Judge to Decide Fate of Age Restriction on Proposed Development

A judge will make a final decision as to whether the proposed Nobility Crest condominium complex, scheduled to be built off Chambers Bridge Road, will be age-restricted or not.

The township council at its Feb. 15 meeting voted to enter into a consent decree with Nobility Crest’s owner, Nobility Crest, LLC, allowing a judge’s next decision to be final and barring further appeals on behalf of Nobility Crest ownership. 

The decree also stipulates that if the judge overturns a lower court’s finding in favor of the township and lifts the age restriction on the property, Nobility Crest may consist of 214 apartment units — consistent with the original zoning of the plot of land — rather than 300, which the township previously granted Nobility Crest permission to build through a zoning overlay.

Nobility Crest's owner purchased a plot of land, situated behind the U.S. Post Office on Chambers Bridge Road, from the township in 2006 with the intent to build 300 condominium units restricted to buyers age 55 and older. After the real estate market soured in 2008, Nobility Crest sued the township seeking to have the age restriction on the land lifted, arguing in court that age-restricted housing was no longer a viable option for Brick.

Nobility Crest, LLC sued under the so-called Conversion Bill, a law passed in the wake of the 2008 real estate collapse that allows developers with unbuilt plots of land to lift age restrictions with the aim of spurring construction and home sales.

Entering into the consent decree agreement benefits the township by avoiding endless rounds of litigation and the possibility that 300, rather than 214, units of housing can be built if the age restriction is lifted, said Jean Cipriani, the township attorney.

“The plaintiffs have continued to argue that they are entitled to 300 non age-restricted units,” Cipriani said. A lower court found in favor of the township that the deed restriction should not be lifted, but only because Nobility Crest’s owners did not successfully argue that the project is no longer viable, Cipriani said. A new trial could bring changed circumstances, including testimony from township planners on whether there is still a market for age restricted housing in Brick.

“That’s what I’m worried about,” said Mayor Stephen C. Acropolis, who commented that he can’t tell a township land use official to argue the township’s position in court.

At the council meeting, resident Karyn Cusanelli asked whether investors could buy the units and lease them to the state for use as so-called Section 8, subsidized, housing if the judge overturns the age restriction. Cipriani said owners can rent to whatever party they wish, including the state, assuming there are no age restrictions, and attempts to preclude an owner’s ability to do so would place the township in violation of the Fair Housing Act.

“There was never, and there can’t be, a requirement for it to be owner-occupied,” Cipriani said.

No date has been set for the two sides to argue the case in court.