Yes, I was at the hearing and he DID explain: The judge DIDN'T say or imply that the Planning Board couldn't still refuse to hear the application. He DID say it was the Board's decision and he wasn't going to make it for them. Notwithstanding a filing, AND a completeness determination, AND placement of the application on their agenda, the Board still has the option of refusing to go forward on the basis of the rescission ordinance and their consequential loss of jurisdiction.
Yes, they would be inviting suit by the developer, but the alternative is months of wasted meetings and effort and public expense if, ultimately, the Planning Board doesn't have jurisdiction. If they refuse or reject jurisdiction, the court will then decide the issue of equitable defenses to the "time of submission" statute. The developer still has the option of going to the zoning board and presenting the very same application, hardly mising a beat. So if the original lawsuit challenging the introduction of the ordinance to rezone is successful, the developer would be before the right board, the zoning board, but with the higher standard of proof for a "use" variance.

If they refuse they will be sued by the developer for sure and will lose (with our tax dollars wasted). Let's face it, those variances were in place when the application was submitted, there's no denying that. Whether it was one day or 1000 days before they were rescinded doesn't matter. It was what was in effect at the time of the submittal. Don't assume you are correct by taking the opposition side to this mall. There are NO compelling reasons that have been discussed (ie, traffic, flooding) that can't be corrected if indeed they actually do occur (which I still contend they won't because they have been planned for) to stop the project going forward. Half the people in this town want this mall (you saw that from the referendum vote) and we originally HAD the backing of the mayor and town council for it until some of them waffled.