NJ High Court Clarifies Standard for Revocation of Direct Access to State Highway from Commercial Property

In its recent decision in In Re Revocation of the Access of Block #613, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified the standard governing the revocation of direct access from a State highway to a property used for commercial purposes under the State Highway Access Management Act and the State Highway Access Management Code. The case outlines the requisite procedure for revocation of a commercial property’s direct access to a State highway by the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT).

NJDOT sought to widen Route 166 in Toms River in an effort to increase safety, traffic capacity, and movement on the roadway. Arielle Realty, LLC, a commercial tenant, conducted business on a property at the corner of Route 166 and West Gateway that had direct access to both streets. Arielle Realty objected to the road widening project because it would essentially eliminate its commercial property’s direct access to the State highway, in addition to eliminating eight of the property’s parking spaces located in an existing NJDOT right-of-way.

A hearing was convened before an Administrative Law Judge, during which NJDOT outlined the purposes of the project, the various draft designs it had developed, the factors it had considered in selecting the final design, and its reasons for eliminating direct access from the objector’s commercial property to Route 166. In this effort, NJDOT presented the testimony of a traffic engineering expert, who testified that “the proposed access plan to Arielle’s property was convenient, direct, and well-marked.” He also testified that the design was safer than the property’s present access arrangement because it would reduce the total number of traffic points of conflict in the area. In response, Arielle Realty also presented expert testimony in support of its alternative proposal that would not eliminate its property’s direct access to Route 166. Satisfied that the corner lot’s access to West Gateway provided sufficiently direct access to the State highway from Arielle Realty’s property, and that NJDOT’s proposal called for sufficient signage to navigate the new access configuration, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that NJDOT had satisfied its burden of proof for the elimination of direct access to Route 166.

The Appellate Division affirmed, stressing that Arielle Realty’s contention that a plan other than NJDOT’s may also be reasonable or safe was “irrelevant” because the NJDOT Commissioner is “vested with the authority to select a plan that comports with the statutory and regulatory criteria.” The Supreme Court also affirmed. Reiterating that “any design proposed by the DOT that restricts direct access to a commercial property from a state highway is presumed valid,” the Court declared the burden NJDOT must satisfy in restricting or revoking direct access to a State highway: If a property owner objects to NJDOT’s proposal that restricts such access, NJDOT “bears the burden of proving that the alternative access to the commercial property is reasonable and that it provides a convenient, direct, and well-marked route to enter the property and to return to the state highway.” To be considered well-marked, NJDOT “must design and install appropriate signage marking the alternative route to the property.” In addition, NJDOT “must also compare any alternative plan advanced by the property owner with the plan advanced by the agency and explain why the agency proposal better advances the statutory and regulatory scheme.” The Supreme Court held that NJDOT’s design was “convenient, direct, and well-marked,” and that the agency had engaged in the requisite comparative analysis. The fact that the new access route was “longer” than the property’s existing direct access was insufficient to render NJDOT’s plan unreasonable.

In re Revocation of the Access of Block #613 clarifies not only the burden NJDOT must satisfy in restricting or revoking a commercial property’s direct access to a State highway, but also outlines the procedure to which an objector is entitled. If an objector advances an alternative plan, the Commissioner must engage in a comparison of the features of the plans and “explain why the agency proposal better advances the statutory and regulatory scheme.”