Hooksett Banner : Conservation Commission

A greener Wal-Mart

Hooksett Editor — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:33:00 GMT

New store to process its own wastewater

BY LAUREN SAUSSER

The new Hooksett Wal-Mart – already under construction on Route 3A – announced plans to design an on-site treatment plant to process in-store wastewater.

Attorney Amy Manzelli of Concord-based firm Sulloway and Hollis attended a Hooksett Conservation Commission meeting recently and briefed members on ways Wal-Mart intends to make this store a little more environmentally responsible.

By decreasing the size of its store from 224,000 square feet to 162,000 square feet – a plan laid out last spring – and by processing wastewater on site, Manzelli said the store wants to do its part to help reduce its impact on surrounding wetlands.

“Wal-Mart is making an effort to green its stores,” Manzelli said. “That’s what we’re trying to do with this project.”

The store is currently under construction on the corner of Bemus Savoie Road and Route 3A in Hooksett. Site work began one year ago and Manzelli said they are hopeful the Super Wal- Mart, which will include an instore grocery, as well as clothing, home furnishings, sporting goods and an electronics departments, is slated to open its doors by the end of summer 2009.

Chris Buchanan, a public relations manager for Wal-Mart, said the new design is being implemented at many new stores in conjunction with the septic systems.

“The site plans were slightly shifted to accommodate the wastewater treatment facility,” Buchanan said. “Although each site is obviously different, the majority of Wal-Mart stores being built with on-site septic systems will now also have on-site wastewater treatment plants. Again, this is an additional sustainable company initiative to create cleaner quality water before it goes back to the site’s leaching field.”

The Conservation Commission welcomed the plans for the wastewater treatment facility, which will replace original plans that called only for an underground septic system.

“In summary, we’re improving the quality of the wastewater,” said Conservation Commission Vice Chairman Steve Couture. “Overall, it’s definitely a net gain from the environmental perspective.”

As town grows, developers get a say

Hooksett Editor — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:37:00 GMT

BY JENN McDOWELL

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.

Environmentally friendly homes planned in Hooksett

Hooksett Editor — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:38:00 GMT

BY LAUREN SAUSSER

A new development is coming to town and this time it’s singing an environmentally responsible tune. Homes for a Lifetime plans to develop a 125-acre plot in Hooksett into a neighborhood with 38 lots and 72 acres of open space and preserved wildlife habitats.

The slated development has been named Auburn Woods, located off South Bow Road and Mountain Road in Hooksett, and has garnered some praise from the Hooksett Conservation Commission for its approach to sustainability.

Developer Bruce Fillmore said when he first considered the possibility of developing the land, he had conservation in mind.

“The parcel had been in the same family for 200 years,” Fillmore said. “We went out there for a walk, and the trails out there are spectacular.”

The proposed subdivision layout is composed of 38 home plots on 125 acres. The project can technically be labeled as a “conservation subdivision” because of the amount of land – roughly 57 percent – that the developer has committed to retain as green space.

Environmental scientist Mike Lambert, who has surveyed the site, addressed the Conservation Commission Aug. 6, saying the environmental impact on developing the site will not be inconsequential, but it could potentially be much worse with a conventional subdivision plan. “We are indeed impacting the wildlife by developing the property,” Lambert said. “And while there certainly will be a net loss, the habitat will not be entirely lost. Some of it will change and some of it will become more vibrant.”

Lambert fully endorsed the approach that Homes for a Lifetime is taking with the site.

“This could be a model of what could be done with conservation development,” he said.

Timothy Johnson, chairman of the conservation commission, said his group’s job is to work with developers of any project to ensure a negligible environmental impact.

“The only way you can stop development is to buy the land,” Johnson said. “What we’re here to do is to steer (the developer) to conserve important areas of the parcel.”