## Facts

- Hobart R. Gardner (later represented by Mary Gardner, individually and as executrix) owned a 217-acre sod-and-grain farm in Shamong Township, within New Jersey’s Pinelands region.
- The Pinelands Protection Act created a regional planning regime administered through a Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) aimed at environmental protection while maintaining agricultural uses.
- Under an earlier CMP provision, farmland owners could develop “one farm-related residential unit for every ten acres.”
- In 1987, Gardner explored subdividing his farm into 14–17 ten-acre residential “farmettes” based on that option.
- Before Gardner filed a completed development application, the Commission revised the CMP after concluding the ten-acre option was contributing to reduced agricultural operations.
- The revised CMP eliminated the ten-acre option and instead allowed limited residential development through alternatives including: (1) certain 3.2-acre lots for eligible residents; (2) a 10-acre lot for a farm operator/employee once every five years; and (3) one home per 40 acres if the remaining 39 acres were permanently restricted by recorded deed to agricultural use.
- The revision prevented Gardner from developing 14–17 ten-acre residential lots but allowed continued farming and some residential development under the 40-acre/deed-restriction approach.
- Gardner sued for inverse condemnation under the New Jersey Constitution, also alleging unlawful exaction and equal protection violations; he did not bring a facial challenge to the Act or CMP.

## Issues

1. Whether the revised CMP’s limits on residential subdivision of farmland, coupled with a permanent agricultural deed-restriction condition for certain development, effected a compensable taking under the New Jersey Constitution.
2. Whether the deed-restriction condition constituted an unlawful exaction or unconstitutional condition.
3. Whether the CMP’s classifications and development options violated equal protection under the New Jersey Constitution.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.
- The court held the CMP substantially advanced legitimate and important governmental objectives, including protection of the Pinelands and preservation of agriculture.
- The court held no compensable taking occurred because Gardner retained economically viable uses, including continued farming and some residential development options.
- The court rejected the unlawful-exaction theory, treating the deed restriction as a component of the overall land-use program tied to agricultural preservation.
- The court found no equal protection violation because the regulatory distinctions were rationally related to the State’s legitimate objectives in managing a unique and sensitive region.

## Legal Principles

- Land-use regulation that substantially advances legitimate governmental objectives and leaves the owner with economically viable use does not constitute a compensable taking under the New Jersey Constitution.
- A reduction in development potential or market value, by itself, is insufficient; there is no constitutional entitlement to the most profitable use of property.
- In evaluating a regulatory taking claim, relevant considerations include economic impact, interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action (general regulatory program versus physical appropriation).
- Conditions on development (including permanent deed restrictions) are not unconstitutional exactions when they are part of a generally applicable conservation and agricultural-preservation scheme and do not deprive the owner of viable use.
- Zoning classifications in a comprehensive regional plan satisfy equal protection when rationally related to legitimate environmental and agricultural goals.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the Pinelands Commission’s revised farmland-development limits and agricultural deed-restriction condition as a valid exercise of state regulatory authority that did not require compensation because the owner retained productive agricultural use and meaningful, though reduced, development opportunities.


Gardner v. N.J. Pinelands Comm’n, 125 N.J. 193, 593 A.2d 251 (N.J. 1991)