Toms River, NJ – At the last Jackson Township Council meeting, township legal counsel Jean Cipriani Esq., and the Jackson Township Council signaled that their fair share housing battle had been settled. Now that the plan is being accused of using double-counting, preserving farmlands, third-round developments, and inconsistencies.
While the township said it settled for 1,000 affordable housing credits, court documents show 1,344 units, more than the 1,250 units required by Fair Share Housing.
Now, a New Jersey judge appears to be willing to keep the matter open after one developer, a longtime Jackson resident with family ties to the community, goes back several generations as he tries to squeeze in affordable housing projects on his tracts of land slated for major development.
The land in question was owned by the Johnson family, a prominent local family tied to BilJim Construction.
The years-long legal fight over Jackson Township’s affordable housing obligations has once again erupted in court, with new filings accusing township officials of stalling, concealing documents, and submitting incomplete data to avoid compliance with New Jersey’s constitutional housing mandates. The case, In the Matter of the Township of Jackson (OCN-L-336-25), is being heard by Superior Court Judge Julio L. Mendez at the Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex in Trenton, and its outcome could shape how the township—and potentially other municipalities across Ocean County—address their housing requirements under state law.
At issue is whether Jackson Township’s Fourth Round Housing Element and Fair Share Plan (HEFSP) satisfies the state’s Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Mount Laurel Doctrine, the pair of legal frameworks that require every municipality in New Jersey to provide realistic opportunities for the development of low- and moderate-income housing. The township insists it has met and exceeded its affordable housing obligations. However, attorneys representing the developer CDR Whitesville, LLC, along with housing planner Tiffany Morrissey, say Jackson’s latest filings contain significant flaws, inconsistencies, and signs of “bad faith.”
Township argues it met obligations
In documents submitted on December 31, 2025, Jackson Township’s attorneys reported that the municipality had identified 1,344 affordable housing credits, surpassing its court-ordered obligation of 1,250 units. Township counsel Robin La Bue said the filing was submitted in accordance with Judge Mendez’s directive that all supplemental materials be turned in by the end of the year. “The Township utilized the three business days between December 26 and including December 31 to comply with that directive,” La Bue wrote in a letter to the court. “I cannot comprehend how it is ‘bad faith’ to submit documents the day we are authorized to submit them.”
The filing included details on site viability, water and sewer capacity, and compliance with Uniform Housing Affordability Controls (UHAC), the state’s standards governing the mix and quality of affordable and market-rate housing. According to the submission, Jackson’s fourth-round housing plan includes three major zoning areas—AH-I, AH-III, and AH-IIIA—designed to support mixed-use inclusionary development.
Township officials said these areas are expected to yield more than 670 affordable rental units, meeting the required 33 percent rental share of the overall plan. For that plan to go forward, the Jackson MUA, where the council makes appointments, would have to bring water and sewer services to the far reaches of Jackson along Hawkin Road.
Jackson also pledged to adopt new bulk standards for multi-family development by March 2026 and outlined a proposed affordability assistance program to support lower-income residents. The township’s filing referenced oversight provisions ensuring that affordable units meet the same construction standards and amenities as market-rate homes, as required under UHAC guidelines.
Opponents accuse township of stalling and concealment
Despite those assurances, attorneys for CDR Whitesville, LLC, a developer challenging Jackson’s compliance plan, accused township officials of deliberately withholding critical data and rushing incomplete documents to the court on New Year’s Eve to limit their opponents’ ability to respond.
In a sharply worded letter dated January 5, 2026, attorney Stuart A. Platt of The Platt Law Group wrote that the township’s late-night filing violated the “square corners” doctrine, a legal principle set forth in FMC Stores Co. v. Borough of Morris Plains (1985), which requires public officials to act with fairness and transparency in dealings with the public and other parties.
“Jackson Township waited until almost 5:00 p.m. on New Year’s Eve to make its last submission, giving my client little or no time to address the same,” Platt wrote. He added that the township’s attachments, many dating back to March or April of 2025, “could have long ago been shared with the other parties” but were “surreptitiously held until New Year’s Eve.”
Platt further accused the township of defying both Judge Mendez’s prior directives and multiple Open Public Records Act (OPRA) requests for planning documents. He requested that the court either strike Jackson’s December 31 submission from the record or allow CDR Whitesville to submit additional rebuttal materials after the fact.
Planner’s report alleges major deficiencies
Alongside Platt’s legal arguments, a detailed report from planner Tiffany Morrissey provided the technical backbone of the challenge. Morrissey’s January 5, 2026 letter to Judge Mendez asserts that Jackson’s HEFSP remains noncompliant with state housing law, citing data inconsistencies, outdated approvals, and several instances of double counting affordable housing credits across multiple sites.
According to Morrissey, many of the township’s housing sites listed under third- and fourth-round plans either lack confirmed water and sewer service, fall outside approved sewer service areas, or are located on preserved farmland, which cannot legally be developed. Of the 17 sites listed in Jackson’s fourth-round plan, she said, only five included documentation of utility capacity, and three of those five were ineligible under Pinelands Commission regulations.
Her report also found that only 41 of the 1,250 required units from the township’s third-round obligation have been completed to date.
Several projects, including the El Jackson/HovBuilt site, received approvals years ago but have no evidence of construction progress or compliance with affordable housing phasing requirements. “The information submitted does not address the status of the projects as required,” Morrissey wrote. “Many are listed as ‘awaiting confirmation,’ and the data provided is incomplete and insufficient to address Fair Housing Act regulations.”
Morrissey further noted that the Grawtown Road property, initially flagged for double counting, was clarified in the township’s filing, but new discrepancies emerged. The Bellevue Estates site, she said, appeared in both third- and fourth-round calculations, while other parcels—such as those in the RG-2 zone—were also duplicated under different project names. “This is at best an impermissible double counting of credits,” she concluded.
Pinelands Commission and state oversight
The New Jersey Pinelands Commission has also weighed in, expressing doubts about Jackson’s compliance. In correspondence cited by the court, Executive Director Susan R. Grogan stated that the township failed to submit its HEFSP for Pinelands review as required and would need to redesign key development areas to meet environmental and planning standards.
Attorney Stuart Platt called the Pinelands’ letter “further evidence that Jackson Township’s HEFSP is not realistic and not entitled to approval or compliance certification under the Fourth Round Rules.” He accused township officials of attempting to push projects through despite density and infrastructure deficiencies.
What’s next for Jackson Township
Judge Mendez is expected to review the competing submissions later this winter before determining whether Jackson’s housing plan meets legal standards or requires further revision. If the court finds Jackson noncompliant, the township could lose its “immunity from builder’s remedy lawsuits,” opening the door for developers to propose higher-density projects that include affordable housing components outside the township’s preferred zones.
Observers say the dispute reflects a broader pattern across New Jersey, where municipalities have struggled to meet evolving affordable housing requirements amid rapid growth, environmental restrictions, and political opposition. The Fair Share Housing Center (FSHC), which serves as the state’s chief enforcement body for Mount Laurel compliance, has consistently pushed towns to demonstrate tangible progress rather than rely on paper certifications.
For now, Jackson officials maintain that their housing plan is lawful, comprehensive, and fair. “The Township has provided to Fair Share Housing Center details on the sites that remain viable,” the municipality wrote in its filing. “Every concept plan was asked to determine sufficiency of water and sewer, and these were submitted as required.”
But with independent planners, developers, and state agencies all raising questions about the township’s transparency and compliance, Jackson’s fair share housing fight is far from over.
Key Points: Jackson Township faces new scrutiny in ongoing affordable housing court battle – Toms River
- Jackson Township says it has met its 1,250-unit obligation with 1,344 affordable housing credits across multiple inclusionary zones.
- Attorneys for developer CDR Whitesville, LLC accuse the township of withholding documents and violating the “square corners” doctrine by filing late.
- Planner Tiffany Morrissey identified double-counted credits, preserved farmland, and projects without utility access, calling the plan “incomplete and insufficient.”
- The Pinelands Commission has warned Jackson that its housing plan fails to meet required design and environmental standards.
- Judge Julio L. Mendez will determine whether Jackson’s plan earns compliance certification or faces further court-ordered revisions.