Zoning board approves 25-unit senior housing at Highland Street and grants two variances

The Hooksett Zoning Board of Adjustment on a voice vote approved a special exception and two related variances to allow a 25-unit senior-living development at 14 and 16 Highland Street (applications Z24‑27, Z24‑28 and Z24‑29).

The board granted a special exception from Article 5, Section 3.C to permit the proposed 25‑unit older‑person development, finding the project met the special‑exception criteria outlined in Article 24 and Article 7. The board then granted two variances: one from Article 7, Section B2.C to allow 120 feet of road frontage where 200 feet is required, and a second from Article 7, Section B6 to allow 20 feet of horizontal separation between buildings where 35 feet is required. The recorded outcomes were approvals with roll calls described during the meeting as carrying by unanimous tallies (board recorded outcomes 5–0 where specific tallies were given).

Planning and applicant testimony noted site changes submitted before the meeting. “The only change to that was adding that 25 foot side yard setback that you'd asked about the last time. So we got that updated,” said Jeff Lewis of Northpointe Engineering, who identified himself as representing the applicant and the updated site plans. Lewis and other applicant representatives described access, utilities and plan notes the board relied on when finding the project met Article 7 requirements for older‑person housing.

Board members reviewed traffic, neighborhood compatibility and utilities during deliberations. The board’s findings, read into the record, stated that trip generation for the project is expected to be substantially lower than a conventional, unrestricted single‑family subdivision; that the parcel is tucked back from Highland Street and is consistent with surrounding mixed residential uses; that water, sewer and gas are available on site; and that wetlands and topography constrain development on the rear and northern portions of the parcel, supporting the requested variances.

Public comment for the Highland item was limited. One resident, Tim Sheehan of Hooksett, asked the board to consider the town’s broader housing mix and said he preferred housing that is not age‑restricted. The board said that such policy questions are outside the ZBA’s role and noted the planning board had provided an opinion finding the location compatible with the master plan and zoning.

Votes at a glance - Special exception Z24‑27 (Article 5 §3.C) — motion to approve the 25‑unit senior living development; outcome: approved (board voice vote; recorded as carried) - Variance Z24‑28 (Article 7 §B2.C) — frontage reduced to 120 ft where 200 ft required; outcome: approved (vote recorded as 5–0) - Variance Z24‑29 (Article 7 §B6) — building separation reduced to 20 ft where 35 ft required; outcome: approved (vote recorded as unanimous)

What the board directed next The board approved the special exception and variances and incorporated the applicant’s Exhibit A (plan notes) into the record for the finding of facts; the applicant will proceed to planning‑board site‑plan review for non‑residential site‑plan requirements and building‑permit review to document construction details such as required fire‑rating of exterior walls and turning‑radius requirements. The board narrative made clear that final engineering and building permit conditions (for example wall ratings and sidewalk/curb details) will be reviewed during those subsequent processes.

Why it matters Approvals allow the applicant to move from zoning approvals to planning‑board site‑plan review, where detailed engineering, traffic and utility impacts will be evaluated and conditioned. The variances reflect the board’s judgment that topography, wetlands and lot shape make literal enforcement of frontage and separation standards an unnecessary hardship for this parcel.

Sources and evidence The board’s action and deliberations are taken from the meeting transcript and the applicant’s updated site plan and plan notes provided at the hearing. The planning board’s written opinion (minute dated 01/07/2025) was cited by board members as part of their findings.

Ending note The applicant and the board noted additional reviews remain, including site‑plan approval by the planning board and building‑permit checks for fire‑rating and other construction details; those reviews are required before site work or building permits are issued.