Farm Lawsuit May Add 'Conflict of Interest' Allegation

Attorneys for the Citizens Against Ordinance 2012-05 and said plaintiffs in the market garden lawsuit applied to add a new count to the suit.

The lawsuit over the , , was .

Barry A. Osmun, the attorney who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs, no longer represents the nine citizens who filed the lawsuit. The plaintiffs are now represented by Philip Rosenbach, of the Law Offices of Berman Rosenbach.

Rosenbach said the additional count "alleges that two of the people who voted on the ordinance either have a conflict or an appearance of conflict, which, under the law, should have led them to recuse themselves from the vote."

Woodward said he will file an opposition to the motion in about a week. "It's a zoning law with widespread application," Woodward said. "When you have a law that is of general application throughout the town, it doesn't give rise to that kind of opposition."

The application to add the new count will be heard in Morris County Superior Court on Friday, Sept. 14. The courts must approve the new count before it is officially added to the lawsuit.

Before the application is heard, the two parties will meet with a judge for a case management conference on Tuesday, Sept. 11 in Morris County Superior Court. The conference will set a timetable for the lawsuit, including discovery phase and a possible trial date.

Residents who filed the lawsuit—Jim and Shirley Honickel, Richard Erich Templin, Chris and Kristen Struening, Michael J. and Nicole O'Connell and Vincent and Thea Bancroft Ziccolella, collectively the Citizens Against Ordinance 2012-05—want the ordinance declared void and invalidated.

The lawsuit says the ordinance "is clearly arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, and plainly contrary to the fundamental principles of zoning and Municipal Land Use Law," and "fails to advance the Municipal Land Use Laws [sic] declared purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals and general welfare."

Plaintiffs want the ordinance declared void and invalidated. They also seek attorney's fees, costs and expenses from the township.

The response also asks for the courts to award court costs and attorneys' fees to the township.

The response denied allegations that the ordinance was arbitrary or capricious, or that the ordinance fails to uphold existing law. The township committee, the response says, acted "in good faith" and within their lawful powers.

"All actions taken by the Township were legally justified, were privileged and represented the exercise of rights equal to or superior to the rights of the Plaintiff[s]," the response reads in part.

According to the response, the original complaint does not give a "cause of action upon which relief may be granted."

The ordinance allows residential-zoned properties over 3 acres to obtain permission from the Chatham Township Planning Board grow produce and sell it off-site. A total of 61 properties qualify in the township.

To get approval from the Planning Board, property owners must file a farm conservation plan with the township clerk which adheres to the Soil Conservation District and the USDA National Organic Program standards.

Residents desirous of obtaining permission to farm must also adhere to rules of the state Agricultural Development Committee and Department of Environmental Protection, and recommendations of the Rutgers University Agricultural Experiment Station.