New London — Residents in opposition to the City Council’s recent vote to amend deed restrictions on the Edgerton School property submitted a petition to the city clerk’s office Tuesday calling for a repeal or a citywide vote on the issue.

Katherine Goulart led the petition drive and said she collected 496 signatures from a large cross-section of city residents who said they were dissatisfied with the council’s vote and want a say in the controversial proposal to build a 124-unit low-income housing complex on the 3.3-acre property at 120 Cedar Grove Ave.

The submitted signatures — 342 are needed for a successful petition — have yet to be certified by the city clerk’s office.

The former school was purchased by Affordable Housing and Services Collaborative which, with Peabody Properties, plans to build and manage an estimated $40 million replacement site for the tenants of the federally subsidized Thames River Apartments on Crystal Avenue.

The move was prompted by a class-action lawsuit by tenants who complained about the living conditions in the outdated high rises and were represented by attorney Robert Reardon against the New London Housing Authority.

The housing authority is now bound by terms of the 2014 stipulated court judgment.

Goulart, who lives on Dow Street, near the former school, said the City Council “went back on its word” when it voted to remove restrictions placed on the deed when the city sold the property in 2010 to developer Peter Levine.

Those restrictions outlined allowable uses for Levine and any future property owners and mandated council approval of anything not on the approved list.

Goulart said that, aside from the deed restrictions, she still sees a “huge issue with taking 147 units and 379 individuals and squishing them onto this tiny piece of land.”

“It seems like everyone except for the developers and housing authority thinks this will make the situation go from bad to worse,” Goulart said.

She said major concerns from residents are the traffic congestion, lack of parking and increase in crime, not because of the type of residents but “because of the sheer quantity.”

Councilors voted 4-2 in May to alter the deed restrictions contingent on approval of the project by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

While some councilors were skeptical that the property could accommodate the development, they ultimately decided the Planning and Zoning Commission was the proper venue for land-use decisions.

Mathew Green, an attorney representing the developers, said in his opinion the council’s vote was not something that could be petitioned to referendum.

He said the city charter states that a petition has to pertain to a measure or monetary appropriation, “otherwise you could have a referendum on every single vote the council takes.”

City Attorney Jeffrey Londregan was not immediately available to comment.

Green said people in opposition appear to be misinformed about the plans for the site, which have yet to be developed.

“What the council decided was an appropriate decision,” Green said. “They made a decision based on facts, not emotion. The council vote was only to take the next step. We had too many people arguing from a zoning perspective before the City Council and that is not their charge.”

Michael Mattos, executive director and president at Affordable Housing, said he has sought to answer any and all questions from concerned residents and will continue to do.

“I definitely feel like we’re trying to be good neighbors and we’ll continue to do that regardless of this.”

The petition is not the first for the property.

Neighborhood resident Dan McSparran spearheaded a successful petition that, along with City Council opposition, helped to block the city from buying the property for the future site of a community center.

g.smith@theday.com