Hooksett ZBA approves six-home plan at 35 Edgewater Drive with age restriction and septic, setback relief

Hooksett — The Hooksett Zoning Board of Adjustment on a series of motions approved variances that clear the way for a six-home residential development at 35 Edgewater Drive, granting (1) a use variance to allow single-family residential units in a commercially zoned parcel, (2) relief from the front-setback requirements for six structures, and (3) a variance for placement of six septic tanks and associated piping. The board attached voluntary, recordable conditions the applicants offered: age restriction (55+), deed or association covenants that prevent later enlargement of the houses beyond the submitted plans, and a prohibition on rentals of less than 30 days. Vote tallies recorded by the board were: use variance — approved 5–0; setback variance — approved 4–1; septic variance — approved 5–0.

Why it matters: the approvals change what had been a commercially zoned parcel along the Merrimack River into a small residential cluster and resolve several technical limits related to water setbacks, septic placement and narrow Edgewater Drive. Neighbors pressed concerns about density, flood risk, wells and traffic; applicants said the revised plan reduces impact compared with a previously approved wedding-venue plan.

What the board decided and what the applicants proposed The applicant team — represented in the hearing by Brent Cole (Granite Engineering), with Paul Scarpetti, John Cronin and Ken Scarpetti present — told the board they revised an earlier seven-unit plan down to six units and added voluntary protections. The record shows the applicants offered to: reduce the unit count from seven to six; make the development age-restricted (55 and older) through deed covenants and homeowners-association rules; prohibit short-term rentals under 30 days in the chain of title; and record covenants preventing enlargement of the submitted house plans.

The board considered three separate variance applications filed as part of the same project. The principal technical facts presented at the hearing include: - Zoning/setbacks: the commercial zoning on the waterfront carries a 50-foot front setback; the applicants sought relief to allow structures with as little as 17 feet to the foundation and 11 feet to a porch eave in several locations along Edgewater Drive. - Septic and wastewater: the project proposes six individual septic tanks and associated piping. The applicant contrasted the new plan’s estimated sewage generation (about 750 gallons per day for six small, mostly two-bedroom, 55+ homes) with an earlier, approved wedding-venue plan that was sized at roughly 1,700 gallons per day. The applicants said DES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services) review and approval would be required for any septic design. - Road and drainage work: the applicants offered to reconstruct and crown more than 400 feet of Edgewater Drive adjacent to the site to improve drainage, maintain the existing narrow roadway width (described in testimony as approximately 18 feet), and treat stormwater from roofs and new impervious surfaces rather than allowing direct discharge to the river as alleged for the prior condition on the property. - Parking and driveway dimensions: the design shows one-car garages and single-car driveways on lots (shortest driveway dimension described around 20–22 feet), plus two visitor parking spaces in a common lot across the street.

Public comment and concerns Several abutters and nearby residents spoke at the public hearing. Jason Hyde (36 Edgewater Drive), who identified himself as an abutter and as having attended the site visit, objected to the scale and setbacks, saying the requested relief would “change the nature of the neighborhood” and raising concerns about whether structures previously on the property should be counted in impervious-area calculations. He also said the site floods in heavy storms and questioned the long-term effects of six wells drawing from the same aquifer.

Other nearby residents, including Robert Duhaime and Roger Duham, raised similar worries about neighborhood character, septic systems in low-lying riverfront areas, and traffic on the narrow road. Another nearby resident, however, said the houses are small and likely to sell given riverfront demand and said some development of the lot was inevitable.

Applicant response and technical clarifications Applicant representatives and one of the Scarpetti principals told the board they had marketed the property for a wedding venue and spent time trying to find a buyer for that use; they said the venue option proved not viable and the residential plan is less intensive in several measures. The applicants and their engineer provided the following clarifications in testimony: - The revised six-home plan reduces daily septic flow relative to the earlier wedding-venue plan (applicants stated 750 gpd vs the prior 1,700 gpd figure presented to DES). - The proposal includes stormwater controls that did not exist when the property functioned as a junk yard; roof runoff and impervious areas would be treated rather than discharged directly to the river, and any DES shoreland/alteration-of-terrain permitting would be required. - The applicants said the buildable area is constrained by the lot shape, the railroad alignment, the river, and a public or private right-of-way; they argued those constraints support a finding of hardship if the board grants variances.

Board’s findings and conditions Board members discussed whether converting the commercially zoned parcel to residential would alter neighborhood character, public safety concerns on the narrow road, and the comparative impact of what could be built by right under commercial zoning. The board’s deliberations referenced an appraiser’s report submitted by the applicant (noted in the transcript as a report by Mark McKeon/McCann) that concluded the project would not impair surrounding property values. During deliberation the board recorded written findings that the proposal is not contrary to the public interest, that substantial justice would be served by allowing a residential use on a commercially zoned parcel that is otherwise surrounded by residential development, and that unique site conditions limit strict compliance with the frontage and setback provisions.

The board approved the variances with these on-record conditions (applicants volunteered most of these and the board noted them in motions): - Age restriction: the development will be restricted to residents 55 and older (documented in deed/HOA covenants). - Building-size cap: the submitted house plans and sizes will be preserved in covenants and structures may not be enlarged beyond the recorded plan without return to the board. - Short-term rental prohibition: no rentals of less than 30 days will be allowed; this restriction will be recorded in association documents/chain of title. - Subject to DES review and approvals for any septic or shoreland permits.

Formal actions (summary) - Motion (Z25-07): variance from Article 10, Section B to allow residential use in a commercial zone; motion approved, tally 5–0. Conditions: 55+ age restriction, recorded covenant limiting building sizes, prohibition on rentals under 30 days. - Motion (Z25-08): variance from Article 10, Section D1 to allow six structures with front setbacks down to 17 feet (11 feet to porch eave) where 50 feet is required; motion approved, tally 4–1. - Motion (Z25-09): variance from Article 3, Section E1 to permit six septic tanks and associated piping in locations closer to the water body and property lines than the standard provisions allow, subject to DES permitting; motion approved, tally 5–0.

What comes next The approvals allow the project to proceed to final engineering and state permitting. The applicants and town staff noted that DES and any other state or municipal permits (shoreland protection/alteration-of-terrain and septic approvals) are required before construction or septic installation can proceed. The board’s approval does not itself approve final septic system designs, drainage plans, or construction details; those remain subject to required agency reviews and building permits.

Who spoke (selected) Speakers on the record included Brent Cole (engineer for Granite Engineering); Paul and Ken Scarpetti and John Cronin (project representatives); abutters Jason Hyde, Robert Duhaime, and Roger Duham; Kent Scarpetti (owner/developer); members of the Hooksett Zoning Board of Adjustment; and staff. Several members of the public attended the sitewalk and prior sidewalk/site visit was referenced during testimony.

Notes on the record The board’s transcript shows extended debate over the reasonableness of converting a commercially zoned parcel to residential, whether previously existing structures should be credited in impervious-area calculations, concerns about groundwater/well capacity, and the relative impacts of the prior approved wedding venue compared with the smaller, six-home residential option. The applicants repeatedly emphasized DES oversight and state permitting for septic and shoreland protections would control final engineering choices.