Hearing on A. Casola summonses delayed
42 summonses were put on hold pending
outcome of litigation
By cindy tietjen
HOLMDEL — The final chapter of the A. Casola Farms’ court battle with the township is yet to be written.
Antonio and Kim Casola, who own and operate the 24.5-acre A. Casola Farms farm market site on Route 34 south and Schanck Road, returned to court July 18 to face summonses issued to them before they entered into litigation against the Planning Board.
The summonses, which total 42, were put on hold pending the outcome of the litigation in which the Casolas appealed various restrictions the board placed on their farm market operation.
In a decision handed down June 30, state Superior Court Judge Robert Lawson, sitting in Freehold, upheld the restrictions, with the exception of the need for a variance for a second-story office.
Because the Planning Board prevailed in the case, the Casolas must now respond to the summonses, which were issued for remaining open after dusk, having excessive signage in size and amount, and having excessive lighting for other than security purposes.
According to Holmdel Zoning Officer Alice Karlquest, the Casolas were issued a summons for every night they were open last October.
At their July 18 court date, the Casolas requested that the case be carried over and that they be provided with copies of the summonses they had been issued.
"Because our department is understaffed, it is going to take us a while to get the Casolas all the information they requested," said Karlquest.
According to Karlquest, the Casolas are to appear in court again in October, although a definite date has yet to be set.
In November 1997, the Casolas filed an application for preliminary and final major site plan approval to operate a retail farm market on their property.
They appeared before the Planning Board five times over the next two years, and on March 23, 1999, the board granted the application with variances and exceptions, subject to certain conditions.
The conditions limited the indoor retail farm market area to a total of 8,700 square feet and the outdoor retail area to 111,922 square feet, the latter to only be used for the sale of nursery stock and other vegetative agricultural commodities.
The resolution also included a section of special and general conditions relating to taxes, bonds and other governmental approvals.
The Casolas then filed an action appealing these restrictions, alleging that the restrictions and definitions imposed by the board were arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, and that the board abused its discretion in light of the Right to Farm Act.
The 1983 Right to Farm Act was amended in 1998 to allow retail operations to take place on farms.
According to the June 30 court ruling, the Casolas challenged the following conditions as beyond the scope of the Planning Board’s review:
• limiting where the agricultural products may be offered for sale and examined by the public,
• limiting where hayride patrons may enter and exit a hayride,
• requiring lighting along the southerly and westerly portions of the site,
• requiring a double row of evergreens along the rear lot line of the property where a berm is not required,
• permitting the rear driveway to only be used for ingress and egress during the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.,
• and not permitting future development without board approval.
The Planning Board maintained that the Casolas waived their right to challenge the conditions in the resolution when they worked with the board to create the conditions, and that they acted reasonably in imposing the conditions.