TOMS RIVER—In December 2025, the Toms River Township Council unanimously approved a “Mount Laurel” affordable housing settlement that would have limited new construction to 183 units while extending deed restrictions on existing properties to meet state obligations. The plan avoided the 1,700-unit obligation that could have triggered over 8,500 total apartments under the Builder's Remedy provision.

The December settlement relied heavily on Hope's Crossing, a 125-unit apartment complex that agreed to extend affordability controls for 30 years, providing 187.5 credits toward the township's obligation. Council President David Ciccozzi, Council Vice President Thomas Nivison, and Councilmen Robert Bianchini and Clinton Bradley all voted to approve this plan in December 2025.

In early March 2026, the Hope's Crossing developer rescinded the agreement, backing out of the deed restriction extension. Mayor Daniel Rodrick, who had negotiated the original settlement, was forced to amend the ordinances to add backup sites. On March 12, Rodrick introduced amended ordinances that added two new parcels to the plan: township-owned land on Route 9 (purchased for $10 million in 2016) and two parcels near Lake Ridge along Route 70 and Massachusetts Avenue.

The March 12 council meeting stretched over four and a half hours as the governing body debated Rodrick's amended plan. Council members who had supported the December settlement now opposed the mayor's amendments, arguing Rodrick had given them the revised ordinances at the last minute before the previous council meeting, and without adequate consultation.

On the first vote, concerning the Lake Ridge development, Councilmen Craig Coleman, Lynn O'Toole, and Harry Aber voted yes to support Rodrick's amended plan. Council President David Ciccozzi and Councilman Clinton Bradley voted no to oppose it. Council Vice President Thomas Nivison and Councilman Robert Bianchini abstained. The measure failed to pass with only three votes in favor.

On the second vote, concerning the Route 9 site, Coleman, O'Toole, and Aber again voted yes to support Rodrick's plan. This time, Ciccozzi, Nivison, and Bradley all voted no, while Bianchini again abstained. With three votes in favor, three opposed, and one abstention, the measure deadlocked without achieving the majority required for passage.

Because New Jersey law is ambiguous on whether abstentions count as affirmative votes, and because neither vote achieved a clear majority, Township Attorney Jonathan Penny could not immediately certify whether the ordinances had passed. The amendments Rodrick introduced to salvage the settlement were effectively blocked by the council majority, leaving the township in legal limbo.

During the meeting, Ciccozzi called Rodrick the "laughing stock of the state" and accused the mayor of "clown behavior." Bradley told Rodrick his arguments were a "big piece of s---." The profanity-laced exchange occurred after Rodrick accused the council of "catastrophic failure" and warned the amended ordinances would "destroy the township" if not passed.

Ciccozzi stated the council majority wanted time to explore alternatives that would avoid high-density zoning along congested roads, saying, "We do not want 8,000 new apartments in town." Ciccozzi, Bianchini, Nivison and Bradley formally requested a court extension in a March 12 letter to Rodrick and affordable housing attorney Christopher Zingaro. The council majority asked for time to find solutions that did not involve rezoning the Route 9 and Lake Ridge sites.

The March 15 deadline passed without the council adopting Rodrick's amended ordinances. Under New Jersey's amended affordable housing statutes, missing the deadline exposes municipalities to "Builder's Remedy" lawsuits, where developers can bypass local zoning and build market-rate housing with minimal affordable set-asides, anywhere in the township.

On March 20, Shorebeat reported the township had filed an emergency request with Ocean County Superior Court, seeking an extension of the March 15 deadline. The filing acknowledged that the votes on Rodrick's amended plan had failed to produce a clear majority.

Concurrently, the township petitioned the Council on Affordable Housing to reduce its ten-year obligation from 1,700 units to 114 units—a 556-unit reduction. NJ Spotlight News reported this request on March 20, noting that Toms River was among the first municipalities to seek such a reduction under new statewide guidelines.

Rodrick published an op-ed on March 20 blaming the council majority for the crisis, stating they were "in bed with developers" and had voted down the settlement he negotiated. Ciccozzi countered that the December settlement had been approved; what failed was Rodrick's amended plan with the new sites the council majority never agreed to.

At time of writing, the court has not ruled on the township's extension request. The Builder's Remedy window remains open, exposing Toms River to potential lawsuits from developers seeking to build up to 8,500 total units across the township. The council has scheduled no immediate session to reconsider the mayor's amendments.

Related: How another NJ town fought eminent domain seizure

Sources

• Catherine Galioto, “Toms River Council Defies Mayor, Passes Affordable Housing Ordinances,” Patch (March 20, 2026)

• Daniel Rodrick, “Toms River Council Pushes 8,000 Apartments; Mayor Vows Fight,” Jersey Shore Online (March 20, 2026)

• Shorebeat, “Toms River Misses Affordable Housing Deadline, Files for Extension,” Shorebeat (March 20, 2026)

• Daniel Munoz, “N.J. Approves First Municipal Affordable Housing Plan in Two Decades,” NJ Spotlight News (March 20, 2026)

• Yahoo News, “Toms River Mayor and Council Clash Over Affordable Housing,” Yahoo News (March 21, 2026)

• News12 New Jersey, “Toms River Mayor and Council Battle Over Affordable Housing,” News12 New Jersey (March 12, 2026)

• Toms River Township Council, Meeting Minutes (March 12, 2026)