Landlord Akhil Garland has attempted to bring in the Town of Peterborough as a third party defendant in the ongoing class action suit against former Walden Eco Village tenants.
“To the extent Plaintiffs have any recoverable damages… Defendants assert that the Town is liable for those damages,” Garland’s attorneys wrote in a third party complaint dated March 5. The complaint was still awaiting a judge’s decision on Wednesday.
Thirteen former tenants filed the suit against Garland, and his associated business and land trust in late December after all 25 residents of the Walden Eco Village were evicted after the Town of Peterborough determined there were numerous safety hazards and code violations on site. Residents had less than a week to move out after town officials found unsafe electrical and gas configurations on site in mid-December.
In the complaint, Garland’s party alleges that the town’s decision to evict tenants was “unreasonable and unlawful,” and that the town, rather than Garland, is therefore liable for the tenants’ damages. In the claim, Garland’s attorneys assert that the town can’t claim that the Eco Village buildings violate municipal ordinances because it “made representations that led [Garland] to believe that the Village was in compliance.”
Garland’s attorneys allege that Peterborough’s former Town Planner knew about all the units, including the unpermitted casitas, on site. The complaint also alleges that the town’s former Code Enforcement Officer was present while propane heaters were being installed on site, and expressed approval of the installer and the process at the time. The lack of permits for propane work factored in the town’s explanation of code violations, as previously reported.
The complaint also alleges the town’s Fire Department had visited the village to number the cottages and casitas.
The Town never insinuated that tenants’ homes were out of compliance, the complaint said, and that Garland relied on the Town’s representations over the years and didn’t expect them to reverse course.
Town Administrator Nicole MacStay said she had not received any information about the third party complaint as of Monday and therefore was unable to comment on the allegations.
At the time of the eviction, Town officials said they were not aware of unpermitted structures or activity on site, nor were they equipped to investigate any building’s conditions in absence of a complaint, and there hadn’t been any prior to their investigation in December.
The Hillsborough County Superior Court North denied tenants’ request for emergency funds associated with relocation in February, but tenants are still seeking damages related to renting structures that weren’t up to code.