SteveK September 10th, 2009
On September 3, 2009, in County of Warren v. State of New Jersey , the Appellate Division upheld the validity of the master plan adopted by the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Council against an argument by farmers that the council lost its authority to adopt the plan by failing to do so within the time set forth in Highlands Preservation Act. The Court also rejected constitutional challenges to the Highlands Act based on equal protection arguments, including a claimed constitutional right to farm and the claim of unequal treatment to property owners with larger tracts of land.
The plaintiffs were farmers owning tracts of land ranging in size from 18 to 150 acres in the preservation area created by the Highlands Act. (The County of Warren did not participate in the appeal.) The Court affirmed the dismissal of the challenge on the pleadings, noting that the New Jersey Supreme Court in OFP, L.L.C. v. State, 395 N.J. Super 571 (App. Div. 2007), aff’d o.b., 197 N.J. 418 (2008), had upheld the general constitutionality of the Act. The Appellate Court held that the failure of the Council to adopt a regional master plan within the time frame provided by the Act, was not fatal since the date provided was a “directory, rather than …a mandatory deadline that would invalidate a subsequent adoption of the plan.” The Court also rejected the equal protection arguments finding that there is no fundamental right to farming; therefore, the state only needs to demonstrate a rational basis to satisfy equal protection requirements. The Court also reviewed the Right to Farm Act, which was specifically referenced in the Highlands Act, concluding that it did not create a fundamental right to farm, but rather provided protection to farmers from land use control by local and county authorities and nuisance suits by neighbors. The “rational basis test” also precluded the claim of unequal treatment of owners of larger parcels of property. Finally, the Court rejected the claims that there was no scientific basis for the “preservation zone” due to hydrogeologic conditions. The Court deferred to the legislative findings that focused on “other exceptional natural resources such as clean air, contiguous forest lands, wetlands, pristine watersheds, and habitat for fauna and flora” in addition to “sites of historic significance.” The Court concluded that it would not second-guess the determination of Legislature in creating boundaries relating to the overall goals of the Act. Accordingly, the Court dismissed another challenge the Highlands Protection Act, allowing the Highlands Council to proceed to regulate and control development in the environmentally sensitive Highlands region of New Jersey.
DiFrancesco, Bateman, Coley, Yospin, Kunzman, Davis & Lehrer, PC ( www.dbnjlaw.com ) is a full service law firm in New Jersey which provides a broad range of legal services, including the representation of clients in environmental matters. For additional information about the matters in this bulletin or in the firm’s environmental practice, please contact Steven A. Kunzman, Esq. who heads our Environmental Department.
Tags: Environmental Law, Land Use Law, Local Government Law