City of Newark/Newark Watershed Corp. v. Township of Jefferson (15 complaints)

TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY
TAX COURT MANAGEMENT OFFICE P.O. Box 972
(609) 815-2922 TRENTON, NJ 08625-0972
njcourts.gov – select Courts/Tax Court
Corrected Opinion Notice
Date: October 10, 2019
Philip Elberg, Esq.
Medvin & Elberg, Esqs.
Lawrence P. Cohen, Esq.
Lavery, Selvaggie, Abromitis & Cohen, P.C.
From: Lynne E. Allsop
Re: Newark v. Twp. of Jefferson
Docket number: 006324-2016, et al
The attached corrected opinion replaces the version released on October 3,
2019 The Opinion has been corrected as noted below:
Page 12, citation corrected to MSGW Real Estate Fund, LLC v. Borough of
Mountain Lakes, 18 N.J. Tax 364, 377 (Tax 1998)
Page 13, citation corrected to N.J.S.A. 54:51-6(a)
10/10/19 – corrected docket numbers to read 009752-2013 and 009753-2013

*
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF
THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS
Corrected 10/9/19-pgs. 12 and 13, citations
Corrected 10/10/19-docket number
CITY OF NEWARK, : TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY
: DOCKET NOS.: 006324-2016
Plaintiff, : 007392-2015
: 007399-2015
v. : 007940-2014
: 007937-2014
TOWNSHIP OF JEFFERSON, :
:
Defendant. :
:
CITY OF NEWARK, : TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY
c/o NWCDC, : DOCKET NOS.: 009752-2013
Plaintiff, : 009753-2013
:
v. :
:
TOWNSHIP OF JEFFERSON, :
:
Defendant. :
:
CITY OF NEWARK, : TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY
c/o NEWARK WATERSHED CORP., : DOCKET NOS.: 005970-2012
: 005969-2012
Plaintiff, :
:
v. :
:
TOWNSHIP OF JEFFERSON, :
:
Defendant. :
:
CITY OF NEWARK, : TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY
c/o NEWARK WATERSHED, : DOCKET NOS.: 005555-2011
: 008214-2010
Plaintiff, : 008215-2010
:
v. :
:
TOWNSHIP OF JEFFERSON, :
:
Defendant. :
Approved for Publication
In the New Jersey
Tax Court Reports

2
:
NEWARK WATERSHED CORP., : TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY
: DOCKET NOS.: 013604-2009
: 013606-2009
Plaintiff, : 013601-2009
:
v. :
:
TOWNSHIP of JEFFERSON, :
:
Defendant. :
:
Decided: October 3, 2019
Philip Elberg for plaintiff (Medvin & Elberg, attorneys).
Lawrence P. Cohen for defendant (Lavery, Selvaggi, Abromitis
& Cohen P.C., attorneys).
BIANCO, J.T.C.
This opinion shall serve as the court’s determination concerning the challenge by plaintiffs,
City of Newark and Newark Watershed Corp. (collectively “Newark”), to the 2009,1 2010, 2011,
2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 local property tax assessments of their watershed property
located within the defendant municipality, Township of Jefferson (“Jefferson”) at Holland
Mountain Road, County Line, Cozy Lake Road, Chamberlain Road, Berkshire Valley Road and
Route 23 South, Township of Jefferson, Morris County, New Jersey (“Subject Property”).2 For
1 For tax year 2009 Block 571, Lot 3; Block 575, Lot 6; and Block 513, Lot 1 were the only parcels
appealed. Block 571, Lot 3 and Block 575, Lot 6 did not carry through on subsequent appeals as
their assessments were changed in 2010. Block 513, Lot 1 continued to be appealed for the
subsequent years.
2 The Subject Property is designated by Jefferson as Block 575, Lot 6; Block 571, Lot 3; Block
513 Lot 1; Block 513, Lot 13; Block 555, Lot 8; Block 566, Lot 1; Block 567, Lot 29; and Block
569, Lot 1.

3
the reasons set forth herein, the court affirms the Subject Property’s local property tax assessment
for each of the tax years at issue.
BACKGROUND, FACTS, AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Subject Property is comprised of eight separate parcels3 owned by Newark within
Jefferson, consisting of approximately 4,036 acres of vacant land. Except for approximately 400
acres of open water, which comprises a portion of one of Newark’s reservoirs, the Subject Property
is heavily wooded with forests comprising 90-95% of the total area. In addition, the Subject
Property has other environmental constraints consisting of steep slopes, rock outcroppings and
floodplain areas.
Furthermore, the Subject Property is subject to restrictions pursuant to State law under the
provisions of N.J.S.A. 48:3-7 and N.J.S.A. 48:2-23.1. The provisions, as they affect the Subject
Property, are commonly known as the Watershed Moratorium Act, which prohibits the sale of land
used for the purpose or protection of a public water supply without specific authorization under
the Act. Additionally, the Subject Property is designated as a Highlands preserved area under the
New Jersey Highlands Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 13:20-1.
The Subject Property is further restricted by conservation easements which were granted
under two deeds by the City of Newark to the Department of Environmental Protection of the State
of New Jersey. The first deed is dated January 24, 2002, and the second, May 8, 2004. They were
conveyed reflecting a per acre value of $1,000 and $1,350 respectively.4 Aside from the
descriptions of the properties included in the deeds, the two deeds are identical in the restrictions
placed on the Subject Property. According to the terms of the deeds, their purpose was to “assure
3 Seven of which are actually in dispute with reference to these appeals.
4 The weighted average of the deeds is $1,172 per acre.

4
the [Subject] Property will be retained forever and predominantly in its natural forested condition
and to prevent any use of the [Subject] Property that will impair or interfere with the Conservation
Values of the [Subject] Property. . . .”
Furthermore, the deeds prohibit several actions, including subdivision and development,
mining, and construction of new roads. Additionally, the deeds prohibit the dumping or placing
of trash or waste, and bar activities that would be detrimental to drainage, flood control, water
conservation, erosion control or soil conservation. Finally, while the deeds prohibit the clear
cutting of timber stands, they allow the selective cutting of timber so long as it is done for certain
enumerated purposes under the supervision of a New Jersey State Forester with prior approval by
Newark. Furthermore, should the selective harvesting of timber be for any commercial purpose,
it must be done on a sustainable basis and in accordance with an approved Forest Management
Plan.
Jefferson conducted a town-wide revaluation in 2006. Then, as a result of decreases in
property values caused by the recession, Jefferson’s municipal Tax Assessor (“Assessor”), with
the permission of the Morris County Board of Taxation (“Board”), performed a reassessment of
all of the real property in Jefferson for the 2010 tax year.5 In 2009, prior to the reassessment, the
Subject Property was assessed at $3,500 per acre. Other than the three lots considered for the 2009
tax year, after the reassessment, the Subject Property was assessed at $5,000 per acre for tax years
2010 through 2012; and at $4,000 per acre for tax years 2013 through 2016. The actual
assessments for each lot are set forth as follows –
For Block 575, Lot 6, the total assessment of the Subject Property was:
5 According to Newark, “[e]very Jefferson land owner except Newark had his/her assessment
decreased. The reassessment program decreased the assessments in Jefferson by 13.5% and
decreased vacant land assessments by 15%. Newark’s lands were the exception.”

5
Tax year 2009
Land 628,200.00
Improvements 0.00
TOTAL 628,200.00
For Block 571, Lot 3, the total assessment of the Subject Property was:
Tax year 2009
Land 577,600.00
Improvements 0.00
TOTAL 577,600.00
For Block 513, Lot 1, the total assessment of the Subject Property was:
Tax year 2009
Land 312,200.00
Improvements 0.00
TOTAL 312,200.00
Tax year 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
Land 47,200.00
Improvements 0.00
TOTAL 47,200.00
Tax year 2014, 2015
Land 37,800.00
Improvements 0.00
TOTAL 37,800.00
For Block 513, Lot 13, the total assessment of the Subject Property was:
Tax year 2010, 2012, 2013
Land 827,800.00
Improvements 0.00
TOTAL 827,800.00
Tax year 2014, 2015, 2016
Land 662,200.00
Improvements 0.00
TOTAL 662,200.00
For Block 555, Lot 8, the total assessment of the Subject Property was:
Tax year 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
Land 1,301,700.00

6
Improvements 0.00
TOTAL 1,301,700.00
Tax year 2014, 2015, 2016
Land 1,041,400.00
Improvements 0.00
TOTAL 1,041,400.00
For Block 566, Lot 1, the total assessment of the Subject Property was:
Tax year 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
Land 11,861,800.00
Improvements 0.00
TOTAL 11,861,800.00
Tax year 2014, 2015, 2016
Land 9,489,400.00
Improvements 0.00
TOTAL 9,489,400.00
For Block 567, Lot 29, the total assessment of the Subject Property was:
Tax year 2010, 2012, 2013
Land 5,061,000.00
Improvements 0.00
TOTAL 5,061,000.00
Tax year 2014, 2015
Land 4,048,800.00
Improvements 0.00
TOTAL 4,048,800.00
Tax year 2016
Land 4,048,400.00
Improvements 0.00
TOTAL 4,048,400.00
For Block 569, Lot 1, the total assessment of the Subject Property was:
Tax year 2010, 2012, 2013
Land 974,400.00
Improvements 0.00
TOTAL 974,400.00
Tax year 2014, 2015, 2016
Land 779,500.00

7
Improvements 0.00
TOTAL 779,500.00
At trial,6 both parties utilized the services of a licensed real estate appraiser to render an
opinion of value for the Subject Property for each year at issue. Newark’s appraiser additionally
worked in conjunction with a certified forester to render his opinion of value.7 The parties
stipulated that each licensed real estate appraiser was qualified to testify as an expert,8 and each
expert appraiser prepared a written report that was entered into evidence without objection.
Both parties agreed that the key issue in this matter was the highest and best use
determination of the Subject Property. Newark’s expert appraiser concluded that the highest and
best use was for “woodland management,” and sale of the Subject Property for the purpose of
harvesting timber for sale. The expert appraiser looked to the Farmland Assessment program, the
sales of deed-restricted farmland, and the annual reports of the State Farmland Evaluation
Advisory Committee for assistance in determining what the Subject Property could be sold for on
October 1 of each of the pre-tax years.
6 During trial, Newark attempted to bring settlement negotiations into the record claiming that the
matter had been settled. The court allowed limited testimony for the sole purpose of determining
whether a settlement had in fact been reached and was enforceable. The court is satisfied that there
was no settlement between the parties and the testimony was not considered in rendering this
opinion.
7 Newark’s expert appraiser incorporated a report prepared by the certified forester when rendering
his opinion of value for the Subject Property. The certified forester offered testimony as an expert,
without objection, as to his conclusions expressed in his report that were utilized by Newark’s
expert appraiser.
8 Newark’s expert appraiser testified that he had no prior experience appraising agricultural
properties or in using agricultural properties as comparable sales. Jefferson’s expert appraiser
developed a specialty in appraising vacant land for open space preservation, acquisitions, and for
a combination of other purposes. He is also certified as a Green Acres appraiser as well as an
appraiser for the State Agriculture Development Committee.

8
Jefferson’s sole witness, its expert real estate appraiser, considered the encumbrances on
the Subject Property, and concluded that its highest and best use would be for active/passive
recreation, determining the most probable buyer to be a land preservation group or governmental
agency.
Both expert appraisers determined that the comparable sales approach was the most
appropriate method of valuation in these matters.9
Jefferson’s expert appraiser determined varying values for each lot based upon a per acre
valuation that varied from $4,500 to $6,500 per acre. According to him, the Subject Property’s true
value on the relevant valuation dates was:
For Block 575, Lot 6;
Amount Tax Year Valuation Date
$101,500.00 2009 October 1, 2008
For Block 571, Lot 3;
Amount Tax Year Valuation Date
$22,000.00 2009 October 1, 2008
For Block 513, Lot 1;
Amount Tax Year Valuation Date
$52,000.00 2009 October 1, 2008
$52,000.00 2010 October 1, 2009
9 Newark’s expert appraiser also used the revised income approach as a gauge to determine the
validity of the value he concluded using the comparable sales approach. With respect to the
income approach, however, Newark’s expert appraiser recognized during his direct and redirect
testimony that his income approach was somewhat speculative. Notwithstanding, he believed it
was a reasonable evaluation of the potential forestry income and was capitalized in a manner
consistent with the prior decisions of this court.

9
$54,000.00 2011 October 1, 2010
$54,000.00 2012 October 1, 2011
$56,600.00 2013 October 1, 2012
$61,400.00 2014 October 1, 2013
$66,000.00 2015 October 1, 2014
$71,000.00 2016 October 1, 2015
For Block 513, Lot 13;
Amount Tax Year Valuation Date
$830,000.00 2010 October 1, 2009
$870,000.00 2011 October 1, 2010
$910,000.00 2012 October 1, 2011
$950,000.00 2013 October 1, 2012
$990,000.00 2014 October 1, 2013
$1,035,000.00 2015 October 1, 2014
$1,075,000.00 2016 October 1, 2015
For Block 555, Lot 8;
Amount Tax Year Valuation Date
$1,300,000.00 2010 October 1, 2009
$1,365,000.00 2011 October 1, 2010
$1,430,000.00 2012 October 1, 2011
$1,500,000.00 2013 October 1, 2012
$1,560,000.00 2014 October 1, 2013
$1,630,000.00 2015 October 1, 2014

10
$1,700,000.00 2016 October 1, 2015
For Block 566, Lot 1;
Amount Tax Year Valuation Date
$10,675,000.00 2010 October 1, 2009
$10,675,000.00 2011 October 1, 2010
$11,270,000.00 2012 October 1, 2011
$11,270,000.00 2013 October 1, 2012
$11,860,000.00 2014 October 1, 2013
$12,450,000.00 2015 October 1, 2014
$13,050,000.00 2016 October 1, 2015
For Block 567, Lot 29;
Amount Tax Year Valuation Date
$4,550,000.00 2010 October 1, 2009
$4,550,000.00 2011 October 1, 2010
$4,800,000.00 2012 October 1, 2011
$4,800,000.00 2013 October 1, 2012
$5,060,000.00 2014 October 1, 2013
$5,300,000.00 2015 October 1, 2014
$5,570,000.00 2016 October 1, 2015
For Block 569, Lot 1;
Amount Tax Year Valuation Date
$975,000.00 2010 October 1, 2009
$1,025,000.00 2011 October 1, 2010

11
$1,070,000.00 2012 October 1, 2011
$1,120,000.00 2013 October 1, 2012
$1,170,000.00 2014 October 1, 2013
$1,220,000.00 2015 October 1, 2014
$1,265,000.00 2016 October 1, 2015
If accepted by the court, the conclusions of value reached by Jefferson’s expert appraiser
would result in a reduction in the assessments for the parcels of the Subject Property under appeal
for the 2009 tax year, sustaining the assessments on the Subject Property for tax years 2010, 2011,
2012, and 2013, and increasing the assessments on the Subject Property for tax years 2014, 2015
and 2016.10
In contrast, Newark produced four witnesses. One witness was a Director of the Newark
Watershed Corporation for a number of years, who provided testimony as to some history,
characteristics, and certain aspects of the Subject Property, and also provided certain information
to Newark’s expert appraiser. The Assessor testified as to the assessment of the Subject Property.
The aforementioned certified Forester testified as an expert and consulted with Newark’s expert
appraiser in the preparation of his report. Newark’s expert appraiser was its primary witness.
Newark’s expert appraiser concluded that the Subject Property’s true value on all relevant
valuation dates was $1,500.00 per acre, which would result in reductions in the tax assessments
for all years at issue. 11
10 When applying the Chapter 123 ratio.
11 Assigning $1,500 per acre, Newark’s appraisal expert valued the entire Subject Property at
$6,054,000 for all the disputed tax years. He made no differential adjustment during any of the
seven years under appeal for time or market conditions and concluded that there was no variation
in the values of the properties during the years under appeal.

12
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Presumption of Validity
If a motion for involuntary dismissal is not made by the defendant at the conclusion of the
plaintiff’s proofs, then the court must first determine whether the presumption of validity has been
overcome before proceeding to decide the appeal based on weighing and analyzing the evidence.
See MSGW Real Estate Fund, LLC v. Borough of Mountain Lakes, 18 N.J. Tax 364, 377 (Tax
1998).
The presumption attaches to the quantum of the tax assessment. . . .
Based on this presumption, the appealing taxpayer has the burden of
proving that the assessment is erroneous. . . . The presumption in
favor of the taxing authority can be rebutted only by cogent
evidence, . . . a proposition that has been long settled, . . . The
strength of the presumption is exemplified by the nature of the
evidence that is required to overcome it. That evidence must be
definite, positive and certain in quality and quantity to overcome the
presumption.
[Pantasote Co. v. City of Passaic, 100 N.J. 408, 413 (1985) (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted).]
Original assessments fixed by a municipal assessor are entitled to a presumption of validity
based upon the view that it is presumed that, in tax matters, “governmental authority has been
exercised correctly and in accordance with law.” Ibid. (citation omitted). The presumption
remains “in place even if the municipality utilized a flawed valuation methodology, so long as the
quantum of the assessment is not so far removed from the true value of the property or the method
of assessment itself is so patently defective as to justify removal of the presumption of validity.”
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Twp. of Bernards, 111 N.J. 507, 517 (1988) (citation
omitted).

13
The Tax Court may make an independent finding of value “[o]nly if it finds that the
presumption has been overcome by cogent evidence, or there are sufficient collateral grounds,
such as an assessment totally unrelated to true value or one derived from a patently arbitrary and
capricious assessment methodology.” Pantasote Co., 100 N.J. at 417. If the court finds that “the
plaintiff has failed to overcome the presumption, and the defendant has not asserted a counterclaim
or presented evidence which, on its face, could warrant relief under N.J.S.A. 54:51A-6(a), then the
court should enter judgment affirming the assessment.” MSGW Real Estate Fund, LLC, 18 N.J.
Tax at 378-79.
In order to overcome the presumption, the plaintiff’s evidence “must be based on sound
theory and objective data, rather than on mere wishful thinking.” Id. at 376 (internal quotation
marks omitted). Also, the evidence “must be sufficient to determine the value of the property
under appeal, thereby establishing the existence of a debatable question as to the correctness of the
assessment.” W. Colonial Enters., LLC v. City of E. Orange, 20 N.J. Tax 576, 579 (Tax 2003)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted), aff’d, 21 N.J. Tax 590 (App. Div. 2004).
At the close of Newark’s proofs, Jefferson moved to dismiss the complaints for failure to
sustain the burden of proof. The court denied the motion, finding that the testimony and report of
Newark’s expert appraiser, if taken as true, raises a debatable question as to the correctness of the
assessments in each tax year in issue.
Notwithstanding, the court’s ruling on overcoming the presumption of validity does not
equate to a finding by the court that the assessments of the various parcels of the Subject Property
are erroneous. Once the presumption has been overcome, “[t]he court must then turn to a
consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of both parties and conclude the matter based on
a fair preponderance of the evidence.” Ford Motor Co. v. Twp. of Edison, 127 N.J. 290, 312

14
(1992) (citation and quotation omitted), aff’g, 10 N.J. Tax 153 (Tax 1988). “[A]lthough there may
have been enough evidence to overcome the presumption of correctness at the close of plaintiff’s
case-in-chief, the burden of proof remain[s] on the taxpayer throughout the entire case . . . to
demonstrate that the judgment under review was incorrect.” Id. at 314-15 (citation omitted).
Accordingly, the court will evaluate and weigh the evidence presented to determine if
Newark has met the requisite burden of proof to justify any modification to the tax assessments of
the Subject Property.
B. Highest and Best Use
The court must determine the highest and best use of the property in order to compute the
true value of the property. “Any parcel of land should be examined for all possible uses and that
use which will yield the highest return should be selected.” Inmar Assocs., Inc. v. Twp. of Edison,
2 N.J. Tax 59, 64 (Tax 1980) (citation omitted). “Accordingly, the first step in the valuation
process is the determination of the highest and best use for the subject property.” American
Cyanamid Co. v. Twp. of Wayne, 17 N.J. Tax 542, 550 (Tax 1998), aff’d, 19 N.J. Tax 46 (App.
Div. 2000). “The concept of highest and best use is not only fundamental to valuation but is a
crucial determination of market value. This is why it is the first and most important step in the
valuation process.” Ford Motor Co., 10 N.J. Tax at 161.
In Clemente v. Twp. of South Hackensack , the court found that:
The definition of highest and best use contained in The Appraisal of
Real Estate, a text frequently used by this court as a source of basic
appraisal principles, has remained relatively constant for all of the
years under appeal. Highest and best use is defined as . . . “[t]he
reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved
property that is physically possible, appropriately supported, and
financially feasible and that results in the highest value.” Appraisal
Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 22 (13th ed. 2008).

15
The highest and best use analysis requires sequential consideration
of the following four criteria, determining whether the use of the
subject property is: 1) legally permissible; 2) physically possible; 3)
financially feasible; and 4) maximally productive. . . . Implicit in
this analysis is the assumption that the proposed use is market-
driven; in other words, that it is determined in a value-in-exchange
context and that there is a market for such use. . . . A highest and
best use determination is not based on value-in-use because the
determination is a function of property use and not a function of a
particular owner’s use or subjective judgment as to how a property
should be used. . . . The highest and best use of an improved property
is the use that maximizes an investment property's value, consistent
with the rate of return and associated risk. . . . Further, the actual use
is a strong consideration in the analysis. . . .
Highest and best use is not determined through subjective analysis
by the property owner. . . . The proper determination of highest and
best use requires a comprehensive market analysis to ascertain the
supply and demand characteristics of alternative uses. . . .
Additionally, the proposed use must not be remote, speculative, or
conjectural. . . . If a party seeks to demonstrate that a property’s
highest and best use is other than its current use, it is incumbent upon
that party to establish that proposition by a fair preponderance of the
evidence. . . . Property should be assessed in the condition in which
it is utilized and the burden is on the person claiming otherwise to
establish differently. . . .
Highest and best use often comprises more than one use for a parcel
of land or an improved property. . . . One parcel of land may serve
many functions. . . . A single building can have multiple uses as well.
. . . The appraiser is guided: if the highest and best use of a property
is for more than one use on the same parcel or in the same building,
the appraiser must estimate the contributory value of each use. . . .
The highest and best use conclusion should specify the optimal use
(or uses), when the property will be put to this use or achieve
stabilized occupancy, and who would be the most likely purchaser
or user of the property.
[27 N.J. Tax 255, 267-269 (Tax 2013), aff’d o.b., 28 N.J. Tax 337
(App. Div. 2015) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).]
Newark’s expert appraiser determined that the residual rights of the use of the Subject
Property, after the conservation easements, consisted of three potential uses: (1) conservation; (2)

16
timbering; and (3) recreation.12 He concluded that the highest and best use of the Subject Property
is for woodland management (timbering operations).13 The expert appraiser concluded in his
report that:
After considering all potential alternatives, I determined woodland
management represented the most viable economic use for parcels
no. 1-6 & 8 as the demand for solid wood products and paper is
expected to continue looking forward into the foreseeable future.
The most likely buyers of standing timber ready for harvest include
loggers, saw or veneer mill timber buyers and/or brokers of logs or
standing timber.
In other words, Newark’s expert appraiser determined that the highest and best use of the
Subject Property was for the purpose of harvesting the property for wood and selling it to loggers,
sawmills, timber buyers, and the like. In determining this highest and best use, he determined that
such buyers would buy the actual fee of the Subject Property rather than buying timber or
lumbering rights. He concluded that Newark could obtain a financial return that exceeded its
expenses by engaging in the kind of forestry management program contemplated by the sale of its
development rights.14
The expert appraiser testified he then searched the State of New Jersey’s records known
as “MOD-IVs” to see if there were any sales of land that sold for timbering purposes in the State
12 Newark’s expert appraiser did not value the Subject Property with conservation as the highest
and best use.
13 Even though Newark hired a certified forester to assist the real estate expert appraiser, the expert
appraiser stated that he reached the determination that timbering was the highest and best use prior
to talking to the forester.
14 Newark’s witness, a certified forester, estimated that the forests that make up most of the
Subject Property would produce a net income of $105 per acre per year or $1050 per acre over a
ten-year period.

17
of New Jersey. He could not find one sale in the State of New Jersey of land that sold for timbering
purposes and was unaware of any other appraisals in the State of New Jersey that determined the
highest use of any property to be timbering. Moreover, he could not provide any market study or
estimate of demand of land that sold for timbering purposes in the State of New Jersey.
Newark’s fact witness, a licensed landscape architect who was associated as a Director of
the Newark Watershed Corporation for a number of years and had a historical background
concerning the property, consulted with Newark’s expert appraiser in preparation of the appraisal
report. He testified that he gave some historic information to Newark’s expert appraiser
concerning the uses of the Subject Property. He stated that, based upon his general knowledge,
forestry in the State of New Jersey was pretty much a dead industry.
Similarly, Jefferson’s expert appraiser offered testimony that in twenty-four years as an
appraiser, he has never seen a sale in the State of New Jersey where the property was purchased
solely for timber value. Jefferson’s expert appraiser further expressed that in reaching a conclusion
regarding the highest and best use of a property, there must be a market for that particular use and
when there are no sales in the market, he is unable to conclude that there is any demand.
“In order to constitute a particular use as the property’s highest and best use, the selected
use in a value in exchange context must be a probable use for which there must be a demand in the
relevant market.” WCI-Westinghouse v. Twp. of Edison , 7 N.J. Tax 610, 616 (Tax 1985), aff’d,
9 N.J. Tax 86 (App. Div. 1986). “It is not the mere opinion of appraisers as to highest and best
use that is important, but rather the activities of buyers and sellers in the market place.” Linwood
Props., Inc. v. Borough of Fort Lee, 7 N.J. Tax 320, 327 (Tax 1985). “[A] proper highest and best
use analysis requires a comprehensive market analysis to ascertain the supply and demand
characteristics of alternative uses.” Clemente, 27 N.J. Tax at 272. “The determination results from

18
the appraiser’s judgment and analytical skill, i.e., that the use determined from analysis represents
an opinion, not a fact to be found.” Linwood Props., Inc., 7 N.J. Tax at 327. “[A]n expert’s opinion
is only as good as the data upon which the expert relied.” Greenblatt v. City of Englewood , 26
N.J. Tax 41, 54-55 (Tax 2010).
The court cannot accept the conclusions and opinions of Newark’s expert appraiser without
any persuasive explanation and supporting market data that establish a clear demand for timberland
in New Jersey. The highest and best use of a property “is shaped by the competitive forces within
the market where the property is located. Therefore, the analysis and interpretation of highest and
best use is an economic study of market forces focused on the subject property.” Entenmann’s
Inc. v. Borough of Totowa, 18 N.J. Tax 540, 545 (Tax 2000) (quoting Appraisal Institute, The
Appraisal of Real Estate 298 (11th ed. 1996)). In the court’s view, once Newark’s expert appraiser
determined that there were no sales of land in the State of New Jersey for the purposes of timbering,
he should have eliminated the timbering as a potential highest and best use for the Subject Property
and considered other uses for which there was a demand in the marketplace. Accordingly, the
court finds the highest and best use conclusions and opinions of value derived therefrom by
Newark’s expert appraiser in this regard neither reliable nor credible.
C. Newark’s Expert Appraiser’s Comparable Sales Approach
Newark’s expert appraiser concluded that the best method for determining the value of the
Subject Property was the sales comparison approach. The sales comparison approach renders
market value “by comparing properties similar to the subject property that have recently sold, are
listed for sale, or are under contract.” Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 377 (14th
ed. 2013).

19
However, the sales comparison approach conducted by Newark’s expert appraiser is
seriously flawed given that it was predicated on his conclusion of the highest and best use of the
Subject Property, which this court found to be without merit. The Appraisal of Real Estate
cautions:
To determine highest and best use, the appraiser must analyze data,
not just compile it. . . . It is critical that a careful highest and best use
analysis precede the application of the approaches to value.
Otherwise, there is a high likelihood that serious errors will be made
in the valuation process.
[Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 277 (13th ed.
2008).]
Because Newark’s expert appraiser concluded a highest and best use of the Subject
Property for timbering, but was unable to find any sale of property in New Jersey for timbering,
he decided to use as comparable sales, twenty properties that were restricted for agricultural
purposes (Farmland Assessment). Through cross-examination, Newark’s expert appraiser
revealed that his twenty sales of restricted agricultural properties only produced crops.15 None of
the alleged comparable properties produced timber. Still, Newark’s expert appraiser concluded
that the sales of these properties were sufficiently similar to provide a useful comparison to the
sale of the Subject Property for his determination that the highest and best use was for timber
value.16
15 Newark’s expert appraiser testified that he did not know what type of crops were planted on
any of the twenty comparable properties.
16 Newark’s expert appraiser admitted that a type of crop growing on a farm would affect the price
of the sale of the farm. Yet, he stated that a type of crop growing on the comparable farms did not
make a difference in determining the value of the Subject Property. The court disagrees. Newark’s
expert appraiser also testified that he did not make a determination that any of the buyers of these
farmlands would have also bought timber land like the Subject Property.

20
“Potentially comparable properties that do not have the same highest and best use are
usually eliminated from further analysis.” The Appraisal of Real Estate, at 139 (13th ed. 2008).
Under the sales comparison approach, property selection cannot be undertaken in a vacuum
without regard to a property’s highest and best use. “An appraiser must recognize the difference
between the highest and best use of a comparable and the subject, and determine if the sale is an
appropriate comparable.” Clemente, 27 N.J. Tax at 273. A “judge may reject a property as a
comparable solely because it has a different highest and best use.” City of Atlantic City v.
Boardwalk Regency Corp., 19 N.J. Tax 164, 189 (App. Div. 2000). In Newport Center v. City of
Jersey City, 17 N.J. Tax 405, 408 (Tax 1998), the court excluded two comparable sales from
evidence since they were “so dissimilar to [the] highest and best use” for the subject property “as
to render those sales of no assistance to the court in valuing the [subject property].”
The court gives little weight to the twenty allegedly comparable farmland assessed
properties chosen by Newark’s expert appraiser, as they were selected in the absence of a proper
highest and best use analysis. In the court’s view, Newark’s expert appraiser’s entire sales
approach is inapplicable as a matter of law and of little use in attempting to determine the true or
fair market value of the Subject Property as of the valuation dates involved herein.
D. Additional Issues with Newark’s Expert Appraiser’s Sales Comparison Approach
Out of the twenty allegedly comparable farmlands offered by Newark’s expert appraiser,
only three were located in North Jersey. All of the other alleged comparable farmlands were
located in Southern New Jersey counties, including Salem, Gloucester, Cumberland, Burlington,
Atlantic and Ocean. Newark’s expert appraiser used the State Farmland Evaluation Advisory
Committee Report to make location adjustments between the Subject Property and his proposed

21
comparable sales. 17 He examined the relative differences in productivity values between Morris
County and the counties in which his alleged comparables were located. He, however, failed to
explain why the productivity values between counties should be the sole factor in determining the
location adjustments.18 He also failed to attribute location adjustments based upon the physical
location of any of the properties.
Newark’s expert appraiser used the information, sales of farmland, located on the State
Agriculture Development Committee’s website, for his report, but he failed to verify those
comparable sales. He testified that he did not verify or discuss any information about any of the
specific sales with any of the parties involved in the transactions. In VBV Realty, LLC v. Twp.
of Scotch Plains., 29 N.J. Tax 548 (Tax 2017), the court concluded that:
An appraiser must verify the integrity of the information by
confirming that the data obtained is factually accurate and that the
transactions reflect arm's-length market considerations. . . . During
the data verification process an appraiser must elicit additional
information about the property such as buyer motivation, economic
characteristics, [and] value component allocations . . . to ensure that
comparisons are credible. . . . The process demands an appraiser
verify information with a party to the transaction to ensure its
accuracy and gain insight into the motivation behind each
transaction. . . . An appraiser must endeavor to confirm statements
of fact with the principals to the transaction . . . or with brokers,
closing agents, or lenders involved.
[Id. at 561 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).]
17 His location adjustments ranged from zero to twenty percent.
18 Farmland productivity value could be highly affected by the types of soils. Newark’s expert
appraiser testified that soil is a very important factor in determining the value of farmland
properties. While the State Agriculture Development Committee described the soils of the twenty
proposed comparable farmlands as “prime,” “statewide,” and “unique,” Newark’s expert appraiser
considered all twenty comparable farmlands to be “prime” and the Subject Property to be “not
prime.” In fact, he acknowledged during his testimony that he did not understand what was meant
by “statewide” and “unique.” The only adjustment for differing productivity that Newark’s expert
appraiser made was a straight ten-percent between all the sales and the Subject Property.

22
In VBV Realty, LLC, “plaintiff’s appraiser relied exclusively on information he gathered
from the New Jersey Association of County Tax Boards . . . website, Garden State Multiple Listing
Service . . . , public tax records, Vitalgov.net, Costar, and discussions he had with municipal tax
assessors.” Id. at 562. He had not consulted with the parties who possessed first-hand knowledge
of the sale transactions. Ibid. Therefore, the court determined that the plaintiff’s appraiser “failed
to abide by the fundamental tenets of the sales comparison approach and the requirements
mandated by our Legislature under N.J.S.A. 2A:83-1,” id. at 564, and gave little weight to the
alleged comparable sales.
Applying the analyses in VBV Realty, LLC to the facts in the present matter, this court
finds that Newark’s expert appraiser failed to perform any verification of his comparable sales.
Therefore, even if the court were to accept the Newark’s highest and best use, because Newark’s
expert appraiser failed to verify his comparable sales, the court accords little weight to his sales
comparison approach and the value conclusions therefrom.
E. Jefferson’s Expert Appraiser’s Valuation
Considering that the Subject Property is encumbered by the conservation easements,
Jefferson’s expert appraiser concluded that the highest and best use of the Subject Property is for
active and passive recreation. He stated that there is currently adequate demand for active and
passive recreation uses in the area where the Subject Property is located. He concluded that there
would not be any reasonably probable use of the site that would generate a higher residual land
value than active and passive recreational use due to the easements. In his opinion, the most
probable buyer is a land preservation group or governmental agency.
Jefferson’s expert appraiser employed the sales comparison approach to value the Subject
Property. He selected sixteen properties as comparable sales where, with the exception of sale

23
number 10, the purchaser had the same motivation to utilize the land for active and passive
recreational purposes and to preserve the property in perpetuity, regardless of whether the property
had some limited development potential.19
Even if the court accepts Jefferson’s expert appraiser’s opinion of highest and best use as
credible, given the significant differences between the Subject Property and the comparable
properties, the court concludes that the conclusion of value of the Subject Property rendered by
Jefferson’s expert appraiser is not persuasive. In the court’s view, the presence of a permanent
conservation easement has greater impact than various restrictions that exist on the comparable
properties.20
Comparable Properties Selected by the Jefferson’s Expert Appraiser
Grantor / Grantee Zone Restrictions/Characteristics
Mt. Olive Baptist Church /
Mt. Olive Township Residential
Soil characteristics range from
moderate to severe with regard to
development potential; the site is not
serviced by public sewer or public
water; the municipality purchased the
property with intention to deed
restrict the property.
New Jersey Water Company,
Inc. / Borough of Chatham Manufacturing
The site contains freshwater wetlands
and is located within the flood zone;
limited development potential due to
the physical constraints; the
municipality purchased the property
for preservation purposes.
Robert F. Giancaterino /
NJDEP Industrial
Un-developable, due to various
physical constraints including steep
slopes and limited access; the
majority of the site is wooded,
containing steep slopes and various
19 Jefferson’s expert appraiser testified that none of his sixteen comparable sales were purchased
to prevent development potential. According to his report, some of the sales were executed to
deed restrict the property.
20 Jefferson’s expert appraiser concluded that the easements on the Subject Property trump all of
the other restrictions because they are more restrictive in what can or cannot be done with the
Subject Property.

24
rock outcrops; the property was
encumbered with freshwater
wetlands and located within a flood
plain; the NJDEP purchased this site
for active and passive recreational
purposes.
Robert J. Hilbert /
Christopher & Kellie Hinds Conservation The site is encompassed by areas of
wetlands.
Patricia Y.H., Carolyn Y.
Schaal, and David Young IV
/ Morris County Park
Commission
Residential
The properties were purchased for
active and passive recreation; the
properties had no development
potential due to limited access, steep
slopes and being located in the
Highlands Preservation Area.
Christopher & Kellie Hinds /
United States of America Conservation The site is encompassed by areas of
wetlands.
Paulist Fathers, Inc. / NJDEP
Rural Conservation
District / Rural
Residential (Sparta)
The property is located in the
Highlands Preservation Area;
constrained by wetlands, steep
slopes, a pond, and Category-1
waters.
Dayton G. Geary / County of
Morris for Park Purposes Residential
The property contains varying
topography including steep slopes
and is mostly wooded; the property is
located in the Highlands Preservation
Area and was purchased for active
and passive recreational use.
Baker Residential Limited
Partnership / The Trust for
Public Land
Planned Adult
Residential
Community
The property contains varying
topography including steep slopes
and areas of potential freshwater
wetlands; the property was purchased
for active and passive recreational
purposes; the purchaser intended on
deed restricting the property for
active and passive recreation.
Tri-Farms, Inc. / John &
Deborah Van Vugt Residential
The property was subject to a
farmland preservation easement on
560 acres of the property with two,
three-acre exception areas for the
purposes in conjunction with existing
agricultural uses.
The Trust for Public Land /
Township of Jefferson
Planned Adult
Residential
Community
The property is located in the
Highlands Preservation Area and was
purchased for active and passive
recreational use.

25
Lynne R. Timothy / The
Land Conservancy of New
Jersey
Residential
The property contains areas of
varying to steep topography which
restricts the development potential of
the site in addition to the presence of
freshwater wetlands and/or wetland
buffers in the southwestern corner of
the property; the property is located
within the Highlands Preservation
Area.
Marjorie Jantzen / County of
Morris Residential
The property contains varying
topography including steep slopes
and is mostly wooded; the property is
located in the Highlands Preservation
Area and was purchased for active
and passive recreational use.
James Dock, Trustee /
County of Morris Residential
The property was purchased for
active and passive recreation as there
was no development potential due to
limited access, steep slopes and being
located in the Highlands Preservation
Area.
Mary Goedeke / County of
Morris Residential
The property contains varying
topography including steep slopes
and is mostly wooded; the property is
located in the Highlands Preservation
Area and was purchased for active
and passive recreational use.
King Enterprises / County of
Morris Residential
The property contains varying
topography including steep slopes
and is mostly wooded; the property is
located in the Highlands Preservation
Area and was purchased for active
and passive recreational use.
Jefferson’s expert appraiser submits that because comparable properties have no
development potential like the Subject Property, an adjustment to their sale prices is not required.
The court finds, however, that given the differences in the magnitude of restrictions between the
easements of the Subject Property and the various restrictions on the comparable properties, there
should have been additional adjustments in determining the value of the Subject Property.
“[Comparable properties] need not match exactly as do the parts of a jig-saw puzzle, nor is it

26
necessary to compare for value each and every square rod or acre in this vast tract,” City of Newark
v. Twp. of Vernon., 1 N.J. Tax 90, 95 (Tax 1980) (citation and quotation omitted), aff’d, 179 N.J.
Super. 332 (App. Div. 1981), however, “property should be valued in the actual condition in which
the owner holds it.” Hackensack Water Co. v. Borough of Old Tappan, 77 N.J. 208, 213-14 (1978).
See, also, City of Newark, 1 N.J. Tax at 100 (“Where vacant land is zoned for residential or
commercial or industrial use, it may be successfully argued that the differences in the permitted
uses have no significant effect on value. That argument cannot be made here where the critical
issue deals not with the different type of permitted uses but with use and nonuse”). 21
Unlike the Subject property, some of the comparable properties selected by the Jefferson’s
expert appraiser have, at minimum, limited development potential. There is no logical reason that
a seller would receive an equal dollar amount for a property that has greater development potential
and more possible uses. Accordingly, the court finds that Jefferson’s expert appraiser’s valuation
is unreliable.
[A] court may accept an expert’s opinion, may reject an expert’s
opinion in total, or may accept part of an expert’s opinion and reject
other parts of it. The Judiciary and fact-finding bodies are not bound
by the opinions of expert witnesses. The weight to be given to an
expert’s opinion depends especially upon the facts and reasoning
which are offered as the foundation of his opinion. The weight and
value of expert testimony are for the trier of the facts. An expert’s
opinion may be adopted in whole or in part or completely rejected.
[City of Atlantic City v. Ginnetti, 17 N.J. Tax 354, 361-62 (Tax
1998) (citations omitted), affd, 18 N.J. Tax 672 (App. Div. 2000).]
21 The court also finds that one of the adjustments for differences between the comparable
properties and the Subject Property, i.e. upward adjustment for the comparable properties for
having a road frontage, is erroneous. See City of Newark, 1 N.J. Tax at 99 (“While [road frontage
may increase value] to lands zoned for commercial-industrial-residential use, I fail to find its
applicability to lands zoned for conservation. More logical in such cases is the contrary argument
because, after all, is it not the more remote-type property that is of the greatest interest to
conservationists?”).

27
CONCLUSION
The court rejects the value opinions of both expert appraisers. Newark’s expert appraiser’s
opinion of highest and best use was not credible and his valuation methodologies were flawed.
While Newark may have overcome the presumption of the correctness of the assessments, it failed
to persuade the court to accept its proofs. “[T]he burden of proof remain[s] on the taxpayer
throughout the entire case, and in the face of defendant's proofs to demonstrate that the judgment
under review [is] incorrect.” Ford Motor Co., 127 N.J. at 314-15. Likewise, Jefferson’s expert
appraiser’s valuation conclusion was not credible.
“When the court rejects the ultimate conclusions as to true value proffered by the parties’
experts, it should make an independent determination of true value on the basis of those portions
of the experts’ testimony which the court finds credible.” Pennwalt Corp. v. Twp. of Holmdel, 4
N.J. Tax 51, 55-56 (Tax 1982) (emphasis added). For the reasons set forth above, there is
insufficient credible evidence for the court to make an independent determination of true value.
Consequently the assessments are affirmed. Final judgments shall be issued consistent with this
opinion.