Background
Springfield Urban Renewal Center Corporation owned commercial property in Springfield undergoing construction. The Township adopted Ordinance 2018-12 in July 2018, requiring safety fencing around construction sites and imposing a penalty of $250 per day for every day a violation remains uncured. In January 2020, the Township notified defendant of non-compliant fencing. Following a subsequent November 2021 notice requiring compliance within ten days, a summons was issued on December 3, 2021.
After an eight-day trial in municipal court, defendant was found guilty of violating the ordinance. The violation persisted for 696 days from the summons issuance until the court’s October 30, 2023 decision. The municipal court initially calculated the fine at $172,500 ($250 × 690 days), then reduced it through discretionary adjustments to $67,533 including court costs. On de novo review, the Law Division judge reduced the fine to $2,000, citing N.J.S.A. 40:49-5’s statutory maximum fine for municipal ordinance violations.
The Township appealed, arguing the per-day fine structure was permissible under the statute and prior precedent. Defendant did not contest its guilt, only the amount of the imposed fine.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Division reversed, holding that N.J.S.A. 40:49-5 limits the amount of a singular fine but does not prevent a defendant from incurring per-day fines that cumulatively exceed $2,000. The court found the ordinance’s $250 per-day fine provision permissible as a matter of law. The plain language of the statute speaks of “a fine” (singular) not exceeding $2,000 and contains no limiting language prohibiting ongoing fines for continued violations.
The court distinguished Perrine Terrace Land Co. v. Brennan, 101 N.J.L. 487 (Sup. Ct. 1925)—which the Law Division had relied upon—as involving procedural deficiencies where violations were found without proof or hearing on each day’s transgression. By contrast, Schad and the record here involved proven, continuous violations where daily fines serve as an enforcement mechanism to encourage compliance. The court noted that prohibiting daily fines would “gut a municipality’s ability to coerce compliance from a violator” and undermine public safety by allowing defendants to ignore violations knowing exposure would never exceed $2,000.
However, the court rejected the Township’s request to increase the fine to $174,250, affirming the municipal court’s sentencing discretion under the statute. Finding the original municipal court sentence fair and supported by the evidence—including credit for collaborative efforts—the court remanded only to correct a mathematical error in the day count (696 days rather than 690), yielding a final judgment of $68,283.
Key Takeaways
- N.J.S.A. 40:49-5’s $2,000 fine maximum applies to each individual penalty, not to cumulative per-day fines imposed for ongoing violations.
- Municipalities may lawfully impose per-day penalty provisions for uncured ordinance violations without violating the statutory fine cap.
- Daily fines for continuous violations are constitutionally permissible enforcement tools and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
- Trial courts retain wide discretion in sentencing to impose just and fair penalties within the statutory framework, including downward adjustments for cooperative behavior.
- Ordinances prohibiting daily fines based on the statutory maximum would severely hamper municipal code enforcement and public safety efforts.
Why It Matters
This decision substantially strengthens municipal enforcement authority. The ruling clarifies that jurisdictions can deploy cumulative daily fines as a powerful compliance mechanism for ordinance violations, particularly for public safety issues like construction site safety. The $2,000 cap applies per fine, not per violation series, permitting substantial penalties for prolonged non-compliance. This is critical for construction, environmental, and safety ordinances where rapid compliance is necessary.
The decision also confirms that Schad v. Township of Pennsauken—which upheld per-day sign ordinance fines totaling over $65,000—remains controlling law in New Jersey. However, courts retain discretion to adjust sentences for fairness, ensuring that enforcement powers, while broad, remain subject to judicial oversight and proportionality review.