Hooksett Banner : zoning

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.”

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.

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.

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 vote results, zoning warrants, May 13, 2008

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

Zoning warrant articles:

Article 2 Amendment 1: This would amend the Hooksett Zoning Ordinance, Article 7, Section B.3. Density Limitations a), Elderly, Older Person and Handicapped Housing:
The Zoning Board of Adjustment may allow a density of six (6) dwelling units per acre overall for a single development. Soil conditions, slope, the suitability of the land for such construction, or its location may dictate less than the maximum density.
The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the density of Elderly, Older Person and Handicapped Housing from 15 units per acre to 6 units per acre for a single development.
• Yes................................679     No................................278
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 2, Amendment 1a: This would amend the Hooksett Zoning Ordinance, Article 22, Definitions, Dwelling, Multi-Family by changing the definition to read: An apartment house, condominium, or building containing three (3) or more dwelling units, but in no event more than twenty-four (24). The criteria governing three (3) or more units can be found in the Development Regulations.
The purpose of this amendment is to restrict any one multi-family building to a maximum of 24 units.
• Yes................................745     No................................207
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 2, Amendment 2: This would amend the Hooksett Zoning Ordinance, Article 7, Section B.4 Parking b), Elderly, Older Person and Handicapped Housing: In addition to these off-street parking requirements, other appropriate provisions of Site Plan Review process shall apply.
The purpose of this amendment is to remove any reference to Article 17, Parking Requirements, which is no longer included in the Zoning Ordinance, but can be found in the Development Regulations.
• Yes................................674     No................................254
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 2, Amendment 3: This would amend the Hooksett Zoning Ordinance, Article 26, Non-Conforming Uses and Buildings by adding a new Section D. (and renumber remainder sequentially) Non-Conforming Uses and Buildings: A nonconforming building or structure which is destroyed by fire or other hazard may be restored to its former dimensions, provided that it was not destroyed voluntarily and restoration is begun within twelve (12) months after the act of destruction; and by amending, Article 26, by eliminating Section C. 3. Non-Conforming Uses and Buildings, Any legally non-conforming use or structure may not be extended or enlarged by more than fifty (50) percent of the original gross floor area; and eliminating Section C.4.: Any extension or enlargement of less than fifty (50) percent of the gross floor area of a legally non-conforming use shall not occur without the granting of a Special Exception by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
And by amending, Article 26, by adding a new Section C.3., Non-Conforming Uses and Buildings: All single family lots which conformed to the Zoning Ordinance at the time they were created and approved by the Planning Board, may expand the single family residence, as long as the expansion of the single family residence will conform to all setback requirements, and overlay district requirements, and single family residences are currently permitted in that district. On all other lots, any extension or enlargement of the gross floor area of a legally non-conforming structure shall not occur without the granting of a Special Exception by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
The purpose of this amendment is to further clarify allowable expansions and reconstruction of structures on pre-existing non-conforming lots.
• Yes................................674     No................................254
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 2, Amendment 4: This would amend the Hooksett Zoning Ordinance, Article 22, Definitions, Junk: Means any old metals, old bottles, cotton, woolen or other mill waste, unfinished mill yarns, old paper or rubber products, discarded lumber, more than one (1) unregistered/ uninspected vehicles, old iron metal, glass, paper, cordage, or other waste or discarded or secondhand materials, or parts which have been a part, or intended to be a part, of any motor vehicles, discarded machinery, or scrap metal, and any second hand articles the accumulation of which is detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood.
The purpose of this amendment is to restrict more than one (1) unregistered/uninspected vehicle on parcels of land.
• Yes................................715     No................................235
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 2, Amendment 5: This would amend the Hooksett Zoning Ordinance as follows: Change the Zoning of Map 1, lots 4, 6, 8, 9 and Map 5, lot 7 from Industrial to Medium Density Residential, and Map 5 lots 49, 53 and 54 from Industrial to Commercial.
These parcels are located on Edgewater Drive.
• Yes................................564     No................................337
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 2, Amendment 6: This would amend the Hooksett Zoning Ordinance by inserting the provisions of Article 3, General Provisions, (which is an existing Article), shall apply, when applicable, to the following Districts:
Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Urban District Residential, High Density Residential, Elderly, Older Person & Handicapped Housing, Cluster, Commercial; US Route 3 Performance Zone, Industrial; Mixed Use District 1, Mixed Use District 2, Mixed Use District 3, Mixed Use District 4, Mixed Use District 5, Article 18, Wetlands, Prime Wetlands, and Groundwater Conservation District.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that all provisions of existing Article 3, General Provisions, of the Zoning Ordinance apply to all zoning districts, when applicable.
• Yes................................649     No................................254
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 2, Amendment 7: This would amend the Hooksett Zoning Ordinance, Article 3, General Provisions, by inserting the following:
I.3. The parking of one (1) travel trailer or manufactured home on a property, wherein the existing single family or two family residence has been damaged by fire or other catastrophic event, may be maintained for a period of six (6) months during the repair of the residence. Said temporary housing shall be secured to the ground by means of hurricane tie-downs, or equal, and must be set on the property in accordance with the minimum yard setbacks for the zone. All necessary applicable permits shall be required. A maximum of one (1) extension to the time limit, requested in writing, may be granted by the Code Enforcement Official not to exceed six (6) months. This provision shall not apply to any multi-family or commercial structure.
The purpose of this amendment is to allow a temporary trailer or manufactured home in all residential districts, on a temporary, nature in the case of fire or a catastrophic event.
• Yes................................788    No................................165
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 2, Amendment 8: This would amend the Hooksett Zoning Ordinance, regarding percentage of lot coverage by removing this reference from the following districts of the Zoning Ordinance and inserting amended language into the Development Regulations:
Article 4, Low Density Residential; Article 5, Medium Density Residential; Article 5-A, Urban Residential District; Article 6, High Density Residential; Article 7, Elderly, Older Person and Handicapped Housing; Article 8, Cluster Housing; Article 9, Manufactured Housing Parks; Article 10, Commercial; Article 10-A, US Route 3 Corridor Performance Zone; Article 11, Industrial; Article 12, Mixed Use District 1; Article 13, Mixed Use District 2; Article 14, Mixed Use District 3; Article 15, Mixed Use District 4; and Article 16, Mixed Use District 5.
All references to building coverage and percentage of allowed impervious surface will be removed from the Zoning Ordinance and alternative language will be inserted into the Development Regulations.
• Yes................................579     No................................316
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 2, Amendment 9: This would amend the Hooksett Zoning Ordinance, by omitting Article 8, Cluster Housing Ordinance, and replacing the entire text with new text, adopted under RSA 674:21, Innovative Land Use Controls, entitled Conservation Subdivision.
The purpose of this amendment is to replace the current outdated Cluster Housing Ordinance.
• Yes................................724     No................................202
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 2, Amendment 10: This would amend the Hooksett Zoning Ordinance, by omitting Article 19, Groundwater Resource Conservation District, and replacing the entire text with new text.
The purpose of this amendment is to bring the Town’s Groundwater Resource Conservation District Ordinance into compliance with the NH DES Model Groundwater Protection Ordinance and the Town’s recently adopted Wellhead Protection Program to the Town’s stratified drift aquifers and the public water supply and water quality at Pinnacle Pond.
• Yes................................761     No................................166
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 2, Amendment 11: This would amend the Hooksett Zoning Ordinance by eliminating Article 18, Wetlands Conservation Overlay District, Section G.2.a) A twenty-five (25) foot setback from the wetland boundary is to remain in its natural, undisturbed state, and eliminating b) A forty (40) foot setback shall be required from the wetland boundary to any structure or any paved area 2,400 square feet or larger in size and inserting a new a) to read: A forty (40) foot setback shall be required from the wetland boundary to any structure or any paved area and shall remain in its natural, undisturbed state.
The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate the 25’ undisturbed wetland setback and maintain an undisturbed 40’ setback from the wetlands.
• Yes................................663     No................................298
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 2, Amendment 12: This would amend the Hooksett Zoning Ordinance, Article 5-A, Urban Residential District, by adding B. Uses Permitted by Special Exception, 2. Two-Family Dwellings, provided they are served by municipal sewer and municipal water, consist of at least 18,000 square feet of area, provide two (2) onsite parking spaces per unit, and result in no increase in footprint of existing structure?
And amend Article 27, Accessory Apartments, B. Where Allowed, insert Urban Residential District. And amend C. General, 3., municipal sewer and municipal water required for Urban Residential District.
The purpose of this amendment is to allow two-family dwellings and accessory apartments in the Urban Residential District with certain restrictions.
• Yes................................582     No................................367
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 2, Amendment 13: This would amend the Hooksett Zoning Ordinance, by inserting Article 31, Phasing Requirement, which would provide for the phasing of development to avoid adverse effects on public health, safety or welfare, due to a sudden demand on service(s), which cannot be provided for by a reasonable expenditure of public funds. This article is adopted under RSA 674:21, Innovative Land Use Controls.
ARTICLE 31 – DEVELOPMENT PHASING
A.    Authority and Purpose
This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the authority granted by NH RSA 674:21 in order to provide for the phasing of development to avoid adverse effects on public health, safety or welfare due to a sudden demand on service(s) which cannot be provided for by a reasonable expenditure of public funds.
B.    Phasing Required
1.    A phasing plan shall be submitted for Planning Board approval for all developments of more than twelve (12) lots or dwelling units unless exempted under Section (d) of this Article, and at the applicant’s option may be submitted for smaller developments. Such plans shall result in the number of dwelling units authorized per year for construction being no more than the larger of one-eighth of the total number of lots or dwelling units proposed in the development or, if larger, the following:
a)    For development located in the High Density or Medium Density Residential districts: twenty-four (24) dwelling units per year;
b)    For other development proposed to be serviced with public water and sewerage: eighteen (18) dwelling units per year;
c)    For other developments: twelve (12) dwelling units per year.
2.    The Planning Board may authorize development up to 25% more dwelling units per year than the above upon its determination that unusual characteristics of that development and the resulting service needs of its residents assure unusually low demands on public services per dwelling unit.
3.    Piecemeal development of a Lot of Record to avoid phasing is prohibited. Any application submitted on a portion of a Lot of Record, which has been approved or conditionally approved within the previous twelve (12) months will be considered part of the original application for purposes of phasing, which shall be imposed on the new application as if it were part of the original application.
C.    Time Limitations
Building permits, which are not used within twelve months of the date of issuance, shall lapse. However, unutilized authorizations for permits in one year of a phasing plan may be carried over to the next year, but not longer than that.
D.    Exemptions from Phasing Limitations
The Planning Board shall grant exemptions to the phasing requirements of Section B. Phasing Required under the following conditions:
1.    Grandfathered Units. Development on lots or of units which are a part of a subdivision or site plan approved by the Planning Board or are shown on a subdivision plan or site plan accepted as complete by the Planning Board prior to the first posting of this ordinance.
2.    Affordable Units. Developments 20% or more of whose dwelling units are restricted for thirty (30) years or more to be affordable units, as defined in Article 22.
3.    Replacement Units. Dwelling units replacing the same number of units demolished on the same site within the preceding twelve (12) months.
4.    Altered Units. The expansion, alteration, or renovation of existing dwelling units unless one or more additional dwelling units are created as a result.
5.    Elderly, Older Person and Handicapped Housing granted by Special Exception under Article 7.
E.    Sunset
This Ordinance shall expire on January 1, 2013 unless readopted prior to that date.
Amend Section 22 Definitions as follows:
Replace the definition of “Dwelling Unit” with the following:
Dwelling Unit: one (1) or more living or sleeping rooms arranged for the use of one (1) or more individuals living as a single housekeeping unit, with cooking, living, sanitary and sleeping facilities not shared with any other unit, regardless of structure type, whether detached single-family, duplex or multifamily structure.
Insert the following definition at its appropriate alphabetical location:
    Affordable Unit: a dwelling unit restricted for sale or rent to households having,    income below 80% of the area median income (AMI), while:
(1)    Paying not more than thirty (30) percent of income on rent, including utilities and parking;
(2)    Paying not more than thirty-three (33) percent of income on mortgage principal and interest, private mortgage insurance, property taxes, condominium and/or homeowner’s association fees, hazard insurance, and parking.
The income that equals 80% of AMI is that annually determined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development for “low-income” families in the statistical region that includes Hooksett, adjusted for household size (assuming one or more person in the household than the number of bedrooms). Complaint housing prices are those specified in guidance materials prepared and maintained by the Community Development Department.
The purpose of this amendment is to require all subdivisions greater than 12 lots, unless exempt, to submit a phasing plan.
• Yes................................722     No................................217
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 2, Amendment 14: This would amend the Hooksett Zoning Ordinance by amending Article 20, Signs, to include design requirements for permanent signs and add signage definitions.
The purpose of this amendment is to include design requirements for permanent signs and add signage definitions.
• Yes................................712     No................................231
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 2, Amendment 15: This would amend the Hooksett Zoning Ordinance, by inserting a new Article 20-A, Route 3A Sign Ordinance.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide separate sign regulations along the Route 3A Corridor from the Manchester City line to the Bow Town line, and from the intersection of Route 3A and Hackett Hill Road up to and including Map 13, lots 62 and 58 along Hackett Hill Road, and from the intersection of Route 3A and Cross Road up to and including Map 17, lots 34 and 37, which are comparable to the US Route 3 Corridor Performance Zone, adopted in May 2007, resulting in less intense signage.
• Yes................................697     No................................228
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 2, Amendment 16: This would amend the Hooksett Zoning Ordinance, by amending Article 10-A, US Route 3 Corridor Performance Zone, by amending Table of Performance Zone Sign Standards, by inserting, “Identification Sign, Building, “In a building with more than two (2) tenants, with multiple floors, each tenant with a separate public entrance shall be permitted to have one (1) building sign, not to exceed sixteen (16) square feet and each second floor tenant with common access shall be permitted to have one (1) building sign, not to exceed twelve (12) square feet. And by inserting, “Center Identification Sign, Freestanding, “Maximum sign area for four (4) or more tenants one-hundred (100) square feet per sign face, maximum sign height, fifteen (15) feet above grade.” And by inserting note #2, “All building mounted sign areas shall be determined by the square footage of the letters and symbols if they are directly mounted
to the building. If there is a distinctive border around the sign’s lettering and symbols, that border will be restricted to the allowable square footage.” And by inserting note #3, “All free-standing sign areas shall be determined by the face of the sign and will not include the base or the side posts supporting the sign face.” And by inserting Section 6 into Article 10-A I., Performance Zone: 6) Directional signs which do not exceed four square feet (4 s.f.) and bear no advertising or site identifying information are subject to approval of the Planning Board.
And by adding definitions for: Indirect Lighting, Direct Lighting, Internally Lit and Directory Sign.
The purpose of this amendment is to allow buildings with multiple tenants on multiple floors to have signs, and to allow buildings with four or more tenants to have signs that do not exceed 100 square feet/15 feet high, and allow directional signs in the Performance Zone when shown on a site plan, and add signage definitions.
The purpose of this amendment is to allow buildings with multiple tenants on multiple floors to have signs, and to allow buildings with four or more tenants to have signs that do not exceed 100 square feet/15 feet high, and allow directional signs in the Performance Zone when shown on a site plan, and add signage definitions.
• Yes................................589     No................................344

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.

‘Yes’ to Cabela’s

Hooksett Editor — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:37:00 GMT

BY JENN McDOWELL

Out of 1,450 registered voters who showed up at Cawley Middle School on Tuesday, Oct. 23, to vote on Article 1, the new Cabela’s TIF district and financing plan, 1,291 voted “yes.”

A longstanding point of contention in the town, Article 1 reduces the size of the TIF boundaries and cuts the town’s general obligation bond from $18 million previously approved by voters to $2 million.

“The turnout has been terrific,” said Hooksett Town Councilor Stuart Werksman, expressing his pleasure with the deal.

“It’s a no-lose situation,” he said, adding the estimated 1,000 jobs generated from the store will have a positive impact on the town.

“We’re thrilled at the turnout. The town spoke with darn near one voice,” said Gene Beaudoin of Hooksett Expeditions LLC, the project’s developer.

He added the vote is only the first of many more steps in the process, the next ones being to submit a formal application to the planning board and to obtain town and state building permits.

Mort Blumenthal cast his vote, and thinks the development is a good idea.

“I think it will be an asset to the community,” he said.

The turnout was exceptional for a special election, said Town Clerk Leslie Nepveu.

Moderator Peggy Teravainen said this special election brought out many more voters than the state Legislature District 9 vote in July, which got David Boutin elected. About 800 residents voted then, she said.

“To those who did not come today but will have some complaint to make, shame on them,” she said.

Cabela’s vote is Oct. 23

Hooksett Editor — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:18:00 GMT

BY JENN McDOWELL

Soon, Hooksett voters will be charged with the duty of either accepting or rejecting a new financial plan for the proposed Cabela’s development off Hackett Hill Road.

On Tuesday, Oct. 23, polls at Cawley Middle School will be open from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. to allow citizens to weigh in on the revised TIF district and reduced bond obligation.

Voters passed a financial plan at last March’s Town Meeting for a 300-acre TIF district and $18 million general obligation bond, putting the responsibility of the costs of development directly on the town.

Since then, the developer and town officials have come up with a new plan they said would be less complicated and reduce the town’s responsibility to fund the project.

After months of planning, Warrant Article 1 was submitted to the Town Council and Budget Committee, both of which recommend the article’s passage.

But many Hooksett residents are left wondering why, if the new plan is better for the town, it is once again being put to a vote.

The new plan

The financial plan outlined in Warrant Article 1 is different from the plan voters passed last year in two major ways.

First, this new article asks voters to approve a reduction in the size of the tax increment financing district, or TIF, from 300 acres down to 100 acres.

Tax revenues from the 200 acres excluded from the TIF would go directly into the town coffers.

At a Town Council meeting last month, councilors voted to approve the TIF reduction and include it as part of Warrant Article 1.

The 200 acres west of I-93 can easily be added back into the TIF district or can form a new one in the future, Council Chairman Paul Loiselle said.

At the time, Loiselle was against reducing the TIF, but now thinks it was a wise move. “I think the council did the right thing because there’s already significant interest in the properties west of 93” without them being included in the TIF, Loiselle said.

In the future, if a developer should want to build there, sewer improvements outside of the improvements being made for the proposed 100-acre Cabela’s TIF will need to be put in place.

Second, the article seeks to reduce the town’s obligation bond by $16 million.

Last year, voters passed an article approving the town to issue an $18 million general obligation bond for the project. As part of the new plan, that bond will be reduced to $2 million, which will be backed by a letter of credit by Miami and Pierce, a developer in the TIF building a Wingate Hotel.

The project developer, New England Expeditions–Hooksett LLC, will acquire the remaining $16 million through private lenders.

Over the next 20 years, the developer will pay off those private loans with taxes the development generates.

Marc Hughes, the financial advisor from First Albany Capital, who is representing the town on the development, presented the 20-year tax increment projections for the new plan at a Town Council meeting in September.

The town will refund the developer $1 million each year from their taxes to pay off the $16 million in private bonds borrowed.

The town will pay down the $2 million bond in a projected time period of five to seven years through taxes generated by the hotel, in the same way the Cabela’s project will be paid for.

In the first year, according to projections, the New England Expedition development will generate about $1.15 million, leaving about $150,000 in excess revenue which will go directly into the general fund.

Currently, the undeveloped area in question puts less than $100,000 in the town’s general fund,
according to Loiselle and Hooksett Town Administrator David Jodoin.

Over the entire 20-year period, according to Hughes, the town will get about $11 million in tax revenue from the TIF with the potential for tens of millions in the years after that period.

Why vote again?

Montagne Communications, the public relations firm representing the project’s developer, had a booth at Hooksett’s Old Home Day on Saturday, Oct. 6. Montagne employees Cassandra Pappathan and Darwin Cusack fielded questions about the project and the upcoming vote.

Cusack said they fielded many questions from Hooksett residents, most of them dealing with the upcoming vote.

“The most common question we got was, ‘Why are we voting on this thing again? We thought it was a done deal,’” Cusack said.

Loiselle said the council pondered the idea of not bringing the new deal to a vote because
“it’s a better deal,” but was advised to do so to make sure Hooksett residents understand exactly what it entails.

“We decided it was best that the public knew the complete scenario,” Loiselle said. “There is absolutely no money coming from the taxpayers.”

Jodoin said the council wanted to ensure voters understand the change in parameters from the first deal passed in March.

“It’s a different type of deal and a different structure,” Jodoin said.

He added that he wants to make sure residents know the council will seek to rescind the first $18 million bond deal if this one passes with voters.

He said some voters think the previous funding deal will still be in effect, and that the project has turned into a cost to the town in excess of $30 million.

“It’s not like we’re trying to keep an extra $18 million,” Jodoin said.

Contentions

Gene Bowdoin of New England Expeditions said he cannot see why voters would not pass the newly restructured deal if the last one was passed.

“If you hated the whole notion, that’s one thing,” Bowdoin said.

There are some residents in Hooksett who are against the project as a whole and others who believe the new deal is no better than the last one.

Some think there is a catch to the new deal, and question why the town would need to vote on something better than it already passed.

Hooksett resident Ed Groves called the deal “a wash,” adding that he does not think the town will benefit from the deal down the road.

He said he did not agree with the town giving Cabela’s a “tax exemption,” saying the town has not offered the same incentives to other businesses that came into town, such as Walgreen’s.

“There’s not two sides to it, there’s one side. The people that want this thing up there, they want it come hell or high water,” said Groves.

Deb Daigle of Montagne Communications said the developer realizes there is resistance in the town to the project, but that development is inevitable.

“There’s got to be progress too. I guess it’s just balancing it and keeping it in check,” Daigle said.

$16 million reduction in Cabela’s bond needs vote

Hooksett Editor — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:23:00 GMT

BY JENN MCDOWELL

Hooksett residents will be able to reduce their risk on the Cabela’s TIF bond by $16 million with a special Town Meeting vote next month.

Hooksett Town Councilors said there will be a special election on Tuesday, Oct. 23, from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., at Cawley Middle School to approve a warrant article reducing the TIF (tax increment financing) bond approved more than a year ago for the Cabela’s sporting goods project from $18 million to just $2 million.

Voters will be able to discuss details of the plan at a deliberative session on Saturday, Sept. 22, at 1 p.m., at the Cawley School.

If the voters pass the warrant article, the Town Council will be authorized to officially enter into a financial agreement with Feldco Development to construct the Cabela’s facility by Exit 11 off of I-93 near Hackett Hill Road.

Also at the Sept. 5 meeting, the council got public comments on reducing the TIF boundaries surrounding the proposed Cabela’s development area from 300 to 100 acres.

At a previous meeting on Aug. 22, the council voted to support a reduction in the TIF boundaries. The revised TIF district would exclude the area west of I-93, which several councilors pointed out would increase tax revenue to the town in the coming years.

Councilor George Longfellow pointed out that the area could be reinstated into the TIF boundaries if future developers become interested in the area being excluded from the current TIF district.

Chairman Paul Loiselle was the only council member not in favor of reducing the TIF size. He argued that keeping the boundaries larger would entice future developers into the area.

Proposed building worries condo owners

Hooksett Editor — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:27:00 GMT

BY SUSAN WARE

Residents of the Mount St. Mary’s Condominiums are gearing up to fight a proposed 73-unit building with underground parking that Brady Sullivan LLC wants to construct 100 feet from the historic landmark’s back door.

On Friday, Aug. 3, residents rallied in the ballroom to strategize against the developer, who also built their units.

“We all feel like we were lied to. Around here, we call them ‘Shady Sullivan,’” said Lori Dupont, a Mount St. Mary’s resident with a wooded view that could soon look out onto an apartment building.

Dupont and others allege they asked Brady Sullivan’s sales team if there were plans to build directly behind their building, especially in light of the heavy construction going on at University Heights next door. Dupont said they all were told no.

“There are a lot of people here that can attest to being deceived by Brady Sullivan’s sales staff. We asked if anything was ever planned to be built directly behind Mount Saint Mary and our saleswoman looked us dead in the eye and said ‘no, never,’” said resident Sean Joncas.

For Dupont, the construction of these apartments will mean a change of quality of life – more traffic and congestion, and a cherished wooded view that will no longer exist.

“The sales staff assured me that if they ever built behind us, they would leave a 150-foot tree line and that it would be something decent. Now, if this thing gets built, my unit will be worthless,” she said. In September the Planning Board asked Brady Sullivan LLC to have an independent study done as to how these two buildings would affect property values at Mount St. Mary’s. Dupont said they are still waiting for results.

When asked about residents’ claims that sales staff deceived them, Arthur Sullivan, principal and partner at Brady Sullivan LLC, said he has no idea what they are talking about.

“I don’t know anything about that. I don’t remember ever making any promises of that nature,” said Sullivan.

Dupont said she has contacted all of the 73 units in Mount St. Mary’s and said all are on board.

“We are going to fight this tooth and nail. We were promised one thing, and now we are getting something else. I’m really angry about this, angry that I am going to have to look at a Brady Sullivan slum everyday,” said Dupont.

John Deachman, an attorney for Brady Sullivan LLC, said he has met with residents several times and their input is critical to this plan. Deachman said there are several plans on the table, because they are looking at what the best option is.

“We want to find a project that meets as many goals as possible,” said Deachman.

As for the residents’ claims that sales staff deceived them, Deachman said he knows nothing about that.

“I don’t have any idea what they might have been promised because I wasn’t involved,” he said.

Joncas and Dupont said meetings with Brady Sullivan LLC representatives have been fruitless.

“We’ve yet to have a proper representative from Brady Sullivan come to a meeting at the building or the town. All we get is a Brady Sullivan lawyer that is quick to say he doesn’t know anything and an engineering team that takes notes but has yet to apply any of our suggestions,” said Joncas.

Engineers for Brady Sullivan LLC are preparing to go before the Technical Review Committee in September.

Although discussion of this plan began last fall, it’s still in the beginning stages, said Deachman.

“I think it’s shameful what Brady Sullivan is doing here and elsewhere. The beauty of one of Hooksett’s most historic pieces is at stake for greed. This new building, given its sandwiched location, will become a slum. I think if the town of Hooksett has any interest in preserving this area or dignity they’ll tell Brady Sullivan to get lost,” said Joncas.

Cell tower walk on Aug. 6

Hooksett Editor — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:58:00 GMT

BY SUSAN WARE

The Hooksett Zoning Board of Adjustment has scheduled a public site walk for Monday, Aug. 6, at 5:30 p.m., and has requested that Omnipoint Communications/T-Mobile fly a red balloon at the height of the proposed cell tower during the walk so neighbors can see the actual height. The board is meeting in front of the residence at 305 Bicentennial Drive.

The wireless carrier was represented at the Hooksett Zoning Board of Adjustment on Tuesday, July 17, seeking variances to allow the tower to be built at 305 Bicentennial Drive, in a medium-density residential district and to forgive rear and side setbacks. More than 75 people who live near the proposed site turned out for the hearing.

Tracy Murphy Roche, chairman of the board, told the applicant several times the application was incomplete. In addition to the site walk, she requested an independent study on what the cell tower will do to neighbors’ property values and a complete list of cell towers in New Hampshire, cell towers within a two-mile range of the state’s border, complete with exact location, height and design.

As part of the variance application, a list of alternative sites was provided by the wireless carrier. Other less suitable options included the Southern New Hampshire University campus and Livingston Park in Manchester. Omnipoint Communications/T-Mobile is scheduled to appear again Sept. 11.

New Head’s Pond road plan

Hooksett Editor — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:55:00 GMT

BY SUSAN WARE

Manchester Sand and Gravel presented the town with a new plan for Head’s Pond that includes almost 100 fewer homes, but landlocks the future school site and leaves the town on the hook for most of the cost of the proposed bypass roadway.

In a meeting with the Planning Board, Conservation Commission and the Zoning Board of Adjustment on July 23, David Campbell, attorney for Manchester Sand and Gravel, told the boards that the roadway may not even get state permitting because it has too many environmental issues, said Joanne Duffy, administrator for the Planning Board.

“They said they are committed to this plan and are moving forward with it. They want to submit to the Planning Board by December,” said Duffy.

The plan did not sit well with the boards, she said. The proposed future school site, which has to be approved by the school district and the developer, is not suitable to the school district because there is no access, said Duffy.

Additionally, Manchester Sand and Gravel now wants to build less of the roadway than originally promised. At an estimated cost of $740 per linear foot, that could leave the Hooksett taxpayers with a bill in the millions.

“If the bypass road was ever to be built, funds would have to be allocated at Town Meeting,” said Duffy.

The original 4-mile bypass roadway is planned to stretch between Route 3 near the Allenstown line and pass through Manchester Sand and Gravel’s property heading south. It would cross over Route 3 and end near Southern New Hampshire University and the Martin’s Ferry Cemetery at Exit 9 on Route 93.

The bypass road would be a limited access roadway, meaning that there would be a limited amount of curb cuts. It would enable travelers to bypass all of the Route 3 congestion easily, said Duffy.

The plan once called for an 18-hole golf course, but that was scrapped in order to make entrance adjustments to the development.

The new plan calls for 428 homes, a drop from the 530 originally planned.

While the golf course is gone, there is still a planned community with a common complete with gazebo, and conservation land with the potential for an Audubon bird sanctuary.

An additional plan, which includes homes and a shopping center, is slated to be presented to the board in the fall, said Duffy.

A second meeting between the boards and Manchester Sand and Gravel has not been set, but Duffy expects it to take place in September.