Planning Board Minutes
November 9, 2004
Chairman Mike Ouellet called the meeting to order shortly after 7 pm. Board members present were Edward Carrier, Kevin McKinnon, Sandra Riendeau, selectmen Frank Dumaine and alternates Joe Ippolito and John Jolles.
Others present were Claire Lynch, Donna Jordan, Robert Shaw, Dave Patrick, Mike Robinson, Edward Nash, Fred Deveau and wife, Larry Rappaport, Jon Cowan, Melanie Vaillant, Jon Brown, Robert and Pauline Charest, Lisa Goudreau and Sheila Beauchemin.
Driveway Permit:
Phil Lambert - Construct a driveway access road entrance to his property on Titus Hill / Skyline Drive (R9 Lot 111). Public Works Director Kevin McKinnon indicated that the northeast end of the road line of sight was adequate; however, the west end equaled 150 feet. It was noted this is an abandoned road with the next parcel of property ot the southwest and end of the road being the old landfill. Sandra Riendeau made a motion to approve the permit; Edward Carrier seconded and all present agreed. APPROVED - #2004-139
Building Permits:
M. J. Vaillant - 35' x 60' quonset hut with no running water, for storage only, located at 105 Angels Road (R6 Lot 1). Kevin McKinnon made a motion to approve the permit; Edward Carrier seconded and all present agreed. APPROVED - #2004-127
Fred Deveau - 30' x 60' three-bedroom ranch with garage underneath to be located off Blakely Farm Road (R11 Lot 71). Mr. Deveau had noted that part of the property was in the floodplain, but the proposed location for the septic design and house is located out of the floodplain. The approval for construction of the septic system was attached. Edward Carrier made a motion to approve the permit: Sandra Riendeau seconded and all present agreed. APPROVED - #2004-128
Jon Brown - 28' x 52' three-bedroom home on property, owned by Connecticut River Driver's Trust, located on Route 3 North (R7 Lot 4-3). A letter indicated that the test pit data had been completed and the results showed the property would support a three-bedroom home. It was noted that the driveway to this parcel was a shared right-of-way indicated on the subdivision map. Edward Carrier made a motion to approve the permit, conditional on receiving the approval for construction of a septic system from DES. Sandra Riendeau seconded and all present agreed. Mr. Brown asked when he would be able to move in and was told that he must wait for the approval of operation for the septic system from DES before moving in. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL - #2004-129
Peter Goudreau - 14' x 70' two-bedroom mobile home to be placed on their property on Route 3 North (Ramsay Drive) (R7 Lot 17). An approval for construction for a three-bedroom septic was attached. Edward Carrier made a motion to approve the permit; Kevin McKinnon seconded and all present agreed. APPROVED - #2004-130
Norman Senechal - Add 8' x 10' bedroom and 8' x 24' porch to existing camp on Reed Road (R11 Lot 94). This permit had been tabled last month due to a question regarding a septic system. A copy of the approval for operation for a two-bedroom septic issued in October 2000 was reviewed. Kevin McKinnon made a motion to approve the permit; Edward Carrier seconded and all present agreed. APPROVED - #2004-131
Peter & Julia Kulessa - 20' x 32' one-bedroom log camp on their property on Green Mountain Drive (R12 lot 88). An approval for construction of a state approved septic system was included. Kevin McKinnon made a motion to approve the permit; Edward Carrier seconded and all present agreed. APPROVED - #2004-132
Robert Larssen - 8' x 8' storage shed to be placed at 6 Cedar Street. Kevin McKinnon made a motion to approve the permit, conditional on receiving the landowner's permission; Edward Carrier seconded and all present agreed. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL - #2004-133
Richard & Frances Sytek - 75' x 24' new roof on their residence at 31 Park Street (U8 Lot 7-1). Edward Carrier made a motion to approve the permit; Sandra Riendeau seconded and all present agreed. APPROVED - #2004-134
Beverly Cameron - 8' x 10 pre-built shed to be placed on her property at 108 Corliss Lane (U5 Lot 9A). Kevin McKinnon made a motion to approve the permit; Edward Carrier seconded and all present agreed. APPROVED - #2004-135
Larry Johnson - Extend permit #2003-99, to enlarge his existing porch to 10' x 12', located on Route 26 (R11 Lot 45). Edward Carrier made a motion, seconded by Sandra Riendeau, to extend the permit for oen year to September 2005, or until a certificate of occupancy is received. EXTENDED
Sign Permit:
Sandra Riendeau was excused from the Board. Joe Ippolito was asked to sit in for her.
Claire Lynch - 51" x 34" sign to be placed directly in front of the building located at 139 Main Street, parallel to the road. The sign would be non-illuminated. Joe Ippolito made a motion to approve the permit; Edward Carrier seconded and all present agreed. APPROVED - #2004-136
Diamond Peaks Motel & Country Store - Replace two damaged panels and change artwork and wording on 5' x 5' sign located on his property at 1216 Route 26. Edward Carrier made a motion to approve the permit; Kevin McKinnon seconded and all present agreed. APPROVED - #2004-137
Site Plan Waiver:
Claire Lynch - Request for a waiver of site plan regulations for the use of the property located at 139 Main Street. Ms. Lynch proposed to open a small office for photographic services, initially for digital inventory for insurance, estate, and auction. Her grounds for a waiver were that the location was surrounded by all commercial properties. She would be using the front room as an office and would be open by appointment only. Kevin McKinnon questioned where people would park. Claire answered that, because she will be parking in the garage, there would be one parking space available beside the house. She estimated 98% of her business would be going to clients’ homes to offer estimates. She stated she had spoken to the the abutter, Larry Pryor, and he had no problem with his parking lot being
utilized as long as he did not have a wake or funeral. If necessary, she planned to have her customers utilize the municipal parking lot. Kevin McKinnon made a motion to approve the waiver; Edward Carrier seconded and all present agreed. Ms. Lynch was advised that, should there be a problem regarding this site in the future, the Planning Board had the right to ask for a full site plan review and public hearing. APPROVED
Subdivision Public Hearing:
Marie Josee Vaillant - Chairman Ouellet read the subdivision application, indicating a two lot subdivision of Mrs. Vaillant’s property located at the east end of Aldrich Road (former Morgan Farm), identified on the Colebrook Tax Maps as R6 Lots 1 and 2. The subdivision would create one lot equaling 158.8 acres, containing a house and outbuildings, and one lot, equaling 153.2 acres, containing a garage. Variances were asked for in respect to contours, soil type lines and 600-foot long road rule. Kevin McKinnon made a motion to accept the application as read; Sandra Riendeau seconded and all present agreed.
Robert Shaw, abutter, related that he had reviewed the preliminary plan and questioned why it was to be approved by the Stewartstown Planning Board. Mr. Cowan noted that the approval box on the plan was incorrect and should read the Colebrook Planning Board. In answer to questions from Mr. Shaw regarding reference notes on the plan, Mr. Cowan remarked that he had referred to the Santos lot and that the parcel owned by Dave Patrick had been sold and resubdivided.
Mr. Shaw then asked permission to read his letter into the minutes in which he remarked that the four primary documents regulating the Planning Board (land subdivision; site plan review; zoning ordinances and master plan) are not independent but should be considered together. Since the Planning Board composition includes a selectmen as liason between the two Boards, he felt that person should keep the Planning Board informed of Selectboard decisions. He further suggested that each boards give each other copies of minutes of meetings. In respect to this, he was sure the Planning Board had been informed of the Selectmen’s September 13th meeting when it was stated that condos would be built on this parcel and the discussion regarding Town Line Road classification.
Mr. Shaw continued and asked why the applicant was seeking a subdivision permit. Mr. Cowan answered that it was to divide the property into two residential properties. Mr. Shaw questioned if the purpose of the subdivision was to sell, rent lease or build condos. Mr. Cowan related that he understood that Lot 1 would be conveyed to family members and Mrs. Vaillant would retain Lot 2. Mr. Shaw stated his belief that the entire property is commercial and not residential.
Mr. Shaw questioned why the scale on the plan was one inch equals 300 feet when the subdivision regulations require one inch equaling 100 feet. Mr. Cowan remarked that this large parcel of land would require at least three sheets to create a plan with one inch equaling 100 feet. Edward Carrier remarked that the Board was allowed to grant a variance on this issue.
Mr. Shaw asked if the Board had required a traffic impact analysis due to the existing condition of Aldrich Road and his belief that Angels Road would service a commercial building. He further asked for a description of the buildings on Lot 1. Mr. Cowan answered that there is a house and outbuilding. The garage is a quonset type, wooden structure or tractor shed. Mr. Shaw remarked that the tax card for this property shows a porta-garage equaling 2,275 square feet and he questioned if that was the quonset hut. He remarked that he did not feel the survey showed all the buildings on the property. Mr. Cowan remarked that the survey did indicate all the buildings on the property.
In regards to Lot 2, Mr. Shaw questioned why the garage has an approved septic system indicating 300 gallons per day and four employees. Mr. Shaw indicated that the original permit asked for a residential garage and he remarked that he felt things had changed and a new permit was needed, questioning if the structure was to be used as a warehouse. Mike Ouellet remarked that when the garage on Lot 2 was originally permitted, it was as a storage facility. He agreed that, if a commercial entity was being conducted, it would be in violation. If that was true, the Selectmen would be asked to enforce. Melanie Vaillant answered that the building in question is being used for storage only - no commercial endeavor. Vehicles are washed there and a bathroom has been installed due to the long distance from the
house; therefore a septic system was installed. To quell any questions, Mike Ouellet offered to go look at the garage and report back.
Mr. Shaw questioned why the variances were being considered. He felt that the regulations asked for five foot contours and soil types line; therefore they should be provided - why have any regulations if variances are allowed. He indicated an error in #5 of the soils type lines variance request in that the house will sit on Lot 1 and that Lot 2 has an approved septic system. Mr. Cowan agreed and made the necessary changes in the variance requests. In answer to why a variance was requested for the five-foot contours and soil types, Mr. Cowan remarked that the land was fields, not used intensively, and he felt there was no need for topography to be indicated. Larry Rappaport remarked that the Registry of Deeds will only accept certain size plans.
Mr. Shaw questioned why a variance was needed in regards to the 600’ road rule. He believed that only came in to play if the road serviced more than two lots. He questioned again if this was to be a family dwelling and the answer was in the affirmative. That being the answer, the variance did not apply and Mr. Shaw felt it might mean Mrs. Vaillant would be asking for a further subdivision. Jon Cowan remarked that he had feared that the length of the road, since it is over 600’, might be an issue; therefore he had asked for a variance. Edward Carrier remarked that Jon was being upfront about the issue.
Chairmain Ouellet then read the variance requests and called for a vote on each:
1) Contours - Expensive obtaining data; two-lot subdivision will not impact landscape to any significant degree; delays would be burdensome; does not add to base of information; contours shown in corner of plan.
Edward Carrier made a motion to accept the variance on contours; Sandra Riendeau seconded and all present agreed.
2) Soil Type Lines: Interpolated from small map creating errors making info unreliable; surveryor would have to assume credit for information he had no personal knowledge of; soil pit data will appear on map for Lot 2; the house on Lot 1 already has approved septic design as well as garage on Lot 2.
Kevin McKinnon stated that the state approved septic systems has test pits; therefore, the requirement for test pit data has been met for both lots. Kevin made a motion to accept the variance for soil type lines; Edward Carrier seconded and all present agreed.
3) 600’ Road Rule - Roadway to Lot 2 already exists; will only be used for one dwelling; 50’ right-of-way over Lot 1 will be provided; no way to create loop road or alternative exit from Lot 2; 65 degree cul-de-sac provided for Lot 2; town will be held harmless.
Kevin McKinnon felt this variance was not needed as the road is a driveway only to serve two lots. Edward Carrier agreed and added that, if there should be future development, this issue would be looked at then. Jon Cowan stated, if this was a problem, he could withdraw this variance request. Edward Carrier made a motion to reject this variance due to the fact that no variance is required for a driveway. Sandra Riendeau seconded and all present agreed.
Dave Patrick commented the Town Line Road issue happened approximately 30 years ago. He remembered that no more money would be put into grading. Jon Cowan reminded him that the Town Line Road was not involved in this subdivision as Aldrich Road would be used. It had only been mentioned because Lot 2 does abut Town Line Road.
Mr. Patrick then asked regarding his lot on the upper portion of Lot 1. Mr. Cowan assured Mr. Patrick that his strip of land is indicated on the plan and had been laid out to the dimensions in the deed, even though they do not agree with the 1984 subdivision plan.
Robert Shaw asked, if in the future it is decided to build a condo or further subdivide, would the Planning Board allow. Sandra Riendeau answered that it would need to meet the subdivision requirements and/or cluster housing regs. Kevin McKinnon made a motion to approve the subdivision plan as presented; Edward Carrier seconded and all present agreed. #620
Colburn Associates, Inc. - Chairman Ouellet read the application indicating that subdivision approval was being requested for Parcel B, located on Route 26, identified on the Colebrook Tax Maps as R10 Lot 59, and consisting of 4.77 acres. It was noted that a variance for soil types was requested. The application further indicated that this approval was needed due to the fact that subdivision #205, approved in December 1986, indicated approval for Parcel A only. Parcel B was unapproved, even though approval of Parcel A made it a separate lot. In September 2004, NH DES subdivision approval was obtained for Parcel B as it was under five acres. Because the subdivision plan at the Registry of Deeds only shows Parcel A as approved, it was felt title search problems might be incurred for the sale of
Parcel B.
Mr. Cowan remarked that, the day before this meeting, Attorney Fogg from Groveton told him that the same title search problem will exist for the 2.7 acre lot owned by Mr. Colburn on the other side of the highway near the river. It is understood that Mr. Colburn plans to sell Parcel B together with the river edge portion, but he cannot get a clear title due to the note on the 1986 plan. Mr. Cowan stated he considers the 2.7 acre lot an unbuildable lot as it is in the floodplain. He wanted the Board to be aware that the original plan presented with the application had been changed. He did not have a survey of the 2.7 acre parcel but would like to handle the situation with a note on the plan indicating that the stated parcel was not a buildable lot.
Mr. Richardson, owner of Parcel A, remarked that a ditch had to be dug to stop the run off from Parcel B onto his property. He questioned if a home could be built on Parcel B due to the steepness of the terrain. Former owners of Parcel A, Robert and Pauline Charest, asked what Mr. Gettings intentions were as they also questioned the possibility of a home being built. Mr. Charest also feared that any building placed on Parcel B would create water run off that could damage the existing barn. He also stated he had had to put in a new well when work was completed on Parcel B last time. Mike Ouellet assured Mr. Richardson that, should a building permit come in for Parcel B, the Board would ask how the person intended to handle the run-off.
A question was raised to the closeness of the boundary line to Richardson's structure. Mr. Cowan stated that Richardson's lot frontage had not changed. He also stated a metal detector had been used to locate the corner pin, but nothing had been found.
Mike Ouellet questioned if the state subdivision approval and perc test had recognized the riverfront parcel as part of Parcel B. Edward Carrier stated he felt the riverfront parcel should have a separate deed. He stated he would be surprised if state approval could be obtained. Jon Cowan remarked that the attorney had told him that land separated by a road cannot be considered separately; and, in this case, a clear title cannot be obtained unless the riverfront is recognized as a parcel of land. Currently the wording on the plan indicates the riverfront parcel as "not a building lot". MIke Ouellet stated he would like to see it say "non-buildable lot". Edward Carrier added that he would like the plan to indicate that Parcel B cannot be subdivided.
Edward Carrier made a motion to approve the subdivision with the correction of the note from "not a building lot" to "non-buildable lot" and indication that Parcel Be cannot be subdivided. Kevin McKinnon seconded the motion. It was noted that the application did not address the riverfront parcel, but only addressed Parcel B. Mr. Cowan explained that the riverside parcel would be considered separately for subdivision purposes but for title purposes, it would not be a separate parcel. He further stated the attorney wished the Board to recognize the parcel as a legal parcel. Larry Rappaport remarked that, under Colebrook subdivision laws, the riverfront parcel would not be a legal parcel due to the length to width ratio.
Edward Carrier withdrew his original motion. Kevin McKinnon made a motion to reconsider this issue after legal opinion is sought. It was further noted that Mr. Gettings would be responsible for attorney fees. Edward Carrier seconded the motion and all present agreed.
A motion, made by Kevin McKinnon and seconded by Edward Carrier, to not accept the application at this time was approved by all members.
Bills:
Kevin McKinnon made a motion to approve payment of the Gardner, Fultorn and Waugh invoice for $16.25, along with the Jordan Associates invoice of $38. Edward Carrier seconded and all present agreed.
New Business:
Mike Robinson – Chairman Ouellet read the letter Mr. Robinson had recently received regarding his moving cars off his lot on Airport Road to the site on Titus Hill, currently owened by Edward and Susan Nash, and identified on the Colebrook Tax Maps as R9 Lot 114. The letter indicated that, after a discussion with Stacey at the dealer desk at Motor Vehicles in Concord, Mr. Robinson would need to apply for an annex license if the stie was being used as an annex to Mr. Robinson’s new and used retail dealership. If the site was to be used to store cars that Mr. Robinson might take the motors or transmissions out of, and later have hauled to a junk yard, Stacey agreed that this type of acticty would come under the “auto recycling dealer” regulations. As such, this type of activity would also fall
under New Hampshire RSA 236:111-129. Mr. Robinson, and landowners Edward and Susan Nash, had been sent copies of the auto recycling dealer paperwork, along with copies of RSA 236-111-129.
Chairman Ouellet asked to be recuzed from the Board. Alternate Joe Ippolito was asked to sit in for him. Mr. Robinson explained that he is still in the process of purchasing the property, but there has been no transfer of sale yet. He questioned the accuracy of the Board's questions to Stacey at the dealer desk and stated he had no intention of running a junkyard. He further explained he needs more storage for the vehicles he buys at auction and for the ones he takes in trade. He has had an offer on his property on Airport Road, and if he sells, he needs a place to take all the cars. Mr. Robinson stated he had called the dealer desk after receiving the Board’s letter, and was assured that, if he is only using the area for storage of vehicles, he does not need to establish an annex. He
acknowledged knowing he would need to apply for an annex license if he sold cars from that area.
Mr. Robinson continued that he is not stripping cars to sell parts. He contended he might want to sell or paint the vehicles to sell, but no work would be conducted at the Titus Hill site as there is no power. He stated he sometimes buys 5 or 6 vehicles at auction that do not have a working motor or transmission, but all the work is done at his garage. He related that he needs a place to move the vehicles to until they are removed and stated a gentleman should be here within the next two weeks to take some of the vehicles. Mr. Robinson reiterated that he is in limbo on purchasing the property.
Joe Ippolito stated that, irregardless of whether the site is being used to store vehicles for resale or being used as an auto recycling area, Mr. Robinson is changing the use of the property; therefore, a full site plan will need to be conducted. Mr. Robinson stated that he had called the state prior to putting any vehicles there and they had told him he could tow as many as he wanted to to that site. Kevin McKinnon remarked that the cars on the site presently have been stored without a site plan in place, therefore, Mr. Robinson is in violation of the Colebrook regulations, and the vehicles should be removed. Mike Ouellet offered the opinion that by calling the State, Mr. Robinson had put his best foot forward; however, agreed that Mr. Robinson was still in violation of the Colebrook regulations. Edward
Carrier stated that he felt the site in question needed to be cleared of all vehicles as they never should have been placed there without a site plan. Once that was accomplished, Mr. Robinson could begin the site plan process from square one. Once again, Mr. Robinson stated he had spoke with the State and they had said it was legal, so he started towing cars to the site.
When questioned as to how many vehicles were on the site at present, Mr. Robinson stated he was not sure. He had been moving ones up from the Airport Road site as he couldn't store anymore there. His final guess was "maybe 70". Edward Carrier asked how many Mr. Robinson thought would be removed by the gentlemen referred to earlier. Mr. Robinson guessed approximately 50 or 60 cars. Mr. Carrier asked if the remaining 10 would fit at the Creamery site; in other words, leaving the Titus Hill site empty of vehicles. Mr. Robinson questioned if Mr. Carrier meant he would need to move the 10 vehicles to the Creamery site; and then once he had a site plan, he could move them back to the Titus Hill site. Mr. Carrier answered in the affirmative - that he wished to see the land vacant prior
to a site plan hearing commencing.
Mr. Robinson expressed his dislike for the possibility of a fence being necessary once the site plan was reviewed. He remarked that the car dealers in Gorham do not have fences around the yards they use for storage. Edward Nash asked if it would be alright for Mr. Robinson to bring the vehicles to his back salvage lot. Mr. Nash remarked he had never received a license to operate as a junkyard, but questioned again if it would be okay for the vehicles to be placed there. Edward Carrier said, as long as they were placed on the back salvage lot, he had no problem.
The Board reviewed a letter from the Department of Environmental Services Wetlands Bureau requesting the Town of Colebrook's regulation on primary building setbacks to surface wsater and/or wetlands. The Town of Colebrook abides by the state regulations and does not have a specific ordinance regarding this.
Material from the Public Utilities Commission was reviewed. A call to the NH Municipal Association revealed that, since Colebrook does not have a building code or code enforcement officer, we are not affected by the New Hampshire Energy Code regulations.. The Board determined they were not interested in participating in a small pilot project to work with code enforcement inspectors.
Kim and Adam Ori’s certificate of occupancy for a deck at 21 Parsons Street was reviewed and signed. Also reviewed were approval for construction and/or operation of septic systems for: Andre LaCasse (Operation) Janice & Neil Malloy (Construction), Elaine & Haven Haynes (Construction); John Zavala (Construction); Robert Hodge for Fred Deveau (Construction); Susan R. Beaton-Connors (Construction); Linda & Thomas Yorke (Operation); Tracie Hawes-Cooney (Construction); Doreen & Ronald Dubois (Construction) and Timothy Plante (Construction).
Each individual member was polled and agreed to enter executive session at 10:04 to discuss a pending lawsuit. Mike Ouellet recused himself from the Board. Edward Carrier sat in as vice chairman and Joe Ippolito sat in as a member. All members moved to close the executive session at 10:35.
The minutes of the October planning board were reviewed. Susan Nash had reviewed the draft minutes and had submitted a letter of discrepancy. This was read and made part of the record. Sandra Riendeau moved to approve the minutes as corrected; Kevin McKinnon seconded and all present agreed.
The meeting was adjourned at 11 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Sheila M. Beauchemin
| 
