Summary
The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the Stamford Board of Representatives lacked authority to determine the validity of a protest petition referred to it by the Planning Board under the Stamford Charter. The court further held that an invalid protest petition could not confer authority on the Board of Representatives to decide the merits of the proposed master plan amendment. The judgment sustaining the plaintiffs’ administrative appeal was affirmed.
Holdings
- The Board of Representatives lacked authority to assess the validity of a protest petition after the Planning Board referred it. Under Stamford Charter § C6-30-7, the petition is the procedural vehicle that brings the proposed amendment before the Board of Representatives, which is authorized only to approve or reject the proposed amendment.
- The Board of Representatives lacked authority to vote on the merits of the plaintiffs' amendment because a valid protest petition was a condition precedent to that authority. Its vote on an amendment contained in an invalid petition was void.
- Signatures on a single protest petition challenging two distinct amendments could not be aggregated. The signature requirement had to be measured separately for each amendment, and the petition was invalid as to the plaintiffs' amendment because it lacked the required number of signatures for that amendment.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Board of Representatives had authority under Stamford Charter § C6-30-7 to determine the validity of a protest petition after the Planning Board referred it to the board.
- Whether the Board of Representatives could decide the merits of the plaintiffs' master-plan amendment when the protest petition was invalid as to that amendment.
- Whether signatures on a single protest petition challenging two distinct master-plan amendments could be aggregated to satisfy the charter's twenty-percent signature requirement.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (34)
- Benenson v. Board of Representatives, 223 Conn. 777, 612 A.2d 50 (1992)(followed)
- Stamford Ridgeway Associates v. Board of Representatives, 214 Conn. 407, 572 A.2d 951 (1990)(followed)
- 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)(followed)
- Burke v. Board of Representatives, 148 Conn. 33, 166 A.2d 849 (1961)(followed)
- Protect Hamden/North Haven from Excessive Traffic & Pollution, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 220 Conn. 527, 600 A.2d 757 (1991)(followed)
- Campion v. Board of Aldermen, 278 Conn. 500, 899 A.2d 542 (2006)(followed)
- West Hartford Taxpayers Assn., Inc. v. Streeter, 190 Conn. 736, 462 A.2d 379 (1983)(followed)
- Perretta v. New Britain, 185 Conn. 88, 440 A.2d 823 (1981)(followed)
- Thomson v. New Haven, 100 Conn. 604, 124 A. 247 (1924)(followed)
- Kiewlen v. Meriden, 317 Conn. 139, 115 A.3d 1095 (2015)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 34.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…