Toms River council votes to repeal downtown redevelopment plans after heated public comment and legal warnings

The Toms River Township Council voted to repeal three redevelopment plans that had governed the downtown core, Robins Parkway and waterfront areas after a contentious public hearing in which residents, business leaders and the developerrepresentative warned of legal and planning consequences.

Mayor Dan Roderick and township counsel told the council the repeal returns the town to the underlying zoning and removes redevelopment incentives; Roderick said the change reflects residentselectoral mandates to curb high-rise development. "We're repealing it. We're going back to the underlying zoning," the mayor said.

Michael Koski, an attorney for Meridian Toms River 40 Urban Renewal LLC, told the council his client filed a protest petition and asserted the ordinance was procedurally and substantively flawed, citing municipal land use law (NJSA 40:55D-63). He warned the adoption could require a two-thirds vote of the governing body and said his client would challenge any adoption in court. "If this ordinance is adopted, there will be a challenge filed and a lawsuit brought in superior court," Koski said.

Local business leaders and residents urged the council to pause and amend the plan rather than repeal it. Melissa Fernandez, executive director of the Toms River Business Development Corporation, said rescinding the plan could cause the town to lose accreditation from Main Street America and undercut economic development efforts. "The decision to rescind this plan feels like a step backward," Fernandez said.

Other residents urged complete repeal, arguing the redevelopment process was rushed, lacked broad public input and permitted building heights they opposed. Phil Brilliant, a longtime critic of the downtown plan, urged the council to start over and hold wide public forums. Several speakers raised questions about affordable housing obligations and whether removing the plan would affect town obligations under prior settlement agreements.

Town legal staff and the planning board indicated the planning board's planner found the repeal conformed with the master plan; staff also said the repeal removes incentive provisions rather than changing zoning. During the meeting attorneys and council members disputed whether a protest petition under the municipal land use law applied to the ordinance.

After discussion and a short legal pause, the council took a roll-call vote on the final-reading ordinance. The motion passed with recorded yes, no and abstention votes noted on the record.

The councildid not finalize any new redevelopment framework at the meeting; several residents and council members urged a pause and a collaborative process involving residents, business leaders and the planning board. Mayor Roderick and council members said any future changes would follow required legal and planning review. The ordinance's repeal will likely prompt litigation from objecting property owners, according to the developer's attorney.

The council moved on to other agenda items after the vote; no new redevelopment ordinance was adopted at the meeting.