High Ridge Real Estate Owner, LLC v. Bd. of Representatives of Stamford
| Decision Date | 15 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | SC 20595 |
| Citation | 342 Conn. 423,270 A.3d 76 |
| Parties | HIGH RIDGE REAL ESTATE OWNER, LLC v. BOARD OF REPRESENTATIVES OF the CITY OF STAMFORD |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Patricia C. Sullivan, Bridgeport, for the appellant (defendant).
David T. Martin, Stamford, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Robinson, C. J., and D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Keller, Js.*
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the defendant, the Board of Representatives of the City of Stamford (board of representatives), properly considered a protest petition that opposed zoning amendments approved by the Zoning Board of the City of Stamford (zoning board). The plaintiff, High Ridge Real Estate Owner, LLC, filed an application with the zoning board to amend the zoning regulations of the city of Stamford (city). The zoning board approved the zoning amendment. Thereafter, local property owners filed a protest petition pursuant to § C6-40-9 of the Stamford Charter (charter),1 which opposed the amendment. The board of representatives determined that the protest petition was valid and, thereafter, considered and rejected the amendment. The plaintiff appealed from the decision of the board of representatives to the trial court, claiming that the board of representatives did not have the authority to consider whether the protest petition was valid, and asserting that the petition was not valid because it did not contain the signatures of "at least [300] landowners" anywhere in the city, as required by § C6-40-9. The trial court sustained the plaintiff's appeal. Although we conclude that the board of representatives did not have the authority to determine the validity of the protest petition, we conclude that it was a valid petition because it contained the requisite number of signatures. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court sustaining the plaintiff's appeal and remand the case to that court to determine whether the board of representatives properly rejected the amendment.
The following facts are undisputed. In February, 2017, the plaintiff submitted an application to the zoning board seeking to amend the zoning regulations. Specifically, the plaintiff sought a change that would allow the development of a "Gymnasium or Physical Culture Establishment" in a commercial district designated as a "C-D Designed Commercial District." This change would affect more than one zone in the city. The zoning board approved the plaintiff's application, as modified.
Following the approval of the plaintiff's application, the president of the Sterling Lake Homeowners Association filed a protest petition with the zoning board, pursuant to § C6-40-9 of the charter. The petition contained 696 signatures.2 Then, without expressly determining whether the protest petition was valid in that it contained the requisite number of signatures, i.e., of at least 300 landowners, the zoning board referred the petition to the board of representatives.
Thereafter, the Land Use/Urban Redevelopment Committee (land use committee), a subcommittee of the board of representatives, held a hearing to consider whether the petition contained the requisite number of signatures and was, therefore, valid. The land use committee voted to recommend that the board of representatives accept the petition, which the board of representatives subsequently did. The land use committee then held a public hearing on the plaintiff's application for an amendment. After the hearing, the land use committee voted to recommend that the board of representatives reject the zoning board's approval of the plaintiff's application for an amendment, which the board of representatives subsequently did.
The plaintiff then appealed to the trial court.3 In its appeal, the plaintiff contended, inter alia, that (1) the board of representatives lacked the authority to determine the validity of the protest petition under the charter, and (2) the petition was invalid because it did not include the requisite number of signatures. The plaintiff also claimed that the board of representatives erred in rejecting the amendment.
The trial court sustained the plaintiff's appeal. Specifically, the trial court concluded that the board of representatives did not have the authority to determine the validity of the protest petition because the charter did not give the board such authority. The trial court also concluded that, even if the board of representatives had the authority to determine the validity of the petition, the petition was not valid because it did not contain the 300 signatures of landowners required by § C6-40-9 of the charter. The trial court reasoned that it was "bound by precedent as to joint tenancies and as to condominium owners in the context of protest petitions." According to that precedent, the court explained, all of the owners of a parcel of land must sign a petition for the protest to be considered valid.
The trial court further explained that, "[i]n the present case, petition signers who held their property in a joint tenancy or as fractional owners of a condominium should not have been counted toward the required 300 signatures because all of the owners of the property had not signed the petition." The trial court then determined that, "[w]ith only 240 valid signatures, the protest petition was invalid, and the board [of representatives] did not have jurisdiction to reject the decision of the zoning board approving the text amendments."4 (Footnote omitted.) Accordingly, the trial court sustained the plaintiff's appeal. This appeal followed.5
On appeal, the board of representatives claims that the trial court incorrectly concluded that the board did not have the authority to determine the validity of the protest petition. The board of representatives also claims that the trial court incorrectly determined that the petition did not have the signatures of at least 300 landowners, as required by § C6-40-9 of the charter.
As we explained in Strand/BRC Group, LLC v. Board of Representatives , 342 Conn. 365, 270 A.3d 43 (2022) ( Strand ), "[t]he board of representatives, in considering the proposed amendment, was called [on] to perform a legislative function. ... Because the board of representatives was acting in a legislative capacity, the decision of the board must not be disturbed by the courts unless the party aggrieved by that decision establishes that the [board] acted arbitrarily or illegally. ... If the board of representatives exceeded the scope of its permissible authority to act under the charter, then its decision was contrary to law and an abuse of discretion. ...
(Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 373–75, 270 A.3d 43.
We first consider whether the board of representatives had the authority, under the charter, to determine the validity of the protest petition in the present case. In Strand/BRC Group, LLC v. Board of Representatives , supra, 342 Conn. at 378–79, 270 A.3d 43, which was also released today, we also construed the Stamford charter and concluded that the board of representatives does not have the authority to consider whether a protest petition was valid under § C6-30-7,6 a provision of the charter similar to the one at issue in the present case.
In Strand , the Planning Board of the City of Stamford—which is functionally the equivalent of the zoning board—referred a protest petition to the board of representatives without determining the petition's validity. See id., at 370, 270 A.3d 43. Instead, the board of representatives determined the validity. Id., at 371, 270 A.3d 43. After the referral, the board of representatives voted to accept the petition and then ruled on the amendment. See id. In arriving at our conclusion that the board of representatives lacked the authority to address the validity of the petition, we relied on Benenson v. Board of Representatives , 223 Conn. 777, 783, 612 A.2d 50 (1992), in which this court held that the language of a former provision of the charter, § C-552.2—which is substantially similar to § C6-30-7—permitted the board of representatives only to accept or reject the amendment, not to determine the validity of the protest petition itself. See Strand/ BRC Group, LLC v. Board of Representatives , supra, 342 Conn. at 377, 270 A.3d 43. Thus, in accordance with Benenson , we concluded in Strand that the ruling of the board of representatives on the validity of the petition was unauthorized and invalid. Id., at 377–78, 270 A.3d 43. We also determined that, because the protest petition challenging the amendment did not contain the requisite number of signatures, the petition was not valid, and, therefore, we concluded that the trial court properly sustained the plaintiffs’ appeal from the board of representatives’ rejection of the amendment. Id., at 390, 270 A.3d 43.
Similarly, the charter provisions in Strand , ...
To continue reading
Request your trial