Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Agriculture and Urbanization
Decision To Approve Tract As An
Agricultural Development Area Upheld
Eugenio A. LombaNational AgLaw Center Graduate Fellow
In an action in which a township challenged a decision of New Jersey's Agriculture Development Committee to approve a 2700-acre tract of land as an Agriculture Development Area and to exclude an 80-acre parcel of land within that tract so that it could be used as a turnpike, the New Jersey Superior Court has upheld the Agriculture Development Committee's decision to exclude the 80-acre parcel of land from the Agriculture Development Area. Township of South Brunswick v. State Agriculture Development Committee, 800 A. 2d 202, 204-06 (N.J. Super. 2002). The court also ruled that the township could appeal a decision of the Middlesex County Agriculture Development Board to the Agriculture Development Committee and that the Agriculture Development Committee's decision was neither arbitrary or unreasonable. See id.at 204-07.
This case centers upon a dispute between the Middlesex County Agriculture Development Board ("County Board"), the Township of South Brunswick, and the New Jersey Turnpike Authority. See id. at 203. The dispute arose out of a decision by the County Board to exclude eighty acres from a 2700-acre tract of land that was designated as an Agricultural Development Area because the Turnpike Authority wanted the 80-acre parcel to be used as a "6.7 mile high-speed, limited access superhighway" that would run through Middlesex County. Id.
On April 4, 2000, the Township adopted a resolution that approved the 2700-acre tract of land as an Agricultural Development Area. See id. Each parcel within the 2700-acre tract of land was "farmland assessed" and zoned "rural-residential and permitted agricultural use." Id. The County Board conducted public hearings to discuss the Township's decision. See id. The Turnpike Authority presented its objections to the inclusion of the 80-acre parcel as a part of the Agricultural Development Area. See id.
On July 19, 2000, the County Board approved the 2700-acre tract as an Agricultural Development Area, but excluded the 80-acre parcel from the Agricultural Development Area. See id. On August 16, 2000, the County Board "adopted a resolution reflecting the approval with the deletion" and requested that the state Agriculture Development Committee ("the Committee") certify the Agricultural Development Area as amended. Id. The Committee certified the County Board's decision on September 28, 2000, but "declined to consider the excluded portion because it lacked the authority to include areas in an [Agricultural Development Area] which had not been approved by a county agriculture development board." See id. The Township appealed the Committee's decision to the New Jersey Superior Court. See id.
The Township argued that the Committee "erred in refusing to consider the excluded eighty acres and in affirming the exclusion by the [County Board] since the land met the eligibility criteria for an [Agricultural Development Area] and its designation as such would not interfere with the Turnpike's proposed highway." Id. The County Board argued that the Township did not have a right to appeal its decision to the Committee and asserted that "the certification of its resolution by the [Committee] was pursuant to the governing statute and [was] neither arbitrary nor unreasonable." Id.
The New Jersey Superior Court rejected the County Board's argument and held that "the Township can seek review by the [Committee] of a County Board's decision despite the absence of a specific provision in the Agricultural Retention and Development Act ("ARDA"), N.J.S.A. §§ 4:1C- 11 to -48." Id. at 204. The court also ruled that the Committee's actions were "authorized by statute and were neither arbitrary nor unreasonable." Id. at 207.
The court explained that when the legislature enacted the ARDA, it established "'county organizations to coordinate the development of farmland preservation programs within identified areas where agriculture will be presumed the first priority use of the land.'" Id. at 204. The court also explained that "[t]o this end the legislature created county agriculture development boards . . . which may identify and recommend an area as an [Agricultural Development Area] if it meets specific criteria." Id. (citations omitted). The court noted that the legislature defined an Agricultural Development Area as "that area identified by a County Board pursuant to N.J.S.A. 4:1C-18 and certified by the [Committee] after its review of board submissions." Id. (citing N.J.S.A. 4:1C-13(a) and N.J.A.C. 2:76-1.6(a)). The court also noted that the Committee must then determine that "the [county] board's analysis and criteria are 'reasonable and consistent with the provisions of this subchapter.'" Id. (quoting N.J.A.C. 2:76-1.6(b)). The court explained that the final step in this process is that the Committee "presents its findings and recommendations for certification, certification with conditions, or denial of certification to the Secretary of Agriculture." Id. (citing N.J.A.C. 2:76-1.7).
The court stated that the although the County Board correctly noted that there was no specific statutory provision in the ARDA that allowed a petitioner to appeal a County Board's recommendation for an Agricultural Development Area to the Agricultural Development Committee, "the statutory and regulatory scheme provide for automatic review by the [Committee] and by definition an area is not an Agricultural Development Area until the [Committee] certifies it as such." Id. (citing N.J.S.A. 4:1C-13(a)). The court added that a County Board's recommendation without approval by the Committee "is not valid; it is merely a suggestion or proposal to be reviewed" by the Committee. Id.
The court stated that the Committee was created by the Right to Farm Act, N.J.S.A. 4:1C-1 - 10, "which was enacted at the same time as the ARDA . . . and share the same purpose to protect and encourage agriculture." Id. (citing N.J.S.A. 4:1C-2 & 4:1C-12). The court explained that because these statutes deal with the same subject matter and address the same purpose, they are to be read in pari materia. Id. (citing Brown v. Township of Old Bridge, 752 A.2d 1154 (N.J. App. Div. (1999)). The court stated "[t]he Right to Farm Act sets forth criteria and procedures for the establishment of [Agricultural Development Areas] under the ARDA and for farmland preservation programs to be certified by the [Committee]. Id. (citing N.J.S.A. 4:1C-7, 13(a), 18, & 20)). The court also stated that the Right to Farm Act established that "[a]ny person aggrieved by any decision of a County Board regarding specific agricultural management practices or conflict resolution may appeal the decision to the [Committee] . . . . The decision of the [Committee] shall be considered a final administrative agency decision." Id. (citing N.J.S.A. 4:1C-10.2).
The court stated that the dispute between the Township and the Turnpike Authority was resolved when the County Board omitted the 80 acres from the 2700-acre tract. Id. The court ruled that "[t]his was 'conflict resolution' within the meaning of N.J.S.A 4:1C-10.2 which provided for review" by the Committee. Id. The court added that "[i]t would fragment litigation to require a party aggrieved by the decision of a County Board to pursue . . . action in Superior Court when the [Committee], an administrative agency, must review the same decision. Therefore, we conclude that the Township properly asserted a right of appeal to the [Committee] under N.J.S.A. 4:1C-10.2." Id.
The court also ruled that the actions of the County Board and the Committee were authorized by statute and were neither arbitrary or unreasonable. See id. at 206. The court stated that "[o]ur limited scope of review of a final agency action is such that we may not substitute judgment for the expertise of the agency as long as the action is authorized by statute and is not defective because [it is] arbitrary or unreasonable." Id.
The case was decided on June 27, 2002; this summary was prepared October, 2002