LEBANON — A New London developer’s plan to build housing at the site of the Carter Country Club in Lebanon has been dealt a setback as a Grafton County judge affirmed a Lebanon nonprofit’s wishes to keep a golf course on the property.
Judge Lawrence MacLeod ruled earlier this week that the Carter Community Building Association, which was granted a restrictive covenant over the golf course more than three decades ago even though it does not own the 47-acre property, has the right to enforce the covenant that would block the golf course from being developed into housing.
The ruling, the latest in a yearslong legal battle as serpentine as the sand traps on the 12th hole at Augusta National, lifts CCBA — which initially faced courtroom defeat — back into the advantageous position in deciding the fate of 99-year-old nine-hole golf course located off Mechanic Street near Interstate 89.
“It’s great news for CCBA because what the trial court found in this case is that CCBA has standing to enforce this covenant,” said Jeremy Eggleton, a Hanover-based attorney with Orr & Reno who represents CCBA.
At stake is an ambition by developer Doug Homan, who bought the Carter Country Club property in 1992, to develop housing at the site.
Homan’s initial plan to build a 306-home subdivision on a 253-acre tract he owns encompassed by Mechanic Street, Buckingham Place and Poverty Lane failed to win Planning Board approval.
He next proposed building 186 senior housing units, 400 apartments, a 300-seat restaurant and 60,000 square feet of retail space under the name “King’s Grant Village Neighborhood” at the site, although a formal plan has never been submitted to the city.
Neither Homan nor his attorney responded to requests for comment.
MacLeod’s decision last week is the latest twist in a legal saga that began in 2018 when Homan filed a “quiet title” action in Grafton Superior Court asking the court to declare that he owned the golf course free and clear after the CCBA blocked his plan to develop the land. The CCBA argued that a restrictive covenant it held on the property stipulated it was to remain a golf course “in perpetuity.”
The restrictive covenant was conveyed to CCBA by late Meriden developer Edmond “Peanie” Goodwin to preserve the golf course when he sold the property to a Massachusetts developer in 1986. That developer later sold the property to Homan.
The legal wrangling between the parties initially had MacLeod ruling in favor of Homan when considering one aspect of the legal issue only to have the outcome flip — after his prior decision was appealed to New Hampshire Supreme Court. Justices found that the restrictive covenants were legitimately transferred, and MacLeod subsequently found in favor of CCBA when considering a different aspect of the case.
In 2020, MacLeod sided with Homan and declared the conveyance of the property restrictions decades earlier by Goodwin to the CCBA was not “freely transferable” and that CCBA had no legal say in protecting the 47-acre public course from development.
The CCBA appealed the lower court decision to the state Supreme Court, arguing it had an enforceable future interest in the golf course property. Last year, in a 4-0 ruling, the state’s highest court disagreed, saying the language in the deed was “clear and unambiguous.”
But at the same time, justices agreed with CCBA that the restrictive covenant it received was theoretically enforceable in court, remanding the case for the Grafton County Superior Court to determine whether CCBA’s enforcement claim was legitimate — and its request to add that claim appropriate.
And on the question of whether CCBA had a right of enforcement and whether it could amend that claim, MacLeod ruled the nonprofit did.
CCBA “has standing to bring its claim to enforce the restrictive covenant and, based on the evidence at this stage, (CCBA) has not failed to state a claim for relief that would make amendment fail,” MacLeod wrote.
To reach that conclusion, MacLeod addressed two standards which Homan argued CCBA fell short in order to prevail: that CCBA did not have “standing” to enforce the restricted covenant and that CCBA failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
In addition, MacLeod took up the question of whether CCBA had merit to amend its counterclaim because doing so would prevent injustice.
Under all three standards MacLeod ruled in favor of CCBA.
What happens — whether Homan will seek a path to appeal or whether he views MacLeod’s decision as a sufficient enough legal hurdle to abandon his plan for a housing project near Miracle Mile — is not known.
Eggleton said the court theoretically left the door open for Homan to try challenging the restrictive covenant on the grounds that it placed an undue financial burden on operating the golf course. But he termed the prospect of such a challenge a “long shot.”
Contact John Lippman at jlippman@vnews.com.
