The Peterborough Planning Board voted Monday night to impose a deadline on the Eco Village applicants, requiring that a variance application be submitted prior to the Zoning Board’s April meeting and that plans for fixing noncompliant uses be submitted prior to when the Planning Board meets in April.
The Zoning Board’s next meeting is April 4, and the deadline is March 7. The Planning Board next meets a week later, April 11, and the deadline is March 14.
The decision to set the deadlines was based on a recommendation from Town Planner Danica Melone, who said Eco Village’s application, which currently is for a subdivision on the site as well as a conditional use permit related to proposed impacts on wetland buffers, was only being heard by the Planning Board in order to bring the site into compliance with town zoning and permitting rules.
Walden Eco Village has been before Planning Board since 2020, when applicant Akhil Garland described his plan to subdivide the property. The proposal for a 20-lot subdivision faced challenges when multiple permit and code violations were discovered in late 2020, sparking lawsuits and the mass eviction of the tenants living on the property at the time.
The violations in question were laid out by Fire Chief Ed Walker and town Code Enforcement Officer Tim Herlihy, who gave a deadline of Sept. 1, 2021, to address them. Melone said that both Walker and Herlihy, neither of whom were present at the meeting, were frustrated with the way this case has unfolded.
“The applicant has had a total of 14 months since the town took action against the site’s violations, which also equates to 14 months in front of the Planning Board to bring the site into compliance,” said Melone. “As of the date of tonight’s public hearing, the applicant has been given an additional five months past the deadline of this violation letter to bring the site into compliance.”
The issue, she said, was that plans submitted by the applicants did not address the compliance issues, including structures located in the wetland overlay zone. In order to come into compliance, the applicant needs to submit a variance for those structures as well as site plans to lay out how noncompliant uses and structures will be brought into compliance.
“They’ve continually not showed us about what they’re doing to bring things into compliance,” Melone said. “We need to know what the compliant use of these structures is going to be.”
Additionally, Melone recommended that if the applicant does not meet the deadlines, then the Planning Board should deny the applications.
Former Planning Board member John Patterson spoke up regarding structures in the wetland buffer zone, saying the Planning Board did not have the authority to approve a plan with structures that were built without permitting.
“Since the structures are neither multifamily nor legally pre-existing, they are beyond the Planning Board’s jurisdiction,” he said. “Their status is undetermined and lies entirely with the Zoning Board of Adjustment.”
Patterson added that the Planning Board should either request that the applicant return with a plan that did not include these noncompliant structures, or send the applicant to the ZBA.
“You have no jurisdiction,” he said. “Simple as that.”
Board Chair Rich Clark and Vice Chair Ivy Vann said they could also deny the application, or else ask the applicant to speak on the potential of going to the ZBA.
“There is no good answer; there hasn’t been a good answer in 12 months,” Vann said.
“To me, I feel like we have to deny it one way or another,” said board member Sarah Steinberg Heller. “It’s so clear we’re not going to get anywhere on this. This project is never going to happen unless it starts from scratch.”
Board member Stephanie Hurley agreed with Patterson’s assessment on the legal status of the structures in the wetland buffer zone, and suggested that the board take Melone’s advice on requiring a deadline.
“I see many things in this development that are not compliant, that are stretching the rules, and I feel like this board needs to stand up for the rules,” she said. “I don’t want to give up on this. I feel this project could be a good project for our town, but it needs to be in line with the laws and the requirements and it feels like there’s been a lot of skirting of that.”
The board did not allow representatives of the Eco Village project to speak on the issue, which angered their lawyer who was present, Chris Swiniarski.
“You’re not gonna allow the applicant any testimony? You listen to everyone except the applicant,” he said. “See you in court.”