New London — The city’s attorney rejected a petition that had the potential to block a proposed low-income housing complex at the former Edgerton School property.

City Attorney Jeffrey Londregan sent an email with his legal opinion to councilors on June 1, a day after the petition was submitted to the city clerk’s office.

The petition calls for a referendum or repeal of a City Council vote to lift the restrictions that would have barred the new owners of the property — Massachusetts-based Affordable Housing and Services Collaborative and Peabody Properties — from even submitting their plans for an estimated $40 million, 124-unit complex at 120 Cedar Grove Ave. to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Londregan said in his email to councilors that the referendum petition was invalid because, under the City Charter, only a “measure” passed by the City Council can be subject to a referendum petition.

The council’s May 16 vote did not meet the charter’s definition of a “measure,” he said.

A measure, as defined by the charter is: “Any ordinance of any kind other than an ordinance making an appropriation; any ordinance, or part of any ordinance, making an appropriation of, or creating or authorizing the creation of, a liability of three hundred dollars or more; any ordinance, resolution or vote of the council authorizing the sale or purchase of land, water rights, wharves, ferry property and franchises; the leasing of any real property, wharves, ferries, ferry franchises, or the creation of or issuance of any bonds of the city.”

City Clerk Jonathan Ayala said Wednesday he had verified more than 350 signatures before stopping. The petition needed 342 signatures.

Katherine Goulart, who spearheaded the effort, said she submitted 496 signatures.

"If the petition was valid,they would have had enough signatures for a referendum," Ayala said.

Earlier this week Ayala said he sent out letters to the petition circulators notifying them of the city attorney’s opinion that the petition did not meet the requirements of the charter.

Goulart said the sheer number of signatures was a sign that disapproval of the council’s vote was widespread.

The petition had called for either a referendum or a repeal of the 5-2 vote.

Goulart said she was “obviously disappointed” with Londregan’s opinion.

“I think the residents spoke very loud and very clearly,” Goulart said. “If the councilors feel they represented the city well, then there’s really no harm in allowing for a referendum.”

City Council President Erica Richardson, who voted in favor of lifting restrictions, said while there were differing opinions among councilors about the idea of situating 124 units on 3.3 acres, it was not in the council’s purview to consider zoning issues.

She said there was some discussion raised at Monday’s meeting about rescinding the vote but there was no appetite to do so by the majority of the council.

In reference to the deed restrictions, Richardson said the council should not be in the business of deciding what should or should not be built.

Zoning approval for the plan is one of the conditions set by the council in lifting the restrictions.

“I don’t know whether or not Planning and Zoning is going to grant that or not ... but their decision will be based on law and not emotion,” Richardson said.

The restrictions, essentially a list of allowed uses, were placed on the property before the city sold it to developer Peter Levine in 2010.

The deed states that any intended use not included on the list requires council approval.

Affordable Housing plans to build a 124-unit low income housing development as the new home for residents of Thames River Apartments on Crystal Avenue.

An estimated 379 tenants would move from Crystal Avenue to the new development.

The removal of the restrictions set off a wave of protests from nearby homeowners, who claimed the restrictions helped to protect the neighborhood from an increase in traffic and crime among other things that could adversely impact the quality of life there.

It’s not the first time neighbors opposed plans for the site.

Cedar Grove Avenue resident Daniel McSparran earlier this year petitioned an attempt by the city to purchase the property for the future site of a community center.

McSparran also was involved in a petition in 2009 aimed at halting commercial development at the site.

g.smith@theday.com