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

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.