Hooksett council rejects proposed outdoor-dining ordinance after extensive public and council debate

The Hooksett Town Council on April 9 voted down a proposed outdoor-dining ordinance after lengthy public comment and detailed questions from councilors about insurance, permitting and enforcement.

The ordinance, drafted by a planning board–zoning board subcommittee and presented by town staff, would have allowed qualifying restaurants to obtain an administrative outdoor-dining permit instead of seeking a full planning-board amended site plan. Councilors asked whether the changes would actually streamline approvals, how insurance and liability would be handled, and how the town would enforce conditions. Resident Valerie Venas challenged the need for the ordinance and urged the council to consider the financial effect on local restaurants.

Why it matters: The proposal aimed to create a faster, administrative path for restaurants that want seasonal outdoor service. Supporters argued it would reduce cost and delay for businesses; critics said provisions were vague and could create new compliance burdens or uneven enforcement.

Grant, a town staff member who presented the subcommittee revisions, said the committee removed a prior requirement that the town be named as certificate holder on private insurance policies. Under the new draft, restaurants on private property would not need to list the town on their policies; the town would be named as additional insured only for outdoor dining on public property. "The subcommittee found that the requirement for the town to be named on private insurance policies was unnecessary," Grant said.

Town Administrator Andre Guerin explained the ordinance was intended to accommodate future businesses and to provide a predictable process: "If a new business were to come in tomorrow, the requirement would be that they meet the ordinance process, and it's actually designed such that it's actually going to make the process easier," he said.

Several councilors pressed staff to clarify operational details. Councilor Walzick questioned whether the ordinance would change how indoor and outdoor capacity are treated; staff said the draft does not change building-occupancy limits but allows separate authorization for outdoor seating. Councilor LaPierre and others asked whether routine items—trash cans, napkin dispensers or extension cords—would need daily removal or special approvals; the ordinance requires outdoor areas be cleared at close of business and allows the code enforcement officer to approve certain exceptions in writing.

Mister O'Grady, speaking for the subcommittee, and community-development staff described application types as seasonal or year-round (long-term). Long-term permits would not expire with ownership changes unless specified; restaurants using public property would require annual verification. The ordinance text also prohibits food preparation, grills, service windows or external storage of condiments in outdoor areas and disallows tents or canopies (those would require full site-plan review).

Public comment highlighted business concerns. Valerie Venas, who said she speaks for local restaurant customers and owners, asked why the town had returned to the issue after an earlier, longer draft and whether the town had notified restaurants. "This is the fourth time we have a public hearing about that," Venas said. She argued that a shorter eight-page draft did not justify new requirements and that added complexity could push customers to dine elsewhere.

Enforcement and appeals drew repeated questions. Staff confirmed permits may be revoked for noncompliance and that revocation would require reapplication. Councilor LaPierre called reapplication after revocation "painful" for restaurants; staff said revocation would not be pursued for trivial issues but was a standard compliance tool.

After discussion and public input, Councilor Santoulis called for a roll-call vote on a motion to approve the ordinance as presented. The roll call recorded individual votes (as read aloud at the meeting): Councilor Walzick — Nay; Councilor Laffier — Aye; Councilor Duham — Nay; Councilor Laliberte — No; Councilor Sullivan — Aye; Councilor Nayan — Nay; Chair Santoulis — Nay. The motion failed.

What remains: Staff said the subcommittee removed the most contentious insurance requirement and that if the council wants further input from restaurants the town can hold another hearing. Grant said that if substantive changes are made after tonight, state law or the town charter would require the council to hold another public hearing and wait a minimum of seven days before acting. "If there are substantive changes, then yes, a public hearing," Grant said.

The council did not adopt the ordinance; restaurants retain the current path for outdoor seating, which—under town staff—remains a planning-board site-plan process unless the council or subcommittee returns with a new draft.

Votes and next steps: Because the motion to adopt failed, the council took no ordinance action. Staff said they will collect further feedback and, if the subcommittee proposes nontrivial revisions, will return the matter to the council for another hearing.

Ending note: Councilors and staff repeatedly described the draft as an attempt to balance business flexibility and public-safety review; the meeting showed wider disagreement about whether the presented draft achieved that balance.