The Hooksett Zoning Board of Adjustment on the evening of the meeting approved two special-exception applications to allow wetland fill behind a proposed single-tunnel car wash at 1317 and 1319 Hooksett Road.

Engineer Chris York of GPI described the project as a roughly 5,000-square-foot single-tunnel car wash reused on the existing auto wholesaler site, with three pay lanes, 24–25 vacuum stalls in front and a bypass lane that doubles as a 20-foot fire access. He told the board the proposal would remove over an acre of impervious pavement, reroute a manmade drainage swale into a 36-inch culvert with riprap, and that runoff currently routed to a town catch basin would continue to discharge to the town drainage system after installation of a stormwater treatment system. York said the project proposed 965 square feet of wetland impact split between the two lots, and that the applicant had preliminary signoff from the Planning and Conservation commissions and had filed an application with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.

The board accepted York’s engineering testimony and read the applicant’s written findings for a special exception under Article 18, Sec. E(1)(a) of the zoning ordinance, which state the fill will be replaced by a 36-inch culvert to continue runoff to the town system and assert the limited wetland impact would not change existing drainage patterns or harm adjacent properties.

Public commenters pressed the applicant on noise and downstream wetland effects. A neighbor identifying himself as a resident of Virginia Court said he was concerned about noise from free vacuums and blowers and asked whether any independent decibel study had been done. attorney Arien Overbach, representing Tony Crawford and Circle Team Management, questioned whether removal of more than an acre of pavement could change the character of runoff and asked whether town environmental review had fully considered whether newly vegetated areas could shift and expand wetland boundaries. Applicant Frank Doherty of Washville responded that interior wash water is routed to on‑site reclaim tanks and then to the sewer through an oil-water separator, while exterior runoff will be treated in two stormwater detention systems before discharge to the town system. Doherty said detailed noise and operational-hour questions are typically addressed in the Planning Board review and noted the application lists operating hours as Monday–Saturday 7:30 a.m.–7:00 p.m. and Sunday 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.

Board discussion emphasized that the flagged wetland along the back of the property is manmade, that fill would be limited and routed through pipe, and that the removal of pavement could improve water quality if treated with stormwater basins. The board first found both applications (Z25‑16 and Z25‑17) to have no regional impact. After reviewing the special-exception criteria, the board adopted findings that the site is appropriate for the commercial use, that drainage patterns would be maintained or improved, and that the requested fill would not impair the character of the district. The board voted to approve each application; the roll call vote was not recorded by name, but the board announced the motions carried and recorded unanimous favorable voice votes of the members present.

The approvals are conditioned on the project’s engineering commitments as presented: the 36-inch culvert where wetlands will be filled, the use of stormwater treatment basins for exterior runoff, and compliance with any DES and DOT permit comments. The applicant said any DES comments will be addressed as part of permit review. The project remains subject to Planning Board site-plan review and any remaining agency permits.

Why this matters: the approvals allow a commercial use to proceed on two lots where a manmade drainage swale has been treated as wetland. Neighbors’ concerns about noise and whether removal of pavement could change wetland extent were raised and will be considered further in downstream Planning Board processes and state permitting; the ZBA approvals addressed only the wetland-fill special-exception criteria under Hooksett’s zoning ordinance.