Title: Trinity Cemetery Association, Inc. v. The Township of Wall
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: a-87-99
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: November 8, 2001

PER CURIAM The issues before the Court are: 1) whether a municipality is preempted by the New Jersey Cemetery Act, N.J.S.A. 8A:1-1 to -12-6, (Cemetery Act) from adopting an ordinance rezoning property from cemetery to residential use after the New Jersey Cemetery Board has issued a certificate of authority permitting the property to be used for cemetery purposes subject only to the recording of the deed, which occurred after the municipal ordinance was introduced but prior to its adoption; and 2)whether the allegations of deception asserted by the municipality, if proven, would constitute a basis for invalidating the municipality's adoption of an ordinance that rezoned the property for cemetery use. Trinity Cemetery Association (Trinity) owns six and one-half acres of vacant undeveloped land located in Wall Township (Township). Prior to November 1995, the land was zoned residential. In 1995, Trinity's predecessor in title, in an effort to have the property rezoned for cemetery purposes, submitted a proposal to the Township that showed a pastoral, park-like cemetery setting with sprawling green, no headstones, and a stone walkway encircling the property. On November 5, 1995, the Township adopted Ordinance 25-1995, creating a cemetery zone that included the Trinity property. The zone also permitted mausoleums as an accessory use. Subsequently, on July 17, 1996, the Township adopted a resolution consenting to the establishment of a cemetery on Trinity's property. The resolution was contingent on any other required State and local approvals. On December 5, 1996, the New Jersey Cemetery Board (Cemetery Board) issued a certificate of authority to Trinity to operate a cemetery. The Cemetery Board notified Trinity that the certificate of authority would be in full effect once Trinity acquired title to the property and properly filed the deed. Trinity acquired title on January 15, 1997 but did not record the deed until April 28, 1997. In the interim, on February 20, 1997, Trinity submitted a site plan application to the Township Planning Board for its cemetery property. The plan included mausoleums, with the property surrounded by a stone wall. Upon learning of the site plan application, the Township's governing body introduced Ordinance 10-1997 to rezone Trinity's property from cemetery use to residential use. The Township took this action because of its belief that it had been deceived by Trinity's predecessor in title's proposal of a pastoral cemetery development without mausoleums. On May 5, 1997, the Township Planning Board recommended the approval of Ordinance 10-1997, and the Township adopted it on May 14, 1997. Trinity never received approval of its site plan application. Trinity filed an action challenging the enactment of the Township's ordinance rezoning its property from cemetery to residential use. On July 18, 1997, Trinity moved for summary judgment, which was granted on the ground that once Trinity's property was dedicated for cemetery purposes, the Cemetery Act preempted the Township's zoning ordinance. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding that the Cemetery Act preempted Wall Township's attempt to rezone the property back to residential use. The Supreme Court granted certification. HELD: The New Jersey Cemetery Act preempted Wall Township from adopting an ordinance rezoning property from cemetery to residential use after the New Jersey Cemetery Board had issued a certificate of authority permitting the property to be used for cemetery purposes. Further, if the Township proves before the Law Division that it was deceived by Trinity Cemetery Association, Inc. in the course of consenting to Trinity's cemetery application, then the Township can rescind that consent. 1. Wall Township was preempted by the Cemetery Act from adopting an ordinance rezoning the property to residential use after the Cemetery Board issued a certificate of authority, the deed to the property having been recorded on April 28, 1997 before the Township's ordinance was finally adopted on May 14, 1997. (P. 5-6) 2. Nevertheless, the Court is compelled to reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and remand the matter to the Law Division for trial. The allegations of deception asserted by Wall Township, if proved, would require a court to invalidate the original ordinance that initially rezoned the Trinity property from residential to cemetery use. The revised site plan was drastically different and no longer depicted a pastoral setting with in-ground graves. (Pp. 6-7) 3. The original ordinance permitted mausoleums as an accessory use and imposed lot coverage and height limitations, the validity of which are not contested. Thus, the Court need not and does not address any questions relating to the Township's authority to include in the 1995 ordinance provisions regulating the construction of mausoleums on property dedicated to cemetery use. The land coverage and height requirements set forth in that ordinance will govern the construction of the mausoleums on the cemetery property if the Township on remand does not prevail on the deception issue. (Pp. 7-8) Judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the Law Division for proceedings consistent with this opinion. JUSTICE VERNIERO, concurring, writes separately to express his view that the 1995 ordinance restricting mausoleums is invalid on its face. He would thus conclude that the approval process should begin anew, regardless of whether deception is proved. That disposition would give the Township the opportunity to reevaluate Trinity's application and would serve to alert municipalities to avoid exceeding their statutory authority and to exercise care when adopting future ordinances. JUSTICE ZAZZALI, concurring, writes separately to address the question, not addressed by the Court, whether a municipality may limit the number of mausoleums built in a cemetery under the Cemetery Act. In his view, the Act does not preclude municipalities from regulating the number of mausoleums that may be built in a cemetery. Thus, Justice Zazzali would conclude that an ordinance establishing a cemetery zone with mausoleums as accessory structures is valid and could be enforced. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN and LONG join in this opinion. JUSTICES VERNIERO and ZAZZALI filed separate concurring opinions. JUSTICE LaVECCHIA did not participate. TRINITY CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF WALL (incorrectly designated as MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF WALL, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY), Defendant-Appellant. Argued October 11, 2000 -- Decided November 8, 2001 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. William J. Wolf argued the cause for appellant (Bathgate, Wegener &amp; Wolf, attorneys; Mr. Wolf and Michael M. DiCicco, on the briefs). William Harla argued the cause for respondent (DeCotiis, Fitzpatrick, Gluck, Hayden &amp; Cole and Katz &amp; Dougherty, attorneys; Mr. Harla and George T. Dougherty). Nancy Costello Miller, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae, Attorney General of New Jersey (John J. Farmer, Jr., attorney; Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel). PER CURIAM CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN and LONG join in this opinion. JUSTICES VERNIERO and ZAZZALI filed separate concurring opinions. JUSTICE LaVECCHIA did not participate. TRINITY CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF WALL (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED AS MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF WALL, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY), Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________ VERNIERO, J., concurring. When interpreting a statute, a court's overriding goal must be to determine the Legislature's intent. Dep't of Law &amp; Pub. Safety v. Gonzalez, 142 N.J. 618, 627 (1995). However, [i]f the statute is clear and unambiguous on its face and admits of only one interpretation, we need delve no deeper than the act's literal terms to divine the Legislature's intent. State v. Butler, 89 N.J. 220, 226 (1982). The statute here could not be clearer. It provides: Any local ordinance . . . enacted regulating the construction of said [mausoleums] shall be of no force or effect[.] N.J.S.A. 8A:3-14.1. When a municipality limits mausoleums to accessory use only and then proscribes their lot coverage, it is clearly regulating their construction in the ordinary sense of those terms. Our task is to interpret the statute sensibly, attributing ordinary and logical meaning to the statute's text. Alderiso v. The Med. Ctr. of Ocean County, Inc., 167 N.J. 191, 199 (2001). Simply stated, any ordinance that restricts mausoleums to accessory uses and limits their lot coverage constitutes a regulation on their construction in violation of N.J.S.A. 8A:3-14.1. The holding in Diocese of Metuchen v. Township of Piscataway, 252 N.J. Super. 525 (Law Div. 1991), one of the few reported cases in this area, does not support the 1995 Ordinance. In that case, the Law Division concluded that N.J.S.A. 8A:3-14.1 did not preclude a municipality from regulating off-street parking near a mausoleum. In reaching that conclusion, the court was persuaded by the fact that the Act did not expressly prohibit a municipality from restricting off-street parking and that the power to adopt that form of regulation had been conferred specifically on municipalities under Title 40. '[I]t is well-established that a specific statutory provision dealing with a particular subject prevails over a general statute on the same subject.' Id. at 531 (quoting Zoning Bd. of Adjustment v. Serv. Elec. Cable T.V. of N.J., Inc., 198 N.J. Super. 370, 381 (App. Div. 1985)) (alteration in original). Here, the Township's regulation of mausoleums is at variance with the Act and implicates no other statute specifically governing those structures. The principle espoused in Diocese of Metuchen is thus inapplicable. The decision in Cerone, when read in conjunction with the portion of the Bill Statement quoted above, supports the conclusion that the 1995 Ordinance is facially invalid. Because N.J.S.A. 8A:3-14.1 does not expressly authorize a municipality to limit the number of mausoleums, the Legislature intended to conform the Act only to that portion of Cerone that it accepted (and which it expressly included in the Bill Statement), namely, the portion permitting municipalities to enact reasonable height and setback requirements on mausoleums. The remaining portions of Cerone (an unreported decision) serve no precedential value, and cannot reliably be considered part of our common law. R. 1:36-3; see also Lance A. Wade, Note, Honda Meets Anastasoff: The Procedural Due Process Argument Against Rules Prohibiting Citation to Unpublished Judicial Decisions, 42 B.C. L. Rev. 695, 710 (2001) (observing within context of federal circuit court rules that decision's unpublished status create[s] no new law contributing to common law development ). Moreover, the Act provides almost unfettered authority to the Board to regulate a cemetery company's realty and other assets. The Act states: The New Jersey Cemetery Board shall have full power and authority to administer the provisions of this act and shall have general supervision and regulation of and jurisdiction and control over all cemetery companies and their property, property rights, equipment and facilities so far as may be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Title. TRINITY CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff- Respondent, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF WALL (incorrectly designated as MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF WALL, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY), Defendant- Appellant. __________________________ ZAZZALI, J., concurring. I write separately to address the question, which we do not decide here, whether a municipality may limit the number of mausoleums built in a cemetery under the Cemetery Act. N.J.S.A. 8A:1-1 to 12-6. In my view, the Cemetery Act does not preclude municipalities from regulating the number of mausoleums that may be built in a cemetery. I therefore conclude that an ordinance establishing a cemetery zone with mausoleums as accessory structures is valid and could be enforced. NO. A-87 TRINITY CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF WALL (incorrectly designated as MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF WALL, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY), Defendant-Appellant. DECIDED November 8, 2001 Chief Justice Poritz