NJ Supreme Court Holds State University Was Not Immune From Local Zoning Over Road Improvements and that a Judicial Finding was Required as to the Reasonableness of a Public Entity’s Action with Respect to Public Safety

This post was authored by Matthew Loeser, Esq.

Montclair State University (“MSU”) commenced an action in the Law Division of the Superior Court, invoking judicial authority over a dispute between MSU and local governmental authorities concerning improvements regarding the intersection of a campus road with a Passaic County road in the City of Clifton. The trial court declined the requested relief and dismissed the action. Additionally, the trial 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.
At the outset, the court noted that MSU was an entity that, in planning its alteration to its campus roads in order to better serve its intra-campus traffic, was acting in an immune capacity, pursuant to its statutory authorization to control its property. Furthermore, the public interest to be served supported that the Legislature intended for MSU to be free of local land use regulation in managing its internal road system so long as there was no asserted impact on non-state-owned public property.
Here, the local governmental entities cited public safety concerns and voiced apprehension about their ability to fulfill their own duty of care to members of the public, traveling on or along the county road, who might be negatively affected by MSU’s plan design and its effect on the intersection with the county road. The court found that a review by MSU and its experts asserting that it has reasonably addressed the public safety concern was not sufficient, standing alone, to protect general public safety and also the interests of the local governmental entities with regard to that local public safety concern. As such, the court determined that only that a public entity could show that its planning had 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 would be required.
Accordingly, the court remanded the case for a judicial finding as to the reasonableness of the planned MSU project, specifically as it affected public safety regarding the intersection with the county road.
Montclair State University v County of Passaic, 2018 WL 3716020 (NJ 8/6/2018)