SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0538-18T3

DEMAREST FARM AND

ORCHARD, LLC,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

BOROUGH OF HILLSDALE

MAYOR AND COUNCIL,

Defendants-Respondents.

___________________________

Argued February 26, 2020 – Decided March 12, 2020

Before Judges Fuentes, Mayer and Enright. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-5016-17.

Eric Victor Kleiner argued the cause for appellants

(Lawrence H. Kleiner LLC, and Eric V. Kleiner, 

attorneys; Eric Victor Kleiner and Lawrence Herman

Kleiner, on the briefs).

Raymond R. Wiss argued the cause for respondents

(Mark Daniel Madaio, and Wiss & Bouregy, PC, 

attorneys; Raymond R. Wiss and Thomas Kevin

Bouregy, on the brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-0538-18T3

PER CURIAM 

Plaintiff Demarest Farm and Orchard, LLC (the Farm), appeals from an 

August 21, 2018 order dismissing its complaint with prejudice. We affirm.

The Farm operates in Hillsdale and is one of the only pick-your-own

(PYO) apples and autumn celebration facilities in Bergen County. It attracts 

thousands of patrons each fall season. The Farm has 215 on-site parking spaces. 

Due to the large number of visitors participating in the Farm's activities during 

the fall season, the Farm cannot accommodate all its patrons with on-site 

parking. Therefore, it traditionally utilized off-site and street parking during

peak periods. 

Unfortunately, by 2015, the Farm lost access to additional parking spaces 

in the vicinity, including spaces at a school parking lot and a seven-acre private 

property. Based on safety concerns arising from the Farm's lack of adequate

parking, in October 2016, the Borough of Hillsdale (Borough) passed 

Emergency Resolution 16227. This resolution authorized the Hillsdale Police 

Department to implement emergency road closures and no parking on the streets 

near the Farm between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. during the fall harvest season. 

In 2016, the Borough held a public bid for 250 parking spaces located in 

a municipal parking lot near the Farm and received no bid responses. In 2017, 
3

A-0538-18T3

the Farm bid $.95 per day for this municipal parking lot. This bid was accepted 

by the Borough. 

In January 2017, the Farm filed an action with the Bergen County 

Agricultural Development Board (BCADB) to allow its customers to park on 

the Borough's streets as designated "Farm Parking." The Farm applied to the 

BCADB for review of a Site Specific Agricultural Management Plan pursuant 

to the Right to Farm Act (RTFA), N.J.S.A. 4:1C-1 to -10.4. The Borough also

filed a complaint with the BCADB, based on the RTFA. The Farm's pedestrian 

safety expert issued a report, opining "there is [no] cause for concern with 

respect to pedestrian safety during the PYO Season if the Event Management 

Plan is followed."

At hearings conducted before the BCADB between May and August 2017, 

the Farm's principal testified the Farm required a minimum of 1225 parking 

spaces per day during PYO season. The Farm also presented testimony from a

pedestrian safety expert, a traffic engineering expert, and experts on land 

preservation, conservation, open space planning, and economic development. 

Before the BCADB, the Borough presented the testimony of Police Chief 

Francaviglia. He testified the number of cars attending the Farm's fall festivities 

was overwhelming and the traffic was "out of control and negatively impacted 
4

A-0538-18T3

the Borough's residents." The Chief stated the Farm attracted so many visitors 

that the Borough was unable to safely handle the situation. Similarly, the Mayor, 

Douglas Frank, presented a slide show reflecting the Farm's insufficient parking 

and testified the lack of adequate Farm parking created safety concerns for the 

Borough's residents and Farm customers. Finally, the BCADB heard public 

comments on the matter. 

On June 8, 2017, the Borough's governing body introduced Ordinance 17-

09 to permanently prohibit street parking near the Farm. The ordinance

(Ordinance 17-09) purported to make permanent the emergency resolution. The 

ordinance prohibited street parking near the Farm on "Saturdays, Sundays and 

[h]olidays between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. from August 30th until October 

30th." On June 13, 2017, Ordinance 17-09 was adopted at the Council's public 

meeting. Mayor Frank did not vote on the ordinance.

On September 6, 2017, the BCADB issued Resolution 2017-01, which 

ruled that the Farm would be awarded temporary relief from the Borough's 

parking restrictions. The BCADB resolved to divide the area surrounding the 

Farm into four quadrants, and allowed parking on a rotating basis from 2017-

2019, with all street parking to end by 2020. Neither party appealed the 

BCADB's decision. 
5

A-0538-18T3

In 2017, the Farm did not use any public streets or Borough parking for 

customer parking. Instead, it secured the use of 900 off-site parking spaces in 

another municipality. In July 2017, the Farm filed an order to show cause and 

verified complaint in lieu of prerogative writs seeking to invalidate the 

ordinance. On August 21, 2018, the trial court dismissed the complaint with 

prejudice, finding the challenged ordinance was not arbitrary, capricious, or 

unreasonable. 

On appeal, the Farm argues the trial court erred in dismissing its 

complaint. The Farm contends the ordinance is arbitrary and capricious because 

it is contrary to "fundamental principles of municipal legislation," cannot be 

reconciled with the RTFA, is "confiscatory [in] nature," demonstrates bias 

against the Farm and its patrons, and was passed without the Borough 

conducting any professional studies or securing an expert opinion. After a 

careful review of the record, we find these arguments unavailing. 

"Municipalities have the power and authority to enact ordinances in 

support of the police power." Hutton Park Gardens v. Town Council of W. 

Orange, 68 N.J. 543, 564 (1975). These ordinances, "like statutes, carry a 

presumption of validity." Ibid. This presumption places a high burden on the 

party seeking to overturn the ordinance. Ibid. In fact, a party seeking to 
6

A-0538-18T3

invalidate an ordinance must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that 

the ordinance is arbitrary and capricious. New Jersey Shore Builders Ass'n v. 

Twp. of Jackson, 199 N.J. 38, 54-55 (2009). 

"Legislative bodies are presumed to act on the basis of adequate factual 

support and, absent a sufficient showing to the contrary, it will be assumed that 

their enactments rest upon some rational basis within their knowledge and 

experience." Hutton Park Gardens, 68 N.J. at 564-65. All police-power 

legislation, however, is "subject to the constitutional limitation that it be not 

unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and that the means selected by the 

legislative body shall have real and substantial relation to the object sought to 

be attained." 515 Assocs. v. City of Newark, 132 N.J. 180, 185 (1993) (citing 

Bonito v. Mayor and Council of Bloomfield, 197 N.J. Super. 390, 398 (Law Div. 

1984)). 

N.J.S.A. 40:48-2 allows municipalities to enact ordinances that

it may deem necessary and proper for the good 

government, order and protection of persons and 

property, and for the preservation of the public health, 

safety and welfare of the municipality and its 

inhabitants, and as may be necessary to carry into effect 

the powers and duties conferred and imposed by this 

subtitle, or by any law.
7

A-0538-18T3

When a municipality determines the most feasible manner of "curing 

traffic evils and traffic congestion in a specific area, and such regulation bears 

a direct relationship to the public safety, such determination is reasonable and 

not arbitrary." Cedar Grove v. Sheridan, 209 N.J. Super. 267, 279 (App. Div. 

1986). 

"The job of a reviewing court is not to weigh the evidence for or against 

an enactment, or to evaluate the wisdom of the policy choice made." New Jersey 

Shore Builders Ass'n, 199 N.J. at 56 (citing Hutton Park Gardens, 68 N.J. at 

565). Accordingly, a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the 

municipal body unless it is proven that the Board's action was arbitrary, 

unreasonable or capricious. See Cell S. of N.J., Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adj. of 

W. Windsor Twp., 172 N.J. 75, 81 (2002); Medici v. BPR Co., 107 N.J. 1, 15 

(1987).

Based on our de novo review, we are satisfied the Farm's complaint was 

properly dismissed as the challenged ordinance was reasonably related to the 

municipality's exercise of its obligation to promote the safety of its residents. 

The record shows the ordinance at issue was enacted to address concerns raised

by the Hillsdale Police Department, elected officials, and residents regarding the 

safety risks posed by the lack of adequate parking for the Farm's patrons. In 
8

A-0538-18T3

fact, the ordinance passed only after the Borough first adopted an emergency 

resolution, which was supported by certifications from the Mayor and the Police 

Chief after they personally witnessed the worsening parking situation. 

Mayor Frank confirmed he observed the area near the farm in October 

2016 and saw the entire area "engulfed with vehicles and pedestrians." He noted 

the streets were crowded, impassable to emergency vehicles, and pedestrians 

were in danger. Moreover, Chief Francaviglia attested the situation near the 

Farm began to deteriorate rapidly in 2014 and 2015, as "the streets [were] full 

of vehicles and pedestrians, there is gridlock and no emergency vehicle access." 

The Chief warned "it [was] only a matter of time before someone [was] injured 

or killed." Further, the Chief cautioned that two Bergen County Sheriff's 

Officers, three Hillsdale officers, and a traffic officer could not guarantee safe 

access to the Farm and the surrounding area during PYO season in 2016, due to 

the overwhelming number of patrons at the Farm. The record also reflects the 

Borough worked with the Farm for several years to find a way to safely manage 

the Farm's parking and congestion issues during PYO season. Absent an 

alternative proposal that could adequately address the safety issues created by 

the Farm's inadequate parking facilities, the Borough passed Ordinance 17-09, 

but narrowly tailored the ordinance to alleviate the known safety risks. 
9

A-0538-18T3

Accordingly, we perceive no basis to overturn the trial court's dismissal of the 

Farm's complaint.

To the extent the Farm argues the Mayor and Council were required to 

obtain expert reports or engage in professional studies before enacting the 

ordinance, we do not agree. Our Supreme Court confirmed "[i]t is entirely 

appropriate for a governing body to hear testimony from its citizens and to 

respond. Indeed, it may be that the testimony offered by those citizens, without 

expert analysis, will be sufficient [to enact an ordinance]." Riya Finnegan LLC 

v. Twp. Council of Twp. of S. Brunswick, 197 N.J. 184, 193 (2008).

The Farm next contends the ordinance may not be reconciled with the 

RTFA as it conflicts with the interests sought to be advanced by the RTFA. 

Again, we disagree. 

As our Supreme Court observed, "[t]here will be those cases where the 

local [] ordinance simply does not affect farming. There will be other disputes 

where, although the ordinance has a peripheral effect on farming, it implicates 

a policy that does not directly conflict with farming practices." Twp. of Franklin 

v. Den Hollander, 172 N.J. 147, 152 (2002). Thus, a "fact-sensitive inquiry will 

be essential in virtually every case." Id. at 153. The Den Hollander Court 

provided an example to demonstrate that not all ordinances that may impact a 
10 A-0538-18T3

farm actually interfere with farming, such as when a farmer seeks to erect a silo 

taller than the municipal height limitation allows, or build a barn with a smaller 

side yard than permitted by a municipal ordinance. 172 N.J. at 153. The Den 

Hollander Court explained: "On the face of it, such ordinances do not interfere 

with farming and, therefore, the zoning ordinance limitations ordinarily should 

be respected." Id. at 152. 

The Den Hollander Court also affirmed that the County Agricultural 

Board, by way of the RTFA, has primary jurisdiction to address a dispute 

between a farm owner and the municipality over alleged violations of the local 

municipal land use laws. Id. at 151. The Court added that while the agricultural 

boards have primary jurisdiction over such disputes, "the boards do not have 

carte blanche to impose their views." Ibid. 

Under the RTFA, an "owner or operator of a commercial farm . . . which 

does not pose a direct threat to public health and safety may . . . . [p]rovide for 

the operation of a farm market, including the construction of building and 

parking areas in conformance with municipal standards." N.J.S.A. 4:1C-9(c). 

Consistent with its obligation, an agricultural board must assess a "direct threat 

to public health or safety" broadly, "not as a narrow limitation in considering 

complaints of an aggrieved party that local land use or other relevant ordinances 
11 A-0538-18T3

are being violated by the conduct of the commercial farm operator." Twp. of 

Franklin v. Hollander, 338 N.J. Super. 373, 394 (App. Div. 2001), aff'd, 172 N.J. 

147 (2002). 

Here, the BCADB "considered the relevant municipal public health and 

safety standards including those which might have a peripheral effect on farming 

but do not directly conflict with farming practices." The BCADB determined 

the Farm failed to justify its request for a permanent variance from the State's 

Agricultural Management Plan and that the "critical underlying issue [was] a 

continuous, annual increase in traffic and pedestrian volumes which creates 

negative impacts through a level of chaos and unmanageability [and there is] 

actionable concern over the unmitigated, negative impacts on the public health 

and welfare of the neighborhoods arising from the Farm's proposed use of 

municipal streets." Again, the BCADB's decision was not appealed by either 

party. 

Although the Farm contends the trial judge erred by referring to the 

BCADB's conclusions in her decision, we do not agree. Rather, the trial judge

clearly stated she was "not bound by the findings of the BCADB, nor [were] the 

findings of that Board before this court for review." Additionally, the judge 

remarked, "it is useful to the court to refer to that Board's resolution." Although 
12 A-0538-18T3

the judge was "persuaded by the reasoning of the BCADB, finding its decision 

to be based in fact, carefully considered, weighing the interests of all parties and 

stakeholders and coming to conclusions based upon the Right to Farm Act and 

State Agricultural Development Committee Regulations," the judge

nevertheless engaged in an independent, thorough analysis before finding the 

Farm failed to meet its heavy burden to overturn the ordinance. We have no 

reason to second-guess her findings. Moreover, as Ordinance 17-09 does not 

directly interfere with farming practices but instead, addresses safety concerns, 

we are satisfied the trial judge correctly rejected the Farm's argument that the 

ordinance ran contrary to the legislative goals of the RTFA. 

Since the Farm failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence 

that Ordinance 17-09 was arbitrary or capricious, we affirm the trial judge's 

dismissal of the Farm's complaint with prejudice. The Farm's remaining 

arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R.

2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

Affirmed.