SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0613-18T3

FRIENDS OF HISTORIC 

FLEMINGTON, LLC, 

GARY SCHOTLAND, and

LOIS K. STEWART,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

BOROUGH OF FLEMINGTON,

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE

BOROUGH OF FLEMINGTON,

and THE PLANNING BOARD OF

THE BOROUGH OF FLEMINGTON,

Defendants-Respondents.

________________________________

FLEMINGTON CENTER URBAN

RENEWAL, LLC,

Intervenor-Respondent.

________________________________

Submitted January 21, 2020 – Decided May 6, 2020

Before Judges Messano, Ostrer and Susswein.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-0613-18T3

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Hunterdon County, Docket No. L-0290-17.

Maley Givens, PC, attorneys for appellants (M. James 

Maley, Jr. and Erin E. Simone, on the briefs).

McManimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC, attorneys for 

intervenor-respondent Flemington Center Urban 

Renewal, LLC (William W. Northgrave and Ted Del 

Guercio, III, on the brief).

McNally, Yaros, Kadzynski & Lime, LLC, attorneys 

for respondent The Borough of Flemington, and 

Maraziti Falon, LLP, attorneys for respondents 

Borough of Flemington and The Borough Council of 

the Borough of Flemington, join in the brief of 

intervenor-respondent Flemington Center Urban 

Renewal, LLC.

PER CURIAM

This appeal results from plaintiffs' unsuccessful challenge in the Law 

Division to the Flemington Borough Council's July 2017 resolution designating 

certain properties as an area in need of redevelopment. Plaintiffs claim the trial 

court committed legal and factual errors. We are unpersuaded and affirm.

In March 2017, the Borough Council adopted a resolution directing the 

municipal Planning Board to investigate and hold public hearings to determine 

if certain properties (the Study Area) should be designated "an area in need of 
3

A-0613-18T3

redevelopment."

1

 Years earlier, in 2010, the Borough had designated the 

historic Union Hotel, which was vacant since 2008, as an area in need of 

redevelopment. The redevelopment area at that time consisted solely of one lot, 

upon which sat the hotel and a parking area to its rear. After the designated 

developer failed to fulfill its obligations, the Borough cancelled the redeveloper 

agreement. The Planning Board conducted another study in 2014, expanded the 

redevelopment area by adding additional properties adjacent to the hotel (the 

2014 redevelopment area), and the Borough adopted the new plan and 

designated a different redeveloper. Those efforts also failed. In 2016, the 

Borough entered negotiations with John J. Cust, Jr., and ultimately conditionally 

designated him as redeveloper of the 2014 redevelopment area. Cust's 

conceptual plan envisioned other uses in an even more expanded redevelopment 

area. 

Citing the two unsuccessful prior development attempts, the Borough 

Council's March 2017 resolution stated there was a need to expand the 

redevelopment area "beyond hotel and residential uses by including uses such 

as retail, educational, cultural and medical" in order to "arrest and reverse the 

 

1

 Except when necessary to distinguish them, we refer to the municipal 

defendants as "the Borough" throughout this opinion.
4

A-0613-18T3

lack of proper development[.]" The Study Area was comprised of only six 

properties immediately adjacent to or directly across the street from the 2014 

redevelopment area. Also, in March 2017, the Borough Council passed a 

resolution authorizing execution of a redeveloper agreement with Cust's singlepurpose entity, intervenor Flemington Center Urban Renewal, LLC (FCUR). 

In April 2017, the Borough executed a redevelopment agreement with 

FCUR. Notably, the agreement included the Borough's representation and 

warranty that in addition to those properties already included in the 2014 

redevelopment area, the properties in the Study Area would be designated areas 

in need of redevelopment.

The Planning Board completed its investigation in May. Without finding 

that the properties in the Study Area themselves met the statutory criteria as an 

area in need of redevelopment, see N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5, the report of the 

Borough's planning expert, Elizabeth McManus, cited N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-3 and 

concluded that the properties were "necessary for the effective redevelopment 

of the [2014 redevelopment area]." 

N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-3 defines certain terms used in the Local 

Redevelopment and Housing Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 to -89 (the LRHL), and 

provides in pertinent part:
5

A-0613-18T3

"Redevelopment area" or "area in need of 

redevelopment" means an area determined to be in need 

of redevelopment pursuant to [N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5 and 

-6] . . . . A redevelopment area may include lands, 

buildings, or improvements which of themselves are 

not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, 

but the inclusion of which is found necessary, with or 

without change in their condition, for the effective 

redevelopment of the area of which they are a part.

[(Emphasis added).]

The Planning Board held a public meeting in June at which McManus

testified. Plaintiff Friends of Historic Flemington, LLC (Friends) — a nonprofit group of objectors — produced a professional planner as an opposing

witness; members of the public also testified. After the hearing, the Planning 

Board unanimously voted to recommend designation of the Study Area as an 

area in need of redevelopment. In July 2017, the Borough Council adopted a 

resolution (the July 2017 resolution) designating the Study Area as a "[n]on-

[c]ondemnation [r]edevelopment [a]rea[.]"

Friends, joined by two individuals who owned properties near the Study 

Area, filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs challenging the July 2017 

resolution. The Borough and Planning Board filed answers. Following oral 

argument, the Law Division judge issued a comprehensive oral opinion rejecting 
6

A-0613-18T3

plaintiffs' arguments. He entered an order dismissing their complaint, and this 

appeal ensued.2 

Before us, noting McManus's recognition that the Study Area did not 

satisfy the statutory criteria for designation as an area in need of redevelopment 

pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5, plaintiffs claim that N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-3 alone 

cannot provide the basis to declare an area "in need of redevelopment" pursuant 

to the LRHL. As a corollary argument, plaintiffs contend the July 2017 

 

2 Plaintiffs' appendix documents certain events that transpired after passage of 

the July 2017 resolution. For example, a January 2018 consent case 

management order, entered in the Law Division after the pleadings were filed,

states that in December 2017, the Borough Council "adopted an amended 

redevelopment plan for the redevelopment area at issue in this matter." The 

consent order tolled plaintiffs' right to challenge that municipal action until 

thirty days after the court decided the prerogative writs litigation. The record is 

silent as to whether plaintiffs ever challenged the adoption of the amended 

redevelopment plan. 

The appendix also includes a September 2018 consent order filed in 

different litigation in which plaintiffs were challenging a site plan application 

filed by FCUR that included the properties in the Study Area. This consent 

order stated that FCUR was proceeding at its "own risk[,]" and that any "[v]ested 

[r]ights" FCUR might otherwise obtain under the Municipal Land Use Law did 

not apply to "any change that may occur" as a result of plaintiffs' challenges 

"concerning the redevelopment areas in which the [Study Area] properties are 

situated or the Union Hotel Redevelopment Plan." 

None of the parties to this appeal, nor intervenor, has discussed what 

implications, if any, these consent orders and related proceedings in the Law 

Division have upon the arguments raised for our consideration. 
7

A-0613-18T3

resolution violated the "Blighted Areas Clause of the New Jersey Constitution." 

See N.J. Const. art. VIII, § 3, ¶ 1. They also argue that the Borough improperly 

delegated its sole legislative authority to declare an area in need of 

redevelopment when it agreed to do so pursuant to the 2016 redeveloper 

agreement. Plaintiffs further contest the judge's finding of "substantial 

evidence" that addition of the Study Area to the existing 2014 redevelopment 

area was necessary for the success of the endeavor. 

We have considered these arguments in light of the record and applicable 

legal standards. We affirm.

I.

"[P]lanning boards and governing bodies . . . have an obligation to 

rigorously comply with the statutory criteria for determining whether an area is 

in need of redevelopment[,] . . . [but] after the municipal authorities have 

rendered a decision . . . that decision is 'invested with a presumption of validity.'" 

62–64 Main St., LLC v. Mayor & Council of Hackensack, 221 N.J. 129, 156–

57 (2015) (quoting Levin v. Twp. Comm. of Bridgewater, 57 N.J. 506, 537 

(1971)). "'Judicial review of a blight determination' must be informed by an 

understanding 'of the salutary social and economic policy' advanced by 

redevelopment statutes." Id. at 157 (quoting Levin, 57 N.J. at 537).
8

A-0613-18T3

While courts do not serve as "a rubber stamp" for the municipality's 

decision, "[s]o long as the blight determination is supported by substantial 

evidence in the record, a court is bound to affirm that determination." Ibid.

(citing Gallenthin Realty Dev., Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro, 191 N.J. 344, 372–

73 (2007)). Nonetheless, it is the court's function to construe a statute and 

determine whether it passes constitutional muster. Gallenthin, 191 N.J. at 358–

60.

"A delineated area may be determined to be in need of redevelopment if, 

after investigation, notice and hearing . . . the governing body . . . concludes that 

within the delineated area any of . . . [eight] conditions is found[.]" N.J.S.A. 

40A:12A-5. It is undisputed that none of the six lots included in the Study Area 

fit any of the eight statutory categories. 

However, "[e]ven if [a lot], standing alone, d[oes] not meet the definition 

of blight, it still might be properly categorized as part of an area in need of 

redevelopment. Blight determinations are not viewed in a piecemeal fashion. " 

62-64 Main St., 221 N.J. at 161 (citing Levin, 57 N.J. at 539); see also, 

Gallenthin, 191 N.J. at 372 ("[N]on-blighted parcels may be included in a 

redevelopment plan if necessary for rehabilitation of a larger blighted area[.]"); 

Vineland Constr. Co. v. Twp. of Pennsauken, 395 N.J. Super. 230, 251 (App. 
9

A-0613-18T3

Div. 2007) ("[I]t is not necessary that every property within the area designated 

for redevelopment be substandard provided that the 'area as a whole qualifies'

for redevelopment." (quoting N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-3)). Whenever the challenge is 

to the inclusion of non-blighted properties within a delineated redevelopment 

area, the Court has clearly circumscribed the scope of our review:

The fact that such an area includes some sound homes 

or buildings, or even that incorporated therein as an 

integral part and necessary to the accomplishment of 

the redevelopment plan, is a portion of the municipality 

containing structures which are not substandard, is not 

sufficient to provoke a judicial pronouncement that the 

Legislature unreasonably surrendered its prerogatives 

and duties. And [,] moreover, where[]as in this instance 

the guides for the subordinate agency action are 

adequate, the courts will not interfere with the 

boundary lines adopted in the absence of palpable abuse 

of discretion. 

[Wilson v. City of Long Branch, 27 N.J. 360, 379

(1958) (citing City of Newark v. N.J. Turnpike Auth., 

7 N.J. 377, 385 (1951)).]

We reject the false dilemma plaintiffs pose throughout the statutory and 

constitutional arguments in their brief, i.e., whether N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-3's 

definition of an "area in need of redevelopment" provides an independent ground 

for designation. Those arguments ignore the entire context of the controversy. 

Simply put, contrary to plaintiffs' position that the Borough approved a "stand

alone" redevelopment area, the record amply supports the conclusion that the 
10 A-0613-18T3

Borough never viewed the Study Area as anything other than part of a larger 

area in need of redevelopment. 

Additionally, the validity of the Borough's early determination that the 

2014 redevelopment area was an area in need of redevelopment is simply not 

before us, and we reject the suggestion that the Borough was required by the 

LRHL to conduct a new study of the entire area. See also Powerhouse Arts Dist. 

Neighborhood Ass'n v. City Council of Jersey City, 413 N.J. Super. 322, 336 

(App. Div. 2010) (rejecting the plaintiffs' assertion that an amendment to a

redevelopment plan that incorporated a redevelopment area blighted decades 

earlier required they be "reevaluated together pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:12A5").

McManus's report explained how the overall prospects of redevelopment 

benefitted from the inclusion of the Study Area properties into the then-existing 

2014 redevelopment area. During her testimony before the Planning Board, she 

explained in detail the prior efforts to redevelop the area, with the historic Union 

Hotel as its cornerstone, and the shortcomings of those efforts. McManus 

discussed the Study Area properties' "physical relationship to the existing Union 

Hotel redevelopment area[,]" explaining in detail how both "tracts" of properties 

enhanced the prospects for successful redevelopment of the entire area. In 
11 A-0613-18T3

addition, the July 2017 resolution explicitly approved the "inclusion" of the 

Study Area properties into the existing redevelopment plan. The Court in 

Gallenthin specifically recognized the possibility that additional properties may 

be added to an existing redevelopment area when necessary if that municipal 

determination were supported by the record evidence. 191 N.J. at 372; see also

Casino Reinvestment Dev. Auth. v. Birnbaum, 458 N.J. Super. 173, 188 (App. 

Div. 2019) ("Courts have recognized that there are inherent uncertainties in the 

redevelopment process . . . ."). 

Plaintiffs would have us turn a blind eye to all that preceded the passage 

of the July 2017 resolution and accept what the record belies. The Borough was 

not delineating a stand-alone redevelopment area that failed to meet the criteria 

of the LRHL. Rather, the Borough was attempting to address, in a rational and 

considered way, the past failures and shortcomings of prior attempts to develop 

the Union Hotel redevelopment area. When viewed in its entirety, and in the 

proper context, this record "contains more than a bland recitation of applicable 

statutory criteria and a declaration that [the] criteria [for designation] are met." 

Gallenthin, 191 N.J. at 373. It supports our restrained review of the Borough's 

actions in this case. We cannot conclude that the July 2017 resolution violated 

the LHRL or the New Jersey Constitution.
12 A-0613-18T3

II.

 Plaintiffs contend that N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-8 sets a precise procedure for 

designation of a redeveloper and does not permit execution of a redevelopment 

agreement for properties not included in the redevelopment area. Plaintiffs 

assert that because the agreement in this case included the Borough's promise 

and warranty to designate the Study Area as an area in need of redevelopment, 

the Borough improperly delegated its sole authority under the LRHL to FCUR. 

We disagree.

"Upon the adoption of a redevelopment plan . . . [a] municipality" may 

"contract with . . . redevelopers for the . . . undertaking of any project . . . ." 

N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-8(f) (emphasis added). The trial judge focused his attention 

on subsection (k), which permits the municipality to "[r]equest that the 

[p]lanning [b]oard recommend and governing body designate particular areas as 

being in need of redevelopment . . . and make recommendations for the 

redevelopment or rehabilitation of such areas." He reasoned that the redeveloper 

contract with FCUR permitted the Borough to pass the May 2017 resolution 

requesting the Planning Board's investigation of the Study Area, and, therefore, 

the contract was not an ultra vires delegation of municipal authority.
13 A-0613-18T3

Without necessarily adopting the judge's reasoning, we reject plaintiffs' 

argument based on the language of the redeveloper agreement itself. Section 

2.1 of the agreement states: 

It is expressly understood and acknowledged by the 

parties, [] that the execution of this Agreement does not 

apply to or impact any properties in the [2017 Study]

Area unless and until such properties are dulydesignated as an area in need of redevelopment and a 

redevelopment plan is adopted, pursuant to the 

[LRHL].

Contrary to plaintiffs' assertion, the Borough did not contract away its authority 

to proceed in accordance with the LRHL by first authorizing the Planning Board 

to study the additional properties, hold public hearings, and make 

recommendations; the redeveloper agreement did not relieve the Borough of its 

obligations under the LRHL to either adopt or reject those recommendations and 

thereafter approve a designated redevelopment area as appropriate.

Finally, plaintiffs contend that substantial evidence did not support the 

trial court's finding that the Study Area properties were necessary to the success

of the redevelopment plan as amended. Plaintiffs recognize that they did not 

raise this specific argument before the trial judge.

We generally refuse to consider issues not presented to the trial court. 

Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973). However, during oral 
14 A-0613-18T3

argument, plaintiffs' counsel did assert that the Study Area was designated an 

area in need of redevelopment because of the terms of the redeveloper agreement

and FCUR's desire to include the properties in an expanded redevelopment area, 

rather than because of any need to correct circumstances that led to past failures 

in developing the Union Hotel area. We therefore consider the argument and 

reject it.

We start with the presumption that the Borough's decision was valid. 62–

64 Main St., 221 N.J. at 157. However, a municipality's designation of an area 

as one in need of redevelopment must be "supported by substantial evidence[,]"

as explicitly required by the LRHL. Powerhouse Arts Dist., 413 N.J. Super. at 

332 (quoting N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-6(b)(5)); see ERETC, LLC v. City of Perth 

Amboy, 381 N.J. Super. 268, 277–78 (App. Div. 2005). Plaintiffs' recitation of 

past efforts to redevelop the Union Hotel, and their opinions as to why they 

failed, are insufficient to carry the burden they must bear in attacking municipal 

action. See, e.g., Concerned Citizens of Princeton, Inc. v. Mayor & Council of 

Princeton, 370 N.J. Super. 429, 453 (App. Div. 2004) ("[T]he burden is on the 

objector to overcome the presumption of validity by demonstrating that the 

redevelopment designation is not supported by substantial evidence, but rather 

is the result of arbitrary or capricious conduct on the part of the municipal 
15

A-0613-18T3

authorities.") (citing Levin, 57 N.J. at 537; Bryant v. City of Atlantic City, 309 

N.J. Super. 596, 610 (App. Div.1998)).

As already noted, McManus's report, her testimony before the Board, and 

the Borough Council's resolution which clearly linked the Study Area to the 

success of any development of the 2014 redevelopment area demonstrates the 

Borough's actions were not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.

Affirmed.