Township. (Credit: Planning Document)

The would-be developer of a 48-unit townhome community off Drum Point Road that was denied approval in June has filed a lawsuit challenging the decision of the township’s zoning board in the matter.

The lawsuit was filed last week on behalf of 100 Drum Point LLC, owned by North Jersey developer Ramani Group, whose proposal was rejected by the Zoning Board of Adjustment after a string of meetings that drew intense public opposition. The developer first proposed a plan to build 60 townhomes at the property, currently developed with a medical building that once housed the Leonik Optometry office, as well as a single-family home. In its final iteration considered by the board, the complex would have consisted of 48 townhomes to be sold at market rate, and 12 apartments that would be designated as affordable housing.

The parcel is located at 100 Drum Point Road, roughly opposite the Brick Presbyterian Church. Access to the development, planned for the 5-acre property, had been proposed via two full movement driveways to and from Drum Point Road. The apartments would have been divided between two 1-bedroom units, seven 2-bedroom units and three 3-bedroom units. The 48 townhome units would all be three bedroom living spaces.

---

Get Brick News Updates Daily Your email address:* Please enter all required fields Correct invalid entries

The proposed site of a 60-unit multifamily complex proposed in Brick Township. (Credit: Planning Document)

The lawsuit asks the court to reverse the board’s denial of the application and direct the board to grant a use variance, bulk variances and site plan approval as proposed. The complaint, filed before the court by attorney John Jackson, claims the board acted unreasonably and arbitrarily when it rejected the application, essentially arguing that the board ignored testimony from a number of experts hired by the developer who stated under oath that the plan satisfied positive and negative criteria set forth by the state’s Municipal Land Use Law that demonstrated “special reasons” as to why relief should have been granted. Further, the complaint states that approving the development would “promote the general welfare” of the community by offering affordable housing units “consistent with the township’s affordable housing obligations and the goals of the New Jersey Fair Housing Act.”

In its answer, the board’s attorney, Ronald Cucchiaro, argued that the developer missed a deadline to file the lawsuit and the statute of limitations to do so had expired. Substantively, he argued that the board was within its mandate to deny the application, which included a use variance – the most difficult relief a developer can seek – and “the record before the Zoning Board speaks for itself.” He also contends Ramani group failed to meet the positive and negative criteria required for approval.

Furthermore, Cucchiaro opposed the developer’s inclusion of language referencing affordable housing in its complaint.

“The plaintiff’s property was not included in Brick Township’s Fourth Round Housing Element and Fair Share Plan and, therefore, granting use variance relief would be contrary to the very recent legislative process and would constitute an unlawful usurpation of the legislative power of the governing body,” the answer stated.

Additionally, the answer states that Brick “has satisfied its constitutionally mandated affordable housing obligations and does not require this site to assist it in meeting any affordable housing requirement.”

A pretrial conference in the matter has been set for Dec. 1, 2025. The case has been assigned to Superior Court Judge Francis R. Hodgson.