By STEPHEN BEALE
 
Union Leader Correspondent

GOFFSTOWN - A superior court judge has reversed a conditional use permit the town issued for a development of about 230 manufactured homes because the planning board did not properly notify abutters or allow them to voice their concerns.

PD Associates, LLC, wants to build the age-restricted homes on 237 acres of land at 80 Tirrell Hill Road. Because it was in the agricultural zone, the development, originally set at 277 units, could not go forward without a conditional use permit. Among other criteria, the developer must show that his proposed use fits in with the surrounding area and will not have a substantial adverse impact on the appearance of the neighborhood.

The planning board granted a conditional use permit to PD Associates at an Aug. 26, 2004, meeting. The board had notified abutters of the meeting on the subdivision plan, but did not mail a separate notice for the conditional use permit hearing. The court ruled that it should have, according to its own ordinance, siding with a number of abutters who sued the town over the issue in September 2004.

Nick Campasano, one of the abutters, said the neighborhood was pleased with the decision.

"I think he ruled the way we thought he would rule simply because a reasonable person looking at that record would reach the same conclusion," said Campasano, who later was elected to the board of selectmen.

The town had argued before the court that notified abutters were aware of the requirement for the conditional use permit, but the court said they were not prepared to challenge the application at the Aug. 26 meeting. Campasano, the court added, was also not allowed to discuss his concerns over the density of the proposed park.

"In addition to the specific prejudice to the abutters in this case, the Court also finds that the public in general was denied a meaningful opportunity to comment on the conditional use permit issue," Judge James Barry wrote in his Feb. 28 decision.

Elmer Pease, senior associate for PD Associates, said the company was weighing all of its options, which include asking for a reconsideration of the decision. Subsequent changes in zoning, he said, would now reduce the original density of the project, risking the loss of as much as about $750,000 in tax revenue to the town.

If the decision is allowed to stand, Pease said he did not know if he would proceed with a scaled-down development or stop pursing the project.

"We just don't know," he said. "I haven't gotten that far yet." Steve Griffin, the town planning coordinator, declined to comment.

Jo Ann Duffy, chair of the planning board, said the town has to be more careful about its procedural actions in the future. She said the board might seek an opinion from the town attorney, asking how it should handle the application for the development.

Campasano said his neighborhood was not trying to prevent any development on the land. He said abutters would accept a proposed manufactured home park for seniors.

"We didn't object to the use," Campasano said. "It was the density."

Under current zoning, Campasano said the allowable number of units could drop from above 200 to below 100.

Reproduced by the Goffstown Residents Association.