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

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.