For Janet Garcia, the 34 units of workforce housing slated for Warner is the project that just won’t die.
For the second year in a row, she spent a recent Tuesday evening in the basement of town hall, hoping to voice her opposition to the development planned for the commercial area near Interstate-89’s Exit 9.
Garcia, who was drawn to Warner’s rural aesthetic 40 years ago, said she’s concerned it will bring traffic congestion, raise her taxes and, as residents put it at a public hearing last year, damage the “spirit of Warner.”
The zoning board echoed those concerns and shot the project down last June, but it’s back before the planning board after the developer, the Concord Area Trust for Community Housing, challenged the town’s decision in court and won.
“They’re like a bad penny. They keep coming back,” Garcia said in an interview the next day. “They don’t take ‘no’ for an answer. We don’t want you.”
Tom Furtado, president and CEO of nonprofit CATCH Neighborhood Housing, says the project provides much-needed housing for the capital region. He’s tried to acquiesce to the town’s requests, but it hasn’t swayed the opposition. People didn’t like the look of the roof on his first proposal, so he changed the top floor. He pared the building down by 14 units, from 48 to 34.
“We think we have a great plan, and we’re doing our best to convince them that this great plan will be great for the town of Warner,” Furtado said in an interview.
The CATCH project is a symbol of a larger shift in New Hampshire as lawmakers look to clear the path for more housing by lifting local restrictions on development. New Hampshire has added more than 25,000 housing units since 2020, but a statewide study estimated roughly 32,700 were needed between 2020 and 2025 to create a balanced housing market.
A new law also went into effect this month that erases the need for multifamily developments like this one to get special permission to build in commercially zoned districts.
The project has the potential to be the largest singular housing development the town of Warner has ever seen. Furtado anticipated 52-59 people could live in the building, based on statistics from his other properties.
Members of the planning board appeared resigned to the development — they are bound to follow state laws and local ordinances dictating what’s allowed — but raised concerns about what an influx of new residents would mean for the town’s infrastructure and schools, as well as the environmental impact on the nearby river.
‘Shove it down our throat’
After the zoning board denied his special exception request a year ago, Furtado was skeptical about the future of development there.
“No one has ever done one in Warner,” he said at the time, “and it sure looks like no one ever will.”
He felt so strongly that the zoning board was in the wrong, however, that he appealed its decision to the Merrimack County Superior Court. CATCH argued that the board “acted unlawfully and unreasonably” by denying its application based on the proposal itself and not the requested use of the land. The board also cited that the character of the town as a whole would be negatively impacted by the development, rather than just the commercial district that includes a Market Basket supermarket, McDonald’s, Dunkin and a state liquor store.
The zoning board voted 3-2 to deny the application, finding it was “not essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare” and that “the requested use will impair the integrity or character” of the district.
“Sometimes when you’re not successful, if they had legitimate reasons, then, you know, it didn’t work, and we move on,” Furtado said. “But in this case, we thought that it was very — the decision was in error.”
A judge ruled in March that the zoning board’s claims lacked support and sufficient evidence.
This ruling, combined with a new state law that expressly allows multifamily housing in commercial zones like Warner’s, has Garcia feeling like the state government is forcing unwanted development into her town. That rubs her the wrong way.
“Most people do not want this,” Garcia said. “I just think they’re trying to shove it down our throat.”
Other towns have expressed similar feelings, saying statewide mandates diminish local input. Some state lawmakers, on the other hand, argue that preventing municipal restrictions serves to bolster property owners’ rights as the ultimate “local control.”
‘Instantaneous influx’
Planning board members said they worry that having up to 60 new residents in town will place a strain on its infrastructure and services. For one, it could send Warner hurtling toward a population threshold that would reduce state support for its police department.
Per state law, once a town reaches 3,000 people, New Hampshire State Police have limited jurisdiction. Troopers “shall not act” within the limits of a town that size except when enforcing driving laws or other stringent circumstances.
“When that threshold is triggered, it will become a larger burden upon the town,” said planning board member James Gaffney.
Warner’s population clocked in at 2,902 last year, according to census data. The police chief did not immediately respond to an interview request from the Monitor.
While population growth is likely to send the town over the edge eventually — they can’t “close the doors to Warner,” as one planning board member put it — board chair Karen Coyne said the “instantaneous influx” of a large apartment complex is a concern. Several said the town is struggling to provide services as it is.
One supporter of the project is town moderator Ben Frost, who worked for New Hampshire Housing for 18 years. He said the town’s struggles shouldn’t be CATCH’s problem.
“Figure it out,” Frost said. “Don’t punish the applicant before you because you can’t get your act together.”
Conversations will continue at the planning board’s work session on July 20.
