Brookline resident Peter Rondeau continues to be at the tip of the spear in the effort to save the Melendy Pond neighborhood. Courtesy photo

BROOKLINE – Second Street resident Peter Rondeau continues to spearhead the effort to free the Melendy Pond neighborhood, which remains trapped under the town’s iron fist.

In court documents filed last month, Attorney Christopher Drescher, counsel for Brookline, called attention to Section 22 of the lease agreement that the town has with Melendy Pond residents, referring to it as “the heart of this whole matter.”

Section 22 reads: “The lessee shall use their leased premises for seasonal, recreational use only and shall not occupy the leased premises on a year-round basis. The lessee shall cause the leased premises to be vacant for a consecutive period of 30 days of each calendar year. Lessee covenants and agrees that the leased premises are leased for recreational use only; that the buildings existing or constructed by the lessee thereon shall not, during any term hereunder, become the legal residence for any person, whether for voting, vehicle registration or other purpose; and, that no person shall acquire a settlement in the leased premises for welfare purposes, educational purposes or other residential claim of right and/or entitlements from the town of Brookline. At the time of payment of rent due each April 1, the lessee shall complete and file with the lessor the Affidavit of Permanent Legal Residence.”

Drescher also maintained that Rondeau chose to move his family to Melendy Pond in 2022 and was fully aware of the residency restrictions when the lease was signed.

“There is evidence that the residency restriction was implemented and enforced as far back as 1978 and in place since the early 1960s,” said Drescher. “The Plaintiffs, by their own admission, are violating the terms of their lease and, claiming through the use of their Melendy Pond address, that they are permanent residents of the town. The Plaintiffs are attempting to creatively boot-strap an argument through statutory construction and case law in order to solidify themselves as permanent residents on land they do not own.”

Drescher also accused the Rondeaus of being dishonest by stating that they had another home in Amherst.

“The Plaintiffs, with unclean hands have, in essence, perjured themselves by supplying numerous yearly affidavits where they knowingly made false statements about their permanent residence in Amherst, in order to deceptively demonstrate compliance with their lease terms.”

The intention right now is to knock down all the homes on the pond by 2032 to make way for an 11-unit subdivision, which town officials claim would be more profitable.

In his objection, filed earlier this month, Attorney Nathan Fennessy, counsel for the Rondeaus, reiterated that his clients are unquestionably Brookline residents.

“Residency is determined by statute and New Hampshire law, not by a municipality boot-strapping requirements into a lease agreement,” he said, adding that the Rondeaus renewed their lease agreements for two lots in December 2024. “The Rondeaus have established a physical presence at their home on Melendy Pond.”

Fennessy also took issue with Drescher’s argument that the Rondeaus voluntarily agreed to the terms of the lease.

“This implication ignores the fundamental issue of the Rondeaus’ residency,” he said. The terms of the lease are still unconscionable, the town has no power to determine residency by the lease agreement.”

Therefore, Fennessy argued that the Rondeaus have the right to vote, enroll their children in the public schools and take part in local government.

He also railed against Drescher’s argument that the Rondeaus acted with unclean hands.

“The doctrine of unclean hands is inapplicable because of the sparse evidence that the town has been harmed,” he said. “The Rondeaus cannot be punished for unclean hands for exercising constitutional rights that exceed any violation of the town’s lease.”

Fennessy also said those living on the pond have been there for several years.

“Many leases were historically signed before residency requirements were put in place,” he said, adding that residents have made significant financial investments to improve their homes.

Fennessy has asked the court to declare the residency restrictions to be “unconscionable and unenforceable” and to prevent the town from taking further action against the Rondeaus.