Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/01/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2018 I Volume 12 l Issue 18 management of its own land and property that was recognized in Rutgers." Next, turning to the review of the exercise of that immunity, the court said that, in order for the trial court (on remand) to grant MSU the relief it seeks, the trial court must: (1) first assess "the inher- ent reasonableness of the MSU roadway plan in its entirety, including review of the off -site impact"; and (2) also assess whether MSU "rea- sonably consulted and took into consideration the legitimate concerns of local governmental entities"; and (3) third, assess whether "MSU's proposed action reasonably satisfie[d] public safety concerns" — because there was "a facially legitimate public safety concern raised" by the County and City with regard to MSU's proposed egress (namely, the speed limit to be posted on the egress and the planned project as it affected public safety regarding the intersection with the county road), "which would have a direct impact on non -state-owned property." Accordingly, on the remand of this matter, the Supreme Court of New Jersey added that "in circumstances such as these, a judicial find- ing shall be required on the reasonableness of the planned MSU proj- ect, specifically as it affects public safety regarding the intersection with the county road." See also: Rutgers, State University v. Piluso, 60 N.J. 142, 286 A.2d 697 (1972). Case Note: In its decision, the Supreme Court of New Jersey made clear that "an immune entity is not to be subjected to a requirement of submission to planning board review or the like." Rather, the court here was holding "only that a public entity must show that its planning has reasonably addressed public safety concerns identified by local governments as having a direct impact on non - state public property and that a judicial finding as to the reasonableness of the public entity's action with respect to public safety shall be required." © 2018 Thomson Reuters 5