Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Agriculture and Urbanization
Right To Farm Act Preempts Municipal
Land Use Authority Over Commercial Farms
E. John Edwards IIINational AgLaw Center Graduate Fellow
In an action brought by a township against the operators of an ornamental plant production operation, the New Jersey Supreme Court has granted the operators' motion to transfer the proceedings to the County Agricultural Development Board (CAB) because the New Jersey Right to Farm Act (RTFA), N.J.C.S.A. 4:1C-1-10, preempts municipal land use authority over commercial farms. Township of Franklin v. Hollander, 796 A.2d 874, 876 (N.J. 2002).
The facts of the case are found in the Appellate Division's opinion, Township of Franklin v. Hollander, 769 A.2d 427 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. 2000). The defendants were operators of a large-scale ornamental plant production operation located in the Township of Franklin, New Jersey. Township of Franklin, 769 A.2d at 429. The operation was located on 143 acres that was "zoned AR-7, Agricultural- Residential, which permits agricultural uses." Id. More than 75 percent of the 143 acres was subject to a "Deed of Easement benefitting the Hunterdon County Agricultural Development Board and/or the New Jersey State Agricultural Development Committee [SADC]." Id.
In April, 1998, the Township of Franklin brought an action against the defendants in Superior Court "seeking declaratory relief and related permanent injunctive relief." Id. Among other claims, the Township alleged, that "defendants were in violation of provisions of their Deed of Easement and unspecified township regulations, and that '[d]efendants' failure to comply with the Deed of Easement and/or [regulations constituted] a nuisance adversely affecting the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the Township.'" Id.
The defendants contended that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the New Jersey RTFA "preempted the MLUL [Municipal Land Use Law] and accompanying local zoning and land use regulations." Id. at 432. Thus, the defendants moved to have the proceedings transferred to the CAB. See id.
The trial court denied the motion, concluding the RFTA "did not preempt the court's jurisdiction to consider '[p]ure zoning and site plan issues.'" Id. The trial court also ruled that the court, and not the CAB, "would make an appropriate determination of which issues were properly before the court and which were within the jurisdiction of the CAB." Id. Defendants appealed to the Appellate Division. See id.
The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's decision based on amendments to the RFTA that the court found "explicitly preempt[ed] municipal regulation of various commercial agricultural activities which meet certain eligibility criteria." Id. at 437. The Township appealed the Appellate Division's decision. See id. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's ruling. Township of Franklin, 796 A.2d at 876.
The New Jersey Supreme Court primarily rested its decision on the fact that the Legislature had clearly spoken on the issue. See id. at 876-77. The Legislature had made the determination to vest primary jurisdiction in the CAB and SADC to handle disputes between municipalities and commercial farms affecting public health and safety. See id. The court cautioned that the authority of the CAB and SADC was not unlimited, and that "the boards must consider the impact of the agricultural management practices on public health and safety and [must] 'temper [their] determinations which these standards in mind.'" Id. at 877 (quoting Township of Franklin, 769 A.2d at 439).
In addressing the issue of how boards should resolve their competing interests, the court explained that where municipal land use rules only had a "peripheral effect on farming, . . . greater deference should be afforded to [such rules]." Id. The court further explained that even in a situation where the activity in question was determined by the CAB or SADC to constitute a "generally accepted agricultural operation or practice" within the meaning of the RFTA, such determination should not end the inquiry. Id. The boards should still "give appropriate consideration not only to the agricultural practice at issue, but also to local ordinances and regulations, including land use regulations, that may affect the agricultural practice." Id. at 877-78.
The case was decided on May 20, 2002; this summary was prepared in October, 2002