Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 21 3611681 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017) NEW JERSEY (08/23/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether limits of a local government's authority to regulate development of a state universi- ty's property (see Rutgers, State University v. Piluso, 60 N.J. 142, 286 A.2d 697 (1972)) apply to a state university's construction of a roadway that intersects a county road. The Background/Facts: Montclair State University ("MSU") sought to develop a roadway from its campus to Valley Road in the City of Clifton (the "City") in the County of Passaic (the "County"). MSU spent approximately six years consulting with the County and the City with regard to various objec- tions and concerns about the project. Finally, in 2014, MSU applied to the County for a permit to install traffic controls at the intersection of the campus roadway and Valley Road. In seeking that permit, MSU stated that it was exempt, under New Jersey case law, from seeking any approvals from the City's land use boards. In arguing such exemption, MSU referenced the case of Rutgers, State University v. Piluso, 60 N.J. 142, 286 A.2d 697 (1972) ("Rutgers"). In Rutgers, among other things, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that state universities are permitted to exercise certain "governmentally autonomous powers." The court in Rutgers held that the development of state university property is excluded from local regulation. The County refused to issue the permit sought by MSU because it believed that MSU's roadway design failed to meet certain American Association of State Highway Transportation and New Jersey Department of Transportation standards and because it believed that the City's approval was required for a proposed traffic signal as it would impact municipal roadways. Here, the County and the City argued that the case at hand was "distinguishable" from Rutgers. They argued that the limits of a local government's authority to regulate development of a state university's property did not apply where there were "legitimate safety concern[s]," such as here with regard to MSU's roadway design. MSU filed a legal action in court. It asked the court to declare that the County's refusal to issue the permit was contrary to law, and it asked the court to order the County to issue the permit to MSU so that MSU could construct the roadway. The trial judge dismissed MSU's complaint, citing an "insufficient record to rely upon because MSU had not appeared before the [County] or [City] planning boards." MSU appealed. On appeal, it argued that the trial judge abused his discre- tion by dismissing MSU's complaint. MSU contended that, under Rutgers, its only obligation was "to act reasonably and consult with the city and county." MSU contended that it had met that obligation, and, as such, it was error for the trial judge to dismiss its complaint. On appeal, the County and the City reiterated their argument that the state university development immunity from local regulation found -under Rutgers did not apply where, as here, there was "legitimate safety concern[s]." DECISION: Judgment of Superior Court, Law Division, reversed, and matter remanded. © 2017 Thomson Reuters 3