Laserfiche WebLink
ILI <br /> t. But why didn' t she sign the Plan, I mean she would have signed <br /> the Plan right then and there if you didn' t instruct her. . . I <br /> heard you plain as day say, Don' t sign the Plan, because the <br /> li� Board voted to deny the Plan. " <br /> Mr. Fudala: "I told her that the Board voted to deny the <br /> Plan, bu <br /> t I don' t tell the Clerk to sign anything or not. " <br /> Attorney McLaughlin determined this line of discussion had <br /> no bearing. The 1986 Board Decision is a nullity because it was <br /> never recorded. He further clarified the December 51 1986 date <br /> ' f constructive a roval, not the date of effective <br /> �s the date e o �?p <br /> approval. The date of effective approval is the date on which <br /> the Town Clerk signed the Plan. <br /> j dill <br /> Chance Reichel and the Town Planner again asked the <br /> r: he Town Clerk to sign;circumstances allowing and also, what had t g' ► <br /> prevented her signing in 1990 at which time the Planning Boar <br /> Chairma n notified her that the Board had approved signing <br /> off on the Plan based upon certain conditions. <br /> #4' <br /> Attorney McLaughlin responded n it is the Town' s <br /> 1 responsibility to provide Mr. Andrade what he is entitled to. <br /> The Chairman intervened at this point to state the 1990 <br /> discussions were joint. He stated the Applicant appeared before <br /> the Board to discuss the situation, requested a signed Plan, <br />�+ presented a Plan the Board deemed worthy of signature and then <br /> presented the original Plan to the Town Clerk for signature two <br /> (2) years later. He agreed there was constructive approval in <br /> 1986, but for whatever reason there was no signature. <br /> Subsequently, the Applicant presented a different Plan for the <br /> Board' s approval and the Board approved it. His feeling is this <br /> would override the 186 Plan. He stated a substitute Plan has <br /> been submitted to the Board, it is not the Plan approved in 190 . <br /> r <br /> Attorney McLaughlin responded the Plan before the Board is <br /> not a "substitute Plan" , but rather "the Plan. " Although there <br /> were discussions n in 1990, AttorneyMcLaughlin stated the Planning <br /> !� Board had "zero right, no right at all" to ask for anything from <br /> Mr. Andrade as he was entitled to an endorsement of that Plan. <br /> Attorney McLaughlin further stated that even though Mr. Andrade <br /> f , participated in discussions in 1990, that fact would have no <br /> bearing on what he was entitled to, when the Town Clerk signed <br /> the document, when the document becomes effective and when the <br /> zoning freeze came into effect. <br /> E� <br /> " The Chairman suggested the issue of the 1990 discussions <br /> A would have bearing in two respects. one being it happened and <br /> ' ' ►=t was done so at the Applicant' s suggestion. The Town Planner <br /> pointed out it had been done so at the suggestion of Town <br />. Counsel, as stated in a letter dated 1988 . <br /> 10 <br /> Er <br />