Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose proposed 42,000-sq.-ft. showroom-and-warehouse at 267 Londonderry Turnpike; ZBA continues hearing to April 8
Summary
Whitetail Northeast Realty LLC sought a variance to permit a large warehouse component with a 5,600-sq.-ft. retail showroom at 267 Londonderry Turnpike. Town residents raised concerns about noise, groundwater, traffic and property values; the Zoning Board continued the public hearing to April 8 for further information.
Whitetail Northeast Realty LLC asked the Hooksett Zoning Board of Adjustment on March 25 to permit a combined showroom-and-warehouse at 267 Londonderry Turnpike and to clarify whether the proposed larger warehouse component fits allowed uses in the commercial district. The applicant described a proposed 42,000-square-foot building with a 5,600-square-foot retail showroom at the front and roughly 35,980 square feet of warehouse space behind it; the applicant requested a variance from Article 10(b) to allow a wholesale/warehouse component larger than what the board considers accessory to retail.
The board heard a detailed presentation from Patricia Pansiaco, attorney for the applicant, and Katie Weiss of Bedford Design. Pansiaco said the applicant acquired the property in 2024, enlarged it to 3.695 acres and is proposing the combined showroom/warehouse for a company identified in the presentation as Samara Cabinetry. "The proposed structure will include approximately 42,000 square feet of space," Pansiaco said, adding the showroom is intended to assist builders and contractors in product selection. Weiss described site layout, parking, loading docks at the rear and a 116-foot retaining wall of about 2 feet in height along the front grading edge. She said wetlands exist on the adjoining lot but are not being disturbed and that test pits for ledge have been dug; she said the back corner of the building would be about 150 feet from the rear property line.
Multiple abutters and nearby residents spoke in opposition, citing impacts they said a large warehouse would create. Claudette Brown (21 Farmer Road), an abutter directly behind the lot, said the loading docks would face her backyard and that residents would be subjected to "constant beep beep beep noises of commercial vehicles" and dock doors opening and closing; she asked for strict limits on operating hours and long-term groundwater monitoring. Sandy Galvez (17 Farmer Road) and other neighbors raised similar concerns about nighttime noise, impacts to wells and wildlife, and loss of residential character. Mark Couson (25 Farmer Road) told the board he did not see the application meeting the legal standard for an unnecessary hardship, arguing the neighborhood was rezoned with limits to protect adjacent residences.
Board members and the applicant explored operational details. Pansiaco and Weiss said the business currently has about 20 employees, owns three 26-foot delivery trucks and expects tractor-trailer deliveries "3 to 4 times per month." Weiss said the showroom/office front is two stories while the warehouse portion is single-story at typical warehouse heights (roughly 18–20 feet at the low end, per the presentation). The applicant offered hours of operation of 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday and stated wetlands had been identified and flagged by a wetland scientist; the applicant said they were prepared to provide further engineering details, a traffic study and more precise building elevations at a continued hearing.
After public comment, the board and applicant agreed more factual information was needed (traffic generation, hours as a binding condition, precise building heights, quarry/ledge test pit results and groundwater concerns raised by abutters). A motion to continue application Z25-012 to the ZBA regular meeting on April 8 carried with all in favor. The record remains open for the applicant to submit the additional information the board requested.
Why it matters: The application would place a large commercial loading operation adjacent to an established residential neighborhood. Neighbors cited potential noise, safety and groundwater risks that they say would materially affect their homes and livelihoods; the applicant stresses the site is in a commercial district and that similar box-style commercial buildings already exist nearby.
The board set no final conditions at the March 25 hearing; the case is continued to April 8 so staff and the applicant can supply the additional studies and clarifications requested by the board and neighbors.
