NELF filed an amicus brief in its own name in this case in response to a request from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. At issue is the ability of owners of property subject to agricultural preservation restrictions ("APRs"), pursuant to M.G.L. c. 132A, §§ 11A-11D, to build or renovate residences on their property. The Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture ("DFA") is charged with the administration of APRs which are generally owned by the state. Each APR is individually negotiated, but must comply with M.G.L. c. 184, § 31, which permits APR restricted property owners to build "dwellings used for family living" by the property owner's immediate family and employees. DFA has developed a written policy—never formally adopted as a regulation—to discourage residences that would significantly increase the value of the property. DFA's theory was that expensive homes would encourage wealthy individuals to use APR land for "hobby farms" or country estates instead of working farms. To obtain a permit for construction of a residence, the owner must give DFA an option to purchase the property at "agricultural value," as opposed to "the fair market value of such land restricted for agricultural purposes," the term used in M.G.L. c. 132A, § 11A. DFA refers to the difference between the "agricultural value" and the APR restricted value as "estate value." By requiring an option to purchase at "agricultural value," DFA seeks to appropriate the "estate value" to the state. The Land Court found that the DFA policy was inconsistent with the language of the APR and exceeded DFA's regulatory authority. DFA appealed and the Supreme Judicial Court took direct appellate review. NELF's brief contended that DFA's policy is an unconstitutional exaction under Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), which require that development restrictions have a nexus with a legitimate public purpose, and be roughly proportional in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development. In this case the restriction, an option to purchase at "agricultural value," has no real nexus to the stated public purpose, which is preservation of the land in agricultural use. The Supreme Judicial Court issued a decision in December of 2001 and ruled that the DFA did not have absolute approval rights which would support its policy of requiring a low value option to be granted to the state. The Court said the DFA must consider proposed dwellings on a case by case basis to determine whether they would, in fact, discourage the agricultural use of the land.