Enfield residents file suit against town over variance for 300-unit housing development
A slide from D.C. Development compares the size of a proposed apartment building at Laramie Farms in Enfield, N.H., with The Great Stone Dwelling at the Enfield Shaker Museum on Mascoma Lake. (Courtesy D.C. Development)
An aerial view in Enfield, N.H., where developers are proposing to build about 300-units of housing, located atop a ridge on the Laramie Farms property. At left is Maple Street and Mascoma Lake is in the background. (Courtesy D.C. Development)
An artist's rendering of townhouses proposed at the Laramie Farms development in Enfield, N.H. (Courtesy D.C. Development)
A vehicle passes the access road for the town water storage tank on Route 4 in Enfield, N.H., on Monday, Aug. 13, 2024. The access road is the approximate location for the main entrance to Laramie Farms, a proposed development with 300 housing units. (Valley News - James M. Patterson) Copyright Valley News. May not be reprinted or used online without permission. Send requests to permission@vnews.com. James M. Patterson
|
Published: 08-13-2024 6:01 PM
Modified: 08-13-2024 6:22 PM |
ENFIELD — Two Enfield residents have filed a lawsuit against the town’s Zoning Board of Adjustment over its approval of a height variance for a proposed nearly 300-unit housing project.
Linda Jones and Alv Elvestad, whose Route 4 property abuts the proposed Laramie Farms development — which is located between Route 4 and Maple Street — allege that the Zoning Board erred in June when it denied the couple’s petition asking the board to reconsider its May decision allowing DC Development Construction LLC, owned by Stephen Doherty, of Haverhill, Mass., to build apartment buildings that are up to 75-feet tall and townhouses that would be around 44-feet tall.
The town’s zoning ordinance restricts buildings to a height of 35 feet without a variance.
In their complaint filed with New Hampshire Superior Court July 17 — assigned to the Hillsborough County Superior Court, Northern District Land Use Review Docket — the couple asserts that the zoning board’s denial of their rehearing request “was illegal and unreasonable,” according to a copy of the lawsuit. They allege that granting the 75-foot height variance “will likely diminish the value of the surrounding properties.”
They also allege it is “contrary to public interest” because it would “alter the essential character of the neighborhood” and that the developer does not meet the requirements for “unnecessary hardship” because the Laramie Farms land does not have “special conditions” that make it different from other properties in the area.
“A project like this is not supposed to have adverse impacts on adjacent properties,” said John Ratigan, an attorney with the Exeter, N.H.-based Donahue, Tucker and Ciandella, who is representing the couple.
The couple is asking that the court rule that the zoning board’s approval of the height variance “was unreasonable/unlawful,” and to vacate its decision. They’ve also asked that the court grant them “such other relief as may be fair and just.”
Article continues after...
Yesterday's Most Read Articles
DC Development Construction is working with Enfield Acquisitions owner John Dibitteto, who owns the two properties considered part of the Laramie Farms development that total around 77 acres.
The developers have previously said they needed the height variance because the topography of the property, which is steep in parts, makes it difficult to build on.
“If these variances aren’t granted, this project won’t go forward,” land use and zoning attorney John Cronin, who is representing Dibitteto and Doherty, told the Zoning Board in March.
During public hearings and public comment sessions at zoning board meetings held this spring in Enfield, dozens of residents spoke out against the Laramie Farms proposal.
While they listed numerous concerns, residents were generally opposed to the height of the buildings and overall size.
Still, the board voted in favor of the variances and reaffirmed its support for its decision at the May 14 and June 18 meetings, with votes of 4-1; member Dan Regan was the sole no vote in both decisions.
When the Enfield Zoning Board approved the height variance, it agreed that the request met all five criteria spelled out by the New Hampshire Supreme Court: that it “will not be contrary to the public interest,” “the spirit of the (zoning) ordinance is observed,” “substantial justice is done,” “the values of surrounding properties are not diminished,” and enforcement of the zoning ordinance “would result in an unnecessary hardship” to the landowner seeking the variance.
Enfield is being represented by its attorney, Michael Courtney, Upton & Hatfield in Concord.
“The town feels like we acted in good faith,” Rob Taylor, Enfield’s land use and community development administrator, said in a phone interview earlier this month. “If this adjudicates to the point the town loses the appeal … it puts the project in jeopardy.”
The first hearing for the case is scheduled to take place Wednesday, Nov. 13, Taylor said.
Liz Sauchelli can be reached at esauchelli@vnews.com or 603-727-3221.
Amid fraught landscape, school districts react differently to transgender sports ban law
Stewart’s Shops to buy Jolley convenience stores
Frontier Airlines to bring back Florida flights to Burlington airport
