IN THE MATTER OF CASTLE ROCK ESTATES

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5564-04T15564-04T1

IN THE MATTER OF

CASTLE ROCK ESTATES

_________________________

 

Submitted May 24, 2006 - Decided July 19, 2006

Before Judges Stern and Alley.

On appeal from a Final Agency Decision of the Department of Environmental Protection, R# 1615-03-0017.1.

Price Meese Shulman & D'Arminio, attorneys for appellant Castle Rock Estates (Elliott Louis Pell, of counsel and on the brief).

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for respondent New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Lisa F. Daglis, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant, the contract purchaser of land, is subject to the permit requirements of the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act ("Act"). Its property is located in the Highlands Preservation Area of the New Jersey Highlands Region, which is regulated by the Act. It appeals from the denial, on May 10, 2005, of its request for an adjudicatory hearing to contest the Department of Environmental Protection's determination that a freshwater wetlands permit could not be issued in the Highlands Preservation Area.

We agree with the Department of Environmental Protection that the issue before us is one of law and that a contested case adjudicatory hearing was not warranted.

Not until May 6, 2004, did appellant receive preliminary subdivision approval to divide the property into residential lots, and because of this, development of the property is subject to the permit requirements of the Act. The Act went into effect on August 10, 2004, and established environmental standards for development in the preservation area. It also required a Highlands Preservation Area Approval for major development within the Preservation area.

The parties have advised us that plaintiff has filed an action in the Law Division challenging the constitutionality and validity of the Act. As a result, appellant seeks a remand of this dispute "to the trial court in the Passaic County" actions and contends that if we "fail[] to remand this matter to the trial court . . ., the State will have violated Castle Rock's constitutional right to due process of law." We reject these contentions. First, the Appellate Division is vested, under R. 2:2-3(a)(2) and 2:2-4, with exclusive jurisdiction to review final actions or inactions of any State administrative agency or officer. R. 2:2-3(a)(2); Pascucci v. Vagott, 71 N.J. 40, 52-53 (1976); Central R.R. Co. v. Neeld, 26 N.J. 172, 184-85, cert. denied, 357 U.S. 928, 78 S. Ct. 1373, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1371 (1958); Mutschler v. Dept. of Env. Protection, 337 N.J. Super. 1, 9 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 168 N.J. 292 (2001); Hospital Center at Orange v. Guhl, 331 N.J. Super. 322, 329-30 (App. Div. 2000). It is apparent that the May 10, 2005, letter notified appellant that the decision was a final agency decision, and that any request for review must be brought in the Appellate Division.

Moreover, under the Act, appellant must obtain a Highlands Area permit if it wishes to engage in a major development of the Highlands, unless it has a waiver or is exempt. N.J.S.A. 13:20-30. Appellant's request clearly was within the Preservation Area of the Highlands Region, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 13:20-7, and therefore required Highlands approval. No issue of disputed fact could be adjudicated in the Office of Administrative Law, and the action of the Department of May 10, 2005, denying appellant's hearing request is affirmed.

 
We do not comment on any issue raised in the pending Law Division action. Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-5564-04T1

July 19, 2006