Edison School Faces Long Odds in Any Lawsuit to Stop New Housing
Under the state's Municipal Land Use Law, overcrowded school facilities are not grounds to withhold approval of new residential construction.
April 24, 2019 at 02:58 PM
4 minute read
School officials in Edison are threatening to sue the township over its approval of new home construction that could exacerbate crowding in school facilities.
The Edison Board of Education vowed this week to sue the township Zoning Board of Adjustment over its approval of an eight-unit multifamily development to replace a single family house, citing the impact on school facilities, local media reported. But land use experts doubt the school can convince a judge to overturn the approvals.
Under the state's Municipal Land Use Law, overcrowded school facilities are not grounds to withhold approval of new residential construction, according to some land use lawyers. Such approvals could be vulnerable to a court challenge by the school district if they represent a significant use or density variance, such as 50 homes on a site zoned for 25 units. But an application that does not seek any variances for use or density will be harder to challenge.
The lawyer for the Edison school district, Ramon Rivera of Scarinci Hollenbeck in Lyndhurst, did not return a call seeking comment.
The state's Municipal Land Use Law has liberal rules for standing by parties seeking to oppose a land use application, said Jack Plackter, co-chair of the zoning and land use group at Fox Rothschild in Atlantic City. A school district or board of education would have no problem achieving standing to file suit as an interested party.
If an applicant does not seek any variances for permitted use or density, the school district would have a difficult time challenging it, Plackter said. And a housing project's impact on the local school system is not valid ground for a municipality to withhold approval of a land use application.
“Judges are smart,” said Plackter. “If it's very clear the overarching reason [the school board is] challenging this is they say the township is overloading our schools, we don't want the kids, the court won't give the challenge much weight.”
It's hard to imagine a suit by the school district that would successfully overturn approval of new housing construction in Edison, said Gary Forshner, co-chair of the land use and redevelopment practice at Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis in Woodbridge.
“I haven't studied their complaint but I can't envision one that would allow them to successfully proceed,” Forshner said.
In many of the state's municipalities, new housing is being approved as a part of a court-mandated affordable housing plan, which could make it difficult to challenge, said Forshner. Statewide, 250 municipalities have had such plans approved, he said.
“As a result of those 250 towns that have a plan in effect, there's a lot of property zoned for housing. Towns are not going to be able to prevent people from building housing, to be clear,” said Forshner.
If the school district challenges approval of an affordable housing site, the court would need to conduct a balancing test to determine how the benefit of providing affordable housing compares to the impact on the school system of an influx of new pupils, said Peter Falvo Jr., a land use and development lawyer at Ansell Grimm & Aaron in Ocean.
A development that is built in accordance with the township's master plan would be difficult to challenge after the fact, said Falvo. But applications with a use or density variance are more vulnerable to a challenge.
“The board, when they render their decision, must consider when they approve this application whether it will have any negative impacts on the community. If [the school district] can show a true detriment to the school system or to the health and welfare of the community, I think they might have a chance,” Falvo said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Real Estate Consumer Protection Enhancement Act Brings Industry Change
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250