[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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],{"_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",6525500,"mediaKeyId","3401992-6fa30beb8c86b8c15d4f78369a7a84e2","parentId",3401992,"title","Hooksett planners favorable to residential concept for 1143 Hooksett Road; developer seeks permission to build eight condos","audioSeconds",1352,"startMs",81470,"endMs",1434000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3401992-6fa30beb8c86b8c15d4f78369a7a84e2&start=81&end=1434","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3401992-6fa30beb8c86b8c15d4f78369a7a84e2/thumbnail_81470.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6525500/Hooksett/Merrimack-County/New-Hampshire/Hooksett-planners-favorable-to-residential-concept-for-1143-Hooksett-Road-developer-seeks-permission-to-build-eight-condos","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6525500-2b9f1c949dd78c6ed465b622e7dffc60/orig.mp4?Expires=1775652583&Signature=ANfTRkNwa~guaWDM1l3eEpThgp72~yXXcIRaU5iu175p9eo3fWWIputpEREnzikVvd0Yc9TpZjTneQsF2-Fhi4-0cxMN2cGdQ6hMhpDe1Lv5VcepoeYV1uqyAGrmby9zb~v4EYI5WFyBqkiBWbR-iB~-FnMgKNXxwLKQoQCruSjJIAQu6NIw7OYIprSte7egKkCmbWdeYoLOzPD4HynqAzxuFsQ~NwHE1aKDJgdcBvMXCC6QVknQG6BKtwxdNV3Hr~4mXOWTwMzHqInSoVl44Ly8xg7lO5rbqdVHWFNXDSWvC2f8oNxVKB5lSTnHVVgCINPP089jQt-UhSsSKUCjxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Hooksett","date","2025-05-19T00:00:00Z","article","The Hooksett Planning Board on Monday discussed a conceptual site plan from Genesis Systems LLC for an eight‑unit condominium at 1143 Hooksett Road, a 1.3‑acre parcel now zoned as a performance (commercial/industrial) zone.

Developer Jay Arhol, owner of Genesis Systems, told the board the plan would remove the Hooksett Road driveway and rely on a single access from Mammoth Road, include a fire‑truck turnaround, provide two parking spaces per unit (one in a garage and one in a driveway) and add about eight visitor spaces. “The site's proposed for an 8 unit multi family condominium residential,” Arhol said as he summarized the concept.

Board members framed the discussion as a conceptual review rather than a formal application. The nut graf: Planning board members said the proposed residential use is consistent with surrounding development and gave the developer a green light to pursue formal engineering and waiver requests, but they raised design, grading and landscaping questions the applicant must resolve in subsequent submissions.

Most members said the site, though in a performance zone, is surrounded on three sides by residential uses and that the town has allowed similar residential conversions nearby. “I have no problem with residential. I like it much better than trying to put the garages in there,” Council Representative Jim Sullivan said. Several members referenced an approved nearby Park Place project and other precedent along Mammoth Road.

Discussion focused on a handful of technical and design matters the applicant must address in an eventual formal submission: how to handle the site's steep grade (the developer described terracing with roughly 1–2 feet of separation between units), retention and stormwater management, potential retaining walls on the west side, vehicular turning and fire access, and the visual treatment of units facing Mammoth Road. Board members encouraged the developer to reduce the number of Hooksett Road curb cuts and to design the Mammoth Road facade so the complex reads as attractive residential development rather than as the exposed end of a unit.

Board member Paul Scarpetti recommended the developer consider reorienting some buildings or using two‑ or three‑unit buildings to reduce the need for costly retaining structures. “By the time you build a retention wall, I personally my feeling is I would rather see 2, 3 unit buildings on this property,” Scarpetti said, describing one layout that would better follow the natural grade.

Engineer/consultant Joe Wickert — speaking about alternate layouts evaluated by the team — said the applicant had examined crosswise layouts and other options. “We've looked at going crosswise just because that was how the commercial layout went,” Wickert said; he added the team will do more engineering to decide the best layout once the board is comfortable with residential use and density.

On density, Arhol said the eight‑unit proposal equals roughly 6 units per acre on the 1.3‑acre lot, about half the density of the adjacent high‑density parcel and between two recently approved nearby projects in scale. Board members said they were comfortable conceptually with a density in the 6–8 unit range but that final unit count would depend on engineering results and on how the design addresses grade, buffers and landscaping.

The board did not take any formal vote; members characterized the discussion as conceptual only and told the applicant to return with engineering, waiver requests (including permission to allow residential use in the performance zone and the requested density) and more detailed elevations and landscaping. Arhol said the team will pursue engineering and return with a formal application. “If we know those 2 answers we can spend more time and money on the design,” he said.

What happens next: the developer will prepare a formal site plan application and any waivers for review. The board repeatedly stressed that any future formal application must show adequate stormwater management, fire access, and landscaping, and that the Mammoth Road elevation should present a pleasing streetscape.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Hooksett - Planning Board - May 19, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Hooksett Planning Board on Monday discussed a conceptual site plan from Genesis Systems LLC for an eight‑unit condominium at 1143 Hooksett Road, a 1.3‑acre parcel now zoned as a performance (commercial/industrial) zone.","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},6525496,"Planning board approves conditions for commercial site plan at 51 Londonderry Turnpike; waivers and impact fees authorized",3493,1520880,5014730,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3401992-6fa30beb8c86b8c15d4f78369a7a84e2&start=1520&end=5014","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3401992-6fa30beb8c86b8c15d4f78369a7a84e2/thumbnail_1520880.jpg","/articles/6525496/Hooksett/Merrimack-County/New-Hampshire/Planning-board-approves-conditions-for-commercial-site-plan-at-51-Londonderry-Turnpike-waivers-and-impact-fees-authorized","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6525496-642e748cbfb11f18a6858671a1035cd4/orig.mp4?Expires=1775652583&Signature=Tc0I-OcG6YV8CSIu68M3smbR1tf29zYFKcAceLGP5L3wGSGOlWiY4hQVjZKn8g6whnurENZ88uKs0nCw8ZLrogrVrDp5G8IdWjzTwz7DSCODbK2n07drnVM8P66eGSCOE-gHFdTqdLNKkrCTZd47y0HERCAT9sK-4AgxJYmWnCFPO6EZzVcQHIqgxiHxiaPGqOYTUovxs~O~k4VjuqPkKucwps1mAIJ--~POChnQ7EPtn4Tg4JM40PWnDRcp5Bulw4ECeQKykToRnYy8cn2hGJqC9wI1-FY3NBIFItzJIrTJS9-ZLxcJ3PmJ1cu2gr29F~jQOEZGdsqhP6NHhMVmIw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Hooksett Planning Board on Monday granted approval, with conditions, for a commercial site plan at 51 Londonderry Turnpike and approved related waivers and impact fees.

The applicant, identified in the board's motion as Kurchinski, brought photos and an updated site plan showing tree and debris removal, new siding on a portion of the building, new roof elements and proposed snow‑storage areas. Town staff reported the applicant had submitted a revised plan showing snow storage, a note confirming the absence of wetlands, and photos of new siding and window repairs.

The board granted three waivers the applicant requested: a waiver of four parking spaces (relating to parking in front of existing loading doors), a waiver from the requirement to submit a formal lighting plan, and a waiver from some landscaping design criteria. The board voted in favor of each waiver during the meeting.

Under the site plan approval the board also assessed impact fees for traffic and public safety totaling $17,008.59; the applicant did not request an impact‑fee waiver. The board approved the site plan under RSA 674 statutory authority, with conditions addressing building appearance, paving and timing of exterior improvements.

Several board members said the property had been an eyesore and that the submitted cleanup and siding work represented a marked improvement. Town planner staff confirmed the commercial architectural standards apply to new buildings or exterior structural improvements; the applicant told the board the recent siding and roofing work addressed leaking and would be followed by coordinated color and material changes to the visible front portion of the building.

Conditions and timing the board set during the approval include: (1) finish specified front facade improvements (wrap the new siding and remove/replace the red sign area) before a certificate of occupancy (the board set 90 days as the timeline discussed for immediate front work where practical); (2) complete the remaining exterior painting and coordinated siding updates across the building within one year of certificate of occupancy; and (3) repave the parking lot within two years of certificate of occupancy. The board also recorded that certain overhead doors at the side of the building would be retained as loading bays and that parking in front of those doors would be removed; the earlier waiver removed four parking spaces in those locations.

Planning Board members discussed additional details the applicant agreed to address: coordinate final lighting with the code‑enforcement officer (Dana), remove graffiti and clean the foundation areas, replace or update the roadside sign, and clean or replace tree and stump areas in front of the site. Board member Sheena Gilbert asked that the front elevation be made visually consistent with the new siding and that the painted ramp area be done in a neutral trim color, such as a beige, rather than leave bright yellow paint.

The board also adopted findings of fact and accepted jurisdiction for the application and found there was no regional impact under the RSA standard for this project. As part of the approval the board required the applicant to submit signed site‑plan copies for recording and to coordinate permits with the town's building official after plan signatures were in place.

What this means: Kurchinski's site plan is approved subject to the listed conditions and timelines; the applicant may begin certain exterior cleanup and painting work now but must complete the front facade adjustments before a certificate of occupancy and satisfy the one‑year and two‑year timelines the board set for full exterior painting and paving, respectively. The board will require plan signatures to release permits and noted compliance will be enforced through the usual permitting and inspection process.","The Hooksett Planning Board on Monday granted approval, with conditions, for a commercial site plan at 51 Londonderry Turnpike and approved related waivers and impact fees.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Hooksett planners favorable to residential concept for 1143 Hooksett Road; developer seeks permission to build eight condos

Planning board approves conditions for commercial site plan at 51 Londonderry Turnpike; waivers and impact fees authorized