HANOVER — The Zoning Board of Adjustment declined to reconsider the Hanover Consumer Cooperative Society’s request to turn its Lyme Road market into a commercial kitchen.

The board stood by its July ruling denying the Co-op’s request for a variance to operate a food production facility at 43 Lyme Road, where it currently has a market.

The Co-op wanted to convert the Lyme Road Co-op Market, which opened in the 1990s, into a commercial kitchen to make food for its three other locations in Hanover on South Park Street, Lebanon and White River Junction. The Co-op has said the change is necessary as the market has been losing money, but the proposal has faced opposition from community members, including those who live near the market.

“...Despite the best efforts and tireless dedication of many different people here over the years, the Co-op has been unable to make the Co-op Market a viable retail business,” Dawn Archambeault, the Co-op’s director of marketing and consumer relations, wrote in an Aug. 15 update posted to a web page tracking the Co-op’s efforts on Lyme Road. “To date we’ve incurred losses exceeding $2.6 million.”

The neighbors have been unmoved by the Co-op’s business arguments. In the lead up to a July 11 public hearing, nearly 100 residents wrote or signed letters, arguing, in part, that closing the market would result in the loss of a community gathering spot. In addition to selling groceries, the market also offers prepared foods and outdoor tables.

On July 18, the board denied the Co-op’s request for a variance, stating it would be “inconsistent with the spirit” of the town’s zoning ordinance. The Co-op also did not meet the criteria to prove that continuing to operate a market on Lyme Road constituted an “unnecessary hardship,” the board ruled.

In its Aug. 14 request for a rehearing, the Co-op disputed Hanover town planner Bruce Simpson’s designation of the proposed commercial kitchen as “light industry,” which is prohibited in the business zoning district, where the Lyme Road market is located. Instead, the Co-op sought the board’s permission to submit an application for a special exception as a “wholesale business.” 

The board rejected that request.

“After discussion, the consensus of the Board was that a variance was required as the proposed use was not a ‘wholesale business,’ that ‘light industry’ was the closest of the ordinance’s defined uses to the use proposed by the Co-op,” stated the Aug. 22 decision that was unanimously supported by the three members who heard the case.

The board also noted the “Co-op had explicitly waived any challenge to that decision” at a July 11 hearing.

The Co-op’s attorney, John Arnold, of Concord-based Orr & Reno, wrote in the organization’s rehearing request that the zoning board still has an “obligation” to determine whether the use classification is correct and if a variance is required.

He added that the Hanover Zoning Ordinance, which defines light industry as “assembly, manufacturing, processing, or other preparation” where “all resulting cinders, dust, fumes, gas, odors, smoke and vapor” stay onsite or disposed of in a manner to “avoid any air pollution,” limit noise and avoid “objectionable flashing and vibration.”

While employees would process food at the commercial kitchen, Arnold disputed that the definition of light industry “contemplates a fundamentally different type of use than food preparation” because the side effects it refers to are more in line with industrial uses.

“None of those are commonly associated with the proposed kitchen use,” Arnold said. 

If the kitchen sold what it made onsite, it would be classified as a retail use, not an industrial one, making it “no different whether the food is sold to a consumer or another grocery store,” he added. 

Arnold argued that the board should have considered the commercial kitchen to be something more like a “commercial bakery” or a “wholesale business,” which is defined in the Hanover Zoning Ordinance as a “warehouse, wholesale establishment, discount house, bulk storage, and/or bulk sales outlet.” 

A wholesale business is allowed in that zoning district by a “special exception.” As a wholesale business, Arnold stated, the Hanover Co-op should not need a variance and should instead be allowed to submit a new application to the zoning board for a special exception.

Simpson said that he made the designation as “light industry” and informed the Co-op about their options. “...The Co-op had the option to appeal that administrative decision to the ZBA within 15 days, and argue that it was a wholesale business, or (some) other permitted use,” Simpson responded via email to a Valley News inquiry. 

Instead the Co-op went ahead with applying for a variance. 

The Co-op also maintained that the board was wrong in its finding that it did not meet the standards for “denying the variance would cause unnecessary hardship.” 

“While the Co-op certainly respects the viewpoints of the community members and the ZBA, it was improper for the Board to entirely disregard the Co-op’s testimony about financial losses in favor of speculative comments that the store might be mismanaged,” Arnold wrote.

Arnold disputed that a commercial kitchen would impact the character of the zoning district because the exterior of the market wouldn’t be changed much if at all.

“To the point raised earlier, it is true that a community hub food spot would be eliminated, and that would undoubtedly change the character of the locality,” Arnold wrote. “However, the question is not whether the closure of the existing grocery store would change the character of the locality, but whether the variance for the proposed kitchen would. And, the answer to that question, is ‘no.’ ”

The Co-op has until Sept. 22 to file an appeal of the zoning board’s decision to Grafton Superior Court, Arnold said.

“We’re undecided on any future action,” said Rebecca White, public and government affairs associate at the Co-op.

Liz Sauchelli can be reached at esauchelli@vnews.com or 603-727-3221.