Montclair State Univ. v. Cnty. of Passaic
| Decision Date | 16 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-0614-19 |
| Parties | MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF PASSAIC, Defendant, and CITY OF CLIFTON, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
Before Judges Rothstadt and Susswein.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L-2866-14.
Antonio J. Casas argued the cause for appellant (Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP, attorneys; Antonio J. Casas, of counsel and on the briefs; Jeremy G. Weiss, on the briefs).
Risa M. Chalfin argued the cause for respondent City of Clifton (Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer, attorneys; Brian J. Molloy and Risa M. Chalfin, of counsel and on the brief).
This matter returns to us after remand, now on appeal from an order entered by the Law Division on April 29, 2019, denying plaintiff Montclair State University's (MSU) motion for voluntary dismissal of its complaint or for summary disposition, and from an order entered on August 22, 2019, after a plenary hearing, which denied MSU's application to proceed with a portion of a construction project at its campus.1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm both orders.
This appeal presents the next chapter in the ongoing dispute between MSU and defendant, the City of Clifton, over MSU's plan to construct a new egress road from its campus to the off-campus intersection of Passaic County Road 621/Valley Road and MacLean Road (Valley Road Intersection), whichis located in Clifton (the Project).2 The Project was initially proposed in 2004 and since then the parties have been trying to resolve Passaic County's and Clifton's safety concerns about the proposed roadway. While their efforts resolved some issues between them, it left others without resolution.
One remaining issue was whether MSU was required to obtain municipal approvals from Clifton's land use boards for the installation of traffic control devices at the Valley Road Intersection. According to MSU, such approvals were not necessary under the Court's holding in Rutgers v. Piluso, 60 N.J. 142 (1972).3 The County and Clifton disagreed, so MSU filed a complaint in the Law Division for declaratory and injunctive relief that sought an order permitting it to proceed with the development of the roadway.
In 2016, the Law Division entered an order dismissing MSU's complaint and directing that the matter go before Clifton's Planning Board. MSUappealed, and in a published opinion, we reversed, holding that under Rutgers, MSU was not required to seek municipal approvals and that on remand it was up to the trial court to determine whether MSU properly considered the County's and Clifton's safety concerns. Montclair State Univ. v. Cnty. of Passaic, 451 N.J. Super. 523, 527-28 (App. Div. 2017) (MSU I).
The Supreme Court granted Clifton's petition for certification and later affirmed our determination that local board approval was not required but modified our instructions to the trial court on remand. Specifically, the Court held that on remand, MSU must demonstrate not only that (1) the Project is inherently reasonable, and (2) it reasonably consulted with the County and the City "and took into consideration [their] legitimate [public safety] concerns," as required by Rutgers, but also that (3) "its planning has reasonably addressed the public safety concern." Montclair State Univ. v. Cnty. of Passaic, 234 N.J. 434, 454-55, 458 (2018) (MSU II). The Court added that, on remand, there must be "a discrete judicial finding that MSU's proposed action reasonably satisfies public safety concerns," id. at 458, and "a judicial finding as to the reasonableness of the public entity's action with respect to public safety." Id. at 459. It directed the trial court to make a determination on these issues and to decide, in its discretion, whether to proceed summarily. Id. at 439.
As already noted, prior to the remand hearing, Passaic County and MSU resolved their differences based upon safety features MSU added to the Project. MSU then filed a motion to dismiss its complaint as moot, or alternatively, for summary disposition of Clifton's claims. The trial court entered an order denying that motion on April 29, 2019.
Thereafter, the trial court conducted a three-day plenary hearing, and on August 22, 2019, determined that the Project was not safe and MSU had failed to reasonably address the City's legitimate public safety concerns about the Project through its planning. The court consequently barred MSU from proceeding with the Project as currently designed, placed its reasons on the record that day, and issued an order denying MSU's application to proceed with the Project. MSU now appeals from both orders.
On appeal, MSU contends that the trial court erred by: (1) denying its motion to voluntarily dismiss the matter or for summary disposition without holding oral argument; (2) disregarding significant evidence, including the County's approval of the Project; and (3) failing to provide sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law in connection with both rulings as required by Rule 1:7-4. It also contends that we should vacate the trial court's order andexercise our original jurisdiction to determine the matter anew. We disagree with each of MSU's contentions.
The history of the Project and the parties' dispute are set forth at length in our and the Court's earlier opinions. MSU I, 451 N.J. Super. at 527-31; MSU II, 234 N.J. at 439-44. For our purposes here, suffice it to say that the remaining disputes between the parties focused on the horizontal and vertical alignment of the proposed roadway that determined its design speed. MSU planned for a design speed of twenty-five m.p.h. with a posted speed of fifteen m.p.h. Clifton, and initially Passaic County, wanted the design and posted speeds to be higher, set at thirty-five m.p.h. and twenty-five m.p.h. respectively, which would alter the roadway's alignment as proposed and correctly anticipate the actual driving speed of vehicles using the road. As the Court observed, "MSU declined to make that change, relying on its experts' conclusion that the road's planned . . . design speed and fifteen mile-per-hour posted speed would be safe, and that the alternative design was unsafe because it would encourage higher operating speeds." MSU II, 234 N.J. at 441.
MSU resolved Passaic County's concerns by adding "traffic calming" measures to its plans, which included: (1) the addition of a sidewalk on one side of the egress road; (2) reduced lane widths; (3) two speed limit signs with radar-controlled driver feedback that display a digital readout of a driver's speed; (4) dedicated "pull off" points for MSU Police Department patrol cars to enforce the speed limit; (5) chevron signage for the egress road curve to warn drivers and emphasize the curve; (6) "signal ahead" roadway markings approaching the intersection; (7) the use of high-friction pavement; (8) relocation of the traffic signal head for better visibility traveling down the egress road and; (9) the addition of a speed table to the egress road, which are longer and flatter than speed humps and used when the road's grade is greater than eight percent.
However, MSU maintained that the design speed for the roadway would remain at twenty-five m.p.h. and the posted speed limit would be fifteen m.p.h. (the same as the existing ingress road) and reiterated that it would continue to use a "[h]igh friction pavement surface" in the plans. In doing so, MSU relied upon the National Association of City Transportation Officials Urban Street Design Guide (NACTO Guide) regarding design speed.4
According to the County's Board of Commissioners' resolution,5 "both the Passaic County Engineer and the Passaic County Traffic Engineer have carefully reviewed the new submitted plans and agree that the updated plans now meet all of the safety concerns raised by the County both at the outset and in the litigation brought against the County by the University." The County issued a required permit. However, the revisions did not satisfy Clifton's concerns that were later the topic of the plenary hearing held by the trial court on remand.
We begin our review by first addressing MSU's appeal from the trial court's April 29, 2019 order. Following the County's approval of the revisions to the Project, on March 29, 2019, MSU moved to voluntarily dismiss its complaint as moot under Rule 4:37-1(b), or for summary disposition under Rule 4:67-1(b). MSU included in its moving papers a request for oral argument if opposition was filed. Clifton filed opposition and asserted that despite the County's position, the roadway remained unsafe.
On April 29, 2019, without holding oral argument, the trial court denied MSU's motion. The order stated that
On appeal, MSU argues that its motion should have been granted because the matter was moot once the County approved the roadway design and the stipulation of dismissal was filed. According to MSU, "[n]otwithstanding its continuing objection to the Project, [Clifton] neversought any relief in its pleadings other than a dismissal of the Complaint, so . . . the . . . settlement with the County rendered the matter as pleaded moot."
Alternatively, MSU contends that the court erred when it denied MSU's motion for summary disposition because (1) the County's decision to issue the permit was entitled to a presumption of validity; and (2) the County's approval...
To continue reading
Request your trial