MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY VS. COUNTY OF PASSAIC(L-2866-14, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
169 A.3d 508
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Montclair State University (MSU) proposed constructing a roadway on its campus that would intersect Valley Road, a county/municipal roadway in Clifton. MSU treats the road as on-state land and thus exempt from local land-use approval under Rutgers v. Piluso.
- Over ~6 years MSU consulted with Passaic County and the City of Clifton; engineers exchanged studies and revised plans to address safety and design concerns raised by the county.
- MSU submitted an application to the county for traffic control at the intersection; the county refused to issue a permit citing noncompliance with certain AASHTO/NJDOT criteria and Clifton’s asserted need to approve a traffic signal affecting municipal roads.
- MSU sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing Rutgers immunizes it from local land-use approvals and that it reasonably consulted with local authorities; defendants argued safety concerns could limit the exemption.
- The trial judge denied relief and dismissed the complaint for lack of a developed record, ordering updated traffic studies and directing appearances before municipal and county planning boards; MSU appealed.
- The Appellate Division held Rutgers governs, reversed the dismissal, and remanded for reinstatement and a trial (if needed) to determine whether MSU reasonably considered local concerns under Rutgers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rutgers immunity apply to an on-campus road intersecting a local/county road? | Rutgers immunity covers MSU's on-campus roadway; local land-use controls do not apply. | Rutgers does not bar local intervention where legitimate safety concerns exist. | Rutgers applies to on-site road intersecting local roads; immunity subject to MSU’s duty to consider local concerns. |
| What is MSU's duty to local authorities under Rutgers? | MSU contends it satisfied Rutgers by consulting the county and revising plans; not required to appear before local boards. | County/Clifton argue more engagement (e.g., planning board appearances) is needed to resolve safety issues. | MSU must reasonably consult and consider local interests (including safety); appearance before local boards is not a per se requirement. |
| Can safety concerns justify local regulation or withholding a permit? | MSU: safety can be addressed without surrendering immunity; differing engineering judgments do not show unreasonableness. | Defendants: alleged failure to meet AASHTO/NJDOT standards and stopping-distance issues justify withholding permit. | Legitimate safety concerns must be considered, but differences in technical judgment alone do not prove MSU acted unreasonably; court must assess on the record. |
| Proper procedural path to resolve disputed facts (dismissal vs trial)? | MSU sought judicial determination without returning to local boards; asked court to decide based on submitted record. | Defendants relied on trial court’s direction to build a fuller record via planning boards. | Trial court erred in dismissing; appellate court reinstated complaint and remanded for judge-alone factfinding/trial if necessary to determine compliance with Rutgers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutgers v. Piluso, 60 N.J. 142 (1972) (establishes state university immunity from local land-use regulation but imposes duty to consider local interests)
- Township of Franklin v. Den Hollander, 172 N.J. 147 (2002) (reiterates university’s obligation to consult local authorities and consider local interests)
- Garden State Farms, Inc. v. Bay, 77 N.J. 439 (1978) (agency immunity balanced by duty to consider local ordinances and authorities)
- Holgate Prop. Assocs. v. Twp. of Howell, 145 N.J. 590 (1996) (identifies legitimate local interests, including safety, that must be considered)
- Kearny v. Clark, 213 N.J. Super. 152 (App. Div. 1987) (failure to appear before local planning board does not alone show unreasonable conduct if local objections were considered)
- Cedar Grove v. Sheridan, 209 N.J. Super. 267 (App. Div. 1986) (disagreement over traffic-safety solutions does not necessarily render agency action unreasonable)
- Jersey City v. State Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 227 N.J. Super. 5 (App. Div. 1988) (local boards lack jurisdiction to constrain state functions on state land; judicial review appropriate when issue is whether state entity met consultation duties)