Judge rules against Laramie Farms abutters

By LIZ SAUCHELLI

Valley News Staff Writer

Published: 01-22-2025 4:46 PM

ENFIELD — A New Hampshire Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the Enfield Zoning Board in a lawsuit brought by two residents about the proposed Laramie Farms housing development.

In May, the board granted John Dibitteto, of Maple Street-Enfield Acquisition LLC, based in Bradford, Mass., and Stephen Doherty, of DC Development and Construction, based in Sandown, N.H., a height variance to construct buildings up to about 75-feet tall — more than double the 35-foot limit in the town’s zoning ordinance — for a nearly 300-unit housing project the company wants to build. Plans call for a mix of apartments and townhouses that are expected to rent for market rate on 77 acres of land between Route 4 and Maple Street.

In June, abutters Alv Elvestad and Linda Jones who live on and own multiple properties off Route 4, filed a request for a rehearing, asking the Board to reconsider the approval. After the Zoning Board of Adjustment, or ZBA as it’s known, declined to do so, the couple filed a lawsuit against the town in July.

“We have always asserted that the ZBA acted in good faith in a difficult matter and the court agreed with this assertion,” Rob Taylor, Enfield’s land use and community development administrator, wrote in an email this week. “Hopefully, we can now proceed to more of the approvals that are required for this development to proceed.”

If built, it will be the largest housing development in Enfield. The project — which has been hotly contested by some residents — must also be approved by the town’s Planning Board, along with several state agencies, including the Department of Transportation. 

The land-use lawsuit was assigned to the Hillsborough County Superior Court in Manchester. In their suit, Jones and Elvestad argued that the taller buildings would “likely diminish the value of the surrounding properties” and the proposed development would be “contrary to public interest” because the multiple buildings would “alter the essential character of the neighborhood.” In their third claim, the couple said that the property does not have “special conditions” that would qualify it for the variance the developers were granted.

But in a decision announced last week, Judge Michael Klass ruled against the property’s abutters.

“In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs have not carried their burden of establishing that the ZBA's decision was unlawful or unreasonable,” Klass wrote.

Article continues after...

Yesterday's Most Read Articles

Freezing hikers recount harrowing rescue from Mount Washington
If approved, NH would require anti-abortion videos in public schools
Kenyon: Longtime Hanover boys soccer coach deserves better treatment
Vermont is desperate for new homes. Is it time to build them in factories?
Fuel oil is NH's top Canadian import. What would tariffs mean for local energy costs?
Dartmouth research continues under cloud of federal grant uncertainty

The judge disputed the plaintiffs’ claims, pointing to information, including a report about property values prepared by a state-certified appraiser hired by the developer, that the board took into consideration. 

“The fact that the appraiser potentially did not physically view the Plaintiffs' property (which is not accessible by vehicle) is not grounds for reversal,” Klass wrote.

The judge also rejected the couple’s argument that the development did not fit into the character of the neighborhood. The Zoning Board of Adjustment, or ZBA, had followed state case law when considering the variance and its impact on surrounding properties, he ruled. 

In response to the couple’s third claim, Klass agreed with the board and the developers that the “property is unique for the purposes of the variance,” according to the decision. 

“Evidence in the record supports the ZBA's hardship finding,” Klass wrote, noting evidence that the property is “large, isolated, and had access to a state highway.” It also faces two thoroughfares — Maple Street and Route 4 — which allow for emergency access. He also noted that the property’s topography — or landscape — “is such that the peak of the proposed structures will still be lower than the adjacent hill,” Klass wrote. 

Jones and Elvestad “take the position that the fact that they, too, own a large lot demonstrates that the Property does not have so-called special conditions,” Klass wrote.

The judge added that the developers do not “rely exclusively on the size of the property” when asking for the variance. Other factors including its location and topography also applied. 

“As such, the existence of another large lot abutting the Property, by itself, is insufficient to establish that the Property does not have so-called special conditions.”

Jones and Elvestad could appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Jones, who has served as a spokesperson for the couple, could not be reach for comment before deadline.

A representative for Donahue, Tucker and Ciandella, the Exeter, N.H., law firm representing the couple, declined to comment when reached by phone.

Jones and Elvestad aren’t the only abutters to appeal a Zoning Board decision regarding the Laramie Farms project. Earlier this month, the board declined to hear a request for rehearing from Gwyn and Trae Dessert, of C-More Farm Drive, about its decision to approve an access road that will cross wetlands on the Laramie Farms property. Various developers have tried to build housing on the property for about two decades.

Liz Sauchelli can be reached at esauchelli@vnews.com or 603-727-3221.