Giansanti v. Mantua Township

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF
THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS

TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY

120 High Street
KATHI F. FIAMINGO Mount Holly, NJ 08060
JUDGE
(609) 288-9500 EXT 38303

February 7, 2023

Steven W. Giansanti
390 Jefferson Road
Sewell, N.J. 08080

Via eCourts
Scott D. Burns, Esq.

RE: Giansanti v. Mantua Township
Docket No. 009102-2021

Gentlemen:

This letter constitutes the court’s opinion after trial in the above-referenced matter

challenging the denial of plaintiff’s application for farmland assessment of plaintiff’s property for

tax year 2021. For the reasons stated below, the court affirms the denial of farmland assessment.

I. Procedural History and Factual Findings

The court makes the following findings of fact based on the evidence and testimony offered

at trial in this matter. The property in question is located at the intersection of Jefferson and

Jackson Roads in the Township of Mantua and is designated as Block 276, Lots 23, 23.03 and

23.04 on the official tax map of Mantua Township (“subject property”). The subject property

consists of approximately 6.5 acres of land. Several improvements, including two residences, are

located on the subject property, however, for the most part the land is unimproved.

*
For the tax year under appeal, plaintiff filed timely applications for farmland assessment,

in which he indicated that 5.8 acres of land were either cropland harvested, permanent pasture, or

appurtenant woodland or wetland. The Assessor of Gloucester County 1 timely denied the

application. Plaintiff timely appealed the denial to the Gloucester County Board of Taxation

(“County Board”) which affirmed the assessment. Plaintiff appealed the judgments of the County

Board to this court. Trial was held on January 31, 2023. 2 Plaintiff, representing himself, testified

on his own behalf. The defendant presented the testimony of Tammie Latona, senior assessor for

Gloucester County. A number of exhibits were introduced into evidence by both parties, including

several photographs of the subject property.

Plaintiff testified that prior to 1999 plaintiff raised chickens on the subject property, but

that he was required to discontinue that undertaking due to a noise ordinance. Plaintiff’s

applications for farmland assessment had been successfully obtained for a number of years,

however, on December 18, 2018 plaintiff was notified that the approval for tax year 2019 was

issued with a warning that plaintiff was in violation of the statute allowing farmland because,

“[land] areas devoted to agricultural/horticultural use is less than 5 acres.” The notice indicated

that the determination had been made as a result of a site visit. A similar notice was issued

December 10, 2019. This notice indicated that the planting area needed to be expanded to meet

the minimum requirements. On October 19, 2020 a denial of plaintiff’s application for farmland

assessment for tax year 2021 was issued, upon which it was again indicated that the area devoted

1
Gloucester County was designated the pilot county to implement a county-wide assessment
program pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:1-88. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:1-89 Gloucester County is
considered a “taxing district” for purposes of assessment of property.
2
Plaintiff provided evidence only as to the denial of the farmland assessment and provided no
valuation evidence.

2
to farmland was less than five acres. This notice indicated that plaintiff had been warned on

December 18, 2018 and December 10, 2019.

Plaintiff testified that he did not receive the December 10, 2019 warning. He testified that

was surprised by the October 2020 denial of his farmland applications because he had planted

saplings on the subject property in response to the warning notices which he believed satisfied the

deficiencies.

Plaintiff’s testimony was at times difficult to follow and lacked certain specifics and

credibility. Plaintiff first testified that he personally measured the areas which he claimed satisfied

the Act. Plaintiff testified that he measured an area of .4 acres on Lot 23 which he claimed qualified

as farmland. He later testified, however, that he did not measure the area, but merely carried

forward the information that was pre-printed on the application supplied to him.

With respect to Lots 23.03 and 23.04, plaintiff testified that although he measured the area

containing planted crops on Lots 23.03 and 23.04, he did not measure any other area of the lots,

but deemed the entire area of both to be farmland qualified with the exclusion of .31 acres he

attributed to the residence on Lot 23.04. Plaintiff testified that although approximately 1.75 acres

of this property was wet and could not be used for crops, trees or other vegetation, he deemed the

area to qualify as “permanent pasture.” He further estimated that .25 acres of the lots constituted

woodland, which he also included in his determination of qualified farmland. Plaintiff calculated

that the subject property contained a total of 3.59 acres of “crop harvested.” Although he testified

that he measured the area containing the two harvested fields where beans, tomatoes, peppers and

other crops were grown, he did not engage in any measuring of any other areas. It was apparent

3
that plaintiff merely included the remaining land area of the lots because Christmas trees, including

recently planted saplings, had been planted rather haphazardly throughout the subject property.

Plaintiff testified that for the year in question, he satisfied the income requirements through

the purchase of “chestnuts and vegetables” in the amount of $150.00 by his brother, Mike

Giansanti, and the purchase of Christmas trees, wreaths and [grave] blankets in the amount of

$1,200.00 by his brother, Paul Giansanti. On cross-examination plaintiff testified that with the

exception of the sales made to his brothers, plaintiff did not make any other sales during the year

in question. In rather rambling testimony, plaintiff testified to the sale of “wheelbarrows of beans”

to individuals in prior years and attempts to sell vegetables at unattended road-side stands. Plaintiff

testified that the road-side stands were unsuccessful because he had been “ripped off” and that he

decided it was “not worth the effort” to continue to sell anything in this manner. It does not appear

that plaintiff made any concerted efforts to sell any product to anyone other than family members

for a number of years, including the year under appeal. Plaintiff acknowledged that the applications

filed reference only Christmas trees and beans as harvested crops and include no mention of

chestnuts.

Defendant’s witness testified that she was employed as a senior assessor for Gloucester

County, specializing in farmland and that she was familiar with the subject property. The witness

testified that she had walked the property and tried to “work with” the plaintiff in attempts to have

the subject property maintain farmland assessment qualification. Specifically the witness

indicated she spoke with plaintiff about obtaining a woodlands management plan, which she

believed would be more applicable to the subject property.

The witness testified that the subject property was also viewed from aerial photos which

provided for a visual determination of the use to which the subject property was put, as well as

4
allowing for measurements to be made. The witness personally walked the property in March

2021, after the plaintiff’s appeal to the County Board, in order to confirm the accuracy of the

denial. Her observations at that time indicated that plaintiff’s plantings of Christmas tree saplings

was very “disorganized,” with no attempt to organize the areas in which the saplings were planted

or to segregate them according to dates planted. The witness located only four to five actual

saleable Christmas trees on the entire subject property and counted 141 saplings, of which at least

fifty percent were dead. The saplings were planted haphazardly throughout the property, most of

which did not exceed four inches in height.

The witness testified credibly that she spoke with plaintiff and discussed the possibility of

widening his planting area to gain qualification and that she did include as much of the area as

possible in determining what might qualify for farmland assessment. With respect to Lot 23 the

witness testified that of the .8 acres of property in total, .6 was associated with the residence. One

area containing approximately .10 acre contained twenty saplings, not all of which were living,

and .10 acre constituted wooded area. An aerial photo of the area was consistent with this

observation.

On lot 23.03, the witness testified that of the three acres available, she located 68 saplings

and an area where crops had been planted. She measured the areas on which the saplings and

crops were located, resulting in a total of .42 acres. The balance of the area was wooded. On lot

23.04 she measured .5 acres associated with the residence, .40 acres with crops, including 53

saplings and 2.53 acres of wooded areas including various cars parked throughout.

In total, the witness testified that she measured a total of 1.02 acres of possible crops and

4.73 acres of wet areas and appurtenant woodlands. She testified that it was likely that the subject

5
property could have qualified for woodlands had plaintiff taken steps to obtain a woodlands

management plan.

With respect to plaintiff’s claim for qualifying pasture, the witness testified that at one time

the area might have qualified as pasture, but that it was currently all weeds and mostly under water.

Similarly, she testified that the areas where the saplings had been planted were very weedy, mostly

lacking irrigation, and were not well maintained. In measuring the planted areas, however, the

witness included all areas where crops or saplings had been planted, including two to three feet

around the planting areas in her calculations. The witness included all plants/saplings within the

measured areas, regardless of their condition. Photographs presented by both parties confirmed

the defendant’s witness’ testimony about the condition of the subject property.

With respect to the prior year’s approval and warnings issued, the witness acknowledged

that she was not aware of any statute or other requirement allowing for approval with warnings.

She was unaware of any obligation to provide any warning notices. She testified that her office

employed a warning process in an attempt to allow the taxpayers to rectify any deficiencies and

maintain their farmland assessment qualification. She further testified that she had spoken to

plaintiff on at least one prior occasion to suggest that he obtain a woodlands management plan in

order to qualify the subject property accordingly.

II. Conclusions of Law

The issue at hand is the qualification of the subject property for assessment as farmland

under the Farmland Assessment Act, N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.1 et seq. (the “Act”). Pursuant to the Act,

[f]or general property tax purposes, the value of land, not less than
5 acres in area, which is actively devoted to agricultural or
horticultural use and which has been so devoted for at least the 2
successive years immediately preceding the tax year in issue, shall,
on application of the owner, and approval thereof as hereinafter

6
provided, be that value which such land has for agricultural or
horticultural use.

[N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.2.]

For these purposes, land is in agricultural use “when devoted to the production for sale of

plants and animals useful to man.” N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.3.

The Act,

must be strictly construed against the party seeking the tax benefits
of the Act, because those benefits are generally equivalent to an
exemption, and, here, the benefits would be an exemption. Wishnick
v. Upper Freehold Twp., 15 N.J. Tax 597, 606 (Tax 1996).
Consequently, plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that [the
subject property] qualified for exemption from taxation under
N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.12(a).

[Van Wingerden v. Lafayette Twp., 18 N.J. Tax 81, 94 (Tax
1999), aff'd, 335 N.J. Super. 560, 763 A.2d 294 (App. Div. 2000).]

Both the duty to demonstrate that the “land is in agricultural or horticultural use and that

the land is actively devoted to such use rests with the homeowner.” Hovbilt, Inc. v. Howell Twp.,

138 N.J. 589, 620 (1994).

Thus it is the plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate here that at least five acres of the subject

property was actively devoted to agricultural or horticultural use. Plaintiff failed to do so.

Although plaintiff first testified that he personally measured the areas he considered as qualifying

farmland, he later testified he merely relied on the information already set forth on the pre-printed

application and that he simply determined that the entirety of the property qualified because it was

either harvested crops, wetlands, or appurtenant woodland.

Plaintiff’s testimony regarding the area in which the Christmas trees upon which plaintiff

relies for qualification, including the saplings planted after being warned of the deficiency in the

acreage needed for qualification, is unpersuasive. Plaintiff’s testimony indicated no plan for the

7
planting of the saplings, or any care provided to the saplings to ensure their success. Indeed, the

photographs provided by both parties and plaintiff’s own testimony demonstrate that there was no

particular plan for where the saplings were planted. No irrigation system was in place and nearly

one-half of the new plantings died within a year. “The mere planting of trees to be sold at some

undetermined future time without requisite care given to the trees is not the production of crops

for sale.” Princeton Research Lands, Inc. v. Upper Freehold Twp., 4 N.J. Tax 402, 411 (Tax 1982).

Plaintiff provided no testimony, nor any competent evidence, that the planting of the saplings

throughout the subject property was intentional as respects their potential for the future. Instead, it

was apparent that the only “intention” applied to the planting of the saplings was to attempt to

enlarge the area qualifying for farmland assessment.

Plaintiff provided no competent evidence as to the measurement of the areas devoted to

agricultural use. Plaintiff’s own testimony was that 1.75 acres of the aggregate 5.8 acres available

constituted wetlands or woodland areas upon which no agricultural activity took place. Although

plaintiff testified that the wetlands areas were drainage and could not be farmed, he still maintained

that they qualified as devoted to agricultural. In this regard, plaintiff referred briefly to a portion

of a publication apparently issued by the N.J. Department of Agriculture in consultation with the

New Jersey Division of Taxation and the New Jersey Forest Service entitled “New Jersey’s

Farmland Assessment Act, An Informational Guide on Basic Requirements” dated July 2006.

However, plaintiff supplied the court with a single page from this document, from which the court

was unable to assess the accuracy of plaintiff’s assertion that the wetlands and woodlands are areas

to be included within the determination of areas actively devoted to agricultural or horticultural

8
use. 3 Plaintiff provided no other competent evidence that the reference he provided supports his

position.

Moreover, it appears that plaintiff’s reference is incorrect, at best, if not intentionally

misleading. Regulations issued pursuant to the Act, provide in pertinent part,

(a) “Devoted to agricultural or horticultural use” means:
...
(2) Land that consists of . . . wetlands . . . that are supportive and
subordinate or reasonably required for the purpose of maintaining
agricultural or horticultural uses of a tract of land, which tract of
land has a minimum area of at least five acres devoted to agricultural
or horticultural uses other than to the production for sale of trees and
forest products. (emphasis added)

[N.J.A.C. 18:15-6.2.]

3
The page produced by plaintiff was a copy of a portion of two different pages, culled from the
entire document and intending to support plaintiff’s position. The reference provided to the court
states the following:

The following examples are offered to assist in understanding the
criteria to qualify land for preferential reduction in taxes under the
Farmland Assessment Act:

. . .

(2) the owner of a 100-acre vegetable farm is completing Form FA-
1 to be filed with the municipal tax assessor. 60 acres are planted to
corps, the land under the barns, greenhouses and the seasonal labor
housing is reported as cropland harvested. The 5 acres maintained
as grassland adjacent to a stream is reported as permanent pasture
(even though there are no livestock on the farm), and the 30 acres of
woodland/wetland is reported as appurtenant woodland. For the
land used in connection with the farmhouse the owner reports 1 acre.
The remaining 4 acres used as a commercial site to produce mulch
and soil products from materials brought onto the farm is reported
as land not devoted to an agricultural or horticultural use. The total
land area devoted to a horticultural use is 95 acres.

Because plaintiff failed to produce the entire document, the court is unable to determine whether
the 100-acre farm being considered there is comparable in any way to the subject property
consisting of less than six acres, of which nearly half consists of wetlands.

9
The plain language of the regulation indicates that wetlands are devoted to agricultural use

only when they are utilized in conjunction with another qualifying tract of at least five acres, “other

than the production of trees and forest products.” Even including the areas of the subject property

devoted to trees, the subject property is insufficient in size to permit the inclusion of the wetlands

as devoted to agricultural use.

By way of demonstration, plaintiff’s applications indicate the following information with

respect to the subject property:

Lot Total land, in Acres Actively devoted Land not actively
land, in acres devoted, in acres
23 .8 .4 .4
23.03 3.0 3.0 0
23.04 2.7 2.4 .3

TOTALS 6.5 5.8 .7

Plaintiff testified that the total wetlands area was approximately 1.75 acres, all of which he

included within the 5.8 acres deemed actively devoted to agricultural uses. Excluding the 1.75

acres of wetlands leaves at best a tract of slightly more than 4 acres. Applying N.J.A.C. 18:15-

6.2, the wetlands do not fall within the definition of land devoted to agricultural or horticultural

use. As a result, the subject property contains less than five acres devoted to agricultural use and

does not qualify.

The court also notes that although plaintiff appears to now claim that the chestnut trees on

the subject property should be included within the calculation of property devoted to agricultural

use, he provided no clear evidence as to the number of chestnut trees located on the property, their

actual location, or the area in which they were located. Moreover, nothing in the application

provided in this matter indicates that chestnuts were being relied upon for purposes of

qualification. See Hertz v. Bor. of Lincoln Park, 31 N.J. Tax 1, 12, 15 (Tax 2019) (it is incumbent

10
upon the taxpayer to notify the assessor of differences between the actual use of the property and

what is represented in the application). Nonetheless even when the chestnuts are included, the

property still falls short of the five-acre minimum if the wetlands are excluded.

The court finds that plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that five acres

of the subject property was actively devoted to agricultural or horticultural uses as required by

N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.2. Plaintiff’s testimony as to the calculations of this area was less than credible

and reliable. Further, plaintiff failed to provide competent evidence that the wetlands area

admittedly not devoted to agricultural or horticultural use was nonetheless entitled to be included

in that calculation.

For all of the foregoing reasons the denial of farmland assessment by the County Board is

affirmed. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Kathi F. Fiamingo

Kathi.F. Fiamingo, J.T.C.

11