Warner zoning board members say Superior Court ruling undercuts town's workforce-housing case

The Town of Warner Zoning Board of Adjustment spent much of its April 8 meeting discussing a Superior Court decision that, members said, overturned a local "CATCH" outcome and undermined the town's approach to workforce housing.

Chair said the courts had "overturned the CATCH decision," a development several members described as upsetting and surprising. Committee member B said the court compared Warner to other towns "that are nothing like our town at all," and questioned whether the survey evidence the town used had been sufficiently robust.

The board discussed how the town's master plan supports allowing workforce housing in certain places, but Chair noted a constraint in the town's ordinances: "the only place in town, according to our ordinances, that you're allowed to have workforce housing of 5 or 4 or more units is in the business district," she said, describing a statutory definition the board said limited where multiunit workforce housing could be sited. Board members said that restriction had weakened Warner's case in court.

Several members said the court emphasized doubts about the credibility of the town's survey and evidence rather than the town's other arguments about site constraints such as floodplain or proximity to a trout stream. "They kind of forgot all of the other reasons that we cited," Committee member C said, listing concerns the town had raised about particular properties.

Members discussed options going forward, including whether a formal town vote or warrant article would produce stronger evidence of local preference than the survey the court questioned. Committee member B said an official town vote or warrant might have been more persuasive.

The board also noted procedural next steps for developers and applicants: Chair said the denial of a rehearing leaves an applicant the option of appealing to Superior Court. No formal policy changes or votes on zoning ordinances were taken at the meeting.

The board did not set a follow-up timetable; members said future reviews of individual applications would still proceed through the building department and standard permitting processes.