OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Planning Board Meeting - January 12, 2026

Town Council & Boards — Monday, January 12, 2026
BodyHooksett, New Hampshire
SessionTown Council & Boards
DateMonday, January 12, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:00:07

Transcript — Verbatim
0:11

Members please introduce themselves.

0:13

Jim Sullen, Council Rem.

0:14

Mike Summers.

0:16

David Russell.

0:17

Jared Williams.

0:19

Okay.

0:25

Any comments?

0:26

Uh motion approved.

0:28

Mr.

0:28

Chairman, if I like to I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes as presented.

0:32

Okay, motion from Jim do I have a second.

0:34

I'll second it.

0:34

Second from Jared.

0:35

Are there any comments, corrections, discussion?

0:39

I just had two points.

0:41

They're both editorial.

0:43

Line 428, I had listed on the agenda.

0:47

A find exactly what it was.

0:57

It should be written as 1008.04.

1:03

Table 1008-2.

1:07

I had listed it as 1008.08.

1:12

Table 1008-02.

1:16

So the um the first number in that should just be changed to read 1008.04.

1:28

104.

1:28

Okay.

1:29

We'll accept that correction.

1:30

And on line 529, Kate Rode is with the C and not a K.

1:35

But that's that's all I had.

1:37

Nice.

1:40

And Jared, did you have anything?

1:42

Yeah.

1:43

Okay.

1:44

Anything else?

1:46

All right.

1:46

So assuming the motion is uh to adopt the minutes as amended.

1:52

Uh any further discussion?

1:54

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

1:56

Aye.

1:56

Aye.

1:57

Any opposed?

1:58

Motion carries.

2:00

Okay.

2:01

Grant, what are we doing next?

2:04

Uh first thing is on the agenda is the design review phase.

2:08

Um so this is something that I had brought up, I believe, in relation to the two College Park Drive conceptual discussions back in 2025, um, where this is the concept where abutters would be able to attend a meeting prior to the planning board accepting it for their review formally.

2:25

It would just be a preliminary review.

2:27

Um and our regulations currently only allow for the um less specific um preliminary review, which I guess is called a preliminary consultation or conceptual consultation.

2:41

Um but usually the board goes beyond that and does discuss more technical things um at concept discussion, so really the abutter should be notified by the board's practice.

2:52

Um and I had even referenced that we should notify the abutters for I think the third conceptual discussion with two college park drive and um their attorney pointed out to me that we didn't provide for that in our regulations, and I think he's he's right.

3:06

Um so what I put in the packet was a sample from dairy what's in their regulations regarding this.

3:13

Um and my thought was that the board could wave um, I guess either the less specific or more specific um form of preliminary review on a simple application.

3:27

Um but if we wrote it into the regulations to where it's stated as a requirement, that would be I think a good thing because there's a lot of pressure, it seems like that the abutters feel, um, and maybe that the board feels when we're pushing the 65 day window.

3:43

Um and we do a good job.

3:45

I think the board does a good job of um meeting the abutters' concerns to the best of their ability, but I think it would be a lot easier if we did that before the clock was running.

3:54

Um I pretty much with a few edits, copied and pasted the concept anyway from Dairy's regulations.

4:06

And there were a couple of things that dairy did, which I thought might be going above what the RSA allows for, which was in one case they say that a design review could be binding, but none of these concept discussions can be binding, so I removed that.

4:22

And then there's a section that's highlighted in the I think it's subsection F and what would be our design review rules if we ever adopted these.

4:32

Um which says the planning board can discuss the character of the area, existing requirements of the community and the best use of land to be developed or subdivided.

4:43

I mean, I I guess we could discuss that, but it it seems like it's going above the technical details, which is the primary point of this review.

4:53

But besides that, I I thought that dairy has a pretty good layout for getting things in order prior to accepting plans under the board's jurisdiction.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use██████████████████████████████████████████42%
Procedural█████████████████████████25%
Code Enforcement███████████11%
Public Engagement██████6%
Wetlands Management██████6%
Water And Wastewater Management████4%
Education Funding████4%
Affordable Housing██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Planning Board Meeting - January 12, 2026

The Hooksett Planning Board met on January 12, 2026, to discuss regulatory amendments, property compliance issues, and administrative updates. Key topics included a proposed design review phase for development applications, site plan enforcement tracking, updates on several properties, school impact fees, and the schedule for upcoming meetings.

Consent Calendar

  • Motion to approve the minutes of the previous meeting as amended (editorial corrections: line 428 reference changed to 1008.04 Table 1008-2; line 529 name spelling corrected to Kate Rode). Approved unanimously.

Discussion Items

  • Design Review Phase Regulations: Planner Grant proposed adding a formal design review phase to the regulations, allowing abutter notification and optional public comment before the 65-day clock starts. The board discussed making it optional, defaulting to design review for larger projects, and allowing public comment at the board's discretion. The regulations will be sent to legal for review, with a public hearing targeted for February 2 or March.
  • Fire Hydrant Notation: The fire department requested a notation on site plans indicating whether a hydrant is public or private, due to fee implications for the fire department. Grant will add this to the development regulations.
  • Site Plan Compliance Tracking: Grant introduced a rolling Excel spreadsheet to track site plan violations and compliance issues. Board members can raise items during planner updates; building permit/violation questions should go through the community development department. The board may request other staff appearances with clear questions and copy the town administrator.
  • 3 Kate Road Update: The applicant is aware the site plan remains unsigned due to unfulfilled conditions (landscaping, building color). Operational issues (stockpiling outside approved areas) may require an amended site plan. The board noted the decision was issued May 10, 2024.
  • 35 Edgewater Drive: A UDO development submitted for the February 2 meeting. Variances obtained for density and multiple single-family structures. Plans show small homes (less than 1,000 sq ft footprint), boat parking, and no age restriction.
  • Jersey Mike's (adjacent to Dunkin'): The tenant expressed interest in converting approved retail space to a restaurant. A parking peak-hour comparison will need to be submitted to determine if planning board approval is needed.
  • School Impact Fees for 2 College Park Drive: Attorney Cronin submitted a letter regarding an objection to school impact fees. The board discussed that impact fee collection requires specific capital improvement projects identified by the school board. Board member Jim (also a school board member) will request a detailed breakdown from the superintendent.
  • Hag Hill Site Walk: Scheduled for January 17 at 10:00 AM, focused on wetland restoration. Board will restrict observations to wetlands; photos can be discussed at the next meeting.
  • Labor Day Meeting: The calendar shows a meeting on September 7, 2026 (Labor Day). The board will adjust the schedule when adopting the new calendar in July.
  • Park Place Townhouses Inquiry: Research indicates the development was approved as apartments, not condominiums. Selling units would require condominium subdivision approval.

Key Outcomes

  • The design review phase regulations will be sent to legal for review and scheduled for a public hearing. The board supported an optional design review with abutter notification and public comment at its discretion.
  • A rolling site plan compliance tracking spreadsheet will be maintained and updated at each meeting.
  • The board will formally request the school board provide a detailed CIP project breakdown to support impact fee collection.
  • The meeting schedule will be adjusted to remove the September 7, 2026 meeting.
  • Updates on 3 Kate Road, 35 Edgewater Drive, and the Jersey Mike's proposal will be monitored.

Meeting Transcript

Members please introduce themselves. Jim Sullen, Council Rem. Mike Summers. David Russell. Jared Williams. Okay. Any comments? Uh motion approved. Mr. Chairman, if I like to I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Okay, motion from Jim do I have a second. I'll second it. Second from Jared. Are there any comments, corrections, discussion? I just had two points. They're both editorial. Line 428, I had listed on the agenda. A find exactly what it was. It should be written as 1008.04. Table 1008-2. I had listed it as 1008.08. Table 1008-02. So the um the first number in that should just be changed to read 1008.04. 104. Okay. We'll accept that correction. And on line 529, Kate Rode is with the C and not a K. But that's that's all I had. Nice. And Jared, did you have anything? Yeah. Okay. Anything else? All right. So assuming the motion is uh to adopt the minutes as amended. Uh any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Grant, what are we doing next? Uh first thing is on the agenda is the design review phase. Um so this is something that I had brought up, I believe, in relation to the two College Park Drive conceptual discussions back in 2025, um, where this is the concept where abutters would be able to attend a meeting prior to the planning board accepting it for their review formally. It would just be a preliminary review. Um and our regulations currently only allow for the um less specific um preliminary review, which I guess is called a preliminary consultation or conceptual consultation. Um but usually the board goes beyond that and does discuss more technical things um at concept discussion, so really the abutter should be notified by the board's practice. Um and I had even referenced that we should notify the abutters for I think the third conceptual discussion with two college park drive and um their attorney pointed out to me that we didn't provide for that in our regulations, and I think he's he's right. Um so what I put in the packet was a sample from dairy what's in their regulations regarding this.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com