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

Hooksett Banner

News and Information for the Town of Hooksett

Future of old town hall debated

BY LAUREN SAUSSER

The Hooksett Town Council is not sure what it wants to do with the vacant town hall at 16 Main St., but there is at least one councilor who believes its primary purpose should remain town-related.

“One thing that’s pretty clear is that land was donated for the use of the town,” Councilor David Ross said at the July 23 council meeting. “When you talk about developing it and putting it back on the tax rolls, that really flies in the face of that.”

When the property where old town hall is located was deeded to Hooksett in 1825, a stipulation was included in the transfer, specifying that the land must be must be primarily used for town purposes or the parcel would revert to original ownership.

Since the town vacated the old town hall earlier this summer for larger offices at the old Village School, the future use of the historic building -- and the land it sits on -- has come into question.

“It’s a critically important historic building to this town and it’s my intent to keep it that way,” Ross said. “It can have a lot of value as a town building without being on the tax rolls. It is Hooksett Town Hall, still.”

During the meeting, the council unanimously voted to direct the Hooksett Economic Development Committee to conduct a feasibility study on possible future uses of the building.

Bill Sirak, chairman of the development committee, said his group would take a “long” and “open” approach to these future uses and that it might be possible to consider a mixed-use function for the building.

The council also voted to support Kathie Northrup’s application to include the old town hall on the New Hampshire Register of Historic Places. Northrup heads the Hooksett Heritage Commission, which advises the Town Council on historic preservation projects.

Published Wednesday, August 20, 2008 3:10 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

 

mogabe said:

When promises are publicly parsed and probed for weaknesses, and there is an overt attempt to break them, it's unseemly. When this occurs with a promise made to a philanthropic citizen regarding a gift to a town, (and instigated by someone else claiming to be philanthropic), it's unavoidably dubious and undeniably wrong. Additionally, it discourages others from making similar donations of property and money.
August 25, 2008 2:46 AM
 

Jim M said:

Agreed. Seems poor decision making abounds in Hooksett. If the property was given with the stipulation that it must be used for town purposes then mixed use or sale should be off the table unless they want to give the parcel back to the estate of the original owner. But Hooksett is really on a role, the Hooksett 4 made national headlines, poor development choices along the main roads that effectively prohibits access to their "village" vision all in the name of "progress", the bypass, the go around the voters' choice and buy an ambulance anyhow plan, the 18 million gift (now thankfully just 2 million) Cabela's plan, and the free advertising on the town website for the vendor they paid $12K+ to design about 10 pages that is based in Bedford, NH. The poor decision making gets "better" all the time. Ethics and vision seem non-existent.
August 25, 2008 11:28 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