January 8, 2007 Planning Board Minutes
Chairman Mike Ouellet called the meeting to order shortly after 7 pm. Board members present were Kevin McKinnon, Edward Carrier, Selectman Benoit Lamontange, and alternate Sandra Riendeau. Sandra was asked to sit in for Irene Bean.
Others present were Rick Collins, Ricky Riendeau, Greg Placy, John Falconer, Linda Haynes, Jim and Linda Biron, Melissa and Philip Shaw, Paul and Simmone Corriveau, Danny Smith, Brett Brooks, Donna Jordan, Sandy and David Woodard, Brian Riley, Donna Caron, Ruth Lewis, Larry Rappaport, Nancy and George Gooch, Ann and Russell Woodard, Claire Lynch, Dick and Gail Harris, Don McNeil, John Schmitz, Ken Linseman, and Sheila Beauchemin.
Building Permits:
Joseph McAuley – 20’ x 32’ one-bedroom log cabin to be placed on his property on Route 26 (R12 Lot 36). An approval for construction of a septic system was attached. Kevin McKinnon made a motion to approve the permit; Edward Carrier seconded and all present agreed. APPROVED - #2007-01
James & Margaret Martin – 10’ x 12’ three-sided shelter on their property at 58 Carrier Drive (R12 Lot 189). Edward Carrier made a motion to approve the permit; Sandra Riendeau seconded and all present agreed. APPROVED - #2007-02
Request for Waiver of Site Plan Regulations:
Irene Bean - Request for a waiver of site plan regulations for the use of the property located at 178 Main Street. Mrs. Bean proposed to operate an assisted living facility for the elderly at this site. Her grounds for a waiver were that the location had been used for a group home in the past. Mrs. Bean also indicated that there would be plenty of parking. Sandra Riendeau made a motion to approve the waiver; Edward Carrier seconded and all present agreed. Mrs. Bean will be advised that, should there be a problem regarding this site in the future, the Planning Board has the right to ask for a full site plan review and public hearing. APPROVED
Site Plan Public Hearing:
Newland Development Associates LLC – Chairman Mike Ouellet read the site plan application, submitted by Newland Development Associates, LLC for the properties located at the corner of Main Street and Colby Street, identified on the Colebrook Tax Maps as U12 Lot 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and U12 Lot 20. The proposed purpose of the public hearing was to review the site for use as a pharmacy. Edward Carrier made a motion to accept the application as read; Kevin McKinnon seconded and all present agreed.
Chairman Ouellet asked that the public allow a presentation by the Newland Development Associates. This would be followed by twenty minutes for comments in favor of the project and twenty minutes for comments opposed to the project, asking that people speak one at a time. He further stated that, since the Board had accepted the application, the timeline was now set at 65 days.
John Schmitz, engineer/architect for Newland Development, explained that the proposed plan would combine five existing parcels into one, containing approximately 4.5 acres. Presently a gas station, auto parts store, residence with vacuum repair business, apartment building and insurance company exist in this graveled and grassed area. The plan proposes to relocate the current pharmacy on Route 3 South into a new 14,373 square foot building. The building would be situated near the middle of the lot with one-way traffic around the rear and along the school side. Two accesses would exist, one from Main Street and one from Colby Street. A loading dock and delivery door shows on the school side of the building. A service truck would make deliveries once a week. A fence would be placed along the boundary with the
school. A proposal to swap a strip of land with the school for an emergency access is under negotiation. This would create a curb cut strictly for the school.
Mr. Schmitz continued that the current site is flat. The highest point is by the school boundary line with the land sloping in a northeasterly direction. The new project will leave the property essentially at the same height. Currently storm water runs towards Colby Street. The new project calls for a system at the rear of the building to stop peak flow which will help alleviate an impact on storm system. Existing utilities will be used, adding only gas. Fire sprinkers will exist in the building.
Mr. Schmitz remarked that landscaping on this site today is limited. Newland Development is proposing to put fourteen trees around the perimeter, along with 55 arborvitae along the school boundary and 18 arborvitae along the fire emergency lane. (Arborvitae being an evergreen-type shrub, fairly high.) Sod and grass will also be present on the lot.
A dumpster would be placed at the rear of the building. Due to its proximity to the property line, Newland Development understood a variance would be needed; however, because the current buildings are non-conforming and very near the property line, they did not feel the dumpster was that much of a change. Enclosing the dumpster is not required, however, the plan calls for an enclosue that will match the building. Edward Carrier asked if any material put in the dumpster would create odors. Mr. Schmitz responded that most material would be dry goods, with no produce.
Mr. Schmitz continued that the firm would be seeking variance approval for the signage. Proposed are two signs; one at each access; however, the Town of Colebrook regulations allow only one sign on site. The square footage of the signs is also in excess of the current regulations and would need a variance approval. The regulations call for a sign to be no more than 36 square feet. One sign being proposed equals 98 square feet and the sign above the door would equal 51.9 square feet.
Benoit Lamontage questioned if a traffic study had been completed by Newland Development. Mr. Schmitz responded that the company had obtained numbers from the State of NH Department of Transportation which indicated 7,900 cars traveling Main Street daily, along with 2,200 cars on Route 26 daily. It is expected the numbers for Colby Street would be less. Rite Aid traffic shows as 1,290 daily trips (in and out), for a total of approximately 600 customers. In answer to Sandra Riendeau’s question as to the placement of the main entrance, Mr. Schmitz responded that customers would be able to enter and exit from both the Main Street and Colby Street accesses. He elaborated that this design is similar to other Rite Aid sites as it is typical for Rite Aid to utilize a corner parcel. It was felt that the
trips would not increase over the traffic today to the existing businesses; however, no comparison data exists.
It was explained that the parking area is slated for 74 cars, three of the spaces being for the handicapped. In answer to Sandra Riendeau’s question, it was noted that employee parking is not designated, but is usually in the rear of the building. Mike Ouellet asked if the developers felt that non-customer parking would be a problem. Mr. Schmitz responded that he did not foresee that it would because, due to Colebrook’s regulations, more parking was being placed on site than usual in most of their projects.
Benoit Lamontagne then asked DOT District Engineer Greg Placy if, based on what he had heard and the current traffic on Route 26 and Main Street, did he foresee a problem. Greg explained that DOT looks at congestion; and the proposed site plan will be taking three existing entrances onto Main Street and making them into one entrance. The same holds true for Colby Street. Each proposed new entrance is as far from the intersections as possible. This reduction of three accesses to one access should help with the flow of traffic. He remarked that the Lancaster Rite Aid is situated on a corner lot and did not require a traffic study. Greg also remarked that no planned parking along the edge of the street would help alleviate problems. When Sandra Riendeau questioned if it would be wise to put a fourth
lane on Colby Street, Greg Placy answered that it would be unwise. Greg remarked that there is a driveway permit application submitted to the State for the Main Street entrance, and he does not foresee a problem. Mike Ouellet questioned the distance from the southern tip of the property to the crosswalk for school children. Mr. Placy answered that it is thirty feet and further remarked that the state requires only twenty feet.
John Falconer related that the Colebrook School Board, at the previous week’s meeting, voted to put the property line adjustment article, entailing the south side exchange for a fire entrance and fire hydrant, on the school district warrant. When asked, he stated no motion has been made yet as to whether the school board supports the article. Melissa Shaw asked, if the land swap was approved, would the school own the property where the fire entrance is proposed or just have an easement. It was ascertained that the school would own the fire lane; however, Rite Aid would install the driveway, sidewalk and emergency gate. In answer to why the gate would be closer to the property line than Colby Street, Brett Brooks responded that it was to allow the longest fire truck which is about 40 feet to get off Colby
Street before having to stop to undo the gate. A suggestion was made that the gate swing into toward the school.
Brett then spoke in favor of the project, in particular, the emergency lane. He related that when children are evacuated now, some leave by Dumont Street and some by Main Street, with fireman coming down the street fast. Those evacuating by Main Street come out the south entrance, while the fire trucks are entering the north entrance. Since the evacuation spot is the Methodist Church on Bridge Street, the emergency lane will allow children to use the lane while fire trucks are arriving. Currently there is no fire hydrant for Monadnock and Colby Street; the closest ones being on the old elementary school property and the Big Apple property. He continued that he understood that Rite Aid will buy the hydrant and piping with the town laying the line. In answer to Edward Carrier’s question as to
whether the emergency lane would be used daily by children, Brett responded that the walk way would be wide enough to allow kids or a wheelchair. Eddie then asked if this was a safe situation if fire trucks were coming in as the kids were coming out. Brett responded that, with the emergency lane being used for evacuation, the fire trucks would be able to enter the property via Dumont Street or off Main Street at the north entrance. Eddie questioned if it would be adviseable to have a sidewalk on the emergency lane. Brett responded that, since no cars will be using the fire lane, it probably was not necessary and it would raise the issue of having to shovel a sidewalk as it could not be plowed. Mike Ouellet responded that he felt cars would be pulling in and letting kids off, then backing out, just because the space was there. He felt that, anyime cars could be around, a sidewalk was necessary for pedestrians. Brett questioned if
eliminating, and grassing over the five parking spots indicated at the back of the building adjacent to the emergency lane, would help the situation. Edward Carrier questioned if the school would own the driveway and be responsible for maintaining.
Larry Rappaport questioned where the architectual plans were. He also mentioned that any variances for the signs would need to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Edward Carrier asked what the pitch of the roof would be and where the drainage would go. John Schmitz responded that the proposed building will have a flat roof, with roof drains on the front and rear canopy and also at the corner at the rear of the building. All this drainage would flow into a holding tank(s) and then be distributed into the town system. Kevin McKinnon questioned how what went into the storm drain system would be controlled. Mr. Schmitz responded that there would be manholes with holes in them that meters out the water into the storm drain.
Benoit Lamontagne remarked that he had heard frequently why this project should not be allowed because it was putting existing stores out of business. One existing store proprietor who is selling responded that “no one had put a gun to his head” and another responded that they were not going out of business, just moving their establishment. Linda Haynes stated that she felt Rite Aid on this site would help by giving more parking spaces and possibly give people the desire to venture up Main Street browsing. Ruth Lewis remarked that she felt landscaping was important so as not to detract from what is there.
Melissa Shaw, as the closest abutter, stated that she was not in opposition; however, their family did have concerns. The creation of the fire lane against their property line appears that it will hinder their ability to remove snow from their property. Lighting was another concern, both lighting on the site and the headlights of people turning into the Colby Street entrance. She remarked that their porperty has several problems currently regarding drainage from this site. She questioned if the actual demolition might affect their older home or cause them to have to close up the house during the summer months to eliminate dust and noise. Melissa also expressed concern that the large maple tree on the west side of the fire lane remain.
John Schmitz responded that, currently there is no curbing to stop drainage, so it naturally goes in the direction of the Shaw’s property. The proposed plan calls for the developers to add curbing that will catch and direct the water run-off to a catch basin. He also remarked that the arborvitae should help with any lighting problems. It was pointed out that the current plan shows the arborvitae only going as far as the Shaw’s garage which, in effect, would not shield their house. Phil Shaw asked if the line of trees could be extended to help eliminate car headlights. He also remarked he would like to see the fence stay along with the maple tree.
In response to Edward Carrier’s question as to whether the emergency lane would abut the Shaw’s property line, Mr. Schmitz remarked that it was five or six feet from the boundary line. Eddie asked if a barricade fence on that side with a row of trees on the other side would be feasible. The hedge and fence would buffer noise. Melissa questioned if they would be able to hear the drive-thru speaker.
In answer to whether the signs would be on all the time, Mr. Schmitz remarked that the illumination would not be on when the store was closed. There would be few lights on the building at night; however, lights on the lot have a shield to keep light from going over the property line. The current plan indicates twelve light poles and Mr. Shaw expressed concern regarding the illumination from the proposed lights along the fire lane. Melissa asked if overnight parking would be allowed. Mike Ouellet responded that, if this was a compelling concern, it was possible to have the plan indicate “no overnight parking of delivery trucks.” Greg Placy responded that the Board might want to think about restricting overnight parking because it might affect the necessity of getting vehicles off the street in
order to plow.
In response to Edward Carrier’s question regarding landscaping, Mr. Schmitz explained that the trees proposed along the property line were green ash and sugar maples. Mike Ouellet questioned if all the services would be coming in underground. Mr. Schmitz responded that they would need to go overhead from a pole on the other side of Colby Street and then would be underground. The proposed curbing would consist of concrete and granite; however, it might end up all granite. The proposed retaining wall bordering the school would be extended very close to the existing carriage shed.
Sandra Riendeau asked why Main Street had been chosen for this development rather than where the building currently exists. Mr. Linseman responded that the new location is centrally located and is able to offer a drive-thru pharmacy. It is felt the drive thru helps with safety issues by eliminating the need for older people having to get out of their vehicles. He also responded that the current property has wetland issues.
Cynthia Harris expressed her concerns regarding the traffic issue. She remarked that there is currently congestion due to vehicles coming off Route 26 with the proximity of the Main Street and Colby Street intersection. She understood that the proposed project cuts down on the entrances and exits onto Main Street and Colby Street, but she still had a concern regarding the volume within the whole area. She felt it was very difficult to come off Route 26 onto Main Street and, if the volume of traffic increased due to the Rite Aid project, it would become more of a hazard. She suggested it may mean a traffic light. Cynthia also expressed concern about how the proposed building would fit into the downtown colonial look. She would not like to see a big box store sitting on the corner.
Mike Ouellet responded that Mrs. Harris’ concerns regarding traffic were valid and were also one of his biggest concerns. He felt the Planning Board had under-estimated the traffic when Big Apple was proposed and they should pay close attention to that factor with this plan. He also expressed a desire for the developer to take into consideration the uniqueness of Colebrook and not produce a box store. He also wanted the public to understand that the Planning Board was very limited as to why they could deny the proposal. There are no laws or regulations governing the design of a building in Colebrook; however, the Board would work with the developers to get as much of Colebrook’s flavor into the design as possible. Edward Carrier continued that Colebrook is fortunate in that they can look at other
towns’ set-up and he felt this venture will attract more customers for other stores in town.
Donna Caron asked if the Board might consider limiting the accesses as entrance only on Main Street and exit only onto Colby Street, similar to the set-up at the Big Apple. Ken Linseman remarked that the entrance and egress proposed on both Main Street and Colby Street are at the furthest distance from the intersection of Route 26. He also felt that the existing gas station would have more traffic than a Rite Aid store. Greg Placy remarked that 90% of those going to the present Rite Aide use Main Street. Phil Shaw asked that, if a traffic study is considered, to please consider including Monadnock Street because not everyone uses Main Street. Kevin McKinnon remarked that the biggest portion of Colby Street’s traffic is in the morning and afternoon when school is open. Rick Collins
remarked that the crosswalks need painting.
Phil Shaw questioned when the demolition would begin and Mr. Schmitz responded it would be as soon as they have all permits. He further related that the demolition would be done by State standards. The developers have looked into any possible problems such as asbestos and contamination from underground storage tanks and found no significant problems. Phil expressed concern regarding lead paint and the fact that the window might be open in his residence, along with the fact that the school cafeteria is very close to the demolition site. Mr. Schmitz stated again that the developer would be following all state standards and have a mesh fence eight-feet high around the construction site. There would also be a construction trailer on site. Mr. Shaw wondered if it would be possible to receive a notice prior
to construction starting. In answer to an inquiry as to amunt of time required to build, Mr. Schmitz responded approximately 24 weeks. Mr. Linseman confirmed that he would be the owner of the building and would be leasing it to Rite Aid. Mike Ouellet remarked that the School Board had been informed that, if the land transfer between the school and Rite Aid did not transpire, the project would not go forward.
Chairman Ouellet stated that, since there was a lot of information to digest, he would ask that the Board move to continue the meeting, perhaps as early as the following week. Kevin McKinnon made a motion to continue review of the proposed site plan at a public hearing scheduled for Wednesday, January 17th. Benoit Lamontagne seconded and all present agreed. CONTINUED
Site Plan Regulation Amendments Public Hearing:
Chairman Ouellet explained that the purpose of the public hearing was to consider adding a proposed time limit on site plan projects as follows:
If an applicant fails to implement the proposed use, or, in cases of construction,
fails to undertake active and substantial development as set forth in RSA 674:39
I(a), within one year of the date of the Planning Board’s approval, whether or not the approval is subject to conditions, then the approval shall lapse, and no further work shall be done in furtherance of the approval, in the absence of additional hearing and action by the Planning Board. If the approval has been recorded, the Board may initiate action to revoke the approval pursuant to RSA 674:4-a.
In accord with RSA 674:39,III, the Planning Board may, as part of its approval decision, specify a threshold level of work which must be complete within one year in order to constitute “active and substantial development.” In addition, the Board may, as part of its approval, for good cause, specify a period of longer than one year within which such work must be performed.
The Planning Board may, due to circumstances beyond the applicant’s control or for other good cuase, grant an extension of the one-year or other specified period. No such extension shall be granted except after notice and hearing in the same amnner as is required for a hearing on an application.
Also being considered is an amendment to expand the site plan regulations to include “change of use.” Under consideration is the following:
General Procedure - When Site Plan Review is Required: Prior to the commencement of construction, land clearing or building development, prior to the filing of any site plan in the office of the Register of Deeds of Coos County, and before any building permit or other permission is granted by the Town, a landowner or developer or his/her authorized agent shall apply for and secure approval for the site development or change of use in accordance with these regulations for any of the following:
All new buidings, whether principal or accessory, which are proposed to be used in conjunction with nonresidential or multifamily uses.
In the case of existing nonresidential or multifamily uses, all additions of more than 500 square feet floor area or other impermeable surface including paving; or any such additions of less than 500 square feet or floor area, if constructed within three years of any prior construction.
Even in the absence of construction under paragraph 2 above, any change from residential to nonresidential use, from single-family or duplex to multifamily use, or from one nonresidential use to another. A change shall be considered to be from one use to another if the uses are in different categories, as listed in the Zoning Ordinance, or if the change can reasonably be anticipated to have a materially different impact, as determined by the Planning Board, on factors considered by these regulations, including but not limited to streets and traffic, sidewalks, drainage, utilities, natural features, or landscaping.
Any material change to any previously-approved site plan, or series of changes over a three-year period resulting in material change, as detemined by the Planning Board.
After reviewing the above, Board members decided they needed more clarification from legal counsel regarding the 500 square foot item. Any action on the amendment will be postponed until clarification is received.
Bills:
Edward Carrier made a motion to approve payment of the invoices from the News and Sentinel totaling $80.50 and Gardner Fulton & Waugh for $37.50. Kevin McKinnon seconded and all present agreed.
New Business:
A complaint has been received regarding at least three unregistered vehicles remaining in the parking lot at the apartment building located on Gould Street. A letter will be sent to the owner, William Blackwood.
Kevin McKinnon made a motion to approve the November planning board minutes as written; Benoit Lamontagne seconded and all present agreed. A motion to approve the December minutes as presented was moved by Kevin McKinnon, seconded by Sandra Riendeau and agreed to by all present.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Sheila M. Beauchemin
| 
