[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6427005,"mediaKeyId","5899051-7efa514e963200d357637bb9b843b14b","parentId",5899051,"title","Board approves minor subdivision at 60 Pleasant Street; approves waivers and impact fees","audioSeconds",998,"startMs",2050000,"endMs",3048000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5899051-7efa514e963200d357637bb9b843b14b&start=2050&end=3048","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5899051-7efa514e963200d357637bb9b843b14b/thumbnail_2050000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6427005/Hooksett/Merrimack-County/New-Hampshire/Board-approves-minor-subdivision-at-60-Pleasant-Street-approves-waivers-and-impact-fees","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6427005-744cf5f908e75b6c6ec57d33a2becb9c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770987135&Signature=Q6mNUGrqrochn-sE6nl085ksxGESqnOEO20o0T4kUpq-NdxcKcJFOnWXixd5JxsfANtg7frB-ilCoMMqa-F6eBeLeZ60HjsW2xJR7w0oJeeFPU36FJCwZc-fPT3ZsGbcMlwxT1I6dpXXGVf6n8GsOEcKrsy-sq2q7h~K~rNP5s9OcE0-396jalkIn9NdHcdiiEys-fAj55njITRlfO66AxNMjiuclPYsx4bgCJnGO0DjJFJ9Bh6HedBpN~VBJXjYbjaCMIt0wuHyrrce0z7sDmjOXEp19149tjT2zYgK-SSlQJfyzzuCZx2uS8mE4YhHIb6Gb~Qetyqs4CdVsQBvkA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Hooksett","date","2025-10-06T00:00:00Z","article","The Hooksett Planning Board approved a minor subdivision that divides 60 Pleasant Street (Map 1, Lot 22) into two lots and established conditions and impact fees for recording and issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

Applicants described a 1.5‑acre lot being carved out to preserve an existing house and a second parcel intended for a new dwelling. The application includes a shared driveway, existing potable water served by Pembroke Water Works and private septic, and a wetlands delineation limited to the areas needed to confirm setbacks for the new lot. The surveyor said the parcel had historic farm uses and some features (stone wall and an old railroad tie) that guided the proposed driveway location.

After accepting jurisdiction the board considered whether the proposal had regional impact under RSA 36:56 and concluded that no regional impact requiring intermunicipal notification was necessary. The board granted waivers from the requirement to delineate wetlands across the entire parcel and from soils mapping (development regulation checklist items) because the locations of the proposed house and septic avoid the mapped wetlands and the parcel’s size and services limit the practical need to complete full soils mapping on the entire 17‑acre remainder.

The board approved the findings of fact and voted to apply town impact fees for public safety, recreation and traffic, which the clerk recorded as totaling $3,441. The final approval motion, made after deliberation, included standard conditions and a list of post‑approval items and was recorded by the planning department with conditions prior to recording and occupancy.

The applicant said the new house footprint will be located near the previous house that burned in 2011 and that Pembroke Water Works had provided a letter confirming the presence of a metered pit; the applicant expects to excavate that meter pit and run a new service line rather than extend a new line from Pleasant Street unless instructed otherwise by Pembroke Water Works. The board required monuments and property corners needed for recordation, and staff noted the new driveway location meets the town’s driveway separation requirements from the intersection.

There was no public opposition at the hearing. Board members and staff reviewed certificate of occupancy requirements and the applicant thanked town staff and departments for a year of assistance in preparing the application.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Board","oneSentenceSummary","The Hooksett Planning Board approved a two‑lot minor subdivision at 60 Pleasant Street, accepting jurisdiction, granting two waivers, finding no regional impact, imposing impact fees of $3,441 and approving conditions for recording.","taxTitle","Hooksett, Merrimack County , New Hampshire","taxId",68560,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6427013,"Hooksett planning board approves amended SNHU athletic-complex landscaping, exempts 11-tree requirement",1891,127000,2018000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5899051-7efa514e963200d357637bb9b843b14b&start=127&end=2018","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5899051-7efa514e963200d357637bb9b843b14b/thumbnail_127000.jpg","/articles/6427013/Hooksett/Merrimack-County/New-Hampshire/Hooksett-planning-board-approves-amended-SNHU-athletic-complex-landscaping-exempts-11-tree-requirement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6427013-517a086d72a69e2a8d63d4ee73ac7b9c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770987135&Signature=hciTkvwwQrJhHKh-oqKB8wcIShAAyPn1PYFpPjADdzqZ-lOOY~f-mnETgSgMBYe4U7mEP7NERhT8NzVz8sPYNL7n-oFMHvaVURRFIjHNnnrMhMmJzBCk8uvVaTKDJN1HlCwFRnvsDvIPgw9iBrrANkxpkzDnPQ5ABkYT4O3Vvnh~zS0P74hlCDayD2-8wPtwlqTDd53RFnFXYCTABJEZs0gsg3n3G0OWEoCAkARUJRwaTdJKbQFIwCjIM0U5K2Cdti7aBgG3yaIxZhEbVG8Ros4M4J1jOdqxiIXiWUm3oqo7KrukNelUiZb~~mbuj66XAeW8gYWfTBhN~aq2bDzlbg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Hooksett Planning Board voted to approve an amended site plan and as‑built landscaping for Southern New Hampshire University’s athletic complex after staff and the university described an audit of what was planted versus the plan the town had originally signed.

The board’s action, made after a public hearing, accepted the university’s updated planting plan and an independent audit of existing conditions but removed one specific condition — that 11 trees in an interior parking island be replanted. The applicant said those trees had “suffocated themselves” and were intentionally removed; the board accepted an exemption for those 11 trees and approved the plan with the remaining conditions described in the staff draft.

The town planner told the board the original signed plan differed from other planting sets the university had on file; the approval reconciles the town’s record with the current “as planted” conditions and requires the applicant to meet the remaining conditions in the board motion.

During the hearing SNHU’s representative said the stadium was completed in 2018 and that a third‑party consultant produced the audit. Board members asked about several items flagged in the audit: missing parking‑lot trees, planting beds east of the main walkway, snow‑storage locations, and whether landscaping provided adequate light buffering at the tennis court area. The university said the grounds crew and its contractors routinely adjust plantings to accommodate maintenance, irrigation and survival of more native species and offered to submit photo documentation and follow up electronically for areas where board members expressed concern about lighting or bufferyard performance.

Board members also pressed for clarity about the parking‑island trees: the audit noted 11 of 13 trees were missing in a long narrow island, and staff said the university removed the original plantings after they failed. Some board members favored replanting a reduced number of more appropriate species; others said the island’s narrow dimension and exposure made replanting problematic. The applicant offered a site walk for board members to view the island in person, and the board accepted a plan to review the island on a future site visit rather than forcing a required replanting at this meeting.

The board’s motion approving the amended plan cited the Town of Hooksett development regulations and RSA 676:4 as the authorization for a commercial site plan approval. The motion was made by Jared Williams and seconded; the board voted in favor. The motion also noted that bond release (a separate town council action) would be handled by the town council; the planning board’s action pertained only to amending and approving the plan set on file.

The board did not set a new planting requirement for the 11‑tree island, explicitly exempting that item from the list of conditions after hearing members’ site‑specific concerns and the applicant’s explanation. The university committed to electronically submit supplemental photos and documentation addressing the small number of remaining items the board and staff flagged for follow up.

Public comment at the hearing was invited and none was offered. The board closed the public portion, accepted the report of the town planner, and voted to approve the amended plan subject to the stated conditions and the exemption for the 11 trees.

The board and applicant agreed to schedule a Wednesday site walk in the coming weeks for those members who want to inspect the specific parking‑island area before the town council considers bond release. That site visit will not substitute for the town council’s separate authority to release financial bonds held for the project.","The Hooksett Planning Board approved an amended as‑built landscape plan for Southern New Hampshire University’s athletic complex and cleared an amended site plan, exempting a previously required replanting of 11 trees after board discussion and a short site‑walk offer from the applicant.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6426998,"Board approves amended Eastpointe Drive plan for BDD Realty with waivers, landscaping changes and impact fees",3355,3290000,6645000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5899051-7efa514e963200d357637bb9b843b14b&start=3290&end=6645","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5899051-7efa514e963200d357637bb9b843b14b/thumbnail_3290000.jpg","/articles/6426998/Hooksett/Merrimack-County/New-Hampshire/Board-approves-amended-Eastpointe-Drive-plan-for-BDD-Realty-with-waivers-landscaping-changes-and-impact-fees","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6426998-a447dfe4cf73af767bf0d3685caea86c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770987135&Signature=HXr0YUtqOjL32CmMK~AKVSfvniiAAsAxdVTv~3C6PkxdZe5gGxUmufyNy8lZ7yWdxA0I~7XdyQoao87U7kizfcdbVZ~wCqFlUaBUDyYGJ3p5jsReNQ8cvAQH5d-S3bv0TVdvolsFSrGTeAg69DsD0HZXMWkmk9MUlafwn4Os4eF8bufNbqzBhUyIQFS9FNts6Bd-SQNSDE4DFaxDxKd9evxdElhF9Ph14dxoJJungqlc2lWblBBg7glwaeiy6Av7KeO5K1a31y-15-cg4pEmlSai7G4hj~Jatuuthg0XQZIttZ0KJ4wwv8NFFR8NEO2mHZ4gQKGxGP0XhE5v6XxYCQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Hooksett Planning Board approved an amended commercial site plan for two contractor‑unit buildings at 6 Eastpointe Drive (also listed as 59 Londonderry Turnpike). The applicant, BDD Realty LLC, revised the layout to accommodate updated stormwater and Department of Environmental Services (DES) requirements; the revised plan relocates and redesigns detention with a gravel‑wetland treatment area.

The proposal calls for two single‑story contractor buildings totaling 13 units (6 in Building 1; 7 in Building 2) with associated parking, access from the shared drive off Londonderry Turnpike and a new gravel‑wetland stormwater treatment area near the site fronting the bypass. The applicant said the previously permitted detention area had become functionally like a wetland in DES’s view; DES required the project to avoid direct disturbance to the jurisdictional area, so the applicant redesigned the stormwater approach into a gravel wetland and adjusted building orientations and grading to minimize wetland disturbance.

During the hearing the applicant’s engineer explained the revised drainage and treatment plan, that the site will be served by public water and natural gas, and that a proposed septic (pump) system will be permitted after local approvals. The plan shows proposed landscaping, a wildflower slope at the frontage in lieu of rip‑rap, and 14 new shade trees. Board members asked for additional winter screening and recommended adding some evergreen plantings to provide a year‑round visual buffer; the board required three additional evergreen trees and a swap of five proposed deciduous shrubs for evergreen shrubs in interior landscape pockets.

The board granted three waivers requested by the applicant: (1) site‑plan sheet consolidation requirement, (2) permit signage renderings to be provided at a later date, and (3) a waiver related to prior wetland fill restrictions where DES and the project engineer developed a mitigation approach. The board also approved the findings of fact.

The board voted to apply impact fees for public safety and recreation; during the meeting staff and legal counsel discussed removal of a Zone‑3 traffic fee that the town currently cannot apply. The meeting record shows an initial recorded impact fee total of $11,404.60 and the final approval motion documented a package of impact fees and conditions with an adjusted total reflected at $25,602.98 after the board and staff reconciled which fee categories applied and which traffic fees were not charged because of current town fee zone rules. The motion approving the final plan included the additional landscaping conditions (three evergreens and five evergreen shrubs in replacement), standard subsequent conditions, and a list of items to be completed prior to issuing certificates of occupancy.

The applicant and engineer said they expect the buildings may be constructed in a single phase but left phasing open in the approval. Board members also reviewed snow‑storage locations and septic tank siting; the applicant said snow would be piled in several designated areas and that the stormwater design (gravel wetland) will accept and treat snowmelt. The town planner and applicant agreed to coordinate final signage and landscape details before permit issuance.","The planning board approved an amended site plan for two new contractor buildings at 6 Eastpointe Drive (BDD Realty). The amendment, driven chiefly by revised stormwater and DES requirements, adds a gravel wetland detention feature; the board granted three waivers, required additional evergreen plantings, and approved conditions and impact fees.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6427003,"Hooksett continues hearing on 13 Morgan Drive daycare; board seeks legal counsel on nonconforming status and enrollment limits",2061,3117000,5178000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5899051-7efa514e963200d357637bb9b843b14b&start=3117&end=5178","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5899051-7efa514e963200d357637bb9b843b14b/thumbnail_3117000.jpg","/articles/6427003/Hooksett/Merrimack-County/New-Hampshire/Hooksett-continues-hearing-on-13-Morgan-Drive-daycare-board-seeks-legal-counsel-on-nonconforming-status-and-enrollment-limits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6427003-64d0446ddb25d16c08ffa9ea53c88bd8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770987135&Signature=FGb70RIxH7LGnU1LWAmsEcifXbYLvDcCIXyQBsK~R7Q9Mcg6emIOb5fE3utWw4W1lo0R-x-EA9Y6wj3xP7PqQp17iSfz9En9mkimfI2DENoxsb6jvwTZqOK2dQ1PtTZU~TWyCV23qMPNvzw~42HlHpGp5Vgb~1pZ~1aSwGia7Ezb73dcGuL7aFVKievfLEVjxem4G1AmD95GtT~v6D47Pn8IpTgyI1S3vRTplLqqZOdSlwU-~dh0-aYpnE9PyZu9T9YSwASHrPxhLHSzjmCebSQ6CVdcSc56VqLeyy0iQG9h7P~L02-B2ktiHmDrFFkmSh5LSvZgTAvCibOQOu7usQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Hooksett Planning Board continued the public hearing on the commercial site plan for the day‑care facility at 13 Morgan Drive after hearing concerns from neighbors about traffic, parking on lawns and trash pickup. The board voted to request written guidance from the town attorney on the facility’s legal nonconforming status and the effect of an ownership change on permitted enrollment, then continued the hearing to the board’s Oct. 20 meeting.

The owner, who operates the childcare at the address, told the board she has operated a licensed child‑care facility on the site since the late 1980s and described a series of approvals and field changes over the decades, including a past basement‑level start and later expansions. Neighbors said the operation has grown over the years, creating persistent traffic, curb lawn parking on pickup and drop‑off and occasional blocking of mailboxes and trash pickup. Several residents asked what would happen if the property were sold to a new owner — whether an ownership change would require the business to revert to a lower enrollment level permitted by planning‑board action decades ago.

Board members and staff reviewed the meeting record and suggested the facility’s status is “legal nonconforming” under current town code and that enforcement and licensing have also involved code‑enforcement and fire‑department actions over time. Several board members said the relevant documentation and earlier approvals should be reviewed by the town attorney to determine whether the existing enrollment the operator uses (and the state license that references capacity by square footage) would remain with the site after a change of ownership or would revert to a lower number that appears in older planning‑board minutes.

Neighborhood speakers, including a written comment from a resident who said parents routinely park on her lawn and block trash pickup, urged the board to consider restrictions on future enrollment and parking controls if a new owner purchases the site. Several speakers said the owner, who neighbors praised for years of accommodation, worked to mitigate impacts but that repeat short‑term and event‑day problems (for example, graduation or special events) had amplified concerns.

After discussion the board approved a motion to seek the town attorney’s opinion on the property’s planning status and the legal effect of ownership change on permitted enrollment and other conditions. The planning board also set the public hearing to continue on October 20 so the town attorney’s guidance can be considered and so abutters will not need separate notice beyond the board agenda.

The board emphasized that a legal opinion could take multiple forms — it might confirm that the current licensed capacity (documented with the state) stands, or it might advise the board that a change of ownership would require the site to revert to the earlier, lower planning‑board‑documented capacity. The town attorney’s written guidance will be circulated to the board and posted with meeting materials in advance of the continued hearing.","After lengthy public comment from nearby residents about traffic and parking, the Hooksett Planning Board continued its review of a long‑running daycare at 13 Morgan Drive and voted to seek town legal counsel before taking further action. The hearing was continued to Oct. 20 pending counsel guidance.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board approves minor subdivision at 60 Pleasant Street; approves waivers and impact fees

Hooksett planning board approves amended SNHU athletic-complex landscaping, exempts 11-tree requirement

Board approves amended Eastpointe Drive plan for BDD Realty with waivers, landscaping changes and impact fees

Hooksett continues hearing on 13 Morgan Drive daycare; board seeks legal counsel on nonconforming status and enrollment limits