{"id":25430,"date":"2025-06-27T06:22:52","date_gmt":"2025-06-27T10:22:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shorebeat.com\/brick\/?p=25430"},"modified":"2025-06-27T06:22:52","modified_gmt":"2025-06-27T10:22:52","slug":"developer-sues-brick-zoning-board-over-denial-to-build-on-undersized-lot-alleges-antisemitism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/shorebeat.com\/brick\/2025\/06\/developer-sues-brick-zoning-board-over-denial-to-build-on-undersized-lot-alleges-antisemitism\/","title":{"rendered":"Developer Sues Brick Zoning Board Over Denial to Build on Undersized Lot, Alleges Antisemitism"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"A<\/a>

A home proposed where Illinois Avenue, New Jersey Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue meet in Brick, NJ. (Credit: Planning Document\/Google Maps)<\/p><\/div>\n

A developer and attorneys representing Brick Township\u2019s zoning board are preparing to square off in court following the board\u2019s decision to deny<\/a> permission to build a home on what officials termed a \u201cseverely undersized lot,\u201d claiming the board erred on both the law and was influenced by what the property owner perceived as anti-Semitic questions asked by neighbors at the board hearing.<\/p>\n

The board, in February, rejected the application of Esther Cohen and Naomi Elkins, co-owners of the property \u2013 which does not currently have a postal address \u2013 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

The property owners are represented by Brick Township attorney Joseph Michelini. A copy of the complaint obtained by Shorebeat states the lot was carved out in 1925 as part of a fledgling community known as \u201cHollywood Manor\u201d and has never been developed since. The complaint, in its substantive legal arguments, states that the board erred in determining the parcel did not qualify for a hardship variance since the property owner purchased the lot knowing it was undersized. Michelini counters that since the lot was never combined with the neighboring parcel or separated from a neighboring parcel, but has always been kept \u201cseparate and apart\u201d since 1925. The complaint points to a statement made by the zoning board chairman at one point during the meeting indicating that the property would qualify for a hardship variance due to its irregular shape.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s report noted. Michelini said his client offered to move the driveway to alleviate those concerns, however the board still rejected the application.<\/p>\n

The complaint also makes allegations of anti-Semitism against neighbors who objected to the lot\u2019s development at the meeting. The owners of the property are both Orthodox Jewish, and according to the complaint, were wearing traditional Orthodox-style clothing at the meeting. This led to several questions from neighbors which \u201cwere perceived by Ms. Elkin\u2019s husband as anti-Semetic.\u201d<\/p>\n

Example of such questions, the complaint states, include: \u201cWhat kind of clients are they going to attract to the area,\u201d and further questions as to whether or not the owners intended to live in the home themselves or rent it out.<\/p>\n

The complaint further stated: \u201cThere was a question as to \u2018What kind of family is going to want to buy a house such as this one?\u2019 There was a comment that this was a \u201cfamily neighborhood\u201d and they wanted to \u201ckeep it that way.\u201d Several neighbors testified that allowing the development by the plaintiffs would \u2018change the character of the neighborhood.'\u201d<\/p>\n

Further, the complaint alleges that the zoning board\u2019s attorney also agreed that a hardship variance could apply to the property, and testimony from his clients\u2019 engineer and planner were unrebutted by any expert witnesses proffered by objectors. Additionally, Michelini argues that testimony as to the $20,000 purchase price of the lot \u2013 a low price, presumably due to the impression that it was unbuildable \u2013 should not have been considered by the board.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe board was poised to grant the application with appropriate conditions but then caved to public opinion which was not based upon legitimate reasons for opposing the application,\u201d the complaint states. \u201cThe comments from the public did not constitute a legitimate basis upon which the board should have denied the application, and were totally unsupported by expert testimony.\u201d<\/p>\n

The case has been making its way through the court system since it was filed shortly after the hearing. Superior Court Judge Francis Hodgson has scheduled a pre-trial conference for July 7. The board is being represented in the matter by Ronald D. Cucchiaro of Weiner Law Group, the firm which normally represents the interests of the board.<\/p>\n

A copy of the complaint appears below this article:<\/strong><\/p>\n