Court Overturns Brick Zoning Board Decision, Will Allow Home to be Built on Undersized Lot

A home proposed where llinois Avenue, New Jersey Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue meet in Brick, NJ. (Credit: Planning Document/Google Maps)

Two developers seeking to build a home on an undersized residential lot in the township’s Herbertsville section have won a lawsuit seeking to overturn a denial by the Brick Township zoning board.

The board, in February 2025, rejected the application of Esther Cohen and Naomi Elkins, co-owners of the property – which does not currently have a postal address – to develop a triangular-shaped piece of land where Illinois Avenue, New Jersey Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue come together. The two streets meet in the middle of a neighborhood between Lanes Mill and Sally Ike roads in the Herbertsville section, with the proposed single-family home having frontage on both Illinois and Pennsylvania avenues. The lot measures 4,812 square feet, however the township’s zoning ordinance requires a minimum of 9,000 square feet to build a home on a corner lot in the R7.5 residential zone, where the property is located.

Cohen and Elkins sued after the decision was rendered by the board, arguing the board “caved to public opinion” due to the ultra-Orthodox Jewish status of the developers.

---

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

Superior Court Judge Francis Hodgson ordered Nov. 12, 2025 that the zoning board’s decision be overturned, stating in his decision that the board’s “denial of this application for this application with variances is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable” for reasons set forth in an early oral decision issued from the bench. The audio decision was not accessible in the court system’s database.

Hodgson ruled that the denial be overturned, and that the developers do not have to return to the board for a new hearing. Instead, they may proceed building on the property as long as they comply with “any conditions agreed to at the zoning board hearing.” The judge also said the developers should meet with the township’s engineering and planning professionals to a proposed driveway for “safety purposes.”

The applicant sought approval to build a 1,702 square foot single family home on the 0.1 acre parcel, well below the 9,000 square feet required to construct a home in the underlying zone. The 4,812 square foot lot was not adequate to accommodate such construction, the board found. A driveway was proposed to access the home from Illinois Avenue, which would have had the potential to cause a traffic hazard since the property is located at the confluence of the three streets, an engineer’s report noted. Michelini said his client offered to move the driveway to alleviate those concerns, however the board still rejected the application.

A home proposed where llinois Avenue, New Jersey Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue meet in Brick, NJ. (Credit: Google Maps)

The complaint made allegations of anti-Semitism against neighbors who objected to the lot’s development at the meeting. The owners of the property, according to the complaint, were wearing traditional Orthodox-style clothing at the meeting. This led to several questions from neighbors which “were perceived by Ms. Elkin’s husband as anti-Semitic.”

Example of such questions, the complaint states, include: “What kind of clients are they going to attract to the area,” and further questions as to whether or not the owners intended to live in the home themselves or rent it out.

The complaint further stated: “There was a question as to ‘What kind of family is going to want to buy a house such as this one?’ There was a comment that this was a “family neighborhood” and they wanted to “keep it that way.” Several neighbors testified that allowing the development by the plaintiffs would ‘change the character of the neighborhood.’”

Further, the complaint alleges that the zoning board’s attorney also agreed that a hardship variance could apply to the property, and testimony from his clients’ engineer and planner were unrebutted by any expert witnesses proffered by objectors. Additionally, attorney Joseph Michelini, representing the developers, argued that testimony as to the $20,000 purchase price of the lot – a low price, presumably due to the impression that it was unbuildable – should not have been considered by the board.