HOWELL – Sprouts, a private membership association (“PMA”) which leased farmland to enhance children’s knowledge about agriculture, suffered a legal blow in court.
A Monmouth County Superior Court judge agreed with Howell Township officials that Sprouts’ use of the property was not permitted under its local ordinances.
Sprouts is one of four farms located at 505 Newtons Corner Road and falls in the ARE-2 Agricultural Zone for agricultural and horticultural uses. The local ordinance specifies other permitted and conditional uses of property within the zone, all seemingly unrelated to how Sprouts used their leased farm.
Howell brought the case against Sprouts after witnessing children on the farm during the school day. The majority of the youngsters who participate in the PMA are homeschooled by their families. No claims have been made suggesting truancy prompted the legal action.
Judge Lourdes Lucas took over an hour to deliver a detailed legal opinion after reviewing briefs submitted on behalf of the parties.
“The defendants (Sprouts) argued that its members meet on the farm for agricultural purposes and to communicate knowledge and information about farming and agriculture to its member children,” said Lucas. “Sprouts maintains that the township has not shown that Sprouts members using the land to gather and engage in agricultural activities and pass on knowledge about agricultural is incompatible with the permitted land use.”
Howell Township’s definition of agricultural and horticultural mirrors New Jersey’s Farmland Assessment Act, which includes using land to produce plants and animals useful to man. Livestock and crops serve as examples of what meets the criteria for determining what falls into the agricultural criteria.
Among other things, the Sprouts Farm serves as home to some chickens, goats, and pigs. However, that’s not what is in dispute as it pertains to the permitted use under zoning laws.
Lucas said she reviewed some advertisements for Sprouts PMA that specifically referenced activities and learning objectives outside the purview of agriculture and horticulture. Participants were charged a fee for programs that typically ran for eight weeks. Children were divided by age and offered what the court referenced as “traditional formal education” in reading, math, science, engineering, art, and technology.
“…Incorporated within these programs are aspects of farm life and farming,” acknowledged Lucas. “While the focus of some of the offerings may be targeted to be related to agriculture or horticulture, the substance of the activity on the property, this court finds certainly takes the form of non-traditional schooling or day camp operations.”
Howell’s application to the court further maintained that Sprouts was illegally operating as either a school or a day camp. Lucas not only ran through the legal definition and state licensing constraints for both types of entities but also included requirements for childcare centers.
PMA leaders countered the township’s assertions, saying Sprouts members specifically came together to pass ideas, knowledge, and values onto their children about agriculture, nature, and healthy eating. They further contended that the passing on of those views represented a private expressive activity recognized as a constitutionally protected form of association.
“Sprouts maintains that conducting education is expressive activity,” Lucas said. “And, even under the Township’s framing of the activity in question, such is protected as private, expressive activity, requiring strict scrutiny.”
A United States Supreme Court case states that the “interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized.” Since this included directing their children’s education, Sprouts families maintained it was their right to gather with other families who shared similar values to enrich their home-educated children with skills related to agriculture.
According to Lucas, the issue of whether Howell officials intended to infringe on the parents’ constitutional rights required strict scrutiny.
Notices of violation served to Sprouts pertained to the erection of structures without appropriate approvals. Howell maintained that Sprouts never applied for a conditional use application and instead violated local ordinances. Therefore, the township’s enforcement of the land use ordinance arose from Sprouts’ failure to obtain necessary use and structure approvals unrelated to their associational activities.
Indeed, Lucas said that any hardships experienced by Sprouts were specifically mitigated by their own failures to follow procedures in place. They could have attempted to obtain a variance for their use of the premises. For this reason, the court did not address the constitutional arguments raised by the defendants.
The court determined Howell had not provided enough clear and convincing evidence that the Sprouts operation constituted a school, summer camp, or childcare center. Nonetheless, the judge agreed with township officials its use didn’t meet the criteria as permissible under agricultural or horticultural zoning requirements.
“These definitions, which are specific to the production of plants, fruits, and animals for sale, contain no reference to the operation of any form of child development program,” Lucas said. “Whether that program be educational, recreation, or for purposes of exploring inner workings of life on a farm.”
Violations on the Sprouts farm that included erection of certain improvements completed without permits will need to be abated or structures removed from the land.
The judge emphasized the necessity to follow local ordinances as far as both permissible use and permit requirements. Otherwise, the township’s legislative and enforcement roles would effectively be paralyzed, negated, and neutralized.
Dana Wefer, attorney for Sprouts and other individually named defendants, said she is almost certain they will appeal the judge’s decision.
“The only real finding the judge made is that using the farmland to educate the children about farm work is not an agricultural use of the land,” said Wefer. “The general precept of judicial interpretation is that they’re not supposed to raise constitutional issues unless they have to, so courts try to avoid it.”
Wefer said that she thinks this is one time the issue needed to be addressed as it dealt with the meeting of the PMA members. The judge’s order could prove to be interesting as far as putting an end to children coming together as Sprouts members.
“I’m curious how it’s going to be worded in such a way that won’t be an obvious infringement on the First Amendment rights of association,” Wefer shared. “I think there might also be other concerns that the town has and my clients just got dragged into them.”
Attorney Christopher Dasti brought the lawsuit on behalf of the municipality and emphasized the town has a legal obligation under its municipal land use law and zoning and land use regulations.
“Talking in generalities, this means making sure properties are used for their intended zoning purposes,” said Dasti. “That also means guarding and providing for the safety and general welfare of the public.”
The post Farming ‘Lessons’ Not Permitted In Land Use Case appeared first on Jersey Shore Online.
