Hooksett Banner : developers

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.

Campbell Hill residents protest condos

Hooksett Editor — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:16:00 GMT

BY GINGER KOZLOWSKI

Residents of the Campbell Hill neighborhood are fighting a proposed 55-and-older condominium development proposed for Nancy Lane on land originally meant for single-family homes.

Developer J.R. Ouellette sees the proposal as beneficial to the neighborhood.

“It affords people that are 55+ the opportunity to live in a secure facility within a community,” he said. “This project will also allow the opportunity for an older person to live on their own while being close to other family members. It will give concerned adult children the ability to have a parent close to them and allow them the feeling of relief knowing the parent is in a secure close area. The other advantage to a project like this one is there’s no tax impact to the town. This type of development only adds revenue to the general fund.”

Phil Denbow, who lives at 8 Nancy Lane, sees the proposal for three 12-unit three-story buildings differently. He distributed a flier around the neighborhood outlining his concerns.

It lists worries of additional car traffic, additional ambulance and fire traffic, concern that the buildings will tower over the homes on the hill and be brightly lit, that it will adversely affect property values, as well as the concern that removing trees and soil will “wreak havoc with drainage” in the neighborhood.

Peter Rowell, who sits on the Hooksett Zoning Board, said such as use is allowed in the Campbell Hill neighborhood, but only with a special exception. Other uses are also allowed, such as churches and synagogues, or two-family dwellings. He emphasized that neighbors against the development cannot stop it simply because they don’t like the idea.

“Neighbors have a right to give the Zoning Board input,” he said, “and board has to look at that it can’t be detrimental to the neighborhood. The Planning Board has to weigh in on it. The Conservation Commission does as well. It cannot be detrimental to the property values of the neighbors.”

Rowell said the applicant did supply property valuation assessment, which notes it is a similar use to Westview Terrace at the entry of neighborhood. He also noted that the roads were built to handle traffic.

Town Planner Jo Ann Duffy said there may still be a need in Hooksett for elderly housing, though there are enough plans at the moment that this development would bring Hooksett to about 10 percent of the housing to be designated for those 55 and older.

“There are nine altogether existing and planned,” she said. The only ones not approved are Brookview, which is on Hooksett Road south of Universit Heights, and Webster Woods phase 2 on Route 3. Both are before the Planning Board. The others are Westview Terrace, Harmony just approved on Hooksett Road, Berry Hill, Brook Ridge, Stonegate, Lafond by the Town Hall, and Hollyberry by Kmart.

To stop the development, arguments would have to touch on legal rather than emotional aspects, said both Rowell and Duffy. Property values, traffic and visibility are all such concerns. “The toughest part is, we’re not anti-old folks,” said Denbow. “It’s the right project, but wrong location.”

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.

Cabela’s pulls out

Hooksett Editor — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:19:00 GMT

BY LAUREN SAUSSER

The Hooksett Town Council always knew it would only be a matter of time before the hightraffic Exit 11 parcel off Interstate 93 was developed, but now, it seems they may be waiting longer than they anticipated.

An oft-discussed Cabela’s sporting goods store, which has been tentatively slated for the site for over a year, is now an unlikely possibility, developers say. And in light of this setback, the Town Council is considering directing its Economic Development Advisory Committee to explore other options for developing the land.

Committee Chairman Bill Sirak told the Town Council a major retailer, which town officials later revealed as Bass Pro Shops, has expressed casual interest in the site. The committee recently met with representatives of the company, but no decisions have been made, he said.

“They came to us and we had a very nice conversation with them,” Sirak said. “We would be very amenable to looking at what they have in mind. I told Bass (Pro Shops) representatives that they could give Hooksett a great Christmas present.”

The news comes on the heels of the realization that Cabela’s will not likely open a store on the Exit 11 site, owned by Tom Palazzi, in the near future. The outdoor retailer never officially announced a store opening for the site and earlier this year backed out of plans to purchase the property.

Town Council Vice Chairman Paul Loiselle said the current state of the economy and the declining profit margins of the Nebraska-based sporting goods retailer have essentially shut down talks to bring the shopping center – which was originally slated to open early next year – to Hooksett.

“I think it’s basically a waitand- see kind of thing because of the economy and the way things are right now,” Loiselle said. A press release on the company’s Web site indicated 10 percent of the workforce at its Nebraska headquarters was cut in early October. Its current stock price as of closing on Thursday, Nov. 20, was $4.38 per share. Loiselle said he understood that the company is closely monitoring the performance of its Scarborough, Maine, store, which opened in May, before moving ahead with plans to develop in Hooksett.

Cabela’s spokeman John Castillo said the company’s decision to back out of plans to develop the Hooksett site were purely dictate by the economy.

“We have revised our store expansion plan this past year,” Castillo said. “Last year we opened eight stores. This year we’ve only opened two. Next year, we have plans to open two more. The rate of expansion has been reduced and this is in large part due to the general economic conditions that exist today as well as the challenging retail environment. It’s a tough market out there for everyone.”

Castillo said Cabela’s is slated to open new shops in East Rutherford, N.J., and Billings, Mt., next year. Projections estimated the company’s first New Hampshire store would have generated $11 million in revenue to the town over a 20-year period.

If Bass Pro Shops decides to develop the site, the retailer would draw a similar clientele as Cabela’s. Both companies are major nationwide purveyors of outdoors goods, specializing in hunting, fishing and boating equipment.

Sirak said the Economic Development Committee recently sent Bass Pro Shops representatives a letter, after the initial meeting, explaining the town’s willingness and desire to develop the parcel. An $18 million tax incremental financing district, which expires next spring, would provide the company an easy path to purchase the land.

“If we can get this site ready, as an economic zone, then when a retailer expresses interest, we’re ready,” Sirak said.

In the meantime, the council was expected to vote at its Nov. 26 meeting on whether it should hand the reigns over to Economic Development Committee to test the waters for other potential retailers.

“The intent here is the Economic Development Committee would do the homework and bring it back to the council, Loiselle said.

Town councilors agreed it would only be a matter of time before Exit 11 is developed. “I hold the personal opinion that it’s the most valuable piece of property on Interstate 93 right now,” said Town Councilor David Ross.

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.