On September 25, 2025, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued a sharp reminder of just how narrow the path is for third parties seeking adjudicatory hearings in environmental agency actions. In In re Request for Adjudicatory Hearing on Action of Tidelands Resource Council, No. A-2198-23, the court affirmed the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) denial of a third-party hearing request from Jersey Shore Beach and Boardwalk, Inc. (Jersey Shore). The ruling reinforces that unless a party can demonstrate a “particularized property interest” or statutory right, the NJDEP’s decision will be nearly impossible to overturn.

At issue was Jersey Shore’s objection to a Tidelands Resource Council (TRC) license granted to the Borough of Keansburg, which aims to redevelop Raritan Bay property previously used for public parking. Jersey Shore, which operates an amusement park and owns property nearby, argued that the loss of 500+ public parking spaces would directly and negatively impact its business. It filed a request for an adjudicatory hearing to challenge the license, but NJDEP denied the request.

The Appellate Division upheld the denial, stressing that Jersey Shore had failed to meet the steep burden of proving NJDEP’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Third parties are generally “not able to meet” this legal standard, which governs judicial review of agency decisions, absent clear legal error.

The court held that third-party hearing requests must be based on a right clearly found in statute or a constitutionally protected, particularized property interest. Here, the court found that Jersey Shore had neither. “Particularized property interests” are the critical legal threshold for third-party hearing requests. Without them, challenges to agency decisions will almost certainly fail.

Jersey Shore’s arguments on having a “particularized property interest” centered on the potential for private development, reduced access to the waterfront, and the public’s longstanding use of the property, failed to rise to the level required to mandate a hearing.

This decision is a stark reminder that third-party hearing requests face formidable barriers under New Jersey law. Unless the applicant can pinpoint a direct statutory right or a particularized (not general) protected interest, agencies like NJDEP have broad discretion to deny hearings, and courts are unlikely to intervene.

The ruling underscores a broader trend: environmental and land use decisions by agencies are often insulated from outside challenges unless the challenger can clear a high legal bar. The “arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable” standard is not only difficult to meet; it is designed to be deferential to agency expertise.

For more information, see “Still No Party: Permit Objectors Continue to Be Denied a Fair Process,” an article by Stuart Lieberman and Jordan Asch, which you can find by clicking here.