Strand/BRC Group, LLC v. Board of Representatives
Citations
- 342 Conn. 365
Syllabus
Pursuant to the Stamford Charter (§ C6-30-7), ''[i]f [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 [20] percent or more of the privately-owned land located within [500] feet of the borders of such area, file a signed petition with the Planning Board . . . 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 . . . . The Board of Representatives shall approve or reject such proposed amendment at or before its second regularly-scheduled meeting following such referral.'' The plaintiffs, owners of certain real property in the city of Stamford, appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant board of representatives, which had rejected the decision of the city's planning board to approve the plaintiffs' application to amend the city's master plan. In their application filed with the planning board, the plaintiffs sought an amendment to the master plan in order to modify the land use categories of their properties, which previously had been the site of a recycling center, to allow for high density residential development. The planning board then submitted its own application, seeking to mod- ify the land use categories of adjacent properties to allow for similar This case originally was scheduled to be argued before a panel of this court consisting of Chief Justice Robinson and Justices McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Keller. Although Justice Ecker was not present when the case was argued before the court, he has read the briefs and appendices, and has listened to a recording of oral argument prior to partici- pating in this decision. 366 MARCH, 2022 342 Conn. 365 Strand/BRC Group, LLC v. Board of Representatives development. The planning board conducted separate hearings on the two applications and approved the amendments propo
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.