What was referred to as a “de minimis” oversight in the Princeton International Academy Charter School’s public notice for its pending hearing before the Plainsboro Zoning Board may have dashed its hopes for opening in the fall.
Amid a crowd of an estimated 180 supporters and opponents jammed into the Plainsboro courtroom on July 7, the Zoning Board voted 4-2 against moving forward with an hearing on PIACS’s application for a variance to occupy St. Joseph Seminary at 75 Mapleton Road for instruction.
PIACS, scheduled to open in September, will consist of students from the Princeton, South Brunswick, and West Windsor-Plainsboro school districts. The school will be the first to offer an International Baccalaureate (IB) curriculum framework as well as dual language Mandarin-English immersion. The charter school has finalized a lease with the owners of St. Joseph Seminary. A variance is needed for the charter school to use the existing classroom facilities there because the property is currently zoned for office-business.
The Zoning Board determined it did not have jurisdiction to hear the application based on an 11th-hour finding by the counsel for the West Windsor-Plainsboro Board of Education that the notice sent by the charter school did not list the township’s hours of operation (so the public could obtain copies of the charter school’s application and plan), as required by state law.
The atmosphere in the court room was tense, with both supporters, who donned stickers with various statements like “I Support PIACS,” and opponents, including school board members and residents. Murmurs spread through the crowd at various points. On one occasion the supporters cheered when Zoning Board member William Kennedy suggested hearing the case anyway.
Even though the Zoning Board scheduled an emergency meeting for Monday, July 19, at 7:30 p.m., to give the charter school time to re-issue the proper notification, it may be the end of the road for PIACS — for this year, at least — if it cannot receive a second extension from the State Department of Education, which originally required the charter school to have a certificate of occupancy at its facility by June 30. One extension already gave the charter school until Thursday, July 15. But the charter school will miss that deadline. If the second extension is not granteed, the PIACS would have to go through the entire approval process again, beginning with the DOE, and the July 19 meeting would not be necessary.
State statute requires notice of a Zoning Board hearing to specify that copies of the application package are available in the clerk’s office, with a listing of the times it is available. Michael Balint, Zoning Board attorney, said that the notice did not specify the hours of operation.
However, Christopher Costa, the attorney for PIACS, argued that the notice gave the exact date and time the application was to be heard and listed where the applications could be picked up. The time is implied, he said.
“We’re in Plainsboro Township,” he said. “We are in a township that operates on full-time hours, full-time staff. So, the applications are available when the township is open.”
Costa argued that there are certain municipalities in which a specified time in which a member of the public can pick up a copy is relevant, such as in municipalities that do not keep full-time hours and are only open on certain days. “There are certain places where the time that it is available is a critical element,” he said. “In this case, it is not. It is available from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., when the township is open.”
“There has been no harm caused by this irregularity in the notice,” he added. “For that reason, I think the board should move forward with this. They should know that failure to move forward with this is the end to this application. We have 170 students who are waiting to go to this school, and there is a de minimis issue with the notice that the board is worried they will face litigation. Well, they may have litigation in the other way, too, because it is ending this application.”
Still, Balint said he was concerned with moving forward. “Although it may seem to be a de minimis oversight, it is an oversight,” he said. “The board does not have jurisdiction, and anything that we do tonight is a nullity because we acted without authority.”
Balint pointed to the board’s record with litigation. The few cases that were litigated were decided in the board’s favor, he said. “We run the risk of going to litigation on something that can be avoided merely by re-noticing the application,” Balint said. “I feel hard-pressed to recommend to move forward in the face of that, knowing that your notice is defective.”
When Costa mentioned the deadline imposed on the charter school by the DOE, Balint said he did not think it was relevant to the board’s decision. “The board didn’t create any kind of time constraint that you may be facing,” he said. “I don’t think the time consideration is relevant to the board’s consideration of the merits of the application either. This application was just recently deemed complete. It’s been placed on the first available agenda. I don’t think the board is looking to delay this. As of yesterday, I expected we would be proceeding.”
Not all board members felt the deficiency was relevant to postpone the hearing. Board member Jack Venturi said the notice went out a long time ago, but the WW-P school board did not submit the objection until July 6. In addition, “it’s clear from reading the notice, it says where it is available,” said Venturi. “Obviously, using plain common sense, one would know it’s available immediately during normal business hours. I don’t think it has to be spelled out.”
Venturi noted that there were 144 seats in the court room and that all of the seats were taken and about 40 people stood along the walls. “There’s no prejudice whatsoever by this,” he said. “It’s a minor technicality. I can’t see any real reason for not proceeding. If we don’t, legal fees are going to be incurred anyway. I’d rather have that risk be taken.”
Kennedy echoed the sentiment. “I think since all these people came here tonight, we should give it a shot,” he said.
However, Zoning Board Chairman Gary Wolinetz disagreed. “The legislature stated in the statute that the time needed to be published,” he said. “Whether it is a technical violation or not, the statute is out there. I don’t regard it as a de minimis objection. The statute says what it says.”
The charter school has been the source of much controversy over the past several months. PIACS members have claimed that the parents of the nearly 300 applicants to the school — which has filled its 170 available seats — have been targets of harassing comments by opponents of the charter school.
After the hearing, four members of the WW-P school board who are Plainsboro residents — Anthony Fleres, Alapakkam Manikandan, Ellen Walsh, and Todd Hochman — issued a statement pointing out what they say are flaws with the actual application.
The board members say there is a discrepancy in the actual enrollment numbers. They also argue that the school will be permanently housed in the proposed campus. “The proposal that the charter school is looking for limited permission seems misguided considering the difficulty the school has had in finding and securing a school facility,” the letter stated. “It is therefore imperative that the zoning board require a full zoning plan — not just for 2010-’11, but for a full build-out of the school.”
WW-P board members also wrote that a traffic study prepared by PIACS officials shows “a complete lack of understanding about how school transportation works.” The plans, they say, state that all students from Princeton, WW-P, and South Brunswick, will be dropped off by four buses, while 31 students from outside the area will be transported by personal cars.
Further, “it is wishful thinking that in the morning, all 102 students from all four corners of the Plainsboro and West Windsor can be picked up by only two school buses and dropped off at the PIACS campus in any reasonable amount of time,” they wrote. “Given the long ride on the bus, one can fully expect that most, if not all, parents will be dropping off their children at PIACS in the morning.”
The traffic plan, they say, does not address the impact of having over 125 cars arriving and leaving in the morning. “The traffic study as presented by PIACS is less than thorough and hastily done with limited understanding of how school transportation works,” they added. “We strongly urge the zoning board to require a realistic traffic study and proper planning before the school is allowed to open.”
