High Ridge Real Estate Owner, LLC v. Board of Representatives, 270 A.3d 76

High Ridge Real Estate Owner, LLC sought a zoning text amendment in Stamford to permit a gym in a C‑D commercial district; the Zoning Board approved the amendment (with modifications).
Sterling Lake Homeowners Association filed a protest petition under Stamford Charter § C6‑40‑9; the petition bore 696 signatures and the Zoning Board referred it to the Board of Representatives without first determining validity.
The Board’s Land Use/Urban Redevelopment Committee found the petition valid, recommended accepting it, and recommended rejection of the amendment; the full Board accepted the petition and rejected the amendment.
High Ridge appealed to the Superior Court arguing the Board lacked authority to determine petition validity and that the petition failed to contain 300 landowner signatures; the trial court sustained the appeal, finding the petition invalid (240 signatures) and the Board without jurisdiction.
On appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court, the Court held the Board of Representatives lacked authority to decide petition validity (the Zoning Board must do so), but concluded the petition nonetheless met the 300‑signature threshold (at least 360 valid signatures) because each joint owner’s signature counts when all cotenants sign.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for consideration of the plaintiff’s remaining challenge to the Board’s merits decision rejecting the amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authority to determine petition validity	Board lacked charter authority; only Zoning Board may determine validity	Board claimed it had power to assess validity or its ruling was harmless	Held: Board lacked authority; zoning board must determine validity before referral
How to count required "300 landowners"	Joint owners count only if all cotenants sign, but their multiple signatures should not be aggregated into separate landowner counts (trial court counted fewer)	Each landowner’s signature counts; where all cotenants sign, each signature counts toward 300	Held: "Signature" means a landowner writing their name; if all joint owners sign, each signature counts; petition had ≥360 valid signatures
Effect of Board’s erroneous validity ruling	If Board lacked authority, its vote on amendment is void unless petition actually valid	Board argued its erroneous validity ruling was harmless if petition satisfied charter anyway	Held: Because petition met 300‑signature requirement, Board could lawfully consider and decide the amendment; remand for merits review

Strand/BRC Group, LLC v. Board of Representatives, 342 Conn. 365 (Conn. 2022) (construed Stamford charter; held Board lacked authority to determine protest petition validity under similar provision)
Benenson v. Board of Representatives, 223 Conn. 777 (Conn. 1992) (interpreting charter language to limit Board to approve/reject amendment, not validate petitions)
Warren v. Borawski, 130 Conn. 676 (Conn. 1944) (cotenant must join to qualify as ‘‘owner’’ where petitions measure area/percentage)
Stamford Ridgeway Associates v. Board of Representatives, 214 Conn. 407 (Conn. 1990) (discussing requirement that all owners of a parcel must sign for area/percentage‑based petitions)
Steiner, Inc. v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 149 Conn. 74 (Conn. 1961) (explaining strict compliance with protest rules and balancing owner protection and public interest)
Rhodes v. Koch, 195 Mo. App. 182 (Mo. Ct. App. 1916) (where signature count governs, each husband/wife or cotenant who signs counts separately)