Developer claims ‘improper conduct’ by Stamford reps in lawsuit

In the movement, the house owner statements that Board of Associates customers engaged in “improper conduct” based on “biased, predetermined and politically-motivated” explanations in rejecting zoning amendments that would let for a Existence Time Health gymnasium in the underused Higher Ridge Park business office park.

The authorized company points to unique actions in between some Stamford citizens and at minimum 9 of the 40 board members — including Rep. Nina Sherwood, D-8 Rep. Megan Cottrell, D-4 and former Rep. J.R. McMullen, R-18 — among others — as examples of “ex parte” or “one-sided” discussions concerning petitioners and the board.

Sherwood, Cottrell and the legal professional symbolizing the Board of Associates, Patricia Sullivan of Bridgeport-dependent firm Cohen and Wolf, declined to remark on the allegations simply because of what Cottrell reported was “pending legal action.” McMullen did not reply to a ask for for comment.

The developer sued the Board of Reps in 2018 for just about unanimously rejecting an amendment authorised by the town zoning board that would have permitted it to make a luxury health club in an underused business office park. Just after weeks of dialogue, board customers rejected the modification 35–5.

Superior Ridge Park’s owner claimed in the accommodate that petitioners gathered insufficient signatures and that the board shouldn’t have taken on the petition in the initially spot. A bulk of metropolis representatives sided with the petitioners, close by citizens, such as a condominium affiliation, who considered the zoning amendments would add to overdevelopment.

While the state Supreme Court in March dominated on the Large Ridge Park case — modifying how city petition principles are interpreted and affirming that the Board of Associates can’t depend petition signatures in the procedure — justices despatched the circumstance back to the reduce court docket. There, a decide will decide no matter if city reps the right way rejected the zoning conclusion.

In its unique criticism from 2018, the developer contended that the Board of Representatives were being incorrect in rejecting the zoning change and acted “illegally, arbitrarily and in an abuse of discretion.” But in its newest submitting, it moved a step further more, saying that the Board of Associates “predetermined” how they would vote in the High Ridge Park matter, improperly took “positions prior to hearings and votes” and coordinated votes with the petitioners who desired the zoning transform defeated.

The motion cites e-mail exchanges, obtained by means of a Liberty of Information Act ask for in 2018, among Stamford inhabitants and Cottrell to allege that associates created up their minds on the petition in advance of listening to official arguments from the developer and citizens — something they say demonstrates disregard for “the criteria of zoning that are required to be regarded.”

The residence operator, in the motion, alleges that paperwork attained from board associates present the guide petitioner and local condominium association president Hank Cuthbertson “coordinating votes with Board members” and that Cuthbertson “had accessibility to a list … detailing how every Board member would vote on the amendments — prior to any vote using put.”

In an email to Sherwood, the movement claims, Cuthbertson mentioned he received the list “from another rep who is with (the petitioners) on” the make any difference. The motion additional statements that McMullen was biased in favor of the petitioners and had furnished them with information to improve their legal arguments.

The document, the developer suggests in the movement, allegedly displays that McMullen “pushed the use of two alternative health amenities to a community member who supported” setting up a Everyday living Time Health and fitness centre at Significant Ridge.

“If you are seeking for facilities with a broad range of features, you might want to look at the JCC or Italian Heart,” McMullen wrote in a July 2018 email. The resident rebuffed McMullen’s information, in accordance to the files.

Prior to sending the exchange, board users heard problems from leadership at the Stamford Italian Center who said, “Life Time Conditioning could likely power the IC to close its doorways,” the movement suggests.

According to Large Ridge Park’s first criticism, the petitioners’ challenge to the zoning transform was incorrect mainly because it did not have 300 “landowner” signatures as needed by Stamford’s Charter.

Superior Ridge’s owner alleged that underneath Connecticut law, only a condominium affiliation was a “landowner” that could sign a petition, not unique condominium device proprietors. High Ridge’s most current movement implies that Cottrell may possibly be biased on this position, for the reason that as a condominium device owner herself, Cottrell thought that person condominium unit signatures really should depend toward the petition.

“I’m a apartment owner and I feel we ought to rely,” she wrote in a person July 2018 message. Having said that, in a afterwards electronic mail to an additional Stamford resident, Cottrell mentioned she could not “take an formal placement on the subject right before the” coming vote.

Though the developer and its lawyer, David T. Martin, offered 20 files obtained by means of FOIA with the movement, Martin wrote that the developer wants far more getting, which include “email and text communications by and between Board associates, as very well as with any other individuals, relating to the Lifetime Time undertaking.

“It is crystal clear that there were communications concerning the direct petitioner and a number of Board customers,” he ongoing. “HRREO should really be entitled to check out … the scope of the coordination efforts between Cuthbertson and the Board as properly as whether or not there is added proof of predetermination, bias and political motivations.”

Martin did not instantly reply to a ask for for remark.

Cuthbertson stated in a statement that the developer and its lawyers “are greedy at straws right here due to the fact they have a really weak scenario.

“The concept that the Stamford Board of Reps does not have the authority to overturn a determination of the Zoning Board is patently absurd,” he mentioned in an electronic mail. “In addition, nobody did everything erroneous right here.”

The Board of Associates has not but responded to allegations in the developer’s hottest movement.