The most recent decision in the case filed by a group of neighbors against New Ipswich boards for allowing a tea party event business in the village district has ruled in favor of the town, and ordered the neighbor group to pay thousands in attorney fees.
Silver Scone Teas is an event business on River Road in New Ipswich, run out of the historic home owned by Jane Elwell. Elwell initially started her business without proper review by the town’s zoning and planning boards. Following complaints from neighbors and a cease-and-desist issued by the town, she has since gone through the procedure to obtain the proper variance and a site plan review to run the business.
A group of neighbors and nearby residents have filed multiple appeals of the town’s decisions, both with the state’s Housing Appeals Board and with the court system.
On Aug. 13, the Housing Appeals Board ruled on a Motion for Reconsideration filed by the neighbor group, appealing a decision made by the board upholding the original decision of the New Ipswich Zoning Board of Adjustment in granting a variance to Silver Scones.
The HAB denied the neighbor’s motion for rehearing, and following an analysis that called their continued pursuit of appeals “frivolous and unreasonable conduct,” awarded attorney’s fees and costs to both Elwell and the town of New Ipswich.
According to the HAB’s order, dated Aug. 13, the town is awarded fees and costs in the amount of $5,000, and Elwell has been awarded $10,000. The amounts are to be paid in full, in a single lump sum, within 30 days.
The HAB ruled that “a lengthy analysis of the respective arguments of the parties is not necessary” in ruling against the motion for reconsideration, as “the Appelant makes essentially the same arguments that were made at the time of the original merits hearing in this case and, as then, we do not find those arguments to be persuasive.”
In its decision, the board wrote that the appellant’s arguments did not change the HAB’s opinion that the town acted reasonably and lawfully.
The order also addressed a request by the town of New Ipswich, and Elwell, as an intervenor in the case, for attorney’s fees and costs, and/or sanctions against the neighbor cohort.
“While the parties may be unable to agree on a number of aspects of this case, at least one fact is abundantly clear to this board that the litigation promulgated by the Appellant and responded to by the Inervenor and the Town has largely ‘taken on a life of its own,'” the HAB wrote in its decision. “By virtue of the voluminous pleadings and frequently specious and vexatious allegations promoted by the Appellant, the Intervenor and the Town are left in the unenvious position of having to counter these arguments in their responses.”
The HAB wrote in its decision that the suits appear to be retaliatory at this point.
“It has become increasingly apparent to this board that the Appellant has developed, over the last several years, a personal animus, bordering on hatred, against the Intervenor that seems to color virtually their entire conduct in this matter. By using the legal system in such a litigious manner, the Appellant has attempted to disrupt, discredit, and even bankrupt the Intervenor’s business,” the HAB wrote. “While a certain amount of litigation is warranted and even expected in circumstances such as these, the pursuit of such litigation has reached a level of frivolous and unreasonable conduct that is unprecedented before this board.”
The HAB also specifically called out Nancy Clark, who, along with being one of the appellants in the case, has also been acting as their legal counsel.
“Setting aside any ethical considerations, it is difficult to conceive that Attorney Clark can be fully objective in not only her assessment of this matter but also when rendering legal advice to her fellow appellants. Accordingly, this board finds and rules that an award of fees, costs and/or sanctions is well warranted under these egregious conditions,” the HAB wrote.