Toms River, NJ – A contentious special meeting of the Toms River Township Council ended with the rejection of key zoning ordinances tied to the township’s court-approved affordable housing settlement, prompting Mayor Daniel Rodrick to accuse the council majority of creating conditions that could lead to larger residential developments downtown.
What was once sold to Toms River by former Mayor Mo Hill as an upscale 10-story twin-tower apartment complex with retail shops and a promenade is now being pushed as a low-income, affordable housing project by his allies on the council, David Ciccozzi, Tom Nivison, Clinton Bradley, and Robert Bianchini.
The four council members now want the downtown tower project to be included in the state’s affordable housing mandate and they want to force its approval upon the towship though the affordable housing mandate.
The ordinances concerned zoning changes for affordable housing projects that the township had already agreed to as part of its settlement with Fair Share Housing Center and the state.
Those changes were already voted in favor by the council and approved by the judge overseeing the state’s mandate for housing against Toms River.
According to the mayor’s office, the special meeting was ordered by the court as part of the township’s compliance with New Jersey’s affordable housing process.
Mayor says council rejected projects already included in settlement
Rodrick said the council voted against zoning ordinances for the Jamestown redevelopment and a proposed 100% affordable housing project on Route 9, despite both developments already being incorporated into the township’s negotiated settlement.
He said later that he was coerced into meeting with developers aligned with the council slate aligned against him in order to be forced into making a deal with them.
David Ciccozzi, a condominium builder who owns property downtown changed his vote from yes to no . Rodrick was surprised by Ciccozzi’s reversal, noting that he even met with Ciccozzi’s legal and developer “friends” in order to find a solution that is amicable for Toms River and would garner Ciccozzi’s support to put the matter to bed.
Instead, Ciccozzi tried to bait and switch Rodrick to force approval of Meridia’s downtown high-density affordable housing tower project, which Rodrick opposes.
Aside from building and owning a Seaside Heights high-density condominium complex, Ciccozzi also owns property near the downtown towers project, leading some to accuse him of pushing for the towers to increase his own property values.
Ciccozzi also has a close relationship with the lawfirm, RC Shea and Associates, which is representing the builder. Ciccozzi and his team are also being accused of halting the affordable housing settlement with the state in order to enable an existing builders remedy lawsuit filed by the developer against the township to force the project.
If that project is complete, Ciccozzi can see his downtown real-estate portfolio substantially increase in value. Realtors in Lakewood have told Shore News Network that Ciccozzi has been in the market to sell that property should the towers be approved.
In a poll in 2023, 70% of residents opposed that high-density affordable housing twin-tower project downtown.
“Tonight, they said the quiet part out loud,” Rodrick said in a statement released after the meeting. “They intentionally sabotaged a plan that would have protected our community because they prefer thousands of new apartments and high-rise towers over a carefully negotiated solution.”
According to the mayor, the only proposal considered during the meeting that was not already part of the settlement was a new 100% affordable housing development intended to replace a previously proposed Route 70 project.
Administration says settlement reduced development obligations
Rodrick said his administration negotiated a settlement that significantly reduced the township’s affordable housing obligation.
According to the mayor, the state initially sought more than 1,800 affordable housing units, which he said could have resulted in nearly 8,000 total apartments through traditional inclusionary zoning requirements. The negotiated agreement instead calls for approximately 250 newly constructed affordable housing units, including two 100% affordable developments totaling about 200 units, 42 affordable units at the Jamestown redevelopment, and additional units along Route 37.
“This was an outstanding plan that protected taxpayers and neighborhoods while meeting our legal obligations,” Rodrick said.
The mayor argued that rejecting the zoning ordinances could increase the township’s exposure to so-called builder’s remedy litigation, in which developers may seek court approval for higher-density projects if municipalities fail to satisfy affordable housing requirements.
Dispute over communication
Rodrick also disputed criticism from Councilman Dave Ciccozzi regarding communication between the administration and council members.
“Councilman Ciccozzi publicly admitted he doesn’t answer my phone calls,” Rodrick said. “He also ignores emails and text messages. Those communications are all documented, and I would gladly release my phone records to demonstrate our repeated attempts to keep the council informed.”
The Township Council has not yet publicly responded to the mayor’s latest statement.
What happens next
Rodrick said future affordable housing ordinances will be presented as a single comprehensive package rather than individual measures with all transactional negotiations with Ciccozzi and his team off the table at a future meeting.
“The people of Toms River deserve leaders who fight to limit overdevelopment—not officials who deliberately create the conditions for thousands of additional apartments,” the mayor said.
Affordable housing compliance has become one of the most significant development issues facing municipalities throughout New Jersey. Failure to implement court-approved housing plans can expose towns to legal challenges and potentially allow developers to seek higher-density projects through builder’s remedy lawsuits. Whether the council’s vote will affect Toms River’s existing settlement or require further court action remains to be determined.
