01/07/1998 PLANNING BOARD Minutes

Home Browse Search

Attorney McLaughlin: "From our standpoint: In 1986 a I Definitive Plan was submitted to the Planning Board, certain actions were taken and there was what appeared to be a denial of )i {gill that Plan based on the lack of adequate open space. However, the Board did not follow the proper procedure, Decisions were not filed in the proper manner and so as a result, what the Board ' thought was a denial ended up being a constructive grant. That issue then got bantered around and battered around for a number of years. Although Mr. Doneski indicates in his letter of today, that Mr. Andrade at that time, in 1986, was entitled (he used that ward. "entitled") to a certificate from the Town clerk that the Planning Board had not entered its Decision within a timely manner and therefor the. . . the Plan was effectively, constructively granted, he did not get that Certif icate. Now, he tried to get that certificate or certification, but was denied. i d because the Town clerk refused to do it based u He was den on e P the advice and instruction as she was given by the Planning Board s and the Town Planner. Now, the f first question that arises is, on what basis did the Planning Board, the Town Planner instruct the Town Clerk not to cert. . . certify or endorse that Plan, which had been constructively granted. what right was there to deny him the thing he was entitled to. And the simple answer i s, there was no right to deny that certification by the Town clerk. Now had there not been interference and had the Town clerk not been told not to sign, then she would have signed as of 1986 . The Plan that would have been signed was the 1986 Plan. So, the Plan that was constructively granted is the 1986 Plan. There was no ; 1990 Plan. Had the Town Clerk been authorized, or not interfered � with, then that 1986 Plan would have been endorsed by the Town Clerk, would have been recorded by Mr. Andrade, and the eight (8) year freeze under the Statue would have already passed by. But, quite frankly, the Town screwed-up; it did what it shouldn' t have done. And the onus of that. . .or the burden of that interferes with Mr. Andrade' s recording, going back to the Town, not to him. He can' t be held accountable because he couldn' t obtain what he was entitled to. If he was entitled to that Plan approved and signed in 1986 when he couldn' t get someone to sign it until 1992, are we suggesting that ' s his fault in some way. I say, "no way is that his fault . " He had to go through hoops and jumps r , �1+I through 1989 . . .a letter from Tom Reardon indicating that there was a constructive grant and it should be signed, and that something should be worked out, maybe a settlement could be + I reached before we get to litigation. But even that didn' t happen. He still didn' t get what he was entitled to. So + finally, in 1992 he gets it before the Town Clerk and the Town ti clerk endorses it, gives that certification under the Statute. +, So he went to record. Now, until he got that certif ication, or ;. that endorsement by the Town Clerk, he couldn' t record it . So he had a Subdivision Plan which was effectively useless. The first day it became useable was the day it was signed by the Town Clerk. And he recorded it the next day. So, the time period f or the zoning freeze starts the day it' s endorsed, the 1992 date. All And our position is, it continues on right through that eight (8) ,07 y i