Enfield residents who oppose the massive Winstanley Enterprises logistics complex lost their bid to keep it from getting a tax break, but a lawsuit by two neighbors continues to block the company from adding another 819,000 square feet of warehouse space.

Opinions in town are divided about Massachusetts-based Winstanley, with opponents saying it has brought oversize, unwelcome development while supporters praise it for rebuilding tax revenue that was lost when Hallmark Cards shut its massive campus eight years ago.

Winstanley bought the enormous Hallmark property and says it spent $41 million to renovate two large Hallmark buildings into modern warehouse space. They are operating as the Winstanley Logistics Center. This winter, the town council approved a tax break worth more than $2 million for it. Neighbors complained the warehouses bring noise, truck traffic and no value, but Winstanley advocates counter that the center is employing workers and paying about $800,000 a year in taxes.

A year and a half ago, Winstanley announced it would complete its development of the campus by building a warehouse for two industrial tenants at 35 Bacon Road.

The company wanted to start construction in June of 2022 and open a year later, but the property remains as open fields and woods because of the lawsuit by two neighbors, Michael Parsons of Lake Drive and Anne Collins of Cottage Road.

“The proposed warehouse and the distribution facility and the associated noise, fumes and lights generated from operation of the facility and truck traffic will specifically and negatively impact the plaintiffs’ legal interest in the use and enjoyment of their property,” according to the suit filed last year by attorney Joel Green of Bridgeport.

Parsons and Collins are suing the Winstanley’s WE 35 Bacon Road subsidiary as well as the town’s Planning and Zoning Commission, seeking to reverse its decision to approve Winstanley’s site plan. Parsons and Collins contend commissioners acted illegally and arbitrarily, without sufficient fact-finding before their vote.

Winstanley’s attorneys argue that the company did more than required to protect the environment as well as the public. The company agreed to install 15-foot walls as a buffer from noise and nighttime lighting, do landscaping and site the building between 400 and 1,000 feet from the nearest home. Winstanley would also donate 22 acres to the town as open space.

Winstanley has noted that it previously had inquiries about developing the building for industrial use with more than 1.3 million square feet of space.

“Although proceeding with a development of this size would yield financial benefit to the applicant and to the town, WE 35 instead settled on a smaller footprint,” the company said in its zoning application.

In a response to the lawsuit, Winstanley rejected neighbors’ complaints that they didn’t get enough warning or sufficient time to give their case against building.

“In September of 2021, WE 35 notified nearby property owners of its plans to move forward with a warehouse and distribution facility on the vacant part of the industrial property, and invited folks to reach out with any questions, comments or input. Several residents did so,” the company said.