Following the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's ("NJDEP") approval of a private developer's application to make roadway improvements to an existing intersection as part of a proposal to build a large shopping center in the Beattystown Historic District, a local citizens' group brought suit challenging the approval. The proposed improvements required NJDEP approval under State law because of their location within a historic district.
In Beattystown Community Council v. New Jersey Dep't Envtl. Protection, the citizens' group challenged the approval on three grounds. First, the plaintiff contended that NJDEP failed to require the applicant to explore "prudent and feasible alternatives" to avoid encroaching on the historic district. Second, the plaintiff challenged NJDEP's decision not to consider the State Development and Redevelopment Plan ("State Plan") in making its decision. Third, the plaintiff claimed NJDEP acted arbitrarily and capriciously in granting approval.
The court found that the applicant considered sufficient alternatives to the widened intersection and traffic signal proposal to demonstrate that no "prudent and feasible" alternatives existed that would avoid the encroachment. The applicant evaluated an overpass, which would have created a far greater intrusion on the district; a reduction in the amount of widening, which would have resulted in substandard traffic conditions; and realigning one of the two intersecting roads to a location outside of the historic district, an alternative which was not considered seriously.
With respect to NJDEP's decision not to apply the State Plan to the application, the court concluded that there was no basis for applying it to the specific application. Although the Legislature may have intended State agencies to attempt to make planning consistent with the State Plan, the Plan does not require State agencies to review it for individual matters, according to the court. In support of its finding, the court noted that the language of the Plan itself states, "it is not designed to regulate.specific parcels of land."
Likewise, the court rejected the allegation of arbitrary and capricious action by NJDEP. Stating at the outset that the agency's decision is to be given "significant deference," the court found that plaintiff had failed to show that historic considerations outweighed other considerations, such as traffic safety, such that the approval was "clearly inconsistent" with NJDEP's statutory mission or any other state policy.
Among the court's grounds for denying the challenge by the citizens' group, the Beattystown Community Council decision is most noteworthy for the guidance it provides to State agencies concerning implementation of the State Plan.
