A lawsuit filed by a group of Princeton Borough and Township residents last week seeking to prevent Princeton University from implementing its $300 million arts and transit project near McCarter Theatre is “without merit and merely an attempt for publicity,” according to an official of the University. But the group’s attorney says that the suit, which alleges that the University illegally obtained the zoning changes necessary for the project, is valid and significant.

Filed last week in the Chancery Division of Mercer County Superior Court by lawyer Bruce Afran, the suit names as plaintiffs Marco Gottardis of the Township, Anne and Walter Neumann of the Borough, and “all others similarly situated.” The defendants are Princeton University, the Trustees of Princeton University, the Borough, and the Township. As with a previous lawsuit against the University filed by Mr. Afran, this one is funded by the Eleanor Lewis Trust established by the late Ms. Lewis, a lawyer and activist who died in 2010.

“What is important to remember is that this is now the third lawsuit against the University that has been filed by this particular lawyer and is funded by the estate of this former Princeton resident,” said Robert Durkee, vice president and secretary of the University. “It fits the pattern. It has no merit, and is an attempt to attract publicity. I don’t think it’s going to go anywhere, and our lawyers agree with that assessment.”

An earlier lawsuit filed by Mr. Afran last October challenged the University’s proposed move of the Dinky station, questioning its right to do so.

“The last I heard, Mr. Durkee hadn’t been to law school,” Mr. Afran said this week when asked to respond to Mr. Durkee’s comments. “The fact is that when a landowner wants to build contrary to zoning rules, he has to go before the zoning board and ask for a variance. It’s a very difficult process, and it’s very often unsuccessful. What the University has tried to do is coerce the governing bodies into allowing them to avoid the variance process by passing a special zoning rule that applied only to the University. That is illegal. So I think the suit has great merit.”

The lawsuit argues that the new arts and transit zone approved by Borough Council and Township Committee was illegal spot zoning, and was given to the University in exchange for monetary payments, increased voluntary payments in lieu of taxes, and other considerations under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into by the University, the Borough, and the Township. The complaint seeks to block the new zoning until the issue goes before a full zoning hearing.

The MOU, which was approved last fall, includes transit and safety improvements, and $500,000 for a transit study fund. The sum of $100,000 was due upon signing the MOU and the rest is payable after the University’s arts and transit proposal is approved.

“The MOU is one issue of the suit, where we say they have effectively bought the zoning,” said Mr. Afran. “It is an attempt to avoid going before the zoning board, and that’s illegal spot zoning.”

Mr. Durkee said of the rezoning, “This was a very thoroughly considered question by the Borough, the Committee, and the Planning Board. I don’t think those filing the lawsuit really believe their argument is going to hold out. If it ever does get to any kind of hearing, I have no doubt the judge will agree. I think they are interested in the publicity. This is an unusual situation where they have a fund that is intended to pay for these kinds of lawsuits, and a lawyer drawing down those funds by doing this.”

Mr. Afran countered, “For the last year, the University has been repeatedly threatening to withhold the PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) if it didn’t get the zoning. It’s quite clear that it was coercing the Borough. These lawsuits are intended to force the University to follow the same rules as everyone else. They are not entitled to special treatment.”