[brief] Appellants’ challenge is based on their desire to have a different redevelopment plan that is more to their liking.  While Appellants certainly have the right to their views on the redevelopment, it provides no legal basis to upend the years long interactive process through which the Governing Body of the Town properly and in accordance with law approved the Ordinance and a Redevelopment Plan, which sets forth guidelines for improvement of the Town’s downtown area in a manner that is consistent with the Town’s Master Plan.  In doing so, the Governing Body scrupulously followed the law, and nothing has been proven to the contrary.  Thus, New Jersey law requires more than mere disagreement with type or scope of the plan and instead imposes a heavy burden to interfere with municipal approval of redevelopment plans to ensure consistency and fairness.  Appellants fail to meet their heavy burden and have not shown a failure to comply with the applicable legal standard of arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable conduct by the Governing Body.  To the contrary, the undisputed facts show that the Governing Body complied with their procedural and substantive obligations in adopting the Ordinance.  Appellants may disagree with the Town’s plans; but that, in and of itself, is not enough as a matter of well-established law.  A municipality may adopt a redevelopment plan that is either “substantially consistent with the municipal master plan” or “designed to effectuate the master plan. ”  N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-7(d).  Given the great weight and deference afforded to municipal actions of this type under well-established case law, Appellants had the “heavy burden of overcoming the presumption of validity accorded the decision of the Governing Body by showing that it was ‘arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. ’” (Pa92.)  Appellants did not introduce any evidence showing that the Redevelopment Plan failed to meet the standard of substantial consistency or effectuating the Master Plan.  Rather, the trial evidence shows that the Redevelopment Plan was, in fact, consistent with the Master Plan.  Nor did Appellants introduce any evidence whatsoever of arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable conduct by the Governing Body.  Again, the only evidence shows that the Governing Body complied with its obligations throughout the process of approval without a hint of any improper conduct.  Without any basis to reverse the Governing Body’s action, Appellants seek to have this Court apply the standard of review for municipal designation decisions, which is a completely different process from adoption of the redevelopment plan and has no relevance here.  Indeed, the Governing Body already designated the property at issue in 2020 without any challenge or objection.  Thus, Appellants’ attempt to resurrect a decision made years ago and apply the wrong legal standard to the Redevelopment Plan should be rejected.  Appellants also seek to overturn the Ordinance by referencing a self-serving document that purportedly identifies inconsistencies between the Redevelopment Plan and the Master Plan.  Appellants never sought to introduce this document into evidence, and even if they had tried, there would have been no evidentiary basis to admit it.  Their attempt to rely on it now highlights the absence of any genuine or legitimate basis to reverse the Trial Court’s or Governing Body’s decisions.  **PROCEDURAL HISTORY**