Enfield Planning Board reopens Laramie Farm hearing; developer says revisions address most review comments

The Enfield Planning Board on June 2026 reopened the continued public hearing for the Laramie Farm development, a proposal to build 86 townhouses and 213 apartments on two parcels at 107 Maple Street (map 14, lots 47 and 48).

Vice Chair Nate Miller, acting as chair for a remote Chairman David Pratt, said the board would begin by working through Verdant Associates’ May 22, 2026 memo and hear the applicant’s responses. The board also elevated alternate Ben Jorgensen to full membership for this hearing after a recusal.

Carl DeBello of the DeBello Group, the applicant’s lead, told the board the team supplied a new plan set and had addressed roughly 90–95% of the technical and planning comments raised in earlier reviews. “We digested [Verdant’s] comments very thoroughly,” DeBello said, and reported that most items were incorporated into the revised plans; a small set of remaining items will be coordinated directly with reviewers and town staff.

The application, filed by DC Development & Construction LLC and Maple Street Enfield Acquisition LLC, proposes development on about 77 acres and includes a mix of for-sale townhouses and rental apartments. DeBello said the developer had increased the stability/clear zone around the town water tank, revised grading and access near the tank, added fencing and gates and improved access geometry to minimize potential construction impacts. “We’re actually providing even more” space around the tank than currently exists, he told the board.

Board members repeatedly stressed limits of the planning board’s jurisdiction. Tim Jennings said ultimate decisions about water‑system design, ownership and acceptance are municipal functions for the DPW, town manager and board of selectmen, and that the board should seek written confirmation of any actions or agreements the town must make before a final sign‑off.

Miller said the applicant will provide written responses to Verdant Associates’ site‑wide and sheet‑level comments and that Verdant will be asked to review those responses under a next task order. The board also asked staff for a formal zoning compliance memo related to unit counts and parcel zoning, citing a recent state law (RSA 674:80) that affects multifamily allowances in commercial districts.

The planning board kept the record open; the hearing will continue at a future meeting that will include regional planning commission comments and a water‑supply capacity discussion.

The board did not take a formal vote on final approval at the meeting. Instead, members asked for additional written materials from the applicant (detailed shop drawings, easement drafts, and responses keyed to Verdant’s bullets), a construction traffic management plan, and Verdant’s technical review of the applicant’s forthcoming AOT/stormwater clarifications.

The board’s next agenda items will include a technical follow‑up from Verdant Associates on HydroCAD/model coordination, any outstanding easement or joint‑use agreements with utilities, and a staff opinion on zoning/density calculations.