Demarest Farm & Orchard, LLC v. Borough of Hillsdale Mayor & Council
| Decision Date | 12 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-0538-18T3 |
| Parties | DEMAREST FARM AND ORCHARD, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOROUGH OF HILLSDALE MAYOR AND COUNCIL, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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.
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).
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,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 impactedthe 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.
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 toinvalidate 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)).
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. Infact, the ordinance...
To continue reading
Request your trial