Hooksett Banner : Planning Board

Campbell Hill condo plan protested

Hooksett Editor — Wed, 06 May 2009 17:49:00 GMT

There was no shortage of Campbell Hill residents clammering for the microphone at an April 23 meeting to let Planning and Zoning Board members know loudly and clearly they don’t want a new proposed senior community in their backyard.

A senior housing community slated to be built in the Campbell Hill subdivision off Route 3 drew nearly 90 nearby homeowners to a joint Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustment hearing that was specifically scheduled to discuss the Beaver Brook Development project.

The plans for the new development include three separate 12-unit buildings to house residents 55 years and older. Beaver Brook Development, owned by Hooksett resident J.R. Ouellette, is seeking a special exception to build the multi-family units on the 15-acre parcel located in a medium- density residential area.

Many residents spoke out against the project, repeatedly speculating it would result in unnecessary extra traffic through Campbell Hill and potentially damaging drainage issues. The concept of light pollution, diminishing home values and unsightly views were also mentioned.

“The rural nature of the neighborhood would disappear,” said Victoria Silver, who owns a home on Virginia Court near the proposed development site. She showed Planning Board members and Zoning Board of Adjustment members pictures of baby foxes, wild turkeys and deer that frequent her backyard.

Karen Nadeau, also a resident on Virginia Court, vowed she would move if the developer is granted a special exception to move forward. She said her plans to add a deck and hot tub to her house were put on hold immediately once she learned of the project because she thinks her home value will bottom out.

“I’m sure I’d see a decrease in my original property value,” Nadeau said. But nearby residents weren’t the only ones at the meeting expressing concern over the application for the special exception.

Town Planner Jo Ann Duffy used words like “nonsense” and “premature” to describe the application which she said was incomplete. She noted she was “shocked” that the issue of density had not been addressed with the developer and is “appalled” that wetlands have not been identified on the site yet. She also said the number of proposed parking spaces were insufficient.

Several representatives of the developer gave lengthy presentation to both boards before the meeting was opened to public input. According to the consulting report of an appraiser, historical home data does not suggest the proposed development would have any negative impact on property values in Campbell Hill.

Elderly housing options grow in Hooksett

Hooksett Editor — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:35:00 GMT

BY LAUREN SAUSSER

There is service to be cut a growing market for senior housing in Hooksett, and four proposed developments for residents 55 and older attest to it.

And the hoops that developers jump through to build similar neighborhoods may get easier.

A proposed zoning amendment that was considered at a public hearing Monday, Feb. 23, would help streamline the approval process for developers seeking to build similar senior neighborhoods in town. The amendment, along with 12 others proposed by the town, will have to be approved by town voters in May before they take effect.

The purpose of the proposed amendment, one of the 12 the Planning Board discussed, would require a joint hearing with the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustment for proposed senior and handicapped housing in order to streamline and coordinate the application process.

Planning Board Chairman John Gryval said the current process, which requires developers to present plans to the Zoning Board of Adjustment to request a variance, then to the Planning Board and finally again to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, is too cumbersome.

“If we’re both at the same meeting, it saves the developer time. This way it’s going to make it a lot better,” Gryval said. “(The amendment) is just to streamline the process.”

Four new 55-and-older communities are slated to be built along the Route 3 corridor in Hooksett.

Plans for a second phase for Webster Woods, an existing senior neighborhood in Hooksett, are on the table for consideration as well as a new 55- and-older neighborhood called Harmony Place. An unnamed senior development on Nancy Lane is seeking a special zoning exception from the Zoning Board. Blueprints for another project, Brookview Senior Housing, have been submitted to the planning office, too.

The Hooksett Planning Board will hold another public hearing at 7 p.m. on Monday, March 9, to discuss the various zoning amendments, all of which are available for review on the town’s Web site, www.hooksett.org.

The Planning Board meets in the Hooksett town offices, 35 Main St.

Campbell Hill residents protest condo plan

Hooksett Editor — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:43:00 GMT

BY LAUREN SAUSSER

A Hooksett developer is seeking Zoning Board approval for a new senior condominium complex – the third similar development tentatively slated along the Route 3 corridor.

Beaver Brook Development of Hooksett has proposed an as-yet unnamed 36-unit, threestory structure off Nancy Lane.

A special exception granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment would be required for the developer to build the condominiums in the residential Campbell Hill subdivision.

Residents in that neighborhood have come out in full force both Dec. 9 at the Zoning Board meeting. Both the Zoning Board and the Hooksett Planning Board will be reviewing plans for the new community, but it will ultimately rest with the Zoning Board to grant or deny the special exception.

Many nearby residents spoke vehemently against the plans at the Dec.9 Zoning Board meeting.

“To arbitrarily say there will be no effect on property values in ludicrous,” said Nancy Lane resident Sean Darby, a local real estate appraiser who likened the proposed development to a glorified apartment complex. “(The developer) doesn’t even seem the least bit prepared to answer the most basic questions. I’m just trying to make sure this thing doesn’t slip through while everyone is busy during the holidays.”

Zoning Board Chairman Greg Pearson said it would be at least January before the board makes a decision about granting the special exception.

“This board takes very seriously the fact of diminishing property values,” Pearson said. “I don’t want anyone in the audience to think we consider this lightly.”

Campbell Hill resident Laurel Manning said if the proposed project is built, it will negatively impact all the homes in the neighborhood.

“I’d just like to state at this time it’s a really poor time to be considering this,” Manning said. “When I bought my home 10 years ago, (the area) was zoned residential. This will definitely devalue my property.”

The Hooksett Planning Board is currently reviewing blueprints for two other proposed senior communities – Harmony Place and Brookview Senior Housing – both located north on Route 3 from the Beaver Brook site. Action on those two projects is pending a comprehensive drainage analysis of the immediate area.

Residents worry about drainage near new homes

Hooksett Editor — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:47:00 GMT

BY LAUREN SAUSSER

Though the rainy season has come and gone this year, homeowners in the Beauchesne neighborhood in the heart of the Village area in Hooksett are worried two new 55-and-older communities on Route 3 will mean drainage problems in their basements further down the line.

More than 20 homeowners attended a Hooksett Planning Board meeting at the public library on Nov. 24 to express concern about the proposed Brookview Senior Housing development, slated for an 8- acre parcel near the site of the former Mount Saint Mary’s College.

Brookview is one of two similar senior developments proposed for the immediate area along Route 3 in Hooksett.

Harmony Place, a project with a similar target demographic, has been planned adjacent to the Brookview site. Neither project has been given the go-ahead by the Hooksett Planning Board.

Now town officials say a comprehensive drainage study must be conducted in and around the Village area in Hooksett before any proposed new developments are approved by the board.

“In order to get a true picture going forward, this is calling for a complete study,” said Town Council Vice Chairman Paul Loiselle at the meeting. “This is a big order, but if it’s not addressed in this manner, I don’t see how it can be addressed.”

Hooksett resident Frank Lee, who lives on Albert Avenue in the Beauchesne neighborhood, explained to Planning Board members that he and his neighbors never experienced water problems before the developers of the Granite Heights neighborhood, to the northeast of the proposed senior communities, began construction three years ago. Since 2005, he said many cellars on the street flood every time it storms.

“Each year the water issue gets a little worse and worse and worse,” Lee said. “We’re the ones who will suffer for it. We’re the ones who will have flooded cellars. That’s why we’re all here.”

Members of the community said that adding another construction project upstream from their homes will only exacerbate existing drainage problems.

Resident Mary Farwell of Grant Avenue said the board has an obligation to look at the big picture before approving the individual projects. “Each individual thing might be OK, but when you put it all together, it’s not OK,” Farwell said.

The developer of Harmony Place agreed at the meeting to help fund one-third of the drainage study, estimated at $10,000 to conduct. The developer of Brookview Senior Housing told Town Planner JoAnn Duffy they would contribute ony $800 in addition to the $2,500 they already provided for a preliminary hydrology study.

The Hooksett Town Council was expected to hear about plans for the drainage study on Wednesday, Dec. 4.

“We must find money for the study,” said Town Councilor Patricia Rueppel.

Lowe’s opens while Wal-Mart adjusts plans

Hooksett Editor — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:23:00 GMT

BY LAUREN SAUSSER

The new Hooksett Lowe’s on Route 3A is up and running yet the next-door Wal-Mart, in the works since 2005, is still getting its design blueprints straightened out.

Ron Savoie, a member of the Hooksett Zoning Board of Adjustment, wants to see the job done.

“This is ridiculous,” Savoie said during a recent Zoning Board meeting. “This has been going on for three years.”

In an effort to move the project along more quickly, the Planning Board granted a parking variance to the developer Oct. 14, and will allow an exception to the minimum number of parking spaces required for the building.

According to the retailer’s 162,000-square-foot site plan, town ordinances normally would require a minimum of 814 parking spaces. The Planning Board granted a variance for 777 spaces, 37 fewer than the required amount.

The developer requested a variance because Wal-Mart recently unveiled plans to include an on-site wastewater treatment facility to treat in-store effluent. The 50-foo by 68-foot facility, planned for a corner of the lot, will replace 44 parking spaces that were originally slated for the space.

Amy Manzelli, an attorney with Concord-based Sulloway and Hollis, represented the retailer at the meeting and explained to Zoning Board members that the wastewater treatment facility is Wal-Mart’s attempt to go “green.”

“Wal-Mart wants to protect the groundwater resources as much as it can,” Manzelli said. By keeping the store small and limiting the number of parking spaces, civil engineer Steve DeCoursey, also representing the developer at the meeting, said the community will be best served.

“We don’t think we need (the extra parking spaces and they) would increase the amount of blacktop out there,” DeCoursey said.

The new Hooksett Wal- Mart originally included plans for more than 1,000 parking spaces until the retailer revised its plans and reduced the footprint of the store by more than 60,000 square feet. The site now includes more green space and less impervious surface.

The store is slated to open next summer and will include lawn and garden, grocery and general merchandise departments.

Drainage top concern for Route 3

Hooksett Editor — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:14:00 GMT

BY JENN McDOWELL

Members of the Hooksett Planning Board and Town Council are looking at options for expanding Route 3 and solving some of the drainage issues in the Kmart plaza and Merchant’s auto sales parking lots.

The town has more than $4 million in federal funds available to spend on expanding Route 3, but those funds could be taken back if not spent by 2009.

The $4 million is earmarked specifically for the Route 3 expansion, but the abutters in the area, particularly Merchant’s and Kmart, need better drainage before the road gets torn up, said Hooksett Town Administrator David Jodoin.

The state Department of Transportation initially presented a plan to the town that added up to about $6 million, which would add lanes to the north and southbound sides of Route 3 in the area of Kmart.

Because that price tag exceeds the federal funds the town has to work with, the DOT came back with other options for the town to choose from that would be within the $4 million earmark.

One of the alternatives involves expanding the road from the intersection of Whitehall and Martin’s Ferry roads to the intersection of Benton Road and Clough Avenue.

Another one proposes expanding the road from the Benton Road and Clough Avenue intersection to just past the Kmart plaza entrance, then realigning the Merchant’s Auto entrance and exit.

However, said Jodoin, the numbers for both of those alternatives are coming in higher than the $4 million mark.

“The council really hasn’t made any decision on which plan they like better,” said Jodoin, adding the town is trying to work with the abutters to make sure the drainage issues are solved before the road expansion begins.

The topic remains as a routine business item on the Town Council’s agenda, but Jodoin said there is no set date for when they will pick up that discussion again and make a decision. The numbers and drainage issues with abutters need to be completely worked out first.

State Sen. Ted Gatsas said he had a meeting with abutters in the area to work out some of the drainage issues and expose them to the options for expansion, adding this is one of the most important projects facing the town.

The area of the Kmart plaza and Merchant’s Auto floods in extremely heavy rains, last time happening when tropical storm Hanna came to town.

“It really shuts down the town of Hooksett,” said Gatsas of the flooding.

The town needs to make sure it gets the necessary easements for the expansion, as well as properly installing culverts on Benton Road, he said, which the town has FEMA funding to complete. The main thing is to do what the town can before the $4 million in funding goes away, Gatsas said.

“Before we lose that earmark, let’s do what we can for $4 million,” he said.

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.

Hooksett zoning warrant would phase growth

Hooksett Editor — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:37:00 GMT

BY JENN McDOWELL

In addition to the financial items already discussed at Hooksett’s deliberative session of Town Meeting and electing town officials, voters will also weigh in on several zoning amendments when the polls open on Tuesday, May 13.

While the majority of the amendments are what Planning Board Chairman *** Marshall termed “housekeeping items,” needed for clarity in the current ordinances, one is of particular importance to voters concerned about the town’s growth.

Amendment 13 asks voters to approve adding a development phasing requirement to the current zoning ordinance. The Planning Board has been working on developing a way to control Hooksett’s growth for several months now, having worked with planning consultant Phillip Herr on the town’s growth buildout.

Herr said at a presentation at the library on Jan. 29 that unchecked growth could bring Hooksett’s population up to as much as 44,000 over the next few years. Hooksett currently has a population of about 13,000, according to the 2007 Town Report.

If either a growth management or phasing ordinance were adopted, that population growth could be curbed to around 20,000 in the same time period, according to Herr.

Growth phasing regulates the rate at which individual developments are built. A growth management ordinance, on the other hand, determines how the entire town will be developed over the years.

Marshall said the Planning Board decided on phasing rather than a growth management ordinance to level the playing field among developers and distribute the growth more evenly over a longer period of time. Such a plan is also less likely to end up in court, he said.

The previous growth management ordinance Hooksett voters adopted in 2005 ended up coming before a Merrimack Superior Court judge, who ruled it was not legally binding.

A developer who went before the Planning Board shortly after the ordinance passed with an application to build on 20 lots in town took it to court.

The ordinance included a limit on building permits issued each year to 2 percent of the total dwelling units in town, a quarter of those being reserved for people building their own homes, and a limit of five for any one individual or entity.

Budget Committee member Mike Sorel, who started the petition that got the ordinance on the 2005 ballot, said the result of that vote shows the town’s desire to have something in place to control growth.

Under the development phasing proposal, any development including more than 12 lots or units would require the developer to submit a gradual phasing plan that would restrict the construction to one-eighth of the total lots per year.

For high and medium residential districts, the cut-off number is 24 dwelling units per year.; for developments using sewer capacity, the cut-off is 18 units per year; and for all other types of developments only 12 units can be built each year.

Affordable housing and elderly housing, renovated units that don’t provide additional dwelling spaces, and those units already approved in the planning process would be exempt from the terms of the phasing ordinance.

“It’s very important. Failure to pass this puts us right back where we were, trying to find another way to do it,” Marshall said, saying the board would revisit the growth management issue.

Sorel said he supports the proposed development phasing amendment, calling it a step in the right direction for the town. “It’s more than what we have now, which is nothing,” Sorel said of the proposal. “The town needs to move ahead, and I think they will.

Heads Pond plan faces public scrutiny

Hooksett Editor — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:40:00 GMT

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.

Hooksett Banner letters to the editor for Jan. 10, 2008

Hooksett Editor — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:31:00 GMT

Hooksett Salvation Army says thank you to volunteers
To the Editor:
Thanks to the generous donation of time by countless Hooksett citizens and the equal generosity of shoppers in Hooksett, over $17,000 was raised through bell ringing from collection points at Kmart, Wal-Mart and Shaw’s in Hooksett during the holiday season.
We are extremely gratified that our total exceeded that of 2006, thanks to an outstanding response on the last few days before Christmas.
The Salvation Army Kettle Campaign in Hooksett is one of the very few in the state that is totally staffed by volunteers and this is a significant factor in our success each year. The volunteer coordinators of the bell-ringing drive, Mary and Jane, wish to thank all who gave so generously of their time.
We would also like to thank Shaws, Wal-Mart and Kmart for their community spirit in allowing our Hooksett volunteers to stand near their exits to enable their customers to participate in this vital holiday effort. In addition, BJ’s Wholesale Club participated in the Salvation Army Angel Tree program, with their generous customers donating several hundred wonderful toys and articles of clothing to the Hooksett Adopt-A-Family program. Ken from Aubuchon repaired our bells when vigorous ringing rendered them inoperable.
We are especially grateful to the Hooksett Fire Department which manned the kettles for several days including a four-hour stint the day before Christmas. The Hooksett Kiwanis Club was equally generous in giving of their time all day on Saturdays between Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Other organizations which participated include the great folks at CB Sullivan’s, the Builders Club at Cawley Middle School, Boy Scout Troop 292, Cub Scout Pack 292, Town Hall employees, and teachers and principals at the Hooksett schools.
There were many other individuals, couples and families who willingly gave two hours of their time during this very busy season to help others less fortunate.
One mom who was ringing with her children said, “This is what I want my children to remember about Christmas – that our family, which is so blessed, can take the time to help other families that may be experiencing hard times. In addition, the children get very positive feedback from the donors who praise them for volunteering.”
Another example of volunteerism in action is the David Pearl family. They were hosting a holiday party to which many family friends and their children were invited. David interrupted their party time to bring all of the girls to Shaw’s on a Saturday afternoon to ring bells and sing Christmas carols to busy shoppers. The girls had a great time and the shoppers loved their spirit. Not all of the girls were Hooksett residents, but they want to ring again next year!
The willingness of so many citizens to donate precious hours during this busy time of year is a testament to the wonderful volunteer spirit that is alive and well in Hooksett.
Every year the dollars available to our Hooksett Salvation Army come from the holiday bell-ringing conducted from Thanksgiving till Christmas. These dollars are spent to assist the Hooksett Adopt-A-Family program so that needy Hooksett families with children can have a happier holiday.
In addition to this vital holiday support, the Salvation Army is there to help all year long. Without this money it would be much more difficult to help our fellow Hooksett citizens in emergency situations. Again, thanks to everyone for a job well done!

Mary Farwell
Human Service Secretary
Hooksett Salvation Army Chapter

Many thanks to those who helped Hooksett holiday programs
To the Editor:
I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to everyone who helped make the 2007 Hooksett holiday programs a huge success. Thanks to the incredible generosity of the many Hooksett community organizations, businesses, and individuals, we were able to provide Thanksgiving and Christmas baskets to 80 Hooksett families as well as gifts for 175 children through the Adopt-A-Family program.
This unbelievable generosity came in many forms, from many sources. Some gave food, toys or children’s clothing. Others provided gift certificates, cash donations or offered their time to sort or distribute.
Once again this year, Hooksett Wal-Mart and the Hooksett Salvation Army provided considerable financial support for the Adopt-A-Family program. Patrons of BJ’s Wholesale Club donated dozens of toys and gifts through their Angel Tree program. United Health Care employees provided major support to this year’s program by adopting 30 Hooksett families. Central High School student Lindsay Jarnutowski coordinated a food drive, which raised an incredible $1,200, that was donated in grocery store gift cards. The Hooksett Boy Scouts helped to fill our food baskets with food donations gathered from their incredibly successful food drive. The students at Cawley Middle School raised an astonishing $1,900 from their turkey drive and an additional $255 from a student run community yard sale to benefit HERC. Students at Memorial School raised an amazing $635 through their change donations. Underhill School, along with the help of the Lions Club, provided age appropriate books for every child in the Adopt-A-Family program.
Thanks to the combined efforts of so many individuals, we were able to brighten the holidays for many Hooksett families in need. On behalf of these appreciative families, thank you again for your generosity and for making Hooksett such a special place.
Extra thanks to Hooksett Suspension Coordinator, Bethany Chase, Chief Steve Agrafiotis, United Health Care employee, Lisa Paquin, PTA members Claudette Knieriem and Kim Steger and the amazing Barb Brennan and for all of your hard work.
Best wishes for health and happiness in the New Year!

Joy Buzzell
Hooksett Family Services Director

Don’t let ultra liberals raise age for criminal responsibility
To the Editor:
I should be amazed, but I am not. What I should be amazed about? It’s that Democratic controlled Legislature passed HB584, which would protect drug dealers and violent criminals from prosecution! Why I am not amazed? It’s because the ultra-liberal Democrats keep pushing their radical left-wing agenda down our throats. They support letting your minor children getting abortions without your knowledge or consent; they support gay marriage; they support letting the state decide what you can and can’t do regarding seatbelts, smoking and food; and now they support letting violent, drug-dealing criminals be charged as juveniles so they can get a slap on the wrist, a hug and sent on their way to commit some other violent crime.
Back in early 1990s, when these juvenile drug dealers were crossing the border into New Hampshire committing violent crimes, police in this state pushed for a law to prosecute these violent offenders as adults. The law passed, and for over 10 years it has worked, just ask Manchester Deputy Police Chief Gary Simmons!
Now the ultra-liberals want to change that. Even the liberal bastions of Massachusetts and New York put the age of criminal responsibility threshold at 17 and 16 respectively. But here in New Hampshire, the left wing will have you believe these violent drug dealers are just a bunch of silly kids who just need a hug to straighten themselves out. How out of touch with reality are these uber-liberals? After one of these young violent criminals gunned down a police officer in Manchester, one would think they would listen and support law enforcement, which wants to keep the law.
This is another example why we need to get these left-wing radicals out of the Legislature before another one of these poor “juveniles” grows up to commit an even more violent crime.
Ray Miclette
Hooksett

Thanks, Epsom Planning Board
To the Editor:
I would like to thank the members of Epsom Planning Board on having the wisdom and foresight to adopt the Department of Environmental Services Best Management Practices of the Greenyard Program as the standard for inspection for junkyard licensing in the town of Epsom. You have brought our town up to a new and better standard that can allow Epsom to be seen in the future as the town that expects and enforces basic environmental standards as a basis for issuance of junkyard licenses. We continue to move in a new and better direction.
Joanne Randall
Selectman, Epsom