Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/01/2018

Home

September 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 18 Zoning Bulletin On appeal, MSU argued that it was an abuse of discretion by the trial court to dismiss MSU's complaint without determining whether MSU met its obligations under Rutgers. The Appellate Division agreed with MSU and remanded the matter "for reinstatement of [MSU's] complaint and a trial, if necessary for the judge to determine whether MSU satisfied its obligation under Rutgers." The City petitioned for certification, and the Supreme Court of New Jersey granted that petition. The City argued that in remanding the mat- ter, the Appellate Division had "ignored the prong [of the Rutgers' test] that addresses the reasonableness of the action by focusing solely on the act of consultation with local agencies and not considering reasonableness as a distinct query to the proposed project and its affect." In other words, according to the City, a state agency should not be allowed to move ahead with a project so long as the agency itself is satisfied with the reasonableness of its own proposal, "without regard to a dispute between state and local entities as to the project's safety." DECISION: Judgment of Appellate Division affirmed as modified. The Supreme Court of New Jersey agreed with the City's argument. The court held, as a matter of first impression (i.e., addressing the issue for the first time), that, in addition to the two -fold analysis set forth in Rutgers for state agencies to achieve immunity from land use controls, a state agency must also reasonably address public safety concerns, if raised, in order to achieve such immunity. More specifically, the court held that "when the otherwise immune state agency's improvement directly affects off -site property and implicates a safety concern raised by a local governmental entity responsible to protect public safety with respect to that off -site prop- erty, special judicial review and action is required." The court made clear in its decision that, in such cases, "the state entity may not be compelled to submit to review before a planning board." "However, in circumstances such as are presented here, a judicial finding that the cited public safety concern has been reasonably addressed through the planning for the state agency's improvement shall be a necessary ad- ditional requirement before a court may either compel local regulatory action or grant declaratory relief that the planned action is exempt from land use regulation." In regard to implementing this additional require- ment, the court said it is the trial court that should determine, "on a case -by -case basis, whether it could make such a finding via a sum- mary proceeding or whether a more fulsome proceeding is necessary." Applying that holding to the immediate case, the court made several conclusions. It first concluded that "MSU is a state entity that enjoys the qualified immunity from local land use controls with respect to 4 © 2018 Thomson Reuters