RICK LARUE v. MONMOUTH COUNTY AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2608-16T1
MONICA and RICK LARUE,
Petitioners,
v.
MONMOUTH COUNTY AGRICULTURE
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
Respondent-Appellant.
______________________________
Submitted February 7, 2018 – Decided April 16, 2018
Before Judges Alvarez and Currier.
On appeal from the State Agricultural
Development Committee, Docket No. SADC 1375.
Beekman Law Firm, LLC, attorneys for appellant
(Christopher L. Beekman, Assistant County
Counsel, on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney
for respondent State Agriculture Development
Committee (Jason W. Rockwell, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Jason T.
Stypinski, Deputy Attorney General, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
In this appeal, petitioners Monica and Rick LaRue submitted
a Site Specific Agricultural Management Practice (SSAMP)
application to appellant Monmouth County Agricultural Development
Board (MCADB). Pertinent to this appeal was petitioners' request
for approval of a farm work area location under the Right to Farm
Act (RTFA),
N.J.S.A. 4:1C-1 to -10.4, despite its violation of a
municipal setback ordinance.
The MCADB found that the farm work area was not entitled to
RTFA protection and issued a resolution to that effect. On appeal,
the State Agriculture Development Committee (SADC) overturned that
ruling in a December 11, 2016 final decision, concluding that the
RTFA protected the farm work area location. After a review of the
contentions in light of the record and applicable legal principles,
we affirm.
Petitioners own and operate a commercial farm consisting of
24.09 acres located in a "Rural Agricultural" zone. On February
20, 2014,1 petitioners submitted a revised SSAMP application to
MCADB, seeking RTFA protection for a number of activities,
including the location of an equipment storage and trailer parking
1
Petitioners had submitted an initial SSAMP application in
January 2012. The first SSAMP application is not at issue in this
appeal.
2 A-2608-16T1
area (the farm work area), which violated the municipality's ten-
foot side yard setback requirement.2
After several hearings on the application, MCADB adopted four
resolutions pertaining to petitioners' application.3 With regard
to the farm work area location, MCADB adopted Resolution No. 2014-
06-02, finding that the farm work area was not entitled to RTFA
protection because petitioners failed to show that an
"agricultural hardship" existed and, therefore, the farm work area
must comply with the municipal ten-foot side yard setback
requirement.
Petitioners appealed from the resolutions and the matter was
transferred to the Office of Administrative Law. Following a
hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an initial
decision on August 22, 2016, concluding that MCADB's "decision
that petitioners were not entitled to relief from the setback
requirement was appropriate." Petitioners submitted exceptions
to the ALJ's initial decision.
After exceptions to the ALJ's initial decision were filed,
the SADC issued a final decision on the matter on December 1,
2
The revised SSAMP application also sought RTFA protection for
six other activities that are not the subject of this appeal.
3
Only the resolution regarding the farm work area and setback
requirement is at issue on appeal.
3 A-2608-16T1
2016. The SADC concurred with the MCADB and ALJ that the proper
storage of vehicles and equipment for farming operations was a
generally accepted agricultural management practice. However, it
determined that the ALJ and MCADB had applied the wrong standard
when determining when an accepted agricultural management practice
may preempt a local ordinance. Petitioners did not have to show
an agricultural hardship to receive the protection of RTFA, but
instead needed to "demonstrate a legitimate, farm-based reason for
not complying with the local law."
The SADC balanced the "legitimate, farm-based interest
[presented by petitioners] against the public interest in the side
yard setback requirement" and concluded that the farm work area
was entitled to RTFA protection. The SADC, therefore, granted
petitioners' request for RTFA protection of the location of the
farm work area. On appeal, MCADB argues that the SADC erred in
granting RTFA protection to the location of the farm work area.
We are mindful that our review of administrative agency
decisions is limited. Russo v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's
Ret. Sys.,
206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011). We will not disturb an agency's
action unless it was clearly "arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable." Brady v. Bd. of Review,
152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997).
As the reviewing court, we "may not substitute [our] own judgment
for the agency's, even though [we] might have reached a different
4 A-2608-16T1
result." In re Stallworth,
208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) (quoting In
re Carter,
191 N.J. 474, 483 (2007)). We do, however, review an
agency's interpretation of a statute or case law de novo. Russo,
206 N.J. at 27.
Applying our highly deferential standard of review, we
conclude that there is substantial credible evidence in the record
to support the SADC's finding that the farm work area was eligible
for RTFA protection. We affirm.
The RTFA "represents a legislative determination 'to promote,
to the greatest extent practicable and feasible, the continuation
of agriculture in the State of New Jersey while recognizing the
potential conflicts among all lawful activities in the State.'"
Twp. of Franklin v. Hollander,
338 N.J. Super. 373, 383 (App. Div.
2001) (quoting L. 1983, c. 31) aff'd,
172 N.J. 147 (2002). In
order to assure "the State's regulatory action with respect to
agricultural activities" was "undertaken with a more complete
understanding of the needs and difficulties of agriculture," the
Act established the SADC within, but independent of, the Department
of Agriculture.
N.J.S.A. 4:1C-4(a). To effectuate this express
purpose, the provisions of the RTFA are paramount to "any municipal
or county ordinance, resolution, or regulation to the contrary."
N.J.S.A. 4:1C-9; see also Borough of Closter v. Abram Demaree
Homestead, Inc.,
365 N.J. Super. 338, 347 (App. Div. 2004).
5 A-2608-16T1
Our Supreme Court has recognized that the RTFA implicates
"the relationship between commercial farming activities . . . and
the right of municipalities to enforce local zoning and land use
ordinances enacted pursuant to the Municipal Land Use Law,
N.J.S.A.
40:55D-1 to -129." Twp. of Franklin v. Hollander,
172 N.J. 147,
149 (2002). In doing so, the Court also held that the RTFA
"preempts municipal land use authority over commercial farms."
Ibid.
Under Hollander, when an applicant seeks RTFA protection, the
reviewing board must engage in a two-part inquiry. Id. at 152.
First, the board must determine "whether an agricultural
management practice is at issue." Ibid. Second, the board must
"consider relevant municipal standards in rendering its ultimate
decision." Ibid. (quoting Hollander,
338 N.J. Super. at 393).
This "fact-sensitive inquiry" requires a careful balancing of "the
interests of farmers, . . . 'the extent of [the] use [of
agricultural management practices] and . . . the limitations
imposed on such uses by a municipality.'" Id. at 153 (quoting
Hollander,
338 N.J. Super. at 392).
In reviewing petitioners' revised SSAMP application, the
MCADB interpreted Hollander to require petitioners to demonstrate
an "agricultural hardship" for RTFA protections. However,
Hollander does not require the showing of a "hardship"; it requires
6 A-2608-16T1
only "a legitimate, agriculturally-based reason" for the
agricultural management practice at issue.
172 N.J. at 153.
The SADC noted that the MCADB and ALJ had applied the wrong
standard, and the SADC appropriately followed the guidelines
stated in Hollander. The SADC found, first, "that proper storage
of vehicles and equipment for farming operations is a generally
accepted agricultural management practice." The SADC next
balanced petitioners' interests against the public interest in
enforcing the municipal setback requirement. Petitioners' reasons
for non-compliance with the setback requirement were that the farm
lacks sufficient flat terrain outside of the
10' setback area and that the farm equipment
storage and trailer parking area needs to
remain at the current location in order to
have . . . a 'significant turning radius'
without having to move farm equipment. The
public interest in [enforcing] the setback
requirement . . . was the importance of
providing a buffer between neighboring
properties and farms.
Considering these interests, the topographic constraints of
the farm, and the fact that the only structures on the abutting
property were "approximately 1,000 feet southeast of the . . .
farm work area," the SADC reasoned that "it appears that the
activities occurring in the farm work area would have minimal, if
any, impact on the neighboring property." The SADC also noted,
as did the MCADB, that there were no complaints against petitioners
7 A-2608-16T1
from neighbors regarding the placement of the farm work area.4 The
SADC reasoned that this "lack of complaints . . . further evidences
that farm work area activities have had no or insubstantial adverse
impacts on public and private interests." As such, the SADC
concluded that, on balance, "the trailer parking and farm equipment
storage in the farm work area may receive RTFA protection."
Having reviewed the record on appeal, we are satisfied that
the SADC applied the proper standard under Hollander and
sufficiently balanced petitioners' interests against the public
interests in concluding that the farm work area was eligible for
RTFA protection. We are also satisfied that the MCADB failed to
demonstrate that the SADC's conclusions were arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable, or unsupported by the substantial
credible evidence in the record. Accordingly, there is no basis
to disturb the SADC's decision.
Affirmed.
4
In the testimony presented at the OAL hearing, there was a vague
reference to a neighbor who had complained about the proximity of
the farm work area location at the MCADB hearing. The neighbor
did not appear before the OAL and petitioners advised that the
neighbor had since moved. There was no specific information
presented as to the nature of the complaints.
8 A-2608-16T1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
