Holmdel Planning Board prevails in Casola case
Lawson rules board
has right to regulate
farm market
HOLMDEL — With one exception, state Superior Court Judge Robert Lawson has upheld Planning Board’s restrictions placed on the approval of the Casola Farms site on the west side of Route 34 by Schanck Road.
The exception involves a variance requirement for a second-floor office. The 24.5-acre retail farm market is owned by Kim and Anthony Casola.
John Mamora, of Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, Newark, who represented the Planning Board, was pleased with the decision.
"It is very gratifying to have a decision that shows that the Planning Board acted judicially," said Mamora. "Many people put a lot of effort into the application and it is good that Judge Lawson’s decision reflected that."
Kim Casola, who was upset with the ruling which she and her husband just learned about Monday, said she does not know why Holmdel is targeting her family specifically. "Holmdel seems to have special enforcement laws depending on which people they are dealing with," she said.
Casola said in a phone interview that while Holmdel pretends they want farmers, they make them feel ashamed for living that kind of life. "It is a shame that my children can’t grow up on a farm the way my husband and I did," she said. "Holmdel is making us feel like we should be ashamed."
Casola said that the reason the business was diversified was because it is nearly impossible to make a living from selling just produce. "I have five children I need to support," she said. "Holmdel wants open spaces that look pretty, but they forget that it is the farmers who have to work to keep them that way."
Casola said that she and her husband, Anthony, have spent more than $300,000 in legal costs.
"I wonder if the taxpayers of Holmdel know that all their tax money is going to fight me," said Casola. "I think that is a shame considering how overcrowded our schools are."
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.
The Casolas 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 required that the indoor retail farm market portion had to be limited to a total of 8,700 square feet and that the outdoor retail area had to be limited to 111,922 square feet and could 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 opposing 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.
Lawson ruled, however, that "there was no clear and compelling evidence of legislative intent to restrict a municipality’s power to zone and that the Right to Farm Act amendments of 1997 indicate an intention merely to expand the list of activities that are pre-empted from regulation."
Lawson then determined that the following issues would be decided in a trial: whether the Casolas should be barred from challenging the Planning Board conditions "by reason of their participation throughout the proceedings and their failure to register any objections to the (Planning Board) resolution prior to its adoption" and whether the board’s resolution and the conditions imposed "were arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable."
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 the board acted reasonably in imposing the conditions.
"In the present case, a careful review of the transcripts clearly shows that the applicant worked with the Planning Board and the objectors to find conditions that were acceptable to all interested parties," said Lawson in his decision. "The Planning Board relied on the plans in deciding whether or not to grant the application."
Lawson then ruled that the Planning Board was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable as to the approval of the site plan.
However, Lawson did rule in favor of the Casolas in one instance.
"I do agree with the Casolas that a variance was not needed for the second story office," said Lawson.
"Ordinance 30-119 states that ‘the retail farm market portion of any building shall be limited to one story.’ While the Planning Board avers that this wording makes no distinction between the second story used for retail purposes and for other purposes, I find the Planning Board’s interpretation to be unreasonable."
Lawson concluded his ruling by saying that the decision of the Planning Board was affirmed, "with the exception of reversing the finding that a variance is required for the second story office."