Enfield planning board continues Larabee Farm hearing after extended debate on traffic, water and conservation

The Enfield Planning Board on July 22 continued a public hearing on the Larabee Farm residential development, asking the developer and state officials for more engineering detail after several hours of testimony that centered on traffic, water capacity and how much of the 77‑acre site should be locked into conservation easements.

The proposal, presented as a final major site‑plan application by Maple Street Enfield Acquisitions LLC and DC Development & Construction LLC, would place about 86 townhouses and roughly 213 apartment units on 77.1 acres at 107 Maple Street. Speakers at the meeting called the project a significant source of housing supply for the region but said the town needs firm mitigation plans before the board can advance approval.

Why it matters: Planning staff and the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission said the project would add mixed tenure housing at a time of regional need, but neighbors and several board members said traffic at the Route 4/4A intersection, pedestrian connectivity, water and sewer capacity, and potential wetlands/stream impacts remain unresolved. The board paused to require clearer, documented commitments from DOT, the developer and town utility authorities and continued the hearing to Aug. 26 to allow time for those materials.

RPC and housing context John Heffner, a planner with the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission, told the board the project offers a diverse mix of housing types that could increase opportunities for homeownership and rentals in the region. Heffner said the regional housing needs assessment underlies a 364‑unit planning target and agreed to supply a memo explaining how that figure was calculated. "There is a great deal of value in this type of proposal," Heffner said, framing the project within regional supply needs.

Traffic, DOT review and mitigation Traffic and the Route 4/4A intersection dominated the meeting. Developer representative Carl Dube said the DOT reviewed the submitted traffic evaluation and has approved the concept of mitigation at the main approach, including a left‑turn pocket/turning lane; the developer said DOT asked the team to proceed to design. The planning board pressed the developer to provide the traffic‑study numbers, the developer’s DOT submittals and the DOT responses to the board and public. Dube agreed to deliver the documents and to post them on the project website promptly.

Resident Dan Reagan, among others, warned the board that traffic had been one of the top concerns raised over two years of review and said it "feels like the one we've made the least progress on." Chair David Frack responded that the board will continue pressing DOT, the developer and regional partners: "This is not an issue that we are going to drop or cave on." The board asked the developer and RPC to coordinate with the town and to seek restoration of state funding for larger intersection improvements where possible.

Pedestrian connectivity and sidewalks Board members and the developer discussed sidewalk connections along Route 4 and potential private easements where DOT right‑of‑way is insufficient. The developer said design constraints (a water main tucked into the slope and limited right‑of‑way) complicate an easy solution but that engineering work is ongoing to identify feasible options. The board asked for a clear plan showing whether sidewalks can be extended and what private easements or retaining walls would be required.

Water, sewer and capacity conditions Town officials and the board discussed the town's water capacity and the status of the McConnell well, which is currently categorized for emergency use pending repairs. Town manager Ed Morris said the town will not keep a well in emergency‑only status indefinitely and will require corrective measures or an alternative. The planning board said any approval should be conditioned on a written statement from the select board/water commission that summarizes capacity and terms for connection; select‑board review of the developer’s capacity materials was scheduled separately.

Conservation easements and historic wells The developer said roughly three‑quarters of the site will be reserved as conservation/open‑space easement (perimeter buffers and natural areas), but board members debated what entity should hold and enforce those easements and whether portions should be publicly accessible or limited to HOA residents. The board also discussed two historic wells on the site; the developer offered to cap or secure them and agreed to present a plan at the next hearing after coordination with the town's heritage/heritage commission.

Procedural and next steps The developer summarized a 15‑page memo responding point‑by‑point to RPC, abutter and board comments and said many plan changes have already been made. Multiple engineering items (notably drainage and AOT/AOT‑related design) were deferred to the town’s outside reviewer (Verdantus) and will be conditions for approval. After public comment and deliberation the board voted to continue the public hearing to Aug. 26 at 6:30 p.m. Member Ben Jorgensen moved to continue; Bill Griffin seconded. The board recorded a roll‑call vote with all present voting yes.

What the board asked for before the next session: the planning board requested that the developer provide the traffic study and DOT responses to the board and post them on the project web page, supply detailed Verdantus responses to outstanding engineering items, clarify conservation‑easement language and enforcement options, and obtain a written statement from the select board/water commission on water/sewer capacity and connection conditions.

The public hearing remains open and will reconvene on Aug. 26 at 6:30 p.m. in the DPW conference room; the developer and the town have been asked to circulate requested documents in advance so board members and the public can review materials before the continuation.