Matlack v. Burlington County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders

• Decision Date: 14 June 1984
• Citation: 194 N.J.Super. 359,476 A.2d 1262
• Parties: Marvin F. MATLACK, John W. Story and June G. Story, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BURLINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, et al., Defendants-Respondents, New Jersey Conservation Foundation and the Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., Defendant-Intervenors-Respondents, and New Jersey Pinelands Commission, Amicus Curiae.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 359

194 N.J.Super. 359

476 A.2d 1262

Marvin F. MATLACK, John W. Story and June G. Story Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BURLINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, et al Defendants-Respondents New Jersey Conservation Foundation and the Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., Defendant-Intervenors-Respondents and New Jersey Pinelands Commission, Amicus Curiae.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued June 5, 1984.

Decided June 14, 1984.

Sam Kazman, Washington, D.C. of the District of Columbia bar, admitted pro hac vice, for plaintiffs-appellants (John W. Beasley, Jr., Mount Holly, for Matlack, and Goldman & Goldman, Robbinsville, for John and June Story; John W. Beasley, Jr., Joseph W. Marshall, III, of the Mid-Atlantic Legal Fund, Bonnie Goldman and Jeffrey Goldman, Robbinsville, and Sam Kazman, Washington, D.C. of the Pacific Legal Foundation, of counsel and on the brief).

Michael J. Hogan, Burlington for defendants-respondents (M. Jefferson Davis, Haddonfield, and Anton Muschal, Bordentown, on the brief).

James T.B. Tripp, New York City, of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, for defendants-intervenors-respondents (Cerrato, O'Connor, Mehr & Saker, Freehold, attorneys; James E. Collins, Freehold and Tripp, New York City, on the brief).

Mary C. Jacobson, Deputy Atty. Gen., for amicus curiae, New Jersey Pinelands Com'n (Irwin I. Kimmelman, Atty. Gen., attorney; Deborah T. Poritz, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel; Mary C. Jacobson, Deputy Atty. Gen., on the brief).

Before Judges BOTTER, PRESSLER and O'BRIEN.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs' sole contentions on this appeal are that (1) respondent Burlington County Board of Chosen Freeholders lacks authority to acquire Pinelands Development Credits (PDC's) incidental to its acquisition of conservation easements and (2) funds derived through the County's conservation easement bond ordinance cannot be used to purchase PDC's because the ordinance did not contemplate their acquisition. We reject these contentions substantially for the reasons given by Judge Gottleib in the Law Division. 191 N.J.Super. 236 at 249-252, 466 A.2d 83.

With respect to interpreting the scope of the bond ordinance, we note that the same rules of judicial construction apply to the interpretation of ordinances as apply to the interpretation of statutes. AMN, Inc. v. South Brunswick Tp. Rent Leveling Bd., 93 N.J. 518, 524-525, 461 A.2d 1138 (1983); Camarco v. City of Orange, 61 N.J. 463, 467, 295 A.2d 353 (1972). Where the drafters of a statute or ordinance did not consider or contemplate a specific situation, a court should interpret the enactment "consonant with the probable intent of the draftsman 'had he anticipated the situation at hand.' " AMN, Inc. v. South Brunswick Tp. Rent Leveling Bd., 93 N.J. at 525, 461 A.2d 1138, quoting Jersey City Chapter of Property Owner's etc. Ass'n v. City Council, 55 N.J. 86, 101, 259 A.2d 698 (1969). Such interpretations should not "turn on literalisms, technisms or the so-called formal...