Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board declares 912 Salem Street filing null and void after clerk’s timestamp error
Summary
The Groveland Planning Board voted to declare null and void a previously approved modification for 912 Salem Street after finding the town clerk never timestamped the application, requiring the owner to refile and re-advertise; the board said the owner may proceed "at his own risk."
The Groveland Planning Board voted June 16 to declare the previously submitted modification to the approved site plan for 912 Salem Street null and void after town staff discovered the submission was never timestamped by the town clerk, a necessary step to activate public-notice timelines.
The board had been considering a proposal from 912 Groveland LLC (owner Steve Lackey) and R.J. Oak and Associates to realign a driveway and/or a retaining wall to avoid an existing utility pole. At the meeting the town planner reported the application paperwork showed the file as “complete” in the planner’s office, but the town clerk did not receive or timestamp the paperwork. The planner said the application was not found complete until April 19 and that the clerk’s missing timestamp meant required notice and advertisement triggers were not officially met.
The board discussed options before making a formal motion. The planner and members agreed the correct procedural remedy was to restart the application process, including clerk timestamping and the 16-day public-notice window required for a hearing. Board members also noted town counsel had advised that the owner could move forward at his own risk, but the board emphasized that without a properly activated application there is no live permit.
"I will move that the board reject the applicant's application for failing to meet requirements to the town and declare it null and void, waiting for a new submission," a board member said, and the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.
The board instructed staff to require the applicant to submit a new, properly completed package and to follow the clerk’s timestamping, noticing and advertising process. The decision effectively ends the previously tentatively approved action until the application is refiled and the public hearing process is repeated. Board members said the refile should be quick because the technical review work has largely been done, but public notice and a new hearing will be required.
Next steps: the application must be re-submitted to the clerk for timestamping, the board will re-advertise the public hearing, and staff will circulate the updated materials ahead of the next available meeting.
