The Town’s motion for summary judgment was denied as to the declaratory judgment action, with the Court holding that “the court grants the plaintiffs’ summary judgment and grants the requested declaratory judgment that the three identified legal defects in the 5/27/24 Proposed Ordinance are not valid and that the ordinance is, therefore, lawful.” p.21.

As the decision is long, thorough and densely argued, see the extracted the highlights here.

The trial court first found that the individual plaintiffs and SDM have standing to bring this action.

The trial court then rejected the Town’s three arguments in support of the Town Attorney’s three reasons for the ordinances purported illegality,

1. The court found that the proposed ordinance did not usurp the powers of the municipal traffic authority, the Chief of Police, because “although parts of the Plan [to redevelop Main Street] pertain to issues over which the local traffic authority has control, such commitment does not vest exclusive control or jurisdiction over those parts to the local traffic authority, as demonstrated by the boards own development and adoption of the Plan and the defendants’ concessions noted above” [that the Town was at the very least jointly exercising its authority in implementation of the Plan with the local traffic authority]. See p. 16. Judge Chavey also observed that allowing a town official’s disagreement with a proposed ordinance would result in “the evident purpose of this charter provision [governing such petitions] on its head…Deeming a proposed ordinance unlawful and thus not eligible for ...submission to a special election because it is contrary to the preferred approach of the town authorities would render the petition provision of the charter a nullity.” p. 16. Judge Chavey concluded as to this issue that the Town was in error because the proposed ordinance usurped no more control [from the local traffic authority] than the board of directors did when it developed and ultimately adopted the Plan.” p. 17.

2. The court found that the same reasoning applied to the Town’s argument that the proposed ordinance illegally usurped the authority of the State to regulate traffic flow on state highways, finding “any such usurpation is no different from the Town’s conduct in developing and adopting the Plan.” p. 19.

3. The court found that the third purported illegality in the Proposed Ordinance as set forth by the Town Attorney, the joinder of separate issues in one petition, is unsupported by any legal authority and moreover “the defendants’ own adoption of the Plan – which addresses traffic, parking and bicycle/pedestrian usage – would arguably violate the single-subject rule, and thus it would be illogical to apply this requirement to the …Proposed Ordinance but not to the actions of the board.” p. 20.

Read the the Judgement below!