Mayor Daniel Rodrick says the council majority blocked a critical vote to approve an affordble housing settlement that would have blocked thousands of new apartments, including projects near Ocean County Mall and Downtown

TOMS RIVER, NJ — A dispute over Toms River’s affordable housing settlement is headed back before a judge after the Township Council declined to move the agreement forward at Monday night’s special meeting, leaving a plan unresolved that Mayor Daniel Rodrick says would limit new apartment construction.

It was a settlement hailed around the state as one of the best affordable housing fights against Trenton by many in the media and political pundits statewide online.

Now, the decision on Toms River’s future affordable housing plan could lie with a state-appointed affordable housing judge who is running out of patience with the township after granting multiple extensions due to the council’s filibustering on the matter.

“What happened last night was absolutely outrageous,” Rodrick said. “These council members told the court-appointed mediator they would support these projects. A former Mount Laurel judge explained exactly what was at stake, and they assured him they would move forward,” the Mayor said. “And then they called a special meeting, voted everything down, and wouldn’t even allow me to speak. They refused to let me explain the agreement, answer their questions, or warn the public about the consequences. Their actions have put the future of Toms River in serious jeopardy.”

For months, the council has fought Rodrick to include the downtown towers and a project near the Ocean County Mall. Rodrick says those councilmembers are linked to the developers of both projects.

Council members Tom Nivison, Dave Ciccozzi and Clinton Bradley, members of former Toms River Mayor Mo Hill’s unsanctioned Republican club, repeatedly blocked efforts by him and the township attorney to explain the stakes before the council concluded its consideration of the proposals.

“I believe this is entirely political,” Rodrick said. “These council members seem to think that if they hurt Toms River badly enough, they’ll hurt me politically. Mo Hill was right there watching it. They may think they’re hurting me, but the people who will pay the price are the taxpayers and families of this town.”

With an October 30 court filing deadline approaching and a December 7 hearing scheduled, the mayor said his administration will ask the court to preserve the township’s protection from builder’s remedy lawsuits while it seeks a way forward.

Council’s refusal leaves settlement unresolved

The immediate issue is whether Toms River can move ahead with a negotiated agreement intended to resolve its affordable housing obligations and limit the amount of new construction needed to meet them.

Rodrick said council representatives had previously assured retired Superior Court Judge Mark Troncone, the court-appointed mediator and former Ocean County Mount Laurel judge, that they would support revised proposals. He accused the majority of abandoning those assurances at the special meeting.

“My administration fought the state and Fair Share Housing Center in court and secured an extraordinary settlement that would have protected Toms River from massive overdevelopment,” Rodrick said. “We were staring at demands for approximately 1,870 affordable units, which could have translated into more than 8,000 new apartments. We fought back and negotiated an agreement that required just over 200 new apartments, with the rest addressed primarily through existing housing. Now, through sheer political recklessness, the council majority is throwing that victory away.”

“These council members told the court-appointed mediator they would support these projects,” Rodrick said. “A former Mount Laurel judge explained exactly what was at stake, and they assured him they would move forward.”

The mayor maintains that the council’s refusal to advance the agreement now leaves the administration seeking relief from the court rather than submitting a completed settlement with the necessary municipal approvals.

“Dave Ciccozzi spent a decade on the Planning Board and served as its president under Mo Hill,” Rodrick said. “He understands zoning, development, and affordable housing obligations. He’s been involved in this process from the beginning. The fundamental details of these projects haven’t changed in months. To suddenly claim he doesn’t understand what’s happening or needs more information is simply not credible.”

Mayor says council blocked him and township attorney

Rodrick’s criticism centered on both the council’s handling of the agreement and its refusal, in his account, to permit a full explanation of the consequences.

At Monday night’s township council meeting, Nivison, Ciccozzi and Bradley repeatedly obstructed attempts to discuss the settlement’s importance. They would not even let the township attorney, Jonathan Penny speak on the legal obligations and consequences of not voting.

Previously, Council President David Ciccozzi said, “If the town has to blow up, then it blows up,” if Rodrick did not cooperate with the council on the downtown towers and the Ocean County mall apartment complex.

Rodrick said Monday night that the Ocean County project was in a bad location and that the landowner had not presented a valid plan to the township and had no funding to complete the project. Rodrick said the council’s Ocean County Mall apartment complex is not a viable plan that a judge would accept.

“They refused to let me explain the agreement, answer their questions, or warn the public about the consequences,” Rodrick said. “Their actions have put the future of Toms River in serious jeopardy.”

Settlement relied heavily on existing apartments

According to the administration, the disputed agreement would address more than 400 affordable housing units through 30-year deed restrictions on existing apartments. Approximately 250 new units would be constructed in two developments along Route 9 reserved entirely for affordable housing. Those deed restrictions are paid for by an affordable housing trust fund. That fund is an existing account funded by past developers for future affordable housing. The money, if not spent, can’t be used by the township for any other purpose and will be refunded to the state.

But Nivison and Ciccozzi didn’t want to hear it. They also rejected a vote on approving existing deed restriction agreements that would turn existing housing units into state-approved affordable units under the plan, further limiting how many more units needed to be built.

The mayor said that approach would satisfy substantial obligations without relying on larger developments combining market-rate and affordable apartments.

Rodrick’s puts the demands initially facing the township at approximately 1,870 affordable units: 670 associated with the current round and another 1,200 tied to a disputed gap-period obligation.

He warned that satisfying that entire figure through projects with a 20% affordable set-aside could produce thousands of additional market-rate apartments. That figure represents historical statewide figures.

“My administration fought the state and Fair Share Housing Center in court and secured an extraordinary settlement that would have protected Toms River from massive overdevelopment,” Rodrick said.

Rodrick says revisions followed council objections

The mayor said the administration repeatedly revised its proposals to address concerns raised by council members. Now it seems they are running out the clock on the township intentionally to force the judge to decide. Rodrick said it’s a political game of Russian roulette at the taxpayers’ expense, so his opponents can pin their inaction on the mayor next year.

The township’s original plan, approved in December 2025, included obligations involving Jamestown on Hooper Avenue and a proposed Route 70 development, according to his statement. The council objected to Jamestown and the Route 70 developer later pulled out of the agreement.

After changes involving Hope’s Crossing, the council approved a replacement proposal near the Lakewood border on Route 9. The administration removed the Route 70 proposal and replaced it with another Route 9 development, known as the Owl project.

Rodrick said Ciccozzi met with the Owl developer several times and indicated support during mediation, but refused to approve the deal Monday night, setting the stage for developers to file builder’s remedy lawsuits against the town to force even more construction.

“Every time these council members objected to something, we worked to accommodate them,” Rodrick said. “They keep moving the goalposts, but they haven’t offered one legitimate alternative.”

He also criticized the council’s handling of a proposal to extend affordability restrictions on 19 existing apartments, arguing that the measure would provide affordable housing credit without additional construction.

“That’s 19 affordable units without one shovel going into the ground,” Rodrick said.

Judge will now hear township’s request for protection

Rodrick said his next step is to ask the court to preserve the township’s immunity from builder’s remedy litigation and allow additional time to resolve the impasse. At this point, it’s unclear whether Troncone will accommodate the town or issue a ruling due to the council’s prolonged filibustering.

“I intend to go before the court and plead with the judge not to punish our residents for the reckless conduct of this council majority,” Rodrick said. “I will ask the court to show leniency toward the people of Toms River, preserve our immunity from builder’s remedy lawsuits, and give us an opportunity to find another solution.”

For now, the settlement remains unresolved as the township approaches its filing deadline. The December hearing will bring the dispute back before the court.