By Nicholas Brown
nbrown@yourneighborhoodnews.com

While reports of a cooling housing market have swept the nation in recent months, Hooksett’s housing growth – if indicated by the number of residential developers recently approaching the planning board – may be yet to bloom.

The recent surge follows a lag of about a year, in which a residential growth management ordinance restricting annual building permits to five per developer was in place, and during which few residential developers pitched plans to the board.

A Superior Court judge ruled that ordinance unconstitutional in April, and the Hooksett Planning Board has since been reviewing independent plans that would bring 535 new dwelling units – in the form of single-family homes, townhouses, senior housing units or condominiums – to town.

“Maybe developers were saying, ‘You can only draw five permits a year, so I’m not going to take that chance,” said Town Planner Charles Watson.

Another 500-plus unit plan – the remainder of Manchester Sand & Gravel’s Head’s Pond project – could  come before the board by year’s end, Watson said.

Planning officials also estimate that more than 1,000 housing units have already been approved and are waiting to be built.

For resident and new budget committee member Michael Sorel, the most recent housing proposals perpetuate a problem he says voters wanted solved last year when they adopted the failed growth ordinance by a two-to-one ratio.

“Our government appears to be disconnected from the people,” said Sorel, who authored the ordinance and, with his wife, collected its 233 signatures in two-and-a-half days. “The planning board and the town council have not been proactive at all in the last two years in responding to what the voters want.”

Local planning officials, however, contend this summer’s mini-boom in residential proposals is fairly typical given Hooksett’s recent growth history, and wouldn’t necessarily be curbed by a legal growth management ordinance.

“You can’t look at growth issues in so narrow a time frame,” suggested
Planning Board Chairman Richard Marshall.

Watson said a good ordinance would likely have a formula whereby the ordinance would only be in effect in certain years, based on a number of factors related to regional and local growth and infrastructure needs. 

The petitioned ordinance
According to a review of planning board meeting minutes, the only large residential plan application officially reviewed by the board during the year the ordinance was in effect came from Controlled Asset Investment Group.
The company, hoping to build a 20-lot subdivision, sued the town, arguing that the ordinance was “discriminatory and based on unsupported facts.”

A judge sided with the developer in April, saying the petitioned ordinance did “not rest on scientific and statistical evidence.”

Town Planner Charles Watson, along with the town’s legal counsel, then firmed up a 17-page proposal for a growth management ordinance officials considered offering to voters on the Sept. 12 primary election ballot.

That plan was scrapped in June after the town council approved spending $15,000 on background studies. Planning board members unanimously agreed to withhold the ordinance until the studies could be completed.

“What the planning board and the town council have been concerned about is if (a growth management ordinance) is even needed,” Marshall said.
The town council recently instructed Watson to secure some bids from private companies who could help conduct the background studies.

The need
Town Councilor Michael DiBitetto said he favors finding money in this year’s budget to fund the growth management studies.
That doesn’t necessarily mean he’s in favor of a growth management ordinance for Hooksett, he said.

“The purpose of the growth management study is to gather the facts about where you are,” said DiBitetto, “so you can grow your infrastructure at a reasonable rate.”

DiBitetto said the planning board needs the studies at its disposal before “blindly” crafting an ordinance.

“Sustainability is the key term,” he said. “Growth management is an attempt to balance the rights of the property owner with the growth needs in town.”
Sorel said he’s skeptical of the need for more studies.

“The old song is, ‘We need more studies,’” he said. “If you’re going to bake Tollhouse cookies, you’re going to need a study first.”

“Without criticism to anyone in particular, the government has not been getting this done,” he added.

Others in town take a more theoretical view of the town’s growth management predicament.

“My feeling is that the market is the only growth management ordinance we need,” said town councilor and planning board representative Jason Hyde. “It’s simply not fair for a government to tell someone what they can do with their land.”

Marshall said planning board members certainly have last year’s vote in mind, but he described it as a “gut vote” by residents worried about the potential of higher taxes that could accompany unrestricted residential growth.

“It basically boils down to taxes,” he said.

Marshall also suggested voters may not been driven by altruism when they voted last year.

“Ask one of those people who voted for it and say, ‘You own the land, but you can’t use it the way you want,’” he said. “You may hear something else.”