Toppans Lane Question

I'm confused.

To be fair, this is a generally chronic condition. But it flared up last week when I read the news the the planning board rejected the proposed development off of Toppans Lane aka the Rindler Estate.

First, a few statements:

• I have no desire to see the property developed but I can't say it's development really affects me directly one way or the other. I had no idea the parcel existed until the project was submitted. (I'm sure this opens the door for some pokes about my being new to town.)
• While, I would prefer it stayed open. people do have a right to develop their property as laws allow.
• I'm not sure this would be the most effective use of CPA dollars (because it doesn't seem to be a high profile spot) but I'd be willing to hear talk about buying it.
• The only information I'm working with is what appeared in the Daily News, and the article was relatively brief. Also, it appears as if Katie Farrell didn't attend the meeting (same night as the council.) So she followed up with Dan Bowie sometime after the meeting. My point--the details I desire aren't available to me. I hope someone reads this and fills in the blanks.

Now, here is where my new bout of confusion erupts. Yes, it's great chest-thumping theater to have the planning board rejects a confrontational project. Those opposing the project feel their voices have been heard, and they're right. But rejection isn't as easy as it looks.

I had the pleasure of serving on the planning board of my previous town, and angry abutters regularly asked us to reject projects out of hand, even if they fit into town bylaws. Those abutters had every right to ask, and I couldn't blame them for preferring the lovely patch of woods abutting their property to a new gas station. But the law is the law, and it doesn't give the planning board much leeway.

Bottom line, if a planning board rejects a proposal it must give very precise reasons why. A board typically can't say the project is simply too dense (if the bylaws permit the density) or the designs of the home aren't suitable (again if the bylaws don't stipulate design.) If I'm correct, any rejection must be accompanied by a detailed list--chapter and verse--of where the project fell short.

But that's not even the worst of it. According to most subdivision laws, including ours, the detailed rejections effectively gives the proponent a punch list. They only need to fix what the board objected to and the proposal is good to go. From the city's bylaws, section 5:7. The board shall either approve, modify or ...

disapprove the plan, stating in detail wherein the plan does not conform to the rules and regulation ofthe Board or the recommendations of the Board of Health. Such disapproval SHALL be revoked if the plan is amended so that it conforms to the rules or regulations or recommendations. After a public hearing, the board SHALL approve the amended plan.

As the bylaws state, the board SHALL--not MAY--but SHALL approve the plan if all problems are fixed. This is why rejecting plans out of hand is so difficult. Boards can't just say no. First, they'll probably be sued. Second, if the board isn't very careful they're effectively giving a developer a To Do list and guaranteeing approval.

So why did the board reject the proposal? I'm still not sure. From the article...

NEWBURYPORT — The Planning Board unanimously rejected a proposal by Great Woods Post and Beam Co. to develop the Rindler estate off Toppans Lane.

Planning Board Chairman Dan Bowie said the board voted Monday to deny a request to continue a public hearing on the proposal, after the applicant did not present any further information or revisions to the initial plan filed in January.

Great Woods Post and Beam Co. filed an application requesting permission to build 20 single-family house lots on 11 acres of land. The property, which belongs to the Rindler family, extends back near the new medical center that is being built by Anna Jaques Hospital and abuts the hospital parking lot.

The move by the Planning Board this week effectively ended all discussion on that set of plans, but the developer could return with a new proposal, Bowie said, and indicated that would likely happen.

First, three months doesn't really strike me as a lot of time as a planning board, but so be it. But while the bylaws do allow the board to reject the plans if the "completeness and technical adequacy of the plans and supporting material" isn't adequate, is the proponent now in a position to rectify the short-coming and create an approvable project? (My related question has to do with a new proposal. I thought the proponent was prohibited from filing a new plan for at least a year. That's why developers often withdraw plans "without prejudice" if they know it's going to get rejected.)

Let's be clear. I don't know what happened. That's why I'm confused. I assume the board knows all this or it doesn't apply for some reason that's escaping me. I hope someone chimes in with a little more information so I can revert back to my regular state of confusion.