August 23, 2005
Colebrook Planning Board Meeting
Chairman Ouellet opened the meeting shortly after 7 pm. Members present were Sandra Riendeau; Kevin McKinnon; Edward Carrier, alternates Joe Ippolito and John Jolles, and Selectman Larry Rappaport.
Others present were Daniel Hebert; Bernie Carrier, Jim Tibbetts, Mr. & Mrs. Dan Eldridge, Donna Jordan, Sue Miller, Pauline Lemieux, Roland Cotnoir, John Strickland, Charles Aubee, Benoit Lamontagne, Claire Lynch and Sheila Beauchemin.
Building Permits:
Dan Eldridge (via contractor Daniel Hebert)- 13,000 square foot warehouse and offices to be placed on Lot 6 of the Industrial Park, located on Bromage Drive (U7 Lot 20-2). The application indicated that the structure would fall within the floodplain. Review of the site plan maps indicates that the building will not be within the floodplain; therefore, Mr. Herbert changed the application to indicate as such. Kevin McKinnon made a motion to approve the permit; Larry Rappaport seconded and all present agreed. Mr. Eldridge was advised that he must obtain a water and sewer application from the Board of Selectmen. APPROVED - #2005-74
Derwood & Simone McKeage, Jr. – 12’ x 60’ trailer for storage only to be placed on their property on Hartlen Avenue (R9 Lot 121). A notarized statement to the effect that this trailer would be for storage only, with no occupancy, no electricity, water or sewer had been signed as requested by the Board. Kevin McKinnon made a motion to approve the permit; Sandra Riendeau seconded and all present agreed. APPROVED - #2005-75 (It should be noted that this permit replaces #2005-46).
Robert Lawton – 10’ x 20’ storage shed to be placed at 8 Merrill Street. Edward Carrier made a motion to approve the permit; Sandra Riendeau seconded and all present agreed. APPROVED - #2005-76
Kevin & Bonnie Hurley – 12’ x 52’ deck on their residence at 71 Carleton Hill Road (R10 Lot 32). Sandra Riendeau made a motion to approve the permit; Edward Carrier seconded and all present agreed. APPROVED - #2005-77
Michael Grandmaison – 18’ x 24’ storage shed to be placed at 104 Titus Hill Road. Edward Carrier made a motion to approve the permit; Kevin McKinnon seconded and all present agreed. APPROVED - #2005-78
Kenneth & Patricia Magoon – 24’ x 28’ ranch with a 10’ x 24’ screen porch at 713 Diamond Pond Road. A letter from septic designer Karen Dickson indicated a septic design had been submitted to DES. A review of the papers submitted indicated a camper trailer situated on the property was to be used as a shed. Larry Rappaport made a motion to approve the permit, conditional on receiving approval for construction of the septic system, along with a statement that the trailer will be used for storage only. Sandra Riendeau seconded the motion and all present agreed. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL - #2005-79
Anthony Palermo III - 10’ x 16’ wood shed at his residence on East Colebrook Road. Larry Rappaport made a motion to approve the permit; Kevin McKinnon seconded and all present agreed. APPROVED - #2005-80
James & Kim Bennett – 20’ x 20’ garage / barn to be placed at 691 Diamond Pond Road. Kevin McKinnon made a motion to approve the permit; Sandra Riendeau seconded and all present agreed. APPROVED - #2005-81
Site Plan Public Hearing:
Chairman Ouellet read the site plan application for Dan Eldridge, submitted by his agent Daniel Hebert, to place a machine shop on Lot 6 of the Industrial Park located on Bromage Drive (U7 Lot 20-2).
Mr. Hebert submitted the site plan drawing, noting that Bromage Drive would be extended to the end of Lot 6 by Mr. Eldridge. He also explained that they do not propose to pave the extended road, but it will be built to specifications. The floodplain line was indicated on the drawing, and the proposed building is not located within the floodplain. Indicated on the third page of the plan was an eight inch sewer line, placed down the right-of-way to the end of the lot. Mr. Hebert explained that they would be extending the line only to the point where it was needed to enter the building. It would not go to the end of the lot. A dispersing chamber for rain water was indicated on the plan.
Mr. Hebert pointed out that the proposed building will be on the road-side of the lot, leaving enough space to double the size of the building in the future if necessary. In answer to Larry Rapp port’s question, Mr. Hebert explained that the building will be 100’ x 100’ structure, built on a slab with a flat roof. The interior will be divided into thirds with a fourteen foot clearance. The offices will be located in the front. Mike Ouellet noted that the front property line setback needed to be at least 20 feet.
In answer to Kevin McKinnon’s question, it was explained that the loading dock would be on the side of the building. The elevation will be dropped so trucks can back up easily for delivery. Snow will be piled so that it drains towards the river where a leaching base has been provided. Exterior lighting will be mounted on the building.
Mike Ouellet questioned where any oil or petroleum products spillage will be contained. Mr. Eldridge explained that any residue goes into a spinner and is reused; that there is no excess. There will be no drains in the shop. The only residue might be a mist on the floor which can be taken care of easily. John Jolles questioned the fact that there were no recyclable products from this endeavor; he felt that eventually there must be some waste. Mr. Eldridge explained that he currently has a contract with a company and he plans to continue with that company. He assured the Board no heavy metals are used in his production as no plating will be completed at this site at present.
Larry Rappaport made a motion to approve the site plan, conditional on receiving a corrected plan showing the sewer line extending only to the building entrance, not to the end of Lot 6. Sandra Riendeau seconded and all present agreed.
Mr. Eldridge was advised to be sure that he meets all state regulations and laws in regards to this type of endeavor.
Bills:
Larry Rappaport made a motion to approve payment of the invoice from Gardner, Fulton & Waugh totaling $332.50. Kevin McKinnon seconded and all present agreed.
New Business:
Larry Rappaport stated that a letter had been received from Knowledge Fusion regarding whether a special exception was necessary for the facility on Bromage Drive to be used as an around-the-clock and call center operation, along with the temporary placement of trailers next to the building without having to apply the conditions and requirements necessary of a trailer park. The Board agreed that a special exception is not necessary as the work is creating data objects which are purely engineering which are granted under the professional offices section of the zoning ordinance. It is understood that the trailers are being placed temporarily on site and will be removed once the spec building is completed; therefore, the regulations of a trailer park are not applicable. Beno Lamontagne pointed out that the spec building is
on Lot 5; however, the letter states the trailers will be placed adjacent to the building on Lot 4. He felt this should be clarified with Knowledge Fusion. Larry Rappaport made a motion to sign a letter from the Colebrook Planning Board in answer to the above concerns. Kevin McKinnon seconded and all present agreed.
A complaint regarding several vehicles located on Chester Grover’s property on Bungy Road (R11 Lot 85) was reviewed. Larry Rappaport made a motion to send him a letter of possible violation, reminding him that any more than two unregistered vehicles raises the question as to whether a motor vehicle junkyard is being operated without a permit. Kevin McKinnon seconded the motion and all present agreed.
Ray Davis advised the Board that he was unable to continue using the name “Storage Kings” as it is registered in the State of New Hampshire to another business. The new name, “Sunset Storage”, will be printed on the sign he recently received a permit for and Mr. Davis questioned if he needed a new permit. Larry Rappaport made a motion that a new permit was not needed in this instance; Sandra Riendeau seconded and all present agreed.
Sign Ordinance Workshop:
A workshop commenced on possible revisions to the sign ordinance. Discussion centered around temporary signs – definition, what should they consist of, when would a permit be necessary, length of time posted. Joe Ippolito stated he felt “temporary” refers to something used for a short time only; whereas, “permanent” means it does not change. Sandra Riendeau questioned how to get “temporary” signs taken down. Larry Rappaport wondered if a person’s name and telephone number should appear on the sign so, after a certain amount of time, they could be contacted to remove the sign. Larry also stated that state law prevents the placement of signs on telephone poles. Sue Miller asked who was responsible for taking down signs on telephone poles. It appears
it is DOT or the police officers’ responsibility.
Mike Ouellet questioned what constitutes a banner – something put up for an event and taken down or a permanent banner such as the “Welcome to Colebrook” banners put up by CDDA. Should there by different rules for different banners? Edward Carrier remarked that currently banners do not need a permit; therefore anything can be put up. John Jolles stated he felt the general idea behind the rules and regulations was to keep the town looking attractive and a banner obscuring the front of a building should be in violation. Larry Rappaport suggested a rule that a business could not cover up more than one-half of a business’ window. Benoit Lamontagne asked if the Board would be considering banners within the total number of signs allowed on a building. If so, he disagreed with this
premise as he felt “Welcome” banners should not be in the same category as regular signs. He suggested that banners, perhaps, be looked at as commercial vs. non-commercial ones.
Signs behind windows noting sales were discussed. John Jolles felt that a sign behind a window does not deter from a building; however anything on the building does affect the aesthetics of a town. He felt that the appearance of the town is what should be considered when deciding the sign ordinance intent. Bernie Carrier remarked that he felt the intent behind the sign ordinance when originally created was that anything attached to a building was fine; however, specific attention should be paid to free-standing signs to be sure they were not blocking line of sight. He felt anything in the window or on walls should be acceptable as they do not block vision and, if the board told a business they couldn’t put a sign in a window, it would be like restricting him from selling or advertising his wares. Larry
Rappaport responded with the complaint currently in front of the Board for the “21 flavors of ice cream” banner on the First Run Entertainment Video store and asked how that should be regulated. He commented that some towns say only a certain percentage of a building area can be covered. Our ordinance only regulates how many signs can be off premises; nothing else is done until things go to the extreme.
Bernard Carrier commented that location also matters. Due to location, one side of the street appears to have to advertise more to encourage traffic and get the attention of customers. John Jolles remarked that the Board is looking for input as the intent is to not over-regulate; however, a lot of work has been completed on the down town area to make it look prettier. He felt that, when it comes to competitive situations, everyone should be treated the same, perhaps with all business of the same type having the same size sign. He continued that Colebrook relies on tourism and must keep things neat, rather than lose the façade of a building behind too many signs.
Charles Aubee remarked that he felt signs posted for events had a narrow window of time and, therefore, should have different regulations. Seasonal signs perhaps should require a permit. John Jolles remarked that, once again, the issue is back to temporary vs. permanent. He questioned if adding the name and date went towards policing, just as would a fine for leaving it up over a period of time. John Strickland questioned if the size of building should be considered, along with the total number of signs allowed.
Mike Ouellet thanked everyone for their input. Larry Rappaport summarized that the main concerns seems to be regulating the total number of signs allowed; whether or not to consider the aggregate square footage of a building; regulation of the duration of a sign being posted and the definition of temporary versus permanent signs. All present were reminded that there would be at least two more public hearings regarding this issue before the question could be placed on the ballot in March 2006.
Old Business:
Richard Nadig – John Strickland asked the status of the sign violation at the First Run Video Stop. Chairman Ouellet stated Mr. Nadig had informed the Board he couldn’t be present at the August 9th meeting. John Strickland responded that Mr. Nadig had put up two more signs (ice cream cones on the telephone pole) after he received the Planning Board letter. A review of Mr. Nadig’s letter indicated he felt his promotional signs were consistent with other businesses in town. He also asked the Board to advise him what he needed to do to come into compliance with the Town of Colebrook sign ordinance. After consideration, the Board determined (1) the ice cream “signs” on the telephone pole must be removed; (2) the metal sign on the sidewalk must be taken in at
night or be removed entirely; and (3) sign permits must be applied for in regards to the following signs: “Movie Rental” sign over ice cream sale window; “Ice Cream” sign beside door; sign under ice cream sale window. Larry Rappaport made a motion to send a letter advising Mr. Nadig of the above; Kevin McKinnon seconded and all present agreed.
The Board moved to approve the “caveat” placed on the first page of the building permit; but asked that it be placed on the second page also.
The following Certificates of Occupancy were reviewed by the Board:
Don Campbell – Ramp, 54 Pleasant Street
Bonnie Day – 9’ x 10’ storage shed, Windsor Park Estates
Dennis Hyde – 10’ x 50’ mobile home, 531 Reed Rd
Fred Deveau – Barn, 3 Josie Road
Robert Gustafson – 12’ x 30’ canvas garage, 13 Gustafson Rd
John & Hellen Bonazzoli – Carport, 428 East Colebrook Rd
Wilfred Anderson – Roof Dormer, 109 East Colebrook Rd
Kevin McKinnon made a motion to approve the July 26th minutes as written. Sandra Riendeau seconded. The vote carried with two ayes and two abstentions.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Sheila M. Beauchemin
| 
