In Gardner v. New Jersey Pinelands Comm'n, 125 N.J. 193, 204, 593 A.2d 251 (1991) the Supreme Court of New Jersey has held that a regulation promulgated by the Pinelands Commission that limited development to one home per forty acres, with a mandatory clustering option which allowed construction on one-acre lots and required the remaining thirty-nine acres to be permanently dedicated to agricultural use, was not a taking. Government has a legitimate interest in protecting environmentally sensitive property and in promoting agriculture by preserving farmland. Id. at 205-06, 593 A.2d 251. No taking occurred simply by virtue of the diminished value of the land, nor its lack of marketability. Id. at 210, 593 A.2d 251. Plaintiff retained "several viable, economically-beneficial uses of his land" and there was no taking just because "those uses do not equal the former maximum value of the land . . . for there exists no constitutional right to the most profitable use of property." Id. at 215, 593 A.2d 251. The Court upheld a portion of the Pineland Commission's Comprehensive Management Plan which restricted residential development to forty-acre lots, thirty-nine of which had to be permanently dedicated to agricultural use. Id. at 204-10, 593 A.2d 251. The Court explained that takings analysis makes two fundamental demands of any zoning scheme: it must substantially advance legitimate state interests, and it cannot deny an owner all economically viable use of the land. . . . The economic effect of the regulatory scheme can be assessed in terms of the adjustment of economic benefits and burdens or the extent of interference with "distinct investment-backed expectations." Id. at 205, 593 A.2d 251. In determining whether there has been a taking, a court must consider whether a landowner retains viable and economically-beneficial uses of the property and whether the challenged regulations advance legitimate and important public objectives. Id. at 205, 593 A.2d 251.