Skip to main content



Brnicevic v. Borough of Bound Brook

A-3334-03T3 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2005) (Unpublished)

REDEVELOPMENT—The Redevelopment Law does not require that a municipality’s initially adopted plan address every statutorily-mandated planning issue in detail so long as it outlines the issues which will be addressed with greater specificity in the future.

Challengers appealed a lower court’s dismissal of their complaint which challenged their municipality’s redevelopment plan. After the municipality experienced “extensive river flooding ... in the wake of Hurricane Floyd,” it “adopted a redevelopment plan that contemplated the acquisition of numerous properties, both business and residential.” The challengers claimed that the plan was procedurally flawed and lacked “the findings and degree of specificity [that were] required by” New Jersey’s Redevelopment Law. The lower court dismissed the complaint because it found that “the plan was properly adopted and that its provisions met the requirements of the Redevelopment Law.”

The Appellate Division held that the municipality’s adoption “of the redevelopment plan was not arbitrary and capricious, even if a better plan might” have been conceived. The Court also agreed with “the [lower court ]that the Redevelopment Law does not require that the initial redevelopment plan address every statutorily-mandated planning issue in detail,” so long as it outlines the issues which “will be addressed with greater specificity in the future.” Additionally, the Court held that the challengers’ “concern that the ‘redevelopment area’ designation create[d] a cloud of uncertainty over” their property’s future was “the inevitable result of any redevelopment designation and [did] not constitute grounds for relief.” The Court concluded by affirming the lower court’s dismissal.


MEISLIK & MEISLIK
66 Park Street • Montclair, New Jersey 07042
tel: 973-783-3000 • fax: 973-744-5757 • info@meislik.com