Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0671-13T1
07-20-2015
COMMITTEE TO STOP MAHWAH MALL, an unincorporated association of Mahwah homeowners, JOEY BOURG-HOLTZER, MICHAEL RICHARDS, MARGUERITE THORNTON and ROBERT MURKIN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOWNSHIP OF MAHWAH; the MAYOR AND TOWNSHIP COUNCIL OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MAHWAH, KATHRINE G. COLETTA, Mahwah Municipal Clerk, and CROSSROADS DEVELOPERS ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendants-Respondents.
Michael B. Kates argued the cause for appellants (Kates Nussman Rapone Ellis & Farhi, L.L.P., attorneys; Mr. Kates, on the brief). Andrew T. Fede argued the cause for respondents Township of Mahwah, Mayor and Council of the Township of Mahwah, and Kathrine G. Coletta (Archer & Greiner, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Fede, of counsel and on the brief). James E. Jaworski argued the cause for respondent Crossroad Developers Associates L.L.C. (Wells, Jaworski & Liebman, L.L.P., attorneys; Mr. Jaworski, of counsel; Darrell M. Felsenstein, Andrew S. Kohut, and Spencer J. Rothwell, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fuentes, Ashrafi and O'Connor. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-4292-11. Michael B. Kates argued the cause for appellants (Kates Nussman Rapone Ellis & Farhi, L.L.P., attorneys; Mr. Kates, on the brief). Andrew T. Fede argued the cause for respondents Township of Mahwah, Mayor and Council of the Township of Mahwah, and Kathrine G. Coletta (Archer & Greiner, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Fede, of counsel and on the brief). James E. Jaworski argued the cause for respondent Crossroad Developers Associates L.L.C. (Wells, Jaworski & Liebman, L.L.P., attorneys; Mr. Jaworski, of counsel; Darrell M. Felsenstein, Andrew S. Kohut, and Spencer J. Rothwell, on the brief). PER CURIAM
The Committee to Stop Mahwah Mall, an unincorporated association of residents of the Township of Mahwah, and Joey Bourg-Holtzer, Michael Richards, Marguerite Thornton and Robert Murkin, acting as individual residents of Mahwah, filed an action in lieu of prerogative writs challenging the validity of Mahwah Ordinance No. 1684, which created an overlay zone permitting a 140-acre tract of land owned by defendant Crossroads Developers Associates, L.L.C. (Crossroads), to be developed for retail and commercial uses. The ordinance included a provision enabling the construction of a recreational field on six acres of the 140-acre site to be used by the Township.
Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in failing to invalidate Ordinance No. 1684 because the Township Council President's wife is the director of the Township's recreation department and the ordinance includes the creation of a recreational field. Plaintiffs argue this created an insurmountable conflict of interest that required the Council President to disqualify himself and abstain from participating in the Council's legislative process that led to the adoption of Ordinance No. 1684. Independent of this conflict of interest, plaintiffs also claim the adoption of the ordinance was tainted by an appearance of impropriety created by Crossroad's history of making substantial financial contributions to the Mahwah Schools Foundation, an organization in which the Council President is a founding member and serves as a trustee.
The Township of Mahwah, its Mayor and Governing Council, and Kathrine G. Coletta, in her capacity as Township Clerk, argue plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption of validity that Ordinance No. 1684 carries as duly enacted municipal legislation. Defendants maintain the trial court correctly determined the Council President/Mayor did not have a conflict of interest based on his wife's position as director of recreation and consequently was not barred from participating in the legislative process that led to the adoption of Ordinance No. 1684. Although not addressed by the trial judge, defendants argue there was no basis to support plaintiffs' argument impugning the Council President/Mayor's impartiality based on his involvement with the Mahwah Schools Foundation and the financial support the Foundation received from Crossroads.
After reviewing the record developed before the trial court and mindful of our standard of review, we affirm. The following facts will inform our legal analysis.
I
On February 10, 2011, Mahwah's Township Council adopted on first reading Ordinance No. 1684, officially entitled "An Ordinance Amending Chapter XXIV of the Code of the Township of Mahwah to Create a New Section 24-19 entitled 'Crossroads Town Center Overlay Zone' for Block 26, Lots 2, 10 and 11 and Block 183, Lot 1[.]" The ordinance was introduced by council member Alderisio and seconded by council member Roth. The minutes of the Township Council meeting reflect that prior to the vote, a Mahwah resident asked the Township attorney whether there was a potential conflict of interest "for Mr. Williams who is Chairman of the Recreation Committee and Mr. [John] DaPuzzo whose wife is [the Township's Recreation] Director" to vote on an ordinance that would amend the Code to propose the creation of a recreational field.
The official minutes of the Mahwah Township Council do not include the first names of the council members. We include the first names of these elected officials if available in other documents or if disclosed in the appellate briefs.
The minutes reflect the Township attorney responded that "the only time . . . a conflict of interest would occur is if [the two council members] would have a personal or financial gain." The ordinance was adopted by a vote of four to three. The council members' votes were recorded in the minutes as follows: "Alderisio, yes; DiGiulio, no; Larson, yes; Roth, yes; Spiech, no; Williams, no; DaPuzzo, yes."
Ordinance No. 1684 established a "zoning alternative for land located at the junction of Interstate Route 287 and NJ Route 17." It provides:
[T]he land situated at the junction of the aforementioned highways totals in excess of 100 acres and has the potential to provide a variety of uses to complement the existing hotel and office development, known as International Crossroads, and . . . the Township has determined that commercial uses and retail development will complement the existing land use pattern in the area and such use is not currently permitted per the existing zoning for the site[.]It amended Chapter XXIV of the Township's Zoning Ordinance to create a new section § 24-19 entitled "Crossroads Town Center Overlay Zone." Section 24-19 provides, in relevant part:
The intent of the Crossroads Town Center Zone is to provide a zoning overlay encompassing Block 26 Lots 2, 10 and 11 and Block 183 Lot 1 in the OP-200 Office Park Zone, in order to facilitate a comprehensive integrated redevelopment of the International Crossroads site, and provision for open space and recreational amenities.
. . . .
The purpose of the ordinance is to provide for a mixed-use commercial development involving a combination of compatible retail and service commercial uses, offices, as well as complementary related activities, public spaces and amenities to create a pedestrian friendly environment that affirms a strong sense of place for the community. The ordinance is also designed to create a passive and active open space amenity encompassing significant portions of the area identified as Block 183 Lot 1 and Block 26 Lots 2, 10 and 11.
. . . .
At the discretion of the approving authority, a minimum of six (6) acres contiguous to the passive open space shall be developed with active recreation with fields and/or indoor sports and recreation which may include but shall not necessarily be limited to ice skating or rollerblading, soccer, lacrosse, baseball, football, tennis and related improvements.
The Township Council held a public hearing on Ordinance No. 1684, as well as related ordinances 1686 and 1687, on March 31, 2011. Although John DaPuzzo's tenure as Council President was from 2010 to 2011, it is undisputed that at the time of this public hearing DaPuzzo had left the office of Council President to assume the position of Mayor due to the death of the Township's former mayor. After Crossroads' attorney presented the plan for the site's development, the meeting was opened to the public. The minutes show several residents expressed their concerns about Ordinance No. 1684's potential adverse environmental impact on the Ramapo River, the proximity of the proposed mall to schools, increased vehicular traffic, and other issues.
At the conclusion of the public comment session, the Council voted four to two in favor of passage. The minutes record the vote as follows: "Alderisio, yes; DiGiulio, no; Larson, yes; Spiech, no; Williams, yes; Roth, yes." Because DaPuzzo was serving as Mayor, he did not vote. DaPuzzo was also not involved in discussions preceding its adoption.
II
Before he was Council President and Mayor, John DaPuzzo served on the Township's planning board from 1997 to 2000, as council member from 2000 to 2004, and 2006 to 2011. His wife Dawn DaPuzzo has held the position of recreation director since 2005. She began as a volunteer and was thereafter hired as a temporary employee. She was hired as recreation director and confirmed by the Township Council at a time when her husband was not a council member. As John DaPuzzo explained in his deposition, as a Township employee, his wife was entitled to statutory salary increases. However, she did not accept salary increases during his tenure as Mayor of Mahwah.
John DaPuzzo gave the following explanation for incorporating a recreation field into Ordinance No. 1684:
Q. So the public component is simply the athletic field and perhaps accessory parking for that field?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. And I see from the configuration it looks like a soccer field. Am I right about that?
A. It's basically just a field put in there, whether it's a soccer field or a baseball field or whatever. It was never set up exactly. That will be done in front of the planning board.
Q. Do you know how the overlay zoning ordinance came to incorporate the six-acre site for mixed recreational uses?
A. I don't know if it was requested of the council or it was offered by the developer. I'm not sure.
Q. But it wasn't your initiative?
A. No, it was not my initiative. If I'm remembering right, I know something came from Harry Williams. But whether it was offered already and then Harry, you know, pushed it to actually make sure it got included, I don't remember.
. . . .
Q. The question is whether there was anyone advocating for municipal recreational space on this site.
A. On this site? Okay. No.
Harry Williams was a council member at the time the ordinance was adopted. The minutes of the February 10, 2011 council meeting reflect Williams voted against adoption of the ordinance on first reading. He voted in favor of adoption at the second and final council meeting.
The Mahwah Schools Foundation was founded in 2000. John DaPuzzo described himself as a founding member and trustee. He serves on the audit committee and has also served on the "5K Run" committee. Around 2008 or 2009, DaPuzzo also served on the corporate development committee. His service on this committee lasted approximately one year. However, he did not attend any of the corporate development committee's meetings.
The Foundation was established to provide funding for educational programs in Mahwah's public school system that are not otherwise funded by the local board of education. The Foundation gets its funding through monetary donations from private individuals and business organizations. Crossroads donated $5000 per year to the Foundation from 2003 to 2006, and in 2008. Crossroads donated $10,000 to the Foundation in 2010. In the course of his deposition taken on February 14, 2012, DaPuzzo gave the following description of how Crossroads made its donations to the Foundation:
A: Mahwah Schools Foundation sent them a packet and they sent the check.
Q. How Much?
A. I think for a few years it was $5,000 a year. I don't think they've been in it the last couple of years, though. I think they stopped in like '09, '08, somewhere in that area.
Q. Is your name on the solicitation letter?
A. I don't know that.
Dawn DaPuzzo was also deposed on February 14, 2012. At the time her annual salary as Mahwah's recreation director was $42,000. She does not receive any benefits, such as health insurance or pension plan, because the municipality classifies the position as part-time. She also does not have regular hours. When asked to describe her work schedule, Mrs. DaPuzzo responded, "[w]hatever it takes to get my job done." Her duties include preparing the schedule for the use and maintenance of all athletic fields and organizing local holiday events. She reports directly to her supervisor, Brian Campion.
Although the DaPuzzos are both involved in the activities of the Township, she testified that she and her husband do not discuss Township issues during their private times as husband and wife. She became aware of the possibility of a recreational field included in the plan for the Crossroads project at the public meeting when it was adopted on second reading. She described the possibility of having a recreational field as something that "would be nice to have, but it's not something we need."
III
When the case came to trial before the Law Division, the parties stipulated to the admission of certain exhibits into evidence, including references to testimonial evidence provided in discovery depositions, in lieu of presenting live testimony. Based on this stipulated record, the trial judge issued an order declaring Ordinance No. 1684 valid and entered judgment in favor of defendants. In his written opinion, the trial judge only addressed the potential conflict arising from John DaPuzzo's spousal relationship with the Township's recreational director. He did not discuss DaPuzzo's involvement with the Mahwah Schools Foundation.
As part of this order, the court also voided Ordinance No. 1689 and upheld the validity of Ordinance Nos. 1686 and 1687. Because this part of the trial judge's ruling was not challenged in this appeal, we express no opinion as to its validity.
Crossroads points out that the potential conflict arising from DaPuzzo's position at the Foundation was not pled by plaintiffs, and that the exhibits attached to plaintiffs' appendix concerning this claim were not provided during pre-trial discovery. The record shows, however, that plaintiffs' counsel argued before the trial judge that in addition to DaPuzzo's spousal relationship, DaPuzzo also had a conflict of interest due to Crossroads' contributions to the Mahwah Schools Foundation. Plaintiffs argued Crossroads' contributions to the Mahwah Schools Foundation constituted an indirect personal interest.
Addressing the potential conflict related to Dawn DaPuzzo's employment as recreation director, the trial judge found:
[I]t is notable that Mrs. DaPuzzo was hired by former Mayor Richard Martel at a time when Mr. DaPuzzo was not a public official. Additionally, the responsibilities of Mrs. DaPuzzo's job include only the scheduling of fields for athletic events, and do not include legislative or policy making components. Mrs. DaPuzzo is a part-time employee with no set hours, and her salary is dictated by ordinance. Mrs. DaPuzzo reports to the Town Administrator and has no contact with the Township Council; she is also not part of the Township of Mahwah Recreation Committee. Mrs. DaPuzzo was unaware of any recreational component to Ordinance No. 1684 until it was discussed at a public meeting she attended when the Ordinance was adopted on its final reading. John DaPuzzo, then Council President, took no part in the vote on the final reading.Based on these facts, the judge concluded there was
no cognizable conflict of interest which would serve to invalidate the adoption of the ordinance. There is no suggestion that the adoption of the Ordinance would in any way benefit Mrs. DaPuzzo's employment status as the Recreation Director of the Township of Mahwah, and the circumstances presented are remote and speculative which do not serve as a disqualification of Mr. DaPuzzo.
As an appellate court, we will "not disturb the factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial judge unless convinced that those findings and conclusions were so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice." Griepenburg v. Twp. of Ocean, 220 N.J. 239, 254 (2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). However, we will review de novo the trial court's conclusions of law. Ibid. (citing Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)).
Conflict of Interest
At common law, public officials are "disqualified from participating in judicial or quasi[-]judicial proceedings in which the official has a conflicting interest that may interfere with the impartial performance of his [or her] duties as a member of the public body." Wyzykowski v. Rizas, 132 N.J. 509, 523 (1993) (quoting Scotch Plains-Fanwood Bd. of Educ. v. Syvertsen, 251 N.J. Super. 566, 568 (App. Div. 1991)). "An actual conflict of interest is not the decisive factor, nor is 'whether the public servant succumbs to the temptation,' but rather whether there is a potential for conflict." Id. at 524 (quoting Griggs v. Borough of Princeton, 33 N.J. 207, 219 (1960)). A conflict exists "when the public official has an interest not shared in common with the other members of the public." Ibid.
There are four types of conflicts warranting disqualification of a public official in voting:
(1) "Direct pecuniary interests," when an official votes on a matter benefitting the official's own property or affording a direct financial gain; (2) "Indirect pecuniary interests," when an official votes on a matter that financially benefits one closely tied to the official, such as an employer, or family member; (3) "Direct personal interest," when an official votes on a matter that benefits a blood relative or close friend in a non-financial way, but a matter of great importance, as in the case of a councilman's mother being in the nursing home subject to the zoning issue; and (4) "Indirect Personal Interest," when an official votes on a matter in which an individual's judgment may be affected because of membership in some organization and a desire to help that organization further its policies.
[Id. at 525-26.]
"[I]t is the mere existence of the interest, not its actual effect, which requires the official action to be invalidated." Randolph v. City of Brigantine Planning Bd., 405 N.J. Super. 215, 226 (App. Div. 2009) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). The evaluation of whether an interest is
sufficient to disqualify a public official is a factual determination that depends on the circumstances of the particular case; "[t]he question will always be whether the circumstances could reasonably be interpreted to show that they had the likely capacity to tempt the official to depart from his sworn public duty."Disqualification is appropriate even if only the appearance of a conflict exists. Id. at 226-27.
[Ibid. (quoting Van Itallie v. Franklin Lakes, 28 N.J. 258, 268 (1958)).]
In Wyzykowski, supra, our Supreme Court acknowledged that the common law doctrines governing public officials "will be influenced by . . . the Local Government Ethics Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.1 to -22.5[.]" 132 N.J. at 529. The Ethics Law provides that "[w]henever the public perceives a conflict between the private interests and the public duties of a government officer or employee, that confidence is imperiled[.]" N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.2(c). However, the "appearance of impropriety must be 'something more than a fanciful possibility. It must have some reasonable basis.'" Randolph, supra, 405 N.J. Super. at 227 (quoting Higgins v. Advisory Comm. on Prof'l Ethics of the Supreme Court of N.J., 73 N.J. 123, 129 (1977)). Otherwise, "[l]ocal governments would be seriously handicapped if every possible interest, no matter how remote and speculative, would serve as disqualification of an official." Ibid. (quoting Van Itallie, supra, 2 8 N.J. at 269) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Our Supreme Court revisited the appearance of impropriety standard applicable to municipal governing bodies performing quasi-judicial functions in Kane Props., L.L.C. v. City of Hoboken, 214 N.J. 199 (2013). Writing for the Court, Justice Hoens explained:
We note that DaPuzzo was performing a legislative function when he voted in favor of adopting the ordinance on first reading. However, we discern no legal or public policy basis not to impose the "appearance of impropriety" standard in this case. --------
Our traditional explanation of the appearance of impropriety standard recognized that "[t]o maintain public confidence in the bar it is necessary that the appearance of, as well as actual, wrongdoing be avoided." In particular, we have commented that "[w]hen representation of public bodies is involved, the appearance of impropriety assumes an added dimension [because positions] of public trust call for even more circumspect conduct." As our Appellate Division has observed, when an "office calls for the service of an attorney in areas where the public interest is involved, the possible areas of conflict of interest are subject to even closer scrutiny and more stringent limitation."Additionally,
[Id. at 221 (internal citations omitted).]
No local government officer or employee shall act in his official capacity in any matter where he, a member of his immediate family, or a business organization in which he has an interest, has a direct or indirect financial or personal involvement that might reasonably be expected to impair his objectivity or independence of judgment[.]An official's "immediate family" includes the individual's spouse or dependent child. N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.3(i).
[N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.5(d).]
The Township of Mahwah also has a local code of ethics, which provides:
No member of the governing body or any other Township official shall vote for the adoption or defeat of any legislation or for the payment or nonpayment of any indebtedness owing or allegedly owing by the Township in which he has any financial or other personal interest, direct or indirect; nor shall any official or employee recommend or lobby for the adoption or defeat of any legislation or for the institution or defense of any legal or quasi-legal action whatever in which he has nor may have a financial or other personal interest, direct or indirect.
[Township of Mahwah, Code of Ethics § 2-24.2(i).]
"'If a personal interest requiring disqualification exists, neither the failure to object nor the existence of sufficient votes absent that member's vote would change the requirement that the entire proceeding would be voidable.'" Meyer v. MW Red Bank, L.L.C., 401 N.J. Super. 482, 495 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting Sugarman v. Twp. of Teaneck, 272 N.J. Super. 162, 169 (App. Div. 1994)).
Plaintiffs argue the trial court applied the incorrect standard in evaluating whether a conflict of interest existed. Plaintiffs contend the judge should have applied the "appearance of impropriety" standard, set forth in Wyzykowski, supra. Crossroads argues that even though the trial judge did not use the phrase "appearance of impropriety" in his written opinion, he still engaged in the proper analysis. Specifically, Crossroads argues the judge recognized that an actual conflict need not exist, but rather only the potential existence of a conflict is necessary for disqualification.
The trial judge set forth the following standard governing conflicts of interest:
[T]he appropriate inquiry is whether an impartial and concerned citizen, intelligent and apprised of all facts in the situation, could reasonably find for the potential non-objectivity of the member of the board. Randolph v. City of Brigantine Planning Board, 405 N.J. Super. 215, 227 (2009) [sic]. The circumstances must be such that they can be reasonably interpreted to show that they had the likely capacity to tempt the member of the board to depart from his sworn public duty. Mountain Hill, L.L.C. v. Township Committee of the Township of Middletown, et al., 403 N.J. Super. 146 (App. Div. 2008). Where there does not exist realistically any contradictory desires that tug the official in opposite directions, there is no conflict of interest. Van Itallie v. Borough of Franklin Lakes, 28 N.J. 258, 268 (1958). Additionally, where circumstances alleged amount to "remote," "speculative" or "fanciful" interests, this does not rise to the level of disqualification of public officials from performing their duties. Barret v. Union Twp. Comm., 230 N.J. Super. 195, 201 (App. Div. 1989).
Although the judge did not specifically use the phrase "appearance of impropriety," the standard set forth in the memorandum of opinion adequately describes the appropriate legal rule. The judge made clear that plaintiffs bear the burden to establish the existence of a potential, rather than actual conflict, by reference to Randolph, supra, and Mountain Hill, L.L.C., supra. We are satisfied the trial court applied the correct standard for determining whether a potential conflict of interest existed.
Although the trial judge did not address this issue directly in his memorandum of opinion, applying the standard to the facts in this case, the evidence stipulated by the parties shows DaPuzzo's relationship with the Foundation did not provide a rational basis for the public to perceive a conflict between his private eleemosynary interests and his public duties as a member of the Township governing council. DaPuzzo's involvement as trustee, founder, and member of the corporate development committee of the Mahwah Schools Foundation for a term of one year is too attenuated from the adoption of Ordinance No. 1684 to constitute a conflict of interest warranting disqualification.
Although Crossroads made yearly contributions to the Foundation from 2000 to 2010, the Foundation was not an interested party in the passage of the Ordinance. DaPuzzo's service as a member of the corporate development committee for one year does not per se indicate he solicited or was directly involved with the solicitation of funds from Crossroads during that period. A far closer nexus must exist between the voting member and the organization. Plaintiffs have not presented evidence showing DaPuzzo's ties to the Foundation influenced his decision-making as a council member. No objectively reasonable member of the public could conclude DaPuzzo's involvement in this philanthropic endeavor cast a cloud of corruption or impropriety during his tenure on the Township's Council.
Conflict Arising from Spouse's Employment
Plaintiffs argue they met their burden to show a direct personal conflict of interest stemming from John DaPuzzo's spousal relationship with the Township's Recreation Director. A direct personal interest is defined in Wyzykowski, supra, as "when an official votes on a matter that benefits a blood relative or close friend in a non-financial way[.]" 132 N.J. at 525. Regarding disqualification in the context of familial relationships, "the pivotal issue is not the degree of relationship to the board member, but, rather, the type of association the relative had with the interested organization and the amount of interest the relative had in the official's actions." Meyer, supra, 401 N.J. Super. at 492 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, the trial judge found "Mrs. DaPuzzo was hired by former Mayor Richard Martel at a time when Mr. DaPuzzo was not a public official"; her job responsibilities were limited to "scheduling of fields for athletic events, and do not include legislative or policy making components;" her salary is set by ordinance; she "reports to the Town Administrator and has no contact with the Township Council"; and she was "unaware of any recreational component to Ordinance No. 1684 until it was discussed at a public meeting she attended when the Ordinance was adopted on its final reading." Based on these findings, the judge concluded that "[t]here is no suggestion that the adoption of the Ordinance would in any way benefit Mrs. DaPuzzo's employment status as the Recreation Director of the Township of Mahwah, and the circumstances presented are remote and speculative which do not serve as a disqualification of Mr. DaPuzzo."
The evidence before the trial judge also shows plaintiffs did not meet their burden to establish that John DaPuzzo's vote benefited his wife in a non-financial way. Not only did Dawn DaPuzzo testify that she was unaware of the recreational aspect of the project until its final vote, there is no evidence that she discussed Crossroads' application with her husband or that she would derive even an indirect benefit from the passage of the ordinance.
As recreation director, Dawn DaPuzzo's responsibilities are limited to scheduling recreational activities and planning town events. She testified that the Township did not require an additional recreational field, and plaintiffs did not produce evidence establishing that the addition of a recreational field would trigger a salary increase, prestige, or any other tangible benefit upon Dawn DaPuzzo. The fact that she holds the position of Recreation Director in the Township is not sufficient to establish a potential conflict of interest warranting disqualification of John DaPuzzo's vote for the introduction of the ordinance. Therefore, the trial court did not err in concluding that there was no conflict of interest arising from John DaPuzzo's spousal relationship.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION