dispute that the income requirements for farmland assessment were met by the taxpayers. Accordingly, I conclude that plaintiffs’ eight acres of pasture land qualify for farmland assessment. The two acres of land on Block 39.01, Lot 14.01 that plaintiffs used for a riding rink, a dressage area, and a six-stall barn also qualify for farmland assessment. For the tax year and pre-tax years in issue, there is no dispute that plaintiffs boarded and trained horses on this part of the property in return for fees paid by the owners of those horses. Prior to the amendment of N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.3 in December 1995, the boarding, rehabilitating or training of livestock were not agricultural uses for which farmland assessment could be granted. See Miele v. Jackson Tp., 11 N.J.Tax 97, 99 (App.Div.1989) (<HOLDING>); Bloomingdale Indus. Park v. Borough of
holding that pro se petitioners need not raise issues in ins terms but may raise them as they may have understood them recognizing that jurors have the right to reject that part of the evidence believed by them to be untrue and to accept that found by them to be true holding that under act in effect before december 15 1995 bringing race horses to a farm in order to rest them rehabilitate them between races or care for them if they were injured could not qualify the farm for farmland assessment holding claims waived for failure to develop them holding that the defendants unconstitutionally obtained statements to the police telling them that narcotics were located in the hood of his truck did not render the narcotics inadmissible because the police were trained to look under the hoods of vehicles when searching for drugs and therefore would have found them even had the defendant not directed them to look under the hood