Strand/BRC Group, LLC v. Board of Representatives

Summary

This dissent agrees that the Planning Board, rather than the Board of Representatives, was responsible for initially determining whether the protest petition satisfied the charter's referral requirements. It disagrees with the majority's conclusion that an allegedly insufficient petition deprived the Board of Representatives of authority to vote on the master-plan amendments, reasoning that the signature requirement was directory and procedural rather than a jurisdictional condition precedent. D'Auria, J., dissenting, would have reversed the trial court and remanded for review of whether the Board of Representatives acted arbitrarily, illegally, or inconsistently with the charter's substantive zoning standards.