Two lawsuits regarding the Walden Eco Village development – one by the Town of Peterborough against developer Akhil Garland and one by Garland against the town – have been dropped.
In December 2020, Peterborough Code Enforcement Officer Timothy Herlihy and Fire Inspector Lt. Scott Symonds inspected the Eco Village property on Middle Hancock Road and determined that buildings were being rented as individual dwellings without being properly permitted as permanent residences. They also found numerous violations of town code, zoning ordinance and site-plan review regulations, and Fire Chief Ed Walker evicted the tenants.
John Ratigan, Peterborough’s attorney, said the town filed a lawsuit against Garland for the violations. Garland, in turn, filed a lawsuit alleging the town was “unreasonable and unlawful” in issuing a cease-and-desist order with no prior notice, despite knowing about the property and the homes on it, and only providing five days for tenants to vacate in the middle of the winter and amidst COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.
The cases were consolidated in Hillsborough Superior Court Northern District, but once the Planning Board approved a subdivision plan for Eco Village, Ratigan said both sides agreed to drop their cases.
“Moving forward, the best focus is it’ll be a new, attractive subdivision at a time when there’s really a demand for such property,” he said.
A lawsuit filed against Garland by a group of tenants was settled out-of-court in June, and the terms were confidential.
Garland’s attorney, Steven Dutton, could not be reached for comment.
In May, the Peterborough Zoning Board approved a variance that would allow Eco Village to keep 10 structures in the wetlands buffer. Garland originally proposed 15 structures in the 50-foot wetland buffer, but agreed to cut that number.
The vote was 3-2, with Peggy Leedberg, Peter LaRoche and Jim Van Valkenberg voting in favor, and Don Selby and Chris DiLoreto voting against. Leedberg was convinced by the argument from Chad Branon of Fieldstone Land Consultants, representing Garland, that the buildings which were to remain had concrete or frost wall foundations, and removing them would cause more disruption to the wetland.
In opposing the variance, Selby said the application did not meet the requirement of being not contrary to the public interest, while DiLoreto argued that the project was also not within the spirit of the town’s zoning ordinance, and that it would negatively impact neighboring property values.
Conditions imposed by the Zoning Board included removing five of the structures from the buffer zone, relocating fencing for two pig pens out of the zone, replanting the area of one of the removed structures with blueberry shrubs or native plants or wildflowers, no further structures allowed in the buffer or expansion of the ones already there.
Garland first introduced the plan in the fall of 2019 to then-Town Planner Peter Throop, and more than two years since the proposal was in front of the Peterborough Planning Board in July 2020, the board approved a revised subdivision plan and conditional use permit in November.
The approved plan includes 19 house lots with open space, with seven lots being served by existing, shared septic and a shared well. Items removed at the Planning Board’s request included shared amenities such as a farm, barn and cleaning house, as well as a hobby-maker space and hot tub.
The vote to approve was 5-2, with Stephanie Hurley and and Andrew Dunbar voting no.
After the vote, Garland said he was happy the board approved a subdivision, but that the board “sanitized what was a beautiful plan by removing all of these wonderful concepts.” He said he planned to go to the ZBA to apply for a variance so people will be able to share amenities on the property.