{"id":10452,"date":"2026-04-09T06:13:11","date_gmt":"2026-04-09T10:13:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/shorebeat.com\/tomsriver\/?p=10452"},"modified":"2026-04-10T15:03:58","modified_gmt":"2026-04-10T19:03:58","slug":"toms-river-council-approves-affordable-housing-framework-one-day-before-judges-deadline","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/shorebeat.com\/tomsriver\/2026\/04\/toms-river-council-approves-affordable-housing-framework-one-day-before-judges-deadline\/","title":{"rendered":"Toms River Council Approves Affordable Housing Framework One Day Before Judge’s Deadline"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"A<\/a>

A condominium under construction in Toms River. (Photo: Daniel Nee)<\/p><\/div>\n

The Toms River Township council on Wednesday night voted to approve an ordinance establishing a potential zone for affordable housing, one day before a judge ruled the township\u2019s immunity from so-called builder\u2019s remedy lawsuits could end.<\/p>\n

Toms River was ordered by the state in 2025 to provide 1,700 additional units of designated affordable housing in calculations promulgated at the time. Generally speaking, the 1,700 units would have been provided at a 20 percent ratio to market-rate units, meaning that more than 8,000 units would have to be built. The township put forth its own calculations opposing the state\u2019s data, but the Fair Share Housing Center, an activist group that sued nearly every municipality in New Jersey, challenged the township\u2019s findings. Eventually, the township and the activist group settled on 183 new housing units, while placing deed restrictions on a number of other properties \u2013 including the Hope\u2019s Crossing development \u2013 that would keep them designated as affordable housing for another 30 years. The plan for the Hope\u2019s Crossing deed restrictions, however, fell apart, forcing officials to consider an alternative.<\/p>\n

The backup property was identified as the swath of vacant land purchased by the township for $10 million<\/a> under the administration of former Mayor Maurice \u201cMo\u201d Hill near Riverwood Drive, roughly adjacent to the Lake Ridge community. While the land was purchased by the township in 2016, it was never formally designated as open space \u2013 simply publicly-owned land \u2013 meaning it theoretically could be sold for development in the future. While there are no proposals to do so, objections were raised about the former farm property being part of the settlement. The led to a rift between the mayor and four members of the township council who voted against the alternative plan before a state-imposed deadline. The township, after the vote, went back to court to ask for an extension while negotiations could take place between the mayor and council majority, which culminated in Superior Court Judge Sean D. Gertner ruling that the council must pass a substantive ordinance by April 9, 2026 in order to retain its immunity from so-called \u201cbuilder\u2019s remedy\u201d lawsuits, in which private developers can purchase privately-owned land to build multifamily housing projects outside of the usual zoning restrictions as long as they contain a certain number of income-restricted units.<\/p>\n

The row between Mayor Daniel Rodrick and his four adversaries on the council \u2013 Robert Bianchini, Thomas Nivison, David Ciccozzi, and Clint Bradley \u2013 largely picked up where it left off at the last meeting, which drew national publicity after it descended into a chaotic bout of name-calling. But while the disagreements remained, Ciccozzi \u2013 the council president \u2013 took a more calm and diplomatic approach, engaging in a civil discussion with Rodrick and the township\u2019s legal counsel.<\/p>\n

While no one \u2013 neither the mayor nor any council members \u2013 supported the idea of developing the Route 9 parcel, legal counsel suggested the governing body pass the ordinance designating the land as a potential affordable housing site in order to convince the judge that the township was serious in its quest to fulfill its mandated affordable housing load from Trenton. Rodrick said that the township was continuing to seek alternatives to the publicly-owned property. The council discussed the matter in a closed session that lasted about 45 minutes before a vote was taken.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re looking for alternatives at the moment,\u201d said Rodrick. \u201cWe have been looking for a different location and we still haven\u2019t settled on one. That was what much of the backroom discussion pertained to.\u201d<\/p>\n

Though the 10 acres of former farmland was purportedly preserved for open space purposes, it was never legally designated as such, nor was it ever added to the ROSI, short for \u201cRecreation and Open Space Inventory,\u201d a document that makes a formal open space declaration to the state. Legally, the parcel remained an undeveloped lot that was simply purchased by the township.<\/p>\n

Rodrick said the fact that the land is publicly-owned would provide the township time to work out alternatives, and would give the council final say on what \u2013 if anything \u2013 would ever be developed there, versus a designation of a private property where a builder could force its will.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis council would have a full determination as to who, what, how or if the property were ever developed,\u201d said Rodrick. \u201cIf you designated property that was not our property, someone could just come in and build. For this property, the council would have to vote at many different stages.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bianchini said he would still vote \u2018no\u2019 on the measure, stating that there were other resolutions on the agenda that would signal to the judge that the township was moving forward in its efforts to effectuate the settlement.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s on Route 9, it\u2019s township property, and my phone blew up everyday when they heard it was township property,\u201d he said. \u201cI\u2019m not going to [vote to] build on township property. We have too much congestion up there. I\u2019m voting no, because I don\u2019t want no more building on township property.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bradley also voted no, while Nivison abstained from voting. Council members Lynne O\u2019Toole, Harry Aber and Craig Coleman voted in favor of the ordinance, leaving Ciccozzi with the key vote. He ultimately voted \u2018yes.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s only ten acres, and down the road, a future council and mayor can bury this forever,\u201d said Ciccozzi. \u201cI don\u2019t want something to happen tomorrow with the judge in court. In my opinion, this will never see the light of day, so I\u2019m voting yes.\u201d<\/p>\n

In addition to the ordinance designating the Route 9 parcel for affordable housing, the council passed resolutions reserving 42 units of affordable housing at the Jamestowne Village complex, another four units at 2008 Route 37 by allowing the building owner to construct a second floor, and allowing the Hooper-Caudina Redevelopment parcel to include six units by raising the allowed density from from 10 to 18 dwelling units per acre.<\/p>\n

<\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Toms River Township council on Wednesday night voted to approve an ordinance establishing a potential zone for affordable housing, one day before a judge ruled the township\u2019s immunity from so-called builder\u2019s remedy lawsuits could end. Toms River was ordered by the state in 2025 to provide 1,700 additional units of designated affordable housing in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7057,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[51,2105,1080,11],"class_list":["post-10452","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-government","tag-affordable-housing","tag-fair-share-housing-center","tag-featured","tag-toms-river-nj-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/shorebeat.com\/tomsriver\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/under_construction-scaled.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/shorebeat.com\/tomsriver\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10452","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/shorebeat.com\/tomsriver\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/shorebeat.com\/tomsriver\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shorebeat.com\/tomsriver\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shorebeat.com\/tomsriver\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10452"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/shorebeat.com\/tomsriver\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10452\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10456,"href":"https:\/\/shorebeat.com\/tomsriver\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10452\/revisions\/10456"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shorebeat.com\/tomsriver\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7057"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/shorebeat.com\/tomsriver\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10452"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shorebeat.com\/tomsriver\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10452"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shorebeat.com\/tomsriver\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10452"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}