BRICK, N.J. — Township officials laid out an extensive and, at times, contentious explanation of Brick’s affordable housing obligations during a recent public hearing, seeking to clarify widespread misconceptions while defending a plan they say is designed to maintain local control and limit overdevelopment.
At the center of the discussion was a fundamental point officials said many residents misunderstand: affordable housing in New Jersey is not the same as federally subsidized Section 8 housing. Township representatives emphasized that Section 8 is a federal program administered through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, in which rent subsidies are paid directly to landlords. By contrast, New Jersey’s affordable housing requirements stem from state land-use law intended to prevent exclusionary zoning practices. The distinction, officials stressed, is critical because Brick’s current obligations are driven entirely by state mandates, not federal housing programs.
Officials described affordable housing as deed-restricted housing tied to income thresholds rather than government handouts. Under state guidelines, households earning up to 80 percent of the regional median income qualify as moderate income, while those earning 50 percent or less fall into the low-income category and 30 percent or less into very low income. To illustrate the scope, officials noted that a family of four earning approximately $107,680 would qualify for moderate-income housing. Data presented at the meeting showed that 55 percent of one-person households in Brick qualify for affordable housing, along with 35 percent of two- to three-person households and nearly 30 percent of larger families. The figures were used to underscore that affordable housing is not limited to the poorest residents but includes a substantial portion of the township’s population.
“Our obligation was much greater than I had anticipated. The State of New Jersey Department of Community Affairs said that through their vacant land analysis, the jobs analysis, and the low- and moderate-income residents analysis, they believe we should have zoned to build 360 more affordable housing units over the 1,120 that we already have in the township,” the township said. “[We] did analysis to challenge that contention that we can build 360 more affordable housing units. And remember, that’s just the affordable housing units. The regulations say that every new development has to have a 20% set-aside. So that means 80% more than 360 would be our full development buildout. That’s 1,800 new units the State of New Jersey was saying Brick should accommodate.
Affordable housing includes multifamily rentals, single-family homes, group homes, assisted living facilities with beds, nursing homes, and supportive housing. These are all units identified as available for low- and moderate-income residents, and they are deed-restricted. And that’s the important thing—HUD does not deed restrict units.”
The township’s obligations fall under New Jersey’s fourth-round affordable housing framework, which assigns requirements based on population, employment, and available land. Initially, the state determined that Brick should accommodate 360 new affordable housing units. Because state law requires that affordable units typically make up 20 percent of new developments, that figure translated into a potential buildout of as many as 1,800 total housing units. Officials described that projection as far exceeding what the township could realistically absorb.
Through negotiations and a challenge to the state’s calculations, Brick reduced its obligation to 322 units. However, officials explained that this number represents what is known as “unmet need,” not a direct requirement to build that many units. Instead, municipalities must demonstrate that they have planned and zoned appropriately to allow for a portion of that total. Brick’s adopted plan calls for the creation or crediting of 106 affordable housing units over the next decade.
A significant portion of those units will not come from new construction. Officials said roughly half of the credits will be achieved by extending deed restrictions on existing affordable housing units, a strategy that allows the township to meet obligations without significantly increasing density. Additional units will come from previously approved developments, assisted living facilities, group homes, and scattered-site housing.
One of the largest individual projects discussed was a proposed development at 975 Burnt Tavern Road. Originally pitched as a 400-unit project, township officials negotiated the proposal down to 264 units, including 53 designated as affordable housing. Even with the settlement, officials emphasized that the project must still undergo full planning board review and is not guaranteed approval. Design considerations, they said, will play a major role in determining whether the development ultimately proceeds.
To address the broader obligation, Brick has implemented a “middle housing overlay zone,” a zoning strategy intended to guide where and how affordable housing can be developed. Rather than targeting undeveloped land, the overlay focuses on properties considered more likely to be redeveloped, including aging motels, cottage-style housing, and non-conforming multifamily units, particularly along Route 88 and parts of Mantoloking Road. Officials said the goal is to concentrate redevelopment in areas already suited for higher density while preserving the township’s suburban character.
The overlay includes strict design limitations aimed at preventing large-scale, high-rise development. Buildings are capped at six units each, with a maximum height of 38.5 feet, consistent with other residential zones in Brick. Parking requirements mandate one space per bedroom to reduce spillover onto local streets. Single-family homes and duplexes can still be built on smaller lots without triggering affordable housing requirements, giving property owners flexibility while maintaining compliance with state law.
Township leaders framed the plan as a necessary compromise to avoid more severe consequences. If Brick were to reject its obligations, officials warned, it would lose legal protections and become vulnerable to so-called “builder’s remedy” lawsuits. In such cases, developers can bypass local zoning restrictions and seek court approval for large-scale projects that include affordable housing components. Officials described this scenario as potentially far more disruptive than the township’s current plan, as courts could authorize developments regardless of local preferences or planning goals.
Maintaining compliance, they said, preserves the township’s ability to determine where development occurs and how it is designed. It also grants immunity from litigation that could otherwise force significantly larger projects into the community. Officials repeatedly emphasized that the plan is not about encouraging growth but about managing an unavoidable mandate in the least impactful way possible.
The hearing also highlighted Brick’s history of compliance with previous affordable housing rounds, which officials said strengthens the township’s position. Brick met its prior obligation of 930 units and currently maintains a surplus of 36 units. It also fulfilled its third-round requirement of 105 units. A court-appointed adjudicator recently confirmed that the township satisfied those earlier obligations, allowing officials to focus solely on current requirements rather than revisiting past commitments.
Despite the detailed presentation, the meeting reflected ongoing tension between township officials and residents. Public concerns centered largely on traffic congestion and fears of overdevelopment. Residents questioned whether Brick could handle additional housing, particularly given existing infrastructure challenges. Officials acknowledged those concerns but pointed to data showing that Brick’s population has actually declined in recent years, even as surrounding municipalities have grown.
They argued that while the township cannot control development in neighboring communities, it can control how it responds to state mandates within its own borders. The current plan, they said, is designed specifically to limit the impact on traffic and infrastructure by focusing on redevelopment areas and maintaining low-density design standards.
Officials also sought to reframe the broader conversation around affordable housing, emphasizing its role in providing opportunities for a wide range of residents. They described it as housing for young adults starting out, working families, and seniors on fixed incomes, rather than a program limited to the economically disadvantaged. By presenting local income data, they aimed to show that affordable housing is already relevant to a significant share of the community.
The timeline for the current housing round has been shaped by recent legislative changes. After years of delays and legal disputes under the now-defunct Council on Affordable Housing, the state enacted new rules in 2024 to standardize the process. Municipalities were required to accept or challenge their assigned numbers early in the year, adopt housing plans by midyear, and address any legal challenges by the end of the summer. Brick faced three formal challenges, including one from the Fair Share Housing Center and two from developers, leading to negotiations that ultimately shaped the final plan.
As the township moves forward, officials say the focus will remain on balancing compliance with preservation of community character. They reiterated that the 106-unit plan represents what they believe is a realistic and manageable approach, far below the scale initially projected by the state. However, they also acknowledged that the issue is far from settled, as future housing rounds could bring additional requirements.
For now, township leaders are urging residents to understand both the legal framework and the constraints under which local officials are operating. The message from the hearing was clear: affordable housing in Brick is not a choice, but how it is implemented still is.