By nicholas brown
nbrown@yourneighborhoodnews.com

Glitches on a site plan application, differing interpretations of year-and-a-half-old meeting minutes, and a swarm of angry condominium owners and library aficionados marked a Brady Sullivan Properties limited liability company’s first trip to the Hooksett Zoning Board.

Peter Holden, an engineer representing the developer, discussed plans to build a single building with 73 condominium units behind the Route 3 Mount Saint Mary’s building. The developers were looking for a variance from the town’s zoning rule that limits the number of units in such residential buildings to 12.

Library supporters, intent on protecting the sprawling lawn on the Route 3 side of the property, and anxious Mount Saint Mary’s condominium owners waited through nearly three hours of non-related zoning cases before Holden was called before the board.

“We’ll wait all night,” several of them exclaimed as the board considered pushing back the meeting’s end time to 11 p.m.

Holden said the company could build five six-unit buildings and one five-unit building behind Mount Saint Mary’s, but said the plan for a single building represented a “better,” more “desirable” plan.

“Do you think that’s an appropriate thing for us to think about – your taste in layout?” asked ZBA member David Boutin, after Holden suggested that the six-building plan wouldn’t require a zoning variance.

“The fact of the matter is, this site can accommodate six buildings with associated parking,” he said.

Holden said the proposed building is modeled after the Stone Terrace Condominiums building, off Wellington Road in Manchester.

Hooksett Planning Coordinator Jo Ann Duffy questioned whether the developer could build 73 units given the town’s density regulations.

Holden said 2005 planning board discussions – as Brady Sullivan was negotiating to convert the Mount Saint Mary’s units into condominiums – show that the developer would be able to include the designated open space in front of the building to determine how many units could fit on the whole property.

Duffy noted a formal declaration and a list of 2005 planning board conditions that said otherwise.

The site is just over 14 acres with the lawn included, and just over nine acres without.

Duffy said the developer’s application also hinted at constructing some sort of detention or drainage basin on the Mount Saint Mary’s lawn.

The planning board and Brady Sullivan agreed to leave the lawn untouched “in perpetuity” during last year’s discussions, she said.

Mount Saint Mary’s owners also said the developer failed to notify them of the application for a variance in several ways.

Mount Saint Mary’s Condominium Association President Alan Martel said the developer sent notices to a number of incorrect addresses.

“We didn’t have time at our regular board meeting last month to properly discuss this,” Martel said. 

Acting Chairman Chris Pearson urged Holden to meet with the town’s technical review committee and to submit a third-party study that would show the effect of the proposal on the adjacent properties.

Pearson also suggested the “he said, she said” relating to the 2005 planning board meetings with Brady Sullivan be sorted out.

The board didn’t take any action, and continued the meeting to Tuesday, Oct. 10.