Ruling followed Stamford Charter
Judge Marshall Berger recently sustained Lifetime Fitness’s appeal of the Stamford Board of Representatives’ attempted nullification of a text amendment that would permit the applicant’s redevelopment of an empty office building by the Merritt Parkway into a public recreational facility.
The judge, a 32-year veteran on the bench, ruled that the Board of Representatives lacked the authority to vote to accept a landowner’s petition submitted to oppose and overturn the Zoning Board, and affirmed the Board of Representative’s legislative officer’s straightforward opinion that the petition itself lacked sufficient signatures for the board to engage in a review. The people at Lifetime Fitness, along with the many North Stamford residents who support the facility, no doubt rejoiced in the decision, but really, there was nothing remarkable nor unpredictable about it. It followed well settled case law, as well as the opinion of Attorney James Minor, the Stamford Law Department’s long-time land use law expert who provided the board with a written opinion saying just that — based upon the language of the Stamford Charter the petition lacked the necessary signatures for its review.
Unhappy with Mr. Minor’s legal analysis (some on the board even outrageously claimed that the dedicated professionals in the Law Department are “deep state” pro-development political operatives), the board took the additional step of shooting the messenger — a vote to reject the negotiated collective bargaining agreement of the assistant corporation counsel’s union, which sent the contract to arbitration which, like the Lifetime Fitness appeal, was also destined for failure. This temper tantrum was not cheap for the taxpayers, either. The legal expense incurred by the board in the appeal is approximately $70,000 to date and they have spent another $40,000 on a similar pending case, where they have also attempted to assert their jurisdiction against the Law Department’s advice, and before the same judge. In addition to the legal fees on the appeals, the costs the taxpayers have absorbed as a result of the arbitration, which also predictably ended with the acceptance of the same terms of the contract that the board rejected, was another $100,000.00.
The Land Use Committee of the Board of Representatives has scheduled a special meeting for Monday, March 9, in which it expects to determine whether or not to buck precedent and try to challenge Judge Berger’s decision, Mr. Minor’s opinion, and settled case law, and seek to appeal Judge Berger’s ruling, obviously at additional taxpayer expense. When they do, in addition to the uncertain prospect of convincing the Appellate Court to hear their case, they should consider the costs incurred and the good reputations sullied to date.
Thomas M. Cassone, Stamford