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
© 2024 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 readPersonal Liability Following a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure in New Jersey
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Hagens Berman Accused of Withholding Share of $13M Award in Pharmaceutical Settlement
- 2What to Know About Naming a Law Firm
- 3Texas Shows the Way Forward in Resolving Mass Tort Gridlock
- 4Ninth Circuit Rules on Inherent Authority and FRCP 37(e)
- 5Where CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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