Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Site Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board denies Country Club Estates application over owner-representation questions
Summary
The Newburyport Planning Board denied the Country Club Estates (Woodman Way) site plan application without prejudice after city legal counsel concluded the party before the board likely was not the proper owner's representative. Neighbors urged denial; the board said the applicant may reapply once representation is resolved.
The Newburyport Planning Board voted Jan. 7 to deny without prejudice the Country Club Estates site-plan application after the city’s legal counsel told the board the applicant did not appear to be the correct owner’s representative.
Staff member Andy told the board that legal review raised questions about whether the condominium association or trust presented the application in the property owner’s stead and that the applicant’s attorney had asked for a continuance to the Feb. 4 meeting to respond to that opinion. Andy said the legal memorandum had been uploaded to the public record for the board’s review.
During public comment, neighbor De Georgio of 55 Clipper Way told the board she had searched the registry of deeds and found the most recent certificate of trustees dated about 2014 and said she was concerned that trustee elections had not occurred since then. "I did read the letter regarding requests for continuance and my biggest concern is that when I searched the registry of deeds, the most recent certificate for trustees that I was able to locate is more than 12 years old," De Georgio said. Another neighbor, Frank (41 Clipper Way), urged the board to deny the application now rather than permit a piecemeal approval before a legally constituted board existed.
Board members debated two procedural paths: grant the applicant’s requested continuance to allow a response to the legal opinion, or deny the application without prejudice so that a properly constituted owner or representative could return with a complete application. One member moved that "on advice of our counsel the application is not properly before us" and that the board deny the application without prejudice; the motion was seconded and the board voted to deny the application without prejudice. The board did not record individual vote tallies in the public record during the meeting.
The denial leaves the site-plan merits unaddressed; board members said the outcome does not preclude the property owner or a new, properly authorized applicant from returning to the board with updated documentation. The item is scheduled for the public record to reflect the denial and for the applicant to resolve standing before any future site-plan review.
