60 Sunset Road: What Did Pequannock Agree To?
A $700,000 settlement. Multiple zoning variances. Waived municipal fees. Special legal protections. And a commitment to defend the approval against future challenges.
The official settlement agreement between Pascack Valley Learning Center (One School Global), Pequannock Township, and the Zoning Board of Adjustment reveals the conditions under which the school project at 60 Sunset Road, Pompton Plains was allowed to move forward.
Here is what residents should know.
1. The Township Agreed to a $700,000 Settlement
The agreement requires the Township and Zoning Board, collectively identified as the defendants, to pay $700,000 to Pascack Valley Learning Center, including attorneys’ fees and costs.
The payment was conditional on approval of the final site plan and the settlement requirements being satisfied.
The history matters:
- July 30, 2024: The Zoning Board denied the school’s original application.
- March 26, 2025: The applicant filed a federal lawsuit, alleging violations of federal and state law, including RLUIPA.
- December 16, 2025: The Township Council authorized the settlement, subject to Zoning Board approval.
- January 19, 2026: The agreement scheduled a special Zoning Board hearing to consider the settlement and final site plan.
The Township denied liability for the applicant’s claims. The settlement does not establish that Pequannock violated federal law or discriminated against the applicant.
Source: Agreement, pp. 1–3, 24.
2. Major Zoning Exceptions for a Residential Property
The school is proposed within an R-15 residential zone. The agreement calls for approval of several exceptions to the Township’s zoning requirements.
| Zoning requirement | Township standard | Approved plan |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum school property size | 5 acres | 3.98 acres |
| Required parking | 56 spaces | 44 spaces |
| Permanent signs | 1 on a residentially used lot | 4 proposed |
| Sign dimensions | Various limits | Multiple exceptions |
| Fence height and setbacks | 3–4 ft in specified front-yard areas | Fences up to 6 ft with setback exceptions |
The agreement requires conditional-use variance relief for the undersized property, a parking variance, and multiple sign and fence variances.
These exceptions allow the school to proceed on a property that does not satisfy every applicable zoning requirement.
Why does this matter? Zoning rules establish standards for development. Residents deserve to know the specific land-use reasons for granting several exceptions together, particularly for an institutional project in a residential neighborhood.
3. The School Can Expand From 100 to 150 Students
The agreement sets operating limits but also permits future increases in enrollment.
- Initially, a maximum of 100 students.
- Up to 115 students during the first five-year period.
- Up to 130 students during the next five-year period.
- Up to 150 students during the following five-year period, with 150 as the final cap.
The agreement also allows up to 25 regularly attending staff members.
Although the school will initially serve Grades 3–12, kindergarten through Grade 2 may be added later, provided the school remains within the building, parking, staffing, transportation, and enrollment restrictions.
Transportation will primarily use Sprinter vans, with up to 12 initially and up to 15 later. Licensed students may also drive and park on the property.
The agreement prohibits ordinary student pickup and drop-off by vehicles other than Sprinter vans, except in emergencies, and restricts visitors and students from parking on surrounding residential streets.
4. Municipal Fees Were Waived
Beyond the $700,000 payment, the Township agreed to waive multiple categories of fees.
These include:
- Sewer and water connection fees.
- Soil-removal fees.
- Road-opening permit fees.
- Certain land-use application, review, and escrow fees.
- Fees under Chapter 85 of the Township Code relating to affordable housing.
Some waivers apply only until specified stages of construction or occupancy.
The agreement does not identify the total dollar value of these waived fees.
Residents should be able to see the complete financial impact of the settlement, including the settlement payment, waived fees, legal expenses, and any other Township expenditures.
5. Special Deadlines for Permits and Inspections
The settlement also imposes specific obligations on the Township to expedite the project.
It requires deadlines for construction-related reviews and inspections, including:
- Processing demolition and building permit applications within 21 calendar days.
- Reviewing corrected deficient applications within five calendar days.
- Responding to inspection and reinspection requests within five calendar days.
- Hiring a private inspector at Township expense if Township representatives repeatedly fail to meet certain deadlines.
The Township also agreed to process an application for property-tax-exempt status within 30 calendar days. This is a processing commitment, not an automatic grant of tax exemption.
These provisions raise reasonable questions about administrative costs and whether the settlement creates obligations beyond the ordinary approval process.
6. The Settlement Prescribed Limits on Public Participation
One of the most significant provisions concerns the January 19, 2026 Zoning Board hearing.
The settlement established procedures requiring the Board to complete the hearing, deliberate, and vote during a single hearing.
It also provided that:
- The Zoning Board engineer would present the final site plan.
- No other live witness testimony would be presented, apart from the public participation allowed under the agreement.
- Residents could offer comments but could not ask questions under the specified procedures.
- Public comments would be limited to five minutes, potentially reduced to three minutes.
The agreement expressly describes public participation as “commentary only (no questioning).”
Residents have a legitimate interest in understanding whether this process provided a meaningful opportunity to examine and respond to the proposed settlement and its numerous zoning exceptions.
7. The School Receives Protection Against Future Zoning Changes
The settlement includes a provision titled “Protection against zoning changes.”
The parties agreed that the approved land-use terms and variances would be treated as grandfathered if the Township later changed its zoning requirements.
The agreement further states that, after issuance of a qualifying permanent Certificate of Occupancy, the approved variances would become legally approved nonconforming conditions.
It also requires the settlement to be recorded with the Morris County Clerk so its terms will apply to future owners of the property.
In addition, the final site plan is to be governed by the Township zoning ordinances in effect when the original application was submitted in October 2022.
This means the settlement is designed to provide protections extending well beyond the initial approval. Whether every provision is legally enforceable remains a question of applicable law.
Source: Agreement, pp. 9–10, 19, 24.
8. The Township Agreed to Defend the Approval Against Legal Challenges
The settlement contains another provision residents should examine carefully.
Under Paragraph 8, the Township and Zoning Board agreed to oppose legal challenges or appeals brought by third parties involving the settlement or related approvals.
The agreement states that the defendants will “vigorously defend this Settlement Agreement and the ZBA’s approvals.”
It also requires them to seek to move such litigation to federal court.
Separately, the parties agreed to ask the federal court to retain jurisdiction over the settlement and related matters until a permanent Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
These are contractual commitments. They do not, by themselves, eliminate residents’ rights to challenge an approval or establish that a federal court must accept jurisdiction.
Residents deserve to know why the Township agreed in advance to defend this approval against potential challenges.
9. Special Conditions Do Not Eliminate Every Neighborhood Concern
The settlement does contain restrictions intended to address neighborhood impacts.
For example, it prohibits after-school and summer school programs, limits outdoor sports facilities to daytime school activities, requires landscaping and stormwater protections, and limits outdoor lighting.
It also provides a 30-day opportunity to correct certain zoning violations before school operations may be suspended or terminated, with additional protection while a land-use relief application is pending. Emergency health and safety enforcement remains available.
These conditions matter. But they do not eliminate the need to examine whether the entire development satisfies New Jersey’s land-use approval standards.
Questions Pequannock Residents Deserve Answers To
After reviewing the agreement, several important questions remain:
- What is the full taxpayer impact? Who ultimately funds the $700,000 settlement, what is the value of the waived fees, and what additional legal or administrative expenses are involved?
- What land-use findings justified the variances? How did the Zoning Board evaluate the cumulative impact of the exceptions on the surrounding residential neighborhood?
- Was public participation adequate? Did residents receive sufficiently detailed notice, and did the single-hearing process provide a meaningful opportunity to respond?
- Why were future zoning protections negotiated? What justified the agreement to treat these approvals as grandfathered against later zoning changes?
- Why did the Township commit to defending the approval? How was that obligation evaluated against residents’ rights to challenge zoning decisions?
Our Position: Settlement Does Not Replace Zoning Law
This issue is not about religion or whether a private school should exist.
It is about how local government makes land-use decisions, protects residential zoning, spends public money, and remains accountable to residents.
A federal lawsuit does not automatically prove a zoning violation. And a settlement agreement does not, by itself, establish that every variance and site-plan approval complies with New Jersey law.
Residents deserve clear answers, an accurate public record, and a transparent explanation of how this development was approved.
Our position is simple: New Jersey zoning laws must apply consistently, even when a municipality faces expensive litigation.
Source: Settlement Agreement, Pascack Valley Learning Center, Inc. v. Township of Pequannock and Township of Pequannock Zoning Board of Adjustment, federal case 2:25-cv-02088. References are to the agreement’s printed page numbers. This article summarizes the agreement’s terms; assessing whether the approval satisfied all legal requirements also requires the hearing record, adopted resolution, and relevant court orders.