Proposed Dunkin Donuts Has Brick Residents Urging Town To Block It

BRICK, NJ — A Dunkin Donuts proposed for a site on Mantoloking Road has drawn the ire of residents who are concerned about the potential for increased traffic, so much so that they begged township officials to block the project at a recent council meeting.

The project, at 738 Mantoloking Road, is in the process of being heard by the Brick Township Planning Board. The property, owned by K Brick Mantoloking LLC, is on the corner of Vannote Drive and Mantoloking Road.

Testimony was heard at the Aug. 27 planning board meeting, and was continued to the Oct. 29 meeting, board secretary Pamela O'Neill confirmed to Patch.

The property is across the Mantoloking Road from Visitation Roman Catholic Church and across Vannote Drive from a small strip mall.

In 2021, the planning board approved a proposal to put a Farm Stores convenience store on the site. That store was to operate as a drive-through, with customers placing orders and picking up their orders at a window. That project never materialized, however.

In a petition on Change.org, opponents of the proposal to now build a Dunkin Donuts say the high-volume nature of the coffee and doughnut business would bring significant danger to the neighborhood.

"There is not enough room for an approved business of this size," the petition says, citing the potential for delivery trucks to block the roads because Vannote is narrow.

There also is a bus stop at that corner, the petition says, used by children from kindergarten through high school age.

Mantoloking Road has no sidewalks, and putting the Dunkin at that corner "would put every child at risk not only at this bus stop but most of the bus stops up and down Mantoloking Road," the petition says.

It also cites the traffic concerns, which have plagued Mantoloking Road for more than 20 years.

Mayor Lisa Crate and the Township Council members did not answer the issue directly. That has become standard practice for municipal officials around New Jersey with regard to land use applications because voicing any opinion has led to lawsuits by developers whose projects are rejected — with the developers winning those lawsuits in many cases.

Brick Township, in fact, paid out $237,500 in a 2016 settlement with New Beginnings Church, which filed suit after its proposal to locate its church on Brick Boulevard was rejected. That lawsuit cited actions by a zoning board member who recused herself from hearing the case but actively opposed the application during the hearings, and a council member who made public statements opposing the church being at the property. Read more: Brick Council Approves $237,500 Lawsuit Settlement With Church

Councilwoman Marianna Pontoriero did respond to the residents' comments with a general statement about land use applications.

"No one can restrict the right to buy a piece of property and to utilize it as they choose unless there's a violation of one of the zoning laws," Pontoriero said. "We cannot say, 'Hey, you want to buy that piece of property? No, you're not allowed to.' It would be an infringement of our constitutional rights ... the oldest rights that we have here in America, the right to own property."

"I've been up here over 10 years and it's the same phone calls every time of another piece of property was purchased and going to be used for some business again. We cannot stop that," she said.

Pontoriero said the best remedy is to rally neighbors to show up at the planning or zoning board meeting to oppose a project, as happened with the Breton Woods property, where a proposal for 59 homes on 31 acres was withdrawn after significant community opposition.

"What's the key to stopping over development? Grabbing a piece of property in the town if it's going to prevent development," she said, and urged residents to join the town's Brick Open Space Savers group, which works to identify property for preservation, to take undisturbed wooded spots out of play.

"Every person in our country has the right to buy and own property," Pontoriero said. "What they don't have the right to do is infringe on somebody else's rights or violate law. And that's what those other the planning board committee, the zoning board, municipal court, that's what all of that is for."