NewHampshire.com logo   Search NewHampshire.com The homepage for New Hampshire
Welcome to NewHampshire.com Communities Sign in | Join | Help

Hooksett Banner

News and Information for the Town of Hooksett

Heads Pond plan faces public scrutiny

BY JENN McDOWELL

Economic impact numbers for the proposed Head’s Pond project in the northeastern part of Hooksett showed the 428- unit housing development would likely generate about $3 million in property tax revenues for the town.

Russell Thibeault, the consultant with Applied Economic Research hired by Manchester Sand and Gravel to study the development’s effects on the town, made a PowerPoint presentation for his part of the Hooksett Planning Board’s public hearing on the entire development on Jan. 28 at the library.

Thibeault’s study included projections of the development’s tax revenue; estimated enrollment increases for each of the schools; projected road, public safety, recreation and school impact fees; and projected revenues from water and sewer hook-ups.

Housing prices run from around $300,000 for smaller lots and units surrounding a three-acre town common, which the developer will donate to the town, up to $600,000 for 167 homes in “Broad Arrow Estates,” the northernmost section of the development.

Other single-family homes and townhouses will run at about $400,000 to $450,000.

Thibeault said the assessed value of the property would skyrocket to more than $158 million with the development. The land is currently assessed at just over $3 million.

Thibeault’s calculations showed the 1,200-acre development, which will be completed in eight phases over about a decade, generating about $3.2 million over and above what the land currently makes in tax revenue; $2.5 million in one-time school, public safety, recreation and highway impact fees; and about $1.8 million in combined water and sewer services.

A line graph showing the town’s job growth compared with housing growth showed them rising at around the same rate, but Planning Board member Joanne McHugh pointed out those jobs were mostly in retail. “Those types of jobs don’t necessarily support the ability to afford these types of homes,” she said.

Thibeault agreed with McHugh. He later said the development was likely geared toward metropolitan residents working in Concord or Manchester.

Projections based on a school study conducted in 2007 show the development will add 210 students overall into the school system. That translates to .49 students enrolled per household for the development compared to .41 concluded in Mayberry’s study on the whole town.

Thibeault’s numbers showed the schools would have overall excess capacity for 360 to 550 students after the development is completed.

Some residents living in the area, as well as those in Allenstown, have expressed concerns about the increased traffic flow the development would bring to Route 3 drivers.

The state Department of Transportation has yet to determine whether a traffic signal should be installed at the intersection of Route 3 and Head’s Pond Boulevard, the main access into the development.

The Board of Selectmen in Allenstown expressed in a letter to Hooksett’s Planning Board they were anticipating the benefits Allenstown would reap from the development, which rests on the border between the towns, but would like to see a 75-foot buffer zone within the town line, a traffic signal at the main entrance on Route 3 and a water study.

Allenstown Police Chief Shaun Mulholland acted as an agent of the Allenstown Board of Selectmen at the public hearing and presented the Planning Board with the letter.

David Campbell, attorney for Manchester Sand and Gravel, said the developer would evaluate traffic patterns before each phase and halfway through the second phase, which is the largest portion of the development.

The plans also include 213 acres of donated land for public use, including several water bodies and waterfronts with public boat landings, the common, 97 acres for a town park, three acres for the railroad bed bordering Allenstown, 27 acres for a parkway through the development, and several parking lots to access the public areas.

The land donation surpasses the amount of land specified in the Master Plan for the mixed use district by almost 75 acres. Campbell said they are working with the Conservation Commission and the New Hampshire Audubon Society about creating a bird sanctuary in the area surrounding the Great Marsh.

The Planning Board deemed the application complete in November. The next step is to get the public’s input and send it to the Hooksett Town Council for final approval.

Stantec, the town’s consulting engineering firm, is currently reviewing the proposal to iron out any last-minute details, said Town Planner JoAnn Duffy.

Published Wednesday, February 13, 2008 7:40 PM by Hooksett Editor

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

 

Iliveinhooksett said:

Let's just do away with all the open space we have left in Town. It's overated anyway. Maybe a better idea would be to obtain an bond, let the Town buy the land, and use it as a conservation area. It was pretty easy to convince the Town's people to provide a multi million dollar company with money to build a new store. It might be difficult to do since the zoning board is chaired by a real estate agent.
February 14, 2008 10:35 AM
 

Marie said:

I so agree with you, I mean you just said what I have been telling others about this town for 17 years. Hooksett has been in a race to the bottom, to see if it can sell itself to whatever developer comes down the pike. I thought all these new businesses were supposed to "lower" our taxes? What about the TIF used for the exit 10 development? Have your taxes even been stable over the past 5 years?
February 21, 2008 10:52 PM
 

mogabe said:

Having watched this project since 2000, I must point out that it is far better than what the voters approved years ago, and I vehemently fought against. Check the history, and thank God for intervention. No other explaination fits. The marsh will remain a marsh, the pond a pond, and the cost/benefit for the town appears positive. No parkway trash, spills, salt, etc. No golf course pulling water out of the pond and sending the questionable runoff down stream. No structures, golf cart roads and bridges, pipes and cables and other crap in the wetlands "buffer". I could be wrong, but they could be doing far worse things with that land, legally, without the consent of the town. They OWN it! They could mine it to the water table and leave a nice mess. Far worse could be happening. PS. Exit 10 EXCESS tax revenue exeeded bond payments again. Well over 300k in the kitty. Not a lot, but not a drain. It will get better, I think.
March 22, 2008 9:21 AM

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(optional)
(required) 
Submit

This Blog







  Print This Page  |  Email This Page  |  Make Us Your Homepage!
User Agreement  |  Privacy Policy  |  © 2006 The Union Leader Corporation  |  Powered by SilverTech