Six years ago, Montclair State University began construction of a roadway on its campus that intersected with a Passaic County road in the City of Clifton. Much time was spent consulting with the county and the city about the project. Both had concerns and objections concerning traffic safety. Despite many meetings among construction professionals, some concerns expressed by the city were not resolved. When MSU applied for a permit to install traffic controls at the intersection of the campus roadway and the county roadway, no response from the county ensued, and the university filed a complaint in Superior Court for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.

The trial court denied the requested relief on the ground that MSU had not complied with Rutgers v. Piluso, 60 N.J. 142 (1972), where the Supreme Court discussed the limits of a local government's authority to regulate development of state university property where the property was confined to its campus. The judge ruled that the county did not have jurisdiction over such things as the speed limit on the campus roadway, but it held that to comply with the Rutgers case, MSU needed an updated traffic study. Subsequently, at a hearing, MSU's complaint was dismissed on the ground that there was an insufficient record due to the fact that MSU had not appeared before the county's or the city's planning boards as had previously been ordered.

MSU appealed, arguing that the judge had abused his discretion by dismissing the complaint without determining whether MSU met its obligations under Rutgers “to act reasonably and consult with the county and city [.]” The Appellate Division reversed, holding that differences of opinion among experts regarding traffic safety concerns do not of themselves support the conclusion that MSU had acted unreasonably. (Montclair State University v. County of Passaic, et al. (approved for publication Aug. 23, 2017)). Moreover, the Appellate Division concluded that to satisfy its obligations under Rutgers, “a state university is not obligated to appear before local land use boards.” It further held that any disputes as to whether the state university had satisfied its obligations to consider local concerns is a matter to be determined at trial. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the trial court to determine whether MSU had satisfied its obligations under Rutgers.