Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In the Matter of P.T. Jibsail Family Limited Partnership Tidelands License Number 1515-06-0012.1 TDI 190001

Supreme Court of New Jersey

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: A-35-24

• Opinion

• Authorities (18)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (14.3K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

SYLLABUS

This syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. It has been prepared by the Office
of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor
approved by the Court and may not summarize all portions of the opinion.

In the Matter of P.T. Jibsail Family Limited Partnership (A-35-24) (089547)

Argued October 21, 2025 -- Decided March 18, 2026

JUSTICE WAINER APTER, writing for a unanimous Court.

In this appeal, the Court considers whether, under the Tidelands Act, the
Tidelands Resource Council (TRC) must establish pierhead lines around all New
Jersey islands prospectively, or whether the Council can set or modify a pierhead
line in the context of reviewing an application for a tidelands license.

Respondent P.T. Jibsail Family Limited Partnership (Jibsail) owns a
waterfront property on West Point Island. Petitioner Janine Morris Trust (JMT),
owns waterfront property adjacent to Jibsail’s. In 2017, Jibsail received a permit
from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to build a dock extension
and a ten-year tidelands license from the TRC. After the extension was built and
found to be 1.7 feet south of the permitted location, Jibsail applied for a modified
permit for the as-built dock, which was approved. In April 2019, Jibsail applied to
the TRC for a modified tidelands license for the as-built dock extension.

JMT opposed Jibsail’s application, claiming the extension created
navigational hazards and impacted JMT’s rights to use its own dock. At a public
hearing, Jibsail explained that the extension was required by DEP subaquatic
vegetation habitat rules and by licenses previously granted to neighboring properties
to construct similar length docks. The TRC postponed its decision. In September
2022, the TRC approved the modified license. JMT appealed, contesting the TRC’s
approval of the 2017 and 2022 tidelands licenses. The Appellate Division affirmed,
finding the TRC’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. JMT
petitioned for certification, arguing that Section 19 of the Tidelands Act requires the
TRC to establish pierhead lines around islands prospectively on a “global and
uniform basis.” The Court granted certification. 260 N.J. 91 (2025).

HELD: The TRC did not exceed its statutory authority in granting Jibsail’s 2017 or
2022 tidelands licenses because the plain language of the Tidelands Act authorizes
the TRC to set or modify a pierhead line in the context of reviewing an application
for a specific tidelands license, rather than requiring the TRC to establish pierhead
lines around all New Jersey islands uniformly in advance.
1
1. The Tidelands Act governs the use of the State’s tidelands and creates the TRC as
“the public body responsible for the stewardship” of tidelands, or riparian lands.
N.J.S.A. 12:3-12.1. It is the responsibility of the TRC “to determine whether
applications for the lease, license, or grant of riparian lands are in the public
interest” and, if so, to “obtain the fair market value for the lease, license or grant.”
Ibid. N.J.S.A. 12:3-19 and -20 together govern the TRC’s management of tidelands
surrounding islands. Both were enacted on February 10, 1891. (pp. 12-15)

1. N.J.S.A. 12:3-19 currently provides that the TRC “shall, from time to time, fix
   and establish, around or in front of all islands, reefs and shoals situate in the tidal
   waters of this State, exterior lines . . . beyond which no pier . . . of any kind shall be
   made or maintained.” “From time to time” means “once in a while”; “occasionally.”
   Thus, rather than requiring the TRC to map pierhead lines around all islands “in the
   tidal waters of this State” immediately upon enactment, or by some date certain
   thereafter, the Legislature chose to allow the TRC to “fix and establish” pierhead
   lines “once in a while,” “occasionally,” or “now and then,” as the TRC saw fit. And
   rather than requiring the TRC to set pierhead lines all the way “around” each island
   in the State, the Legislature chose to permit the TRC to fix pierhead lines “around or
   in front of all islands.” The plain text of Section 19 thus does not mandate that the
   TRC establish one uniform pierhead line around each island; instead, the TRC can
   establish separate pierhead lines “in front of” separate parts of an island -- i.e., it can
   “fix and establish” a pierhead line in front of an individual property owner’s land.
   The requirement at the end of Section 19 to file a map showing the lines “so fixed
   and established” is most naturally read to apply only to pierhead lines placed in front
   of a riparian grant that existed before February 10, 1891. (pp. 15-19)

2. The Court’s interpretation is consistent with TRC practice since 1891. For
   almost 70 years, the TRC has relied on a series of decisions for support that it may
   establish or modify pierhead lines when reviewing an application for a specific
   license. The Court explains why JMT is mistaken that one of those decisions,
   Schultz v. Wilson, 44 N.J. Super. 591 (App. Div. 1957), is no longer good law.
   Over the past 135 years, the TRC has never undertaken to map comprehensive
   pierhead lines around all islands in the State. If the Legislature believed that was in
   violation of the Tidelands Act, it likely would have said so. The Court explains why
   reading Section 19 to permit the TRC to fix or modify a pierhead line in front of part
   of an island in the context of a particular license does not render “entire sections” of
   the Tidelands Act inoperative. (pp. 19-24)

AFFIRMED.

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES PATTERSON, PIERRE-LOUIS,
FASCIALE, NORIEGA, and HOFFMAN join in JUSTICE WAINER APTER’s
opinion.
2
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
A-35 September Term 2024
089547

In the Matter of P.T. Jibsail
Family Limited Partnership
Tidelands License Number
1515-06-0012.1 TDI 190001.

On certification to the Superior Court,
Appellate Division.

Argued Decided
October 21, 2025 March 18, 2026

Michael G. Sinkevich, Jr. argued the cause for appellant
Janine Morris Trust (Lieberman Blecher & Sinkevich,
and Mylod & Fitzgerald, attorneys; Michael G.
Sinkevich, Jr., of counsel and on the briefs, and C.
Michael Gan and Philip G. Mylod, on the briefs).

Amie C. Kalac argued the cause for respondent P.T.
Jibsail Family Limited Partnership (Cullen and Dykman,
attorneys; Amie C. Kalac and Neil Yoskin, of counsel
and on the briefs).

Mark Collier, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause
for respondent New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General,
attorney; Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney General,
of counsel, and Mark Collier, W. Conor Kennedy, and
Jonathan Allen, Deputy Attorneys General, on the briefs).

Michele R. Donato submitted a brief on behalf of amicus
curiae Save Barnegat Bay (Michele R. Donato, on the
brief).

1
JUSTICE WAINER APTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to determine whether the Tidelands Resource

Council must establish pierhead lines around all New Jersey islands

prospectively, or whether the Council can set or modify a pierhead line in the

context of reviewing an application for a tidelands license.

Tidelands are lands that are covered by water at mean high tide. See

O’Neill v. State Highway Dep’t, 50 N.J. 307, 323-24 (1967). New Jersey

owns all tidelands up to three geographical miles off the coast. See 43 U.S.C

§§ 1301(a), 1311(a). The Tidelands Act authorizes the Tidelands Resource

Council (TRC) to grant a license, in exchange for a fee, to an individual who

wants to construct a dock on tidelands. N.J.S.A. 12:3-10, -12. It also

authorizes the TRC to “fix and establish” pierhead lines -- the line “beyond

which no pier, wharf, bulkhead, erection or permanent obstruction of any kind

shall be made or maintained” -- “around or in front of all islands” “from time

to time.” Id. at -19.

We hold that the plain language of the Tidelands Act permits the TRC to

establish or modify a pierhead line in front of an island in connection with an

individual license application. We therefore affirm the Appellate Division’s

decision.

2
I.

A.

Respondent P.T. Jibsail Family Limited Partnership (Jibsail) owns 83

Pershing Boulevard, a waterfront property on West Point Island. After

obtaining a waterfront development permit from the Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP) and a seven-year tidelands license from the

TRC, Jibsail’s predecessor constructed a 128-foot-long dock in Barnegat Bay.

Jibsail purchased the property in 2012 and was assigned the tidelands license.

Jibsail then applied for, and the TRC granted, a renewed ten-year license.

In March 2017, Jibsail applied to the DEP for a waterfront development

permit and to the TRC for a modified tidelands license to build a 185-foot-long

dock extension off the end of its existing dock. Jibsail sent written notice of

the application and proposed construction to all neighbors within 200 feet,

including petitioner Janine Morris Trust (JMT). JMT owns the adjacent

waterfront property at 85 Pershing Boulevard, which includes a 100-foot-long

dock. After receiving notice, JMT sent an opposition letter to the DEP,

arguing that Jibsail’s dock extension would endanger boaters and residents.

On May 19, 2017, the DEP approved a waterfront development permit

for Jibsail to construct a 167.3-foot-long dock extension, conditioned on

Jibsail obtaining a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and a license

3
from the TRC. The Army Corps issued a permit and the TRC issued a

modified revocable tidelands license for use of the 1,596.4 square feet of

tidelands required for the proposed dock extension from December 12, 2017,

to December 12, 2027.

B.

After Jibsail built the dock extension, the Army Corps determined that it

was placed 1.7 feet south of the permitted location, farther from JMT’s

property. Jibsail therefore applied for a modified waterfront development

permit for the as-built dock. Both the DEP and the Army Corps approved

modified permits.

In April 2019, Jibsail applied to the TRC for a modified tidelands license

for use of the 1,588 square feet of tidelands required for the as-built dock

extension. JMT opposed the application and requested an adjudicatory hearing

on both the 2017 license and the 2019 proposed modification. The DEP

denied the request.

On May 28, 2019, JMT sent letters to the DEP, TRC, and Army Corps,

expressing its “severe opposition” to Jibsail’s then-completed dock extension.

JMT claimed the extension created navigational hazards and impacted its

rights to use its own dock. JMT appeared at a TRC hearing on March 4, 2020.

John Morris, Janine Morris’s husband, testified that Jibsail’s dock extension

4
“compromised greatly” his ability to reach his own dock and created serious

navigation hazards. Other members of the public also testified that Jibsail’s

dock extension negatively impacted the environment, navigation, and safety.

Jibsail explained that the length and shape of the dock extension was

required by DEP subaquatic vegetation habitat rules, which required the dock

to extend to four feet of water, 1 and by licenses previously granted to 77 and

79 Pershing Boulevard to construct similar length docks. The TRC postponed

its decision. Both Jibsail and JMT then submitted legal briefs to the TRC.

On August 23, 2022, JMT filed an Order to Show Cause and Verified

Complaint, requesting that the TRC either hold a second hearing or decide

Jibsail’s modified license application. On September 14, 2022, the TRC held a

second public hearing and unanimously approved Jibsail’s modified license.

The TRC adopted a resolution memorializing the approval, finding that:

1. The Council has determined that the established pierhead line is the outshore extent of an individual riparian owner’s riparian rights to erect a dock or pier, or to claim preemptive rights related to a pending application before the Council.

1
In areas with subaquatic vegetation, N.J.A.C. 7:7-9.6(b) allows the
“[c]onstruction of a single noncommercial dock or pier provided that . . . [a]
minimum water depth of four feet at mean low water must be present in the
area where the boats will be moored,” and “[t]he extension of existing piers or
floating docks through submerged vegetation habitat to water at least four feet
deep at mean low water.”

5
2. The Council has determined that the Jibsail
Modified Tidelands License does not intersect at or
inshore of the established pierhead line of any other
licensee or grantee in the area.

1. The Council has determined that the Jibsail
   Modified Tidelands License does not intersect at or
   inshore of any point within [JMT’s] established
   pierhead line.

2. The Council has confirmed that the Jibsail
   Modified Tidelands License had an approved
   Waterfront Development Permit (“WFD Permit”)
   and an accompanying approved licensed
   professional survey.

3. In light of the WFD permit issued to Jibsail, the
   Council has determined that sufficient space was
   afforded to both the applicant and all permitted and
   licensed structures in the immediate area.

4. In light of the WFD permit issued to Jibsail, and the
   comments by the applicant and objector, the
   Council has determined that sufficient means of
   navigation was evidenced for both the applicant
   and the permitted and licensed structures in the
   immediate area.

5. The Council has determined, in the public interest,
   that a revocable license, which does not impact the
   State’s title, is the appropriate instrument for the
   Jibsail Modified License.

6. The Council has given due regard to the interests of
   navigation for both the applicant and other
   permitted and licensed structures in the area.

7. The Council acknowledges that the conditions of
   the Modified Jibsail Dock Extension were impacted
   by several factors: the presence of subaquatic
   vegetation . . . which required Jibsail and other
   6
   applicants for new licenses in the area to construct
   longer docks in order to avoid disturbing that
   protected habitat; the bending shoreline along
   Pershing Boulevard which limits the apportionable
   outshore space to construct a dock; and the WFD
   Permits and Tidelands Licenses associated with 77
   and 79 Pershing Boulevard, which were approved
   prior to the Jibsail WFD Permit and Tidelands
   License applications, were of similar lengths and
   angular configurations, and which significantly
   limited apportionable outshore space for the Jibsail
   dock.

The DEP approved the TRC’s decision.

C.

JMT appealed, contesting the TRC’s approval of Jibsail’s 2017 and 2022

tidelands licenses. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding the TRC’s

decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The court emphasized

that the TRC not only considered prior approvals by the DEP and Army Corps

but conducted its own “careful review” of “extensive testimony, documents,

photographs, and arguments,” before concluding that “JMT’s concerns over

the ability to safely navigate to and from its dock were without merit.”

The court also held that Jibsail’s dock did not interfere with JMT’s

rights in any way. It distinguished between tidelands grants and tidelands

licenses: whereas a grant gives fee simple ownership that “generally extends

the full width . . . of the adjacent upland parcel . . . out to the pierhead line,” a

license gives “the right to use only the area of tidelands circumscribed by a
7
‘license box’ on the accompanying survey, an outline that closely

approximates the size of the permitted structure -- in this case, a dock.” Here,

although “JMT is the fee simple owner of . . . the upland area,” it could not

simply “extend[] waterward” “its upland property lines” to claim ownership

over the tidelands. Instead, JMT was only a “licensee of the tidelands within

the license box drawn around its [own] dock,” and its right to use tidelands

outside of that license box was “no stronger . . . than the riparian right of any

other member of the public.” Because “Jibsail’s dock d[id] not intersect with

JMT’s licensed area” in any way, JMT’s rights did not “prevent the State from

claiming title to and managing the tidelands outside of JMT’s licensed area.”

Relying on Section 19 of the Tidelands Act, N.J.S.A. 12:3-19, and

Schultz v. Wilson, 44 N.J. Super. 591, 607 (App. Div. 1957), the Appellate

Division rejected JMT’s argument that the TRC is statutorily prohibited from

establishing or modifying pierhead lines through individual licenses.

D.

We granted JMT’s petition for certification. 260 N.J. 91 (2025). We

also granted leave to appear as amicus curiae to Save Barnegat Bay.

II.

JMT argues that the TRC exceeded its statutory authority in approving

Jibsail’s 2017 and 2022 licenses. According to JMT, the TRC had previously

8
established a pierhead line around West Point Island, as evidenced by a 1994

Borough of Lavallette Tax Map. JMT claims that Jibsail’s dock extension

goes far beyond that line, and the TRC is statutorily prohibited from modifying

pierhead lines through an individual license. Section 19 of the Tidelands Act,

JMT contends, requires the TRC to establish pierhead lines around islands

prospectively on a “global and uniform basis” and to file “a statewide survey

and map delineating the pierhead line” so established with the Secretary of

State. Section 19 also bars the TRC from amending pierhead lines “on an ad

hoc basis through individual conveyances,” JMT maintains. If “the TRC could

simply amend these lines on an application-by-application basis,” JMT asserts,

“there would be no point in establishing a . . . pierhead line in advance,” and

“entire sections” of the Tidelands Act would be rendered “‘inoperative,

superfluous, [and] void.’” (quoting Sanchez v. Fitness Factory Edgewater,

LLC, 242 N.J. 252, 261 (2020), and citing N.J.S.A. 12:3-3, -14, -20, and -23).

Amicus Save Barnegat Bay similarly argues that the TRC’s grant of a

tidelands license “without the advance establishment of” a pierhead line that is

“comprehensive” and “surveyed” violates the Tidelands Act and is dangerous

to Barnegat Bay’s ecosystem, navigation, and recreation. According to

amicus, N.J.S.A. 12:3-19 and -20 “unambiguously require the TRC to establish

9
in advance pierhead lines” and prohibit the TRC from “draw[ing] lines

improvisationally as each tidelands’ application is received.”

The DEP contends that the plain text of N.J.S.A. 12:3-19 authorizes the

TRC to draw pierhead lines “from time to time” and “for an area less than

around” an entire island -- thus permitting the TRC to modify or establish a

pierhead line in connection with an individual license application. According

to the DEP, there is no record that the TRC has ever established a pierhead line

around all of West Point Island, and no evidence that the pierhead line shown

on the Lavallette Tax Map was set or approved by the TRC. Instead, “with the

explicit endorsement of judicial precedent, the TRC has carried on a decades-

long practice of establishing [pierhead] lines on a case-by-case basis through

individual conveyances.” (citing Schultz, 44 N.J. Super. 591). Voiding the

TRC’s ability to do so, the DEP warns, could threaten more than 100 years of

licenses and grants and require the State to “muster a huge amount of

resources to survey, study, draw and catalog the [pierhead] lines statewide.”

Jibsail similarly maintains that “[p]etitioner’s argument that TRC is

required to establish uniform, and permanent, pierhead lines in all of the

State’s tidewaters is contrary to” the Tidelands Act. It also conflicts with the

“TRC’s established practice,” and “would require TRC to revoke thousands of

tidelands licenses” for already-constructed docks, Jibsail explains. Like the

10
DEP, Jibsail relies on the phrase “from time to time” in N.J.S.A. 12:3-19.

Jibsail also argues that “[l]ines included on a tax map that have not been

approved by NJDEP have no weight and do not limit the statutory authority”

of the TRC to modify pierhead lines through individual licenses.

III.

A.

The TRC, which falls within the DEP, is charged with enforcing the

Tidelands Act. N.J.S.A. 12:3-12.1; N.J.S.A. 13:1B-13. The Appellate

Division quoted Utley v. Board of Review, Department of Labor for the

proposition that we must give “some deference” to an agency’s “interpretation

of statutes . . . within its implementing and enforcing responsibility.” 194 N.J.

534, 551 (2008) (quotation omitted). However, we have not always been

consistent about what standard of review applies to an agency’s interpretation

of a statute it is charged with enforcing. 2 In addition, the United States

2
At times, we have stated that “[w]e will defer to an agency’s interpretation of
. . . a statute . . . within the sphere of the agency’s authority, unless the
interpretation is ‘plainly unreasonable’” because “a state agency brings
experience and specialized knowledge to its task of administering and
regulating a legislative enactment within its field of expertise.” See, e.g., In re
Election L. Enf’t Comm’n Advisory Op. No. 01-2008, 201 N.J. 254, 262
(2010). In other cases, we have reviewed an agency’s interpretation of a
statute it is charged with enforcing de novo. See, e.g., Musker v. Suuchi, Inc.,
260 N.J. 178, 185-89 (2025). And in other cases, we have stated that we will
give “great deference to an agency’s interpretation of statutes within its scope
of authority,” but are not “bound by an agency’s determination on a question
11
Supreme Court recently held that federal courts “may not defer” to a federal

agency’s interpretation of a statute it is charged with enforcing, even if the

statute is ambiguous. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 413

(2024). We do not attempt to reconcile our conflicting case law, or grapple

with the reasoning of Loper Bright, because our decision in this case would be

the same regardless of whether we deferred to the DEP’s interpretation of the

Tidelands Act or reviewed the statute de novo.

B.

The State generally owns in fee simple all tidelands, or lands that are or

were “flowed by the tide up to the high-water line.” O’Neill, 50 N.J. at 323 -

1. “[T]he owner of oceanfront property” on the other hand, “holds title to the

property upland of the high water mark.” City of Long Branch v. Jui Yung

Liu, 203 N.J. 464, 475 (2010).

The Tidelands Act, which dates back to 1864, governs the use of the

State’s tidelands. See L. 1864, c. 391; N.J.S.A. 12:3-1 to -71. The Act creates

the TRC as “the public body responsible for the stewardship” of tidelands,

which are also known as riparian lands. N.J.S.A. 12:3-12.1. “Any riparian

of law” and “therefore apply de novo review to issues of statutory
interpretation.” See, e.g., Garden State Check Cashing Serv., Inc. v. Dep’t of
Banking & Ins., 237 N.J. 482, 485, 489 (2019).

12
owner on tidewaters in this State who is desirous to obtain a lease, grant or

conveyance from the State of New Jersey of any lands under water in front of

his lands” may apply to the TRC, which may “make such lease, grant or

conveyance with due regard to the interests of navigation,” in exchange for

“such compensation . . . to the State of New Jersey” as the TRC shall

determine. Id. at -10. Specifically, the Act authorizes the TRC to grant or

lease tidelands “lying between what was, at any time heretofore, the original

high-water line and the seaward territorial jurisdiction of the State,” i.e., up to

three miles offshore, “in all cases in which, in their discretion, [the TRC] shall

think such grant or lease should be made.” Id. at -12.

It is the responsibility of the TRC “to determine whether applications for

the lease, license, or grant of riparian lands are in the public interest” and, if

so, to “obtain the fair market value for the lease, license or grant.” Id. at -12.1.

Any lease or grant must be approved by the TRC, the DEP Commissioner, and

the Attorney General. N.J.S.A. 13:1B-13.

In order to build or alter a dock, a waterfront property owner needs both

a waterfront development permit and a tidelands license for a particular square

footage of tidelands underneath and surrounding the proposed dock. See

N.J.S.A. 12:5-3(a); Peter J. Gannon, Riparian Rights 9 (1955); In re Tideland’s

License 96-0114-T, 326 N.J. Super. 209, 211 (App. Div. 1999) (explaining that

13
the challenged tidelands license was issued “to permit the ‘use and

maintenance of a pier’”).

The Tidelands Act contains two provisions that together govern the

TRC’s management of tidelands surrounding islands. See N.J.S.A.

12:3-19, -20. Both were enacted on February 10, 1891, L. 1891, c. 5, and

amended in 2009, L. 2009, c. 40. Section 19 currently states:

The Tidelands Resource Council, with the approval of
the Commissioner of Environmental Protection and
after consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers,
shall, from time to time, fix and establish, around or in
front of all islands, reefs and shoals situate in the tidal
waters of this State, exterior lines in said waters,
beyond which no pier, wharf, bulkhead, erection or
permanent obstruction of any kind shall be made or
maintained, and also the interior lines for solid filling
in said waters, beyond which no permanent obstruction
shall be made or maintained other than wharves and
piers and erections thereon for commercial uses;
provided, however, that no exterior line around or in
front of any such island, reef or shoal shall be fixed and
established in front of any riparian grant which was
made prior to February tenth, one thousand eight
hundred and ninety-one, unless such exterior line shall
be fixed and established, after consultation with the
Army Corps of Engineers, at such distance as will, in
the judgment of the Tidelands Resource Council, leave
sufficient waterway in front of said grants for
navigation, and when the council shall have so fixed
and established said lines after consultation as
aforesaid, it shall file a survey and map thereof in the
Office of the Secretary of State, showing the lines for
piers and solid filling so fixed and established.

14
[N.J.S.A. 12:3-19 (the shown emphasis was included in
L. 1891, c. 5, § 1).]

Section 20 provides:

The Tidelands Resource Council, together with the
Commissioner of Environmental Protection, may sell or
let to any applicant therefor any of the lands under
water and below mean high-water mark, embraced
within the lines fixed and established pursuant to
[N.J.S.A.] 12:3-19 upon such terms as to purchase
money or rental, and under such conditions and
restrictions as to time and manner of payment, the
duration and renewal of any lease, the occupation and
use of the land sold or leased, and such other conditions
and restrictions as the interest of the State may require,
and as may be fixed and determined by the council
together with the commissioner.

[N.J.S.A. 12:3-20.]

IV.

We hold that the TRC did not exceed its statutory authority in granting

Jibsail’s 2017 or 2022 tidelands licenses because the Tidelands Act authorizes

the TRC to set or modify a pierhead line in the context of reviewing an

application for a specific tidelands license, rather than requiring the TRC to

establish pierhead lines around all New Jersey islands uniformly in advance.

In interpreting the Tidelands Act, “[w]e ascribe to the statutory words

their ordinary meaning and significance, and read them in context with related

provisions so as to give sense to the legislation as a whole.” DiProspero v.

Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492 (2005) (citations omitted). In so doing, we “strive for
15
an interpretation that gives effect to all of the statutory provisions and does not

render any language inoperative, superfluous, void or insignificant.” G.S. v.

Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 157 N.J. 161, 172 (1999).

We focus first on the requirement that the TRC “shall, from time to time,

fix and establish, around or in front of all islands, reefs and shoals situate in

the tidal waters of this State, exterior lines in said waters, beyond which no

pier . . . of any kind shall be made or maintained.” N.J.S.A. 12:3-19

(emphases added). We refer to such exterior lines as pierhead lines.

“From time to time” means “once in a while” or “occasionally.”

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1309 (11th ed. 2003); see also New

Oxford American Dictionary 697 (3d ed. 2010) (defining “from time to time”

as “occasionally”); Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary 381 (1st ed.

2008) (defining “from time to time” as “sometimes, but not regularly”). That

definition has apparently been consistent since 1891. See, e.g., Upshur v.

Mayor of Balt., 51 A. 953, 955 (Md. 1902) (“The Century Dictionary defines

. . . the phrase ‘from time to time’ to mean ‘occasionally;’ and the Universal

Dictionary defines ‘from time to time’ to mean ‘at intervals; now and then.’”);

Florey v. Meeker, 240 P.2d 1177, 1190 (Or. 1952).

Thus, rather than requiring the TRC to map pierhead lines around all

islands “situate[d] in the tidal waters of this State” immediately upon

16
enactment in 1891, or by some date certain thereafter, the Legislature chose to

allow the TRC to “fix and establish” pierhead lines “once in a while,”

“occasionally,” or “now and then,” as the TRC saw fit.

And rather than requiring the TRC to set pierhead lines all the way

“around” each island in the State, the Legislature chose to permit the TRC to

fix and establish pierhead lines “around or in front of all islands.” The plain

text of Section 19 thus does not mandate that the TRC establish one uniform

pierhead line around each island; instead, the TRC can establish separate

pierhead lines “in front of” separate parts of an island. In other words, the

TRC can “fix and establish” a pierhead line in front of an individual property

owner’s land.

In asserting that the TRC must uniformly establish pierhead lines around

all islands in the state prospectively, JMT relies heavily on the last words of

Section 19, which it maintains require the TRC to file a survey and map with

the Secretary of State of all pierhead lines “so fixed and established.” But the

language JMT homes in on is contained in the second clause of Section 19,

which is separated from the first clause of Section 19 by a semicolon and the

originally italicized words “provided, however.”

“A semicolon in an antecedent phrase is commonly interpreted to

separate that phrase from a subsequent modifying phrase.” Morella v. Grand

17
Union/N.J. Self-Insurers Guar. Ass’n, 391 N.J. Super. 231, 241 (App. Div.

2007), aff’d o.b., 193 N.J. 350 (2008); accord Robinson v. Zorn, 430 N.J.

Super. 312, 319 (App. Div. 2013). And the phrase “provided, however”

introduces a separate proviso, not a continuation of an earlier clause. See

Andrito v. Allstate Ins. Co., 161 N.J. Super. 409, 413 (Law Div. 1978)

(“‘provided, however, that,’ are words of art signifying a proviso” (citing

Black’s Law Dictionary 1388 (4th ed. 1968) (defining “provided” as “[t]he

word used in introducing a proviso”))). A proviso is “a provision that begins

with the words provided that and supplies a condition, exception, or addition.”

Black’s Law Dictionary 1481 (11th ed. 2019).

Here, the proviso that follows the semicolon in Section 19 appears to lay

out an exception to the general rule: the TRC cannot place a pierhead line in

front of any riparian grant made before February 10, 1891, unless it first

consults with the Army Corps and determines that the pierhead line “leave[s]

sufficient waterway in front of said grant[] for navigation.” N.J.S.A. 12:3-19.

Then, separated only by a comma, the proviso continues: “and when the

[TRC] shall have so fixed and established said lines after consultation as

aforesaid, it shall file a survey and map thereof in the Office of the Secretary

of State, showing the lines.” Ibid.

18
The requirement to file a survey and map in the Office of the Secretary

of State is therefore most naturally read to apply only when a pierhead line is

placed in front of a riparian grant that existed before February 10, 1891. All

agree there is no pre-1891 riparian grant at issue in this case.

That interpretation is consistent with TRC practice since 1891. There is

no record that the TRC has ever established a pierhead line around the entirety

of West Point Island, and no evidence that the pierhead line shown on the

Borough of Lavallette Tax Map was ever set or approved by the TRC. The

DEP confirmed at oral argument that the TRC does not set pierhead lines

around islands in the State prospectively and does not file maps or surveys of

such pierhead lines with the Secretary of State. Counsel for JMT conceded

that it could find no maps or surveys of pierhead lines on file with the

Secretary of State.

Instead, for almost seventy years the TRC has relied on Bailey v.

Driscoll (Bailey I), 19 N.J. 363, 367 (1955); Bailey v. Council, Division of

Planning & Development, 22 N.J. 366, 372 (1956); and Schultz, 44 N.J. Super.

at 607, to support its position that the Tidelands Act authorizes the TRC to

establish or modify pierhead lines when reviewing an application for a specific

tidelands license.

19
In Schultz, the pierhead line “had not theretofore been established with

respect to the entire length of” the relevant tidelands, and the TRC instead

“expressly fixe[d]” the exterior line in the deed that recorded the challenged

riparian grant. 44 N.J. Super. at 606. The Appellate Division rejected the

challenge, holding that the pierhead line “was fixed in accordance with express

statutory authority, [N.J.S.A.] 12:3-17, and the established practice of the

[TRC] in fixing exterior lines in riparian deeds and the accompanying maps.”

Ibid. The court further held that Bailey I did not require “that the pierhead and

bulkhead line must have been established prior to the making of a particular

grant.” Ibid.

JMT argues that Schultz is no longer good law because the statutory

section it cited, N.J.S.A. 12:3-17, has since been repealed. It is true that

Section 17 was repealed in 1979. But Section 17 never expressly approved of

the TRC setting pierhead lines in an individual grant or license. It allowed

upland owners to request surveys and maps of the tidelands adjoining their

property, and the State to charge owners for such maps. 3 Its repeal does not

undermine Schultz’s holding.

3
L. 1875, c. 308, codified at Section 17, originally read:

Whereas, applications are frequently made to the
riparian commissioners for grants of lands under
tidewater in various parts of the state, requiring surveys
20
And it does not change the fact that over the past 135 years, the TRC has

never undertaken to map comprehensive pierhead lines around all islands in

the State. If the Legislature believed that was in violation of the Tidelands

to be made and maps to be prepared and filed with the
secretary of state, and some provision should be made
to have these surveys extended from time to time as the
citizens of the state may require, and in order to provide
the necessary means for carrying on this work without
any additional tax on the treasury of the state, therefore

Be it enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of
the State of New Jersey,

That the riparian commissioners may and shall at the
request of shore owners extend their surveys over the
tide-waters of this state, and prepare maps and have the
same filed as now provided by the act to which this is a
supplement and the supplements thereto, and to provide
the necessary means to pay the expenses incurred by
them in this work without charge to the treasury; they
may retain and expend for this purpose not to exceed in
the aggregate five per centum of the amounts named in
the grants or leases made to riparian owners . . . .

Immediately before it was repealed, Section 17 read:

The board shall, at the request of shore owners, extend
its surveys over the tidewaters of this state and prepare
and file maps thereof in the office of the secretary of
state showing what lines have been fixed and
established for the exterior lines for solid filing and pier
lines.

[N.J.S.A. 12:3-17 (1979) (repealed eff. Jan. 17, 1980 by
L. 1979, c. 311, § 4).]
21
Act, it likely would have said so. Cf. GE Solid State, Inc. v. Dir., Div. of

Tax’n, 132 N.J. 298, 313 (1993) (“[C]ourts have acknowledged that the

practical administrative construction of a statute over a period of years without

legislative interference will, under appropriate circumstances, be accorded

great weight as evidence of its conformity with legislative intent.”).

Finally, contrary to JMT’s contention, our interpretation of Section 19 as

permitting the TRC to fix or modify a pierhead line in front of part of an island

in the context of approving a particular license does not render “entire

sections” of the Tidelands Act inoperative. JMT cites Sections 3, 14, 20, and

1. We address each in turn.

Section 3 is not relevant to this case. It concerns pierhead lines drawn

and piers erected on the Hudson River, New York Bay and Kill von Kull, and

specifies permitted intervals between piers (75 feet), how piers shall be

constructed (on piles or on blocks and bridges), and how water must be

permitted to pass under a pier. N.J.S.A. 12:3-3.

Section 14 applies to lines set pursuant to Section 13. N.J.S.A. 12:3-13

authorizes the TRC to “change, fix and establish any other lines than those

now fixed and established for pier lines, . . . and when so fixed and

established, the council shall file a map and surveys in the office of the

secretary of state, showing what lines have been fixed and established by it for

22
. . . pier lines.” N.J.S.A. 12:3-14 then provides: “From and after the filing of

said map and surveys in the office of the secretary of state, no encroachment of

any kind shall be permitted to be made beyond said lines so fixed and

established for . . . pier lines . . . .” Neither provision applies to islands, and

neither says anything about the TRC’s authority to set pierhead lines around or

in front of islands. Our decision has no impact on either.

Section 20 is quoted in full above on page ___ (slip op. at 15). Nothing

in Section 20 states or implies that pierhead lines must be set prospectively for

all islands in the State or may not be “fixed and established” when the TRC

reviews a license application.

Section 23 permits the TRC to “lease or grant the lands of the State

below mean high-water mark and immediately adjoining the shore” to an

applicant who is not the owner of the shore property only if the shore owner

“shall have received six months’ previous notice of the intention to take said

lease” and “shall have failed or neglected within said period of six months to

apply for and complete such lease or grant.” N.J.S.A. 12:3-23. Section 23

says nothing about the TRC’s authority to set or establish pierhead lines. And

all agree that it does not apply in this case, as Jibsail’s dock extends directly

from its own shoreline, not JMT’s.

23
V.

For the reasons stated, we affirm the Appellate Division’s judgment.

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES PATTERSON, PIERRE-
LOUIS, FASCIALE, NORIEGA, and HOFFMAN join in JUSTICE WAINER
APTER’s opinion.

24