Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/01/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 18 concerns Citation: Montclair State University v. County of Passaic, 2018 WL 3716020 (N.J. 2018) NEW JERSEY (08/06/18)—This case addressed the issue of what factors must be met for a state entity to receive immunity from local land use controls. Specifically, the case addressed whether a state entity must reasonably address public safety concerns, if raised, in order to receive such immunity. The Background/Facts: Since 2004, Montclair State University ("MSU") had attempted to create a third egress from its Passaic County Campus. Specifically, MSU wanted to convert a campus road on state property that intersected with Valley Road (a county road) from an ingress -only road to an ingress/egress road. MSU consulted with Pas- saic County (the "County") and the City of Clifton (the "City") about the project for almost six years. After conferring with those parties, MSU was able to satisfy most of the public entities' concerns about the project. In April 2014, MSU submitted to the County permit applica- tions for the new egress. However, believing that MSU's roadway design failed to meet applicable safety standards, the County refused to issue the requested permits to MSU. MSU then filed a legal action against the County. MSU asked the trial court to declare that no permit or other local approval was required for its proposed egress project. Alternatively, MSU asked the court to order the County to issue all the necessary permits. (The court allowed the City to intervene in the case.) The trial court ordered MSU to return to the local planning boards, and when MSU failed to do so, the trial court dismissed MSU's complaint. MSU appealed. MSU pointed to New Jersey case law that has recognized that a state higher educational institution, like MSU, is: statutorily vested with control over its property (see N.J.S.A. 18A:64- 7); and has a form of immunity, or exemption, from local land use controls when it comes to the use and development of its own property. MSU argued that it had met its obligations under New Jersey case law to achieve that immunity, and that, therefore, the court should declare it immune from needing County permits to proceed with its project. More specifically, MSU pointed to the case of Rutgers, State University v. Piluso, 60 N.J. 142, 286 A.2d 697 (1972) ("Rutgers"). In Rutgers, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a state agency can have quali- fied immunity from local land use controls if "it is able to demonstrate both that the planned action is reasonable and that the agency reason- ably consulted with local authorities and took into consideration legiti- mate local concerns." @ 2018 Thomson Reuters