It’s pretty unusual for one to find representative members of Hooksett’s Planning Board, Zoning Board, Town Council and Conservation Commission in the same room at once.

But after inquiring of developers who have been working with the town and meeting with them back in June, the groups got together in the Town Council Chambers at Town Hall on Monday, Aug. 11 to discuss some of the criticisms developers have about working with the town and some of the glitches that occasionally arise as developers put plans through the boards.

At a meeting on June 23, developers voiced their gripes about working with the town, particularly its consulting engineering firm, Stantec Inc.

Many of the comments from developers characterized Stantec’s project oversight as too costly and often overbearing, and sometimes even lazy. According to minutes from that meeting, one developer said the Stantec inspector overseeing their project was “sunning himself” on a car.

Dan Tatem, the Stantec engineer involved with Hooksett, said the field inspectors for Stantec submit detailed reports of exactly what was inspected at each work site.

One developer said at the June meeting said Stantec cost him $5,000 for the day because the field inspector stopped the work for a change in plans, and required the developer submit a revised plan for the change before going forward with it. “In the minutes from the last meeting, a gentleman said we stop work,” Tatem said at the Aug. 11 meeting. “That’s something we never do,” he added, saying contractors who choose to proceed after a field inspector has advised them against a change do so at their own risk.

Tatem said Stantec works very quickly in such situations. “If there’s a field change provided and the construction is active, (our response) is typically that day or the next day,” Tatem said. Several developers at the June meeting proposed the town hire its own engineer and additional staff.

Town Councilor Paul Loiselle said it’s something to consider, adding he’d like to see some input from the Zoning and Planning boards on what additional staff would be needed so the idea could be presented to voters in the next year or two.

Conservation Commission member David Hess said with the volatility of the market right now, it would be impossible to staff the town accordingly and in a cost-effective manner. Some years, there would be more work to handle than in others, he said.

Highway Agent and Planning Board member Dale Hemeon echoed the sentiments of several other members of the boards in saying Stantec does a thorough job in its construction monitoring, something that wasn’t done properly prior to hiring the firm.

“For years, the town never had monitoring,” Hemeon said. “(Developers) went from a free ride to now being watched. The reason we had to do that was the quality of work we were getting was just terrible and it’s unfortunate because there’s a lot of good contractors out there that have to pay for the bad ones.”

The boards also bandied about the idea of working with several consulting firms to allow them to compete for developers’ money rather than going solely with Stantec.

“My thing is that basically they don’t have any competition for their job,” said Zoning Board member Roger Duhaime. “We all compete for our jobs, and I think it should be the same for everybody.”

Town Planner Joanne Duffy said that was a town practice at one time, but it made things confusing because not all the firms did things the same way.

Further, Hemeon argued, all the consulting firms vying to consult for the town would have to commit to the town, and could not work with developers on projects.

One developer proposed the town accept inspections done by the bank who is loaning to the developer for a particular project, a notion most of the members from all boards rejected.

Planning Board Chairman John Gryval said banks hire independent appraisers to make sure their money is well spent on the site, and are not really looking at the quality of work. “They have no interest at all in the things that we inspect for,” Gryval said.

One person suggested Stantec is too heavily involved in the design process. Some developers said they felt they were working for Stantec rather than the town.

Rene LaBranche, a senior associate with Stantec, said he assigns a point person for towns – like Tatem is for Hooksett – to work solely for the town’s interests.

That person then guides the town in reviewing site plans, pulling in the correct resources and providing insight to act as an advocate for the town.

“We make all of that readily available for you. Whenever you push the button, that’s what we do,” LaBranche said.

Another developer said some of the items included on the check list for things that needed to be included in plans were not explained in the body of the town’s subdivision regulations, something Duffy said would require some revisions and a public hearing to correct.

Other comments from developers said the road specifications in Hooksett were too tough in comparison to other towns, the impact fees were too high and one suggested hiring an assistant for Hemeon, a discussion which drew some chuckles from the boards.

Other issues raised had to do with sending developers back to square one after they make it to the Planning Board site review, some developers saying they wanted more direction up front before spending too much money on redesigning.