The Strand/BRC Grp. v. Bd. of Representatives of The City of Stamford
| Decision Date | 15 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | SC 20578 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Parties | THE STRAND/BRC GROUP, LLC, ET AL. v. BOARD OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY OF STAMFORD |
THE STRAND/BRC GROUP, LLC, ET AL.
v.
BOARD OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY OF STAMFORD
No. SC 20578
Supreme Court of Connecticut
March 15, 2022
Argued September 10, 2021
Procedural History
(One justice dissenting)
Appeal from the decision of the defendant rejecting a decision by the Planning Board of the City of Stamford to amend the city's master plan to permit certain residential development, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk and transferred to the judicial district of Hartford, Land Use Litigation Docket, where the case was tried to the court, Hon. Marshall K. Berger, Jr., judge trial referee, who, exercising the powers of the Superior Court, rendered judgment sustaining the appeal, from which the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed. Affirmed.
Patricia C. Sullivan, for the appellant (defendant).
David T. Martin, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Keller, Js. [*]
OPINION
ECKER, J.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the defendant, the Board of Representatives of the City of Stamford (board of representatives), had the authority to approve a protest petition that objected to master plan amendments approved by the Planning Board of the City of Stamford (planning board). The plaintiffs, The Strand/BRC Group, LLC, 5-9 Woodland, LLC, Woodland Pacific, LLC, and Walter Wheeler Drive SPE, LLC, filed an application with the planning board to amend the master plan of the city of Stamford (city). Shortly afterward, the planning board filed its own application to amend the city's master plan. After the planning board approved both applications with some modifications, local property owners filed a protest petition under § C6-30-7 of the Stamford Charter (charter). The board of representatives determined that the protest petition was valid and rejected the planning board's approval of the amendments. The plaintiffs appealed from the decision of the board of representatives to the trial court, which sustained the plaintiffs' appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The underlying facts are undisputed. The plaintiffs own parcels of real property in the city located at 707 Pacific Street; 5, 9, 17, 21, 23, 25, 29, 39 and 41 Woodland Avenue; and 796 Atlantic Street. In October, 2018, the plaintiffs proposed an amendment to the city's master plan to modify their properties' land use categories (Application MP-432) to allow high density residential development on the site, which previously had been used as a recycling collection and disposal center. Specifically, the plaintiffs sought to modify their properties' land use categories from category 4 (residential- medium density multifamily), category 6 (commercial-neighborhood), and category 9 (urban mixed-use), to category 5 (residential-high density multifamily) and category 9, which would allow for more dense development. The planning board thereafter submitted its own application to modify the land use categories of adjacent properties from categories 4 and 6 to category 9 (Application MP-433).[1] The proposals contained in the respective applications, though plainly related, were two different amendments contained in two different applications from two different applicants. Application MP-432 was filed separately from Application MP-433 and advertised to the public independently. The planning board conducted public hearings on both applications, after which it approved them by separate motions insofar as they each sought a change to land use category 5.[2] The planning board published separate legal notices of the approval of each amendment.
Shortly thereafter, Susan Halpern, vice president of the South End Neighborhood Revitalization Zone Initiative, filed a single protest petition signed by adjacent property owners, challenging the planning board's
approval of Applications MP-432 and MP-433 pursuant to § C6-30-7 of the charter, which provides in relevant part that, ‘‘[i]f twenty (20) percent or more of the owners of the privately-owned land in the area included in any proposed amendment to the Master Plan, or the owners of twenty (20) percent or more of the privately-owned land located within five hundred (500) feet of the borders of such area, file a signed petition with the Planning Board within ten days after the official publication of the decision thereon, objecting to the proposed amendment, then said decision shall have no force or effect but the matter shall be referred by the Planning Board to the Board of Representatives within twenty days after such official publication, together with written findings, recommendations and reasons. The Board of Representatives shall approve or reject such proposed amendment at or before its second regularly-scheduled meeting following such referral. . . .'' Pursuant to § C6-30-21 of the charter, the decision must be made by an ‘‘affirmative vote of a majority of the entire membership of said Board . . . .'' See generally Benenson v. Board of Representatives, 223 Conn. 777, 781, 612 A.2d 50 (1992) (describing protest petition process).
Pursuant to § C6-30-7, the planning board referred the protest petition to the forty member board of representatives on the same day it was received. The legislative officer, Valerie T. Rosenson, for the board of representatives reviewed the validity of the protest petition and determined that it was valid as to Application MP-433 because it had been signed by 33 percent of the property owners in the subject area relevant to Application MP-433 but invalid as to Application MP-432 because it had not been signed by 20 percent of the property owners in the 500 foot border of the area or 20 percent of the property owners in the subject area relevant to Application MP-432.[3]
Approximately ten days later, the city's special counsel, James Minor, submitted a memorandum, recommending that the board of representatives separately address each of the two applications referenced in the protest petition because the applications ‘‘involved separate applicants, application numbers, property boundaries, amendments, legal notices and decisions.'' Additionally, Attorney Minor pointed out that, pursuant to Stamford Ridgeway Associates v. Board of Representatives, 214 Conn. 407, 572 A.2d 951 (1990), and Hanover Hall v. Planning Board, 2 Conn.App. 49, 475 A.2d 1114, cert. granted, 194 Conn. 805, 482 A.2d 710 (1984) (appeal dismissed March 5, 1985), the board of representatives must determine if it has authority to consider the protest petition by ascertaining whether it contains a sufficient number of signatures on the basis of ‘‘the area where the specific amendment is located, '' as opposed to the area that may be affected by the change.
The issue concerning the validity of the protest peti-
tion was referred to the board of representative's land use-urban redevelopment committee(committee), which voted unanimously to reject the protest petition with respect to Application MP-432 and to accept the protest petition with respect to Application MP-433. Following a public hearing, at which various property owners expressed their disapproval of both amendments, the board of representatives voted to send Application MP-432 back to the committee for reconsideration. The committee reconsidered its decision to reject Application MP-432 and ultimately approved the protest petition as it applied to Application MP-432. On the same day, the board of representatives convened a special meeting to determine the validity of the protest petition, at which it voted to verify its validity by a vote of seventeen to twelve. The board of representatives later voted on the merits of the protest petition and rejected the planning board's approval of Application MP-432 by a vote of twenty-one to eleven and Application MP-433 by a vote of twenty-three to twelve.
The plaintiffs appealed to the trial court from the rejection of Application MP-432 by the board of representatives.[4] The plaintiffs challenged the authority of the board of representatives to review the planning board's decision on numerous grounds, and the parties agreed to address that issue asa threshold matter before reaching the merits. Pursuant to Benenson v. Board of Representatives, supra, 223 Conn. 777, the trial court determined that ‘‘the board [of representatives] had no authority to determine the validity of the petition and [that] its action was improper'' because, ‘‘[o]nce the petition was filed with the planning board, the only charge for the board [of representatives] was to determine the substantive issue, i.e., the proposed amendments.'' The court then determined that, even if the board of representatives had the authority to vote on the validity of the protest petition, ‘‘[t]he vote was not sufficient [because] it failed to garner a majority of the entire forty person board or twenty-one votes.''[5] See Stamford Charter § C6-30-21 (requiring majority vote of entire board of representatives ‘‘in deciding all matters''). Accordingly, the trial court sustained the plaintiffs' appeal. This appeal followed.[6]
On appeal, the board of representatives claims that, regardless of whether it lacked authority to decide the validity of the protest petition, it nonetheless had authority to rule on the merits of Application MP-432, which was duly rejected by a majority of that board, i.e., twenty-one members. The plaintiffs respond that the board of representatives lacked authority to rule on the merits of Application MP-432 because the charter does not authorize that board to vote on the validity of a protest petition, and, in the absence of a valid petition, the board of representatives lacked the authority to reach the merits of the application. Relatedly, the plaintiffs argue that the protest petition was invalid because
it lacked the requisite number of...
To continue reading
Request your trial