Charlestown Zoning Board allows applicant to withdraw variance and declares 2023 approval void after court remand

The Charlestown Zoning Board voted to allow the applicant, James A. McQuaid Jr., to withdraw Application No. 1621 and declared the board’s prior 2023 approval void, following a Superior Court remand and a consent order agreed by the parties.

The action came during a public hearing opened Jan. 21, 2025, after town records showed the board’s earlier decision on Oct. 17, 2023, had been recorded in land evidence on Oct. 31, 2023. Margaret Howard had filed an appeal and the Superior Court issued a consent order remanding the matter (case number WC2023-0547), directing the board to reconsider and to make appropriate findings of fact.

Town counsel and attorneys for both sides told the board they had conferred. Attorney Percasa, representing the appellant, asked the board to accept a draft motion allowing withdrawal of the application and language declaring the prior decision null and void. Attorney McGree, representing Howard, indicated no objection to the proposed language, and both attorneys had reviewed the draft that the chair read into the record.

Board members and counsel discussed the practical effects of the withdrawal. Counsel advised that a withdrawal with a court-ordered remand and the board’s nullification of the prior decision would remove the 2023 approval from current effect; any future application would be a new matter and subject to the municipal ordinance, including restrictions on repetitive petitions and any applicable waiting periods. Town staff further explained that the board needed to record the withdrawal and the consent order in land evidence so public land records would reflect the nullification rather than only the earlier approval and the remand.

After the chair moved to grant the motion and a member seconded, the board conducted a roll-call style voice vote. Four members explicitly recorded “Yes” — Mister Pangborn, Mister Lamontagne, Mister Abbott and Mister Reddick. The transcript includes one speaker saying “I said no,” but the record does not clearly identify which member cast the dissenting vote. Two members had been noted as absent at roll call (Miss Andrew and Mister Rice). The chair thanked participants and the motion was recorded as granted.

The board’s reading into the record included property identification for the application: property on Mohawk Trail designated as tax assessor plat 20, lot 237. Counsel characterized the Superior Court remand as vacating or nullifying the prior board decision and returning the matter for a fresh decision with required findings of fact. The board took no further substantive action on the merits of the variance; the effect of the vote was procedural — to accept the applicant’s withdrawal and to record that the earlier approval no longer has legal force.

The meeting adjourned after the vote. The town clerk or staff will be responsible for recording the motion and the attached consent order in the land evidence records as described during the hearing.