Montclair State Univ. v. Cnty. of Passaic
| Decision Date | 06 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | 080084,A-16 Sept. Term 2017 |
| Citation | 191 A.3d 614,234 N.J. 434 |
| Parties | MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. COUNTY OF PASSAIC and City of Clifton, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
234 N.J. 434
191 A.3d 614
MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
COUNTY OF PASSAIC and City of Clifton, Defendants-Appellants.
A-16 Sept. Term 2017
080084
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Argued April 10, 2018
Decided August 6, 2018
Marvin J. Brauth, Woodbridge, argued the cause for appellant City of Clifton (Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, attorneys; Marvin J. Brauth, of counsel and on the briefs).
Michael H. Glovin, Deputy County Counsel, Paterson, argued the cause for appellant County of Passaic (William J. Pascrell, III, Passaic County Counsel, attorney; Michael H. Glovin, of counsel and on the brief).
Antonio J. Casas, Madison, argued the cause for respondent (Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, attorneys; Antonio J. Casas and Samuel G. Destito, Madison, of counsel and on the briefs).
Peter G. Verniero, Newark, argued the cause for amicus curiae Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (Sills Cummis & Gross, attorneys; Peter G. Verniero and James M. Hirschhorn, of counsel and on the brief, and Michael S. Carucci, Newark, on the brief).
Christopher A. Edwards, Assistant Attorney General, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel, and Christopher A. Edwards, Trenton, on the brief).
JUSTICE LaVECCHIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal raises substantive and procedural issues about the immunity from local zoning laws and regulation that Rutgers v. Piluso, 60 N.J. 142, 286 A.2d 697 (1972), recognized for a state university with respect to improvements on state-owned land.
Case law recognizes that a state higher educational institution like Montclair State University (MSU), statutorily vested with control over its property, see N.J.S.A. 18A:64-7, has a form of immunity, or exemption, from local land use controls when it comes to the use and development of its own property. However, that discretionary authority is not absolute: the freedom to act independent of local land use control may not be exercised in unreasonable ways.
In this matter, MSU commenced an action in the Law Division of the Superior Court, invoking
judicial authority over an impasse that had developed between MSU and local governmental authorities concerning improvements to the intersection of a campus road with a Passaic County (County) road in the City of Clifton (City). MSU sought an order either (1) directing the County to issue three permits related to the intersection and affiliated roadway improvements; or, in the alternative, (2) declaring that state law exempts MSU from local permitting requirements or approval for its desired road improvements, regardless of whether a traffic signal is installed at the intersection.
The trial court declined the requested relief and dismissed the action; the court told MSU either to appear before the local planning board to establish a record on the public safety concerns expressed by the local governmental authorities or to appeal. MSU appealed and the Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of the action and remanded for further proceedings before the trial court.
We granted the City's petition for certification, seeking correction of the Appellate Division's interpretive guidance on Rutgers and clarification of that decision's application in circumstances, as here, where local authorities have raised public safety concerns. For the reasons that follow, we affirm with modification the judgment of the Appellate Division.
We now reaffirm principles expressed in the Rutgers decision. Further, we address the application of those principles when the
planned state agency activity is asserted to have a direct public safety impact affecting off-site land for which local governmental authorities have a responsibility to act in the public interest and could be potentially liable should a tort claim arise.
First, we clarify and hold that under the qualified immunity addressed in Rutgers a state agency must be able to demonstrate both that the planned action is reasonable and that the agency reasonably consulted with local authorities and took into consideration legitimate local concerns. Meaningful consultation with appropriate local public authority is a necessary part, but consultation alone does not suffice to conclusively address the essential question about the reasonableness of the planned action.
Second, we hold 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 property, special judicial review and action is required. We continue to recognize that 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 additional requirement before a court may either compel local regulatory action or grant declaratory relief that the planned action is exempt from land use regulation.
We do not intend to specify what record warrants such a finding in every case. Rather, the trial court should determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether it could make such a finding via a summary proceeding or whether a more fulsome proceeding is necessary.
I.
A.
Since 2004, MSU has attempted to create a third egress from its Passaic County campus onto Valley Road, also known as Passaic
County Road 621. MSU wants
to relieve traffic congestion on its campus roads and provide easier access onto and off of the campus and its roadways. Specifically at issue here, MSU wants to convert Yogi Berra Drive -- a campus road on state property that intersects with Valley Road -- from an ingress-only road to an ingress/egress road.
MSU consulted with both the County and the City about the project for almost six years. During that extended process, MSU submitted construction plans for review, retained experts to study traffic and safety concerns, and, ultimately, agreed to change portions of its plan to address concerns raised by both the County and the City. After conferring with both entities over several years, MSU was able to satisfy most concerns about the project.
On April 7, 2014, MSU submitted permit applications to the County Engineer for the new egress. The first permit application was for a "right-of-way access permit/curb cut permit," that would allow MSU to relocate the access driveway to a new location, and to install 320 feet of "full height (raised) curbing." The permit application indicates that the purpose of the work was to construct a new driveway and add a traffic signal, and that the work would be located on Valley Road. A second permit application, asking for a storm drain connection, requested that the County allow MSU to connect a storm drain into the County's existing system at Valley Road. Finally, consistent with an alternative plan for the access driveway, MSU submitted another application also for a "right-of-way access permit/curb cut permit," allowing the University to relocate the access driveway to a new location and to install 130 feet of "full height (raised) curbing" alongside the county road.
With respect to all of the permits, MSU asked for issuance of approval either with or without the installation of a traffic light to control the traffic on Valley Road as well as the entry and exit of traffic flowing between Valley Road and Yogi Berra Drive. The MSU Board of Trustees also adopted a resolution committing to assume the cost and maintenance of a traffic signal, if one were permitted.
In its cover letter to the County Engineer that accompanied the permit applications, MSU recounted the extended history of discussion, public comment, and negotiation with local officials about the project, as well as the changes that had been made to its plans as a result of those consultations. MSU sought a statement that its application was now complete, asserting that the University was exempt, under Rutgers, from seeking approval for the project from the City's land use boards.
When the County failed to respond to MSU's permit applications, MSU filed this action against the County on July 29, 2014, seeking a judgment declaring that no permit or other local approval was required, or alternatively, an order compelling the County to issue all necessary permits. The court permitted the City to intervene.
On the return date of an order to show cause, the trial court denied MSU the relief sought. The court addressed the scope of the County's authority over the proposed construction on state land. Relying on Rutgers, the court reasoned that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montclair State Univ. v. Cnty. of Passaic
...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 reaso......