IN THE MATTER OF THE SADC RESOLUTION FY2015R12(2)Â (NEW JERSEY STATE AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE)
A-4379-14T1
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.May 16, 2017Background
- Appellants Max and Diane Riewerts own a 56-acre landlocked parcel (Block 44, Lot 24) that obtains access via a 1951 recorded 15-foot right-of-way (ROW) across adjacent Lot 5.
- In 2010 the development rights on Lot 5 were conveyed to the State and U.S. (NRCS) under the Agricultural Retention and Development Act; that farmland-preservation deed referenced the existing ROW but appellants were apparently not notified of the preservation conveyance.
- Appellants sought municipal and SADC approval to reconfigure/move the ROW (proposed Alternative 1) to improve safety and farm access; SADC staff rejected Alternative 1 and proposed a less intrusive Alternative 2 that tracked the existing alignment.
- SADC relied on staff recommendations and an NRCS letter rejecting Alternative 1; the Committee adopted staff recommendations and denied Alternative 1 (approved Alternative 2) in Resolution FY2015R12(2) and denied reconsideration.
- The SADC findings cited agricultural loss, drainage/erosion concerns, easement-width conflicts with the preservation deed, and NRCS objections; appellants disputed those factual conclusions and presented an engineer’s plan and a fire chief letter on safety.
- The Appellate Division vacated SADC’s denial and remanded for a hearing because the record lacked sufficient findings, missing staff reports and expert credentials, and appellants were not afforded an opportunity to contest staff/NRCS expert bases in a quasi-judicial proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SADC's denial of proposed ROW reconfiguration was arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial credible evidence | Riewerts: Record supports approval of Alternative 1; SADC ignored evidence and relied on unsupported staff/NRCS opinions | SADC: Decision based on staff/NRCS technical assessment that Alternative 1 would harm farmland, drainage, and violate deed restrictions | Court: Vacated denial and remanded for hearing because record was inadequate to permit meaningful, deferential review |
| Whether a hearing was required to allow contesting of agency expert bases | Riewerts: Needed opportunity to present/cross-examine experts and challenge staff/NRCS factual findings | SADC: Agency can act on staff recommendations without trial-type hearing in regulatory matters | Court: Because questions turned on expert opinion and factual dispute in a quasi-judicial context, more formal hearing process was required |
| Whether preservation deed restrictions and NRCS position could be applied without giving appellants process | Riewerts: Appellants were not notified of deed and should be allowed to contest applicability/compensation implications | SADC: Deed and NRCS position control; staff properly relied on them | Court: Committee made assumptions about legal effects of deed and NRCS denial that warranted further exploration at hearing |
| Whether Alternative 2 was an adequate accommodation without resolving disputed factual issues | Riewerts: Alternative 2 did not resolve safety/drainage/farmland restoration concerns | SADC: Alternative 2 addressed erosion/drainage and avoided taking prime farmland | Court: Record did not sufficiently establish those technical conclusions; remand for factfinding required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182 (discusses limited role of appellate review of administrative decisions)
- Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571 (standard for reversing agency action: arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by substantial credible evidence)
- Pasquince v. Brighton Arms Apartments, 378 N.J. Super. 588 (deference to agency expertise in technical matters)
- Stevens v. Board of Trustees, 294 N.J. Super. 643 (remedy of remand when agency fails to make requisite findings)
- In re Request for Solid Waste Utility Customer Lists, 106 N.J. 508 (notice and opportunity to present reasons may suffice; trial-type hearing not always required)
- High Horizon Dev. Co. v. Dep’t of Transp., 120 N.J. 40 (distinguishes when trial-type hearing is required: judicial/quasi-judicial vs. legislative/policy inquiries)