Planning board raises legal question after applicant alters septic location in Lindquist project

The Shapleigh Planning Board spent part of its meeting reviewing an email from Colin (Department of Planning) about the Lindquist project and a disputed change to the septic location that altered previously approved plans.

Chair (S4) read Colin’s email summarizing the sequence: the board believed it could move an existing structure to 100 feet from the high-water mark during its on-site review, but a later plan showed the septic moved and the final plan presented for signature differed from what the board had approved. Colin advised the board that the application remained a planning-board matter and recommended consulting the town attorney to ensure a legally defensible position. Chair (S4) told members he was not happy about the inconsistency and that the board should request the applicant to return with final plans.

Board members debated jurisdictional lines: if a proposal places a structure beyond the 100‑foot trigger, does the CEO (code enforcement officer) have final signoff or does the planning board retain oversight until the board signs the final plan? Members agreed that, absent a signed final plan that matches the board’s approval, the board should require the applicant to return and that seeking a legal opinion may be prudent.

The board did not take a final action but directed staff to notify the applicant and to consider legal counsel if the applicant refuses to return to the board with a consistent final plan.