PRINCETON BATTLEFIELD AREA PRESERVATION SOCIETY VS. INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY(DELAWARE AND RARITAN CANAL COMMISSION)
A-3428-14T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 7, 2017Background
- Institute for Advanced Study sought approval to build seven single-family homes and two four-unit townhouses on Zone B property adjacent to Princeton Battlefield State Park; staff concluded project complied with Commission regulations and was outside the delineated stream corridor.
- At the January 21, 2015 Commission meeting one commissioner (Texel) abstained, explaining he believed his vote was unnecessary and out of deference to a longtime preservationist objector; the motion failed for lack of four affirmative votes.
- Texel requested reconsideration at the February 18, 2015 meeting, explaining he had mistakenly thought his vote was unnecessary and now wished to vote in favor; all seven commissioners attended and the Commission reopened the matter to further public comment.
- The Commission approved the Institute’s application on reconsideration by a 5–2 vote and issued a certificate of approval with conditions; appellants (Princeton Battlefield Area Preservation Society and individuals) appealed.
- Appellants argued (1) the Commission lacked authority to reconsider absent fraud or a material change in fact or law and (2) the Commission misapplied its own regulations by failing to review stream-corridor impacts despite proximity to a tributary.
- The Appellate Division affirmed: it held administrative agencies have inherent authority to reconsider decisions when reasonable and for good cause; reconsideration here was timely and permissible, and the specific stream-corridor regulation applied only if the project included a portion of the corridor, which it did not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to reopen/reconsider a prior agency vote | Reopening is improper absent fraud or material change in facts/law; a commissioner’s change of heart is insufficient | Agencies have inherent power to reopen/reconsider matters for good cause, subject to reasonableness and fairness | Reopening was permissible; Texel’s mistake about the necessity of his vote and the prompt timing (28 days) satisfied reasonableness/good-cause limitations |
| Reliance / finality of prior vote | January vote should be final; appellants relied on that result and were prejudiced | Regulations allow third parties 30 days to request adjudicatory hearing; finality not assured within that period | Appellants could not reasonably rely on the January vote as final under N.J.A.C. 7:45-7.1; timing supported reconsideration |
| Requirement to review stream-corridor impacts under Zone B rules | N.J.A.C. 7:45-2.3 requires stream-corridor impact review for Zone B projects near the Park; Commission misapplied its rules | More specific rule N.J.A.C. 7:45-9.1 requires stream-corridor review only when the project includes a portion of the corridor; staff found the project outside the corridor | Held for defendants: the specific regulation (7:45-9.1) controls the general one (7:45-2.3); no stream-corridor review required because no encroachment occurred |
| Public-interest / public-policy challenge to reconsideration | Reopening injures public interest and violates public policy | Reconsideration serves administrative justice and was conducted reasonably | Court rejected public-interest argument as unpersuasive and affirmed approval |
Key Cases Cited
- Trap Rock Indus. v. Sagner, 133 N.J. Super. 99 (App. Div. 1975) (reopening permissible but must be exercised reasonably and for good cause)
- Handlon v. Town of Belleville, 4 N.J. 99 (N.J. 1950) (recognizing agency power to reopen to serve ends of justice)
- In re Parole Application of Trantino, 89 N.J. 347 (N.J. 1982) (agency authority to reconsider decisions absent legislative restriction)
- Pinelands Pres. Alliance v. State Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 436 N.J. Super. 510 (App. Div. 2014) (deference owed to agency interpretations of technical regulations)
Affirmed.