A resident claimed the decision to locate two speed humps in front of his property was "arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable."
By: Jennifer Potash
A Hodge Road resident’s lawsuit to stop Princeton Borough from installing two traffic-calming devices adjacent to his property was dismissed Friday by Mercer County Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg.
Judge Feinberg granted the borough’s request for summary judgment, which will pave the way for installation of the speed humps. The borough voluntarily delayed putting the devices on the reconstructed road until the case was resolved.
Borough Attorney Michael J. Herbert said he was very happy with the outcome.
"It is a compliment to the borough’s often painstaking efforts to try and resolve the issues of traffic safety and address the residents concerns," he said. "We’re very pleased with the thoroughness of Judge Feinberg’s opinion."
Norman "Pete" Callaway of 141 Hodge Road filed the lawsuit in Mercer County Superior Court in March. The borough had filed a motion for summary judgment and Mr. Callaway’s attorney later filed a cross-motion.
In the lawsuit, Mr. Callaway claimed the borough’s decision to locate the two humps adjacent to each of his property lines fronting on Hodge Road was "arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable."
At the heart of the complaint was an allegation by Mr. Callaway that the Borough Council and borough officials reneged on a promise to install only one hump in front of his property.
Judge Feinberg found to the contrary, that with the number of public hearings and public meetings, there was no evidence the borough took arbitrary or unreasonable action.
"(T)he record is replete with evidence to support the conclusion that a comprehensive deliberative process was utilized to make the ultimate determination on the location of the traffic calming devices," Judge Feinberg wrote in her 30-page opinion. "It is abundantly reasonable for a governmental entity to examine and reexamine decisions as part of the deliberative process. In fact, open-mindedness, flexibility, and a willingness to permit public input are the hallmarks of the democratic process."
Mr. Callaway also alleged the speed humps would result in a loss of property value as well as his right to enjoy the use of his property. He sought unspecified damages.
Judge Feinberg, in her ruling, dismissed without prejudice Mr. Callaway’s claim for damages, which she called "unsupported."
No decision about an appeal or other action has been reached, said Jeffrey M. Hall, attorney for Mr. Callaway.
Mr. Hall said he was disappointed with the disposition of the case and that reports from the borough’s own traffic consultant advising speed humps as a last alternative were not received until Thursday.
"It’s a tough decision for (Judge Feinberg) to call," Mr. Hall said.
One small consolation in the loss, Mr. Hall said, was Judge Feinberg’s agreeing with Mr. Callaway that yellow 15-mph signs posted near the temporary speed humps installed by the borough were illegally posted and the Borough Council would need to approve an ordinance to lower the speed limit.
Mr. Callaway had complained about visual clutter caused by the signs on Hodge Road.
Mr. Herbert said the design of the speed humps permits speeds of 25 mph, so the yellow signs will be removed. The speed permitted on Hodge Road, like most borough residential streets, is 25 mph.
Neighbors have long complained about commuters cutting through the neighborhood at high speeds. Since the traffic-calming devices were first proposed in June 1998, the borough has held numerous meetings with the residents in an effort to reach a consensus on how to deal with the traffic.