City of Keene Mandates Fences Around Dumpsters

4 Comments on City of Keene Mandates Fences Around Dumpsters

Ian Bernard on Sun, 11th Feb 2007 10:11 am


---

Mandates are slavery. Let the market decide on fencing.

(Adding a new “Business Freedom” category and unticking “uncategorized”.)


Militarydad on Fri, 16th Feb 2007 9:29 pm


---

Fences around dumpsters?
I’ve got an idea, instead of building a roundabout on Main, Winchester and Marlborough, put a fence at the end of Winchester and Marlborough streets.End of traffic problem. Better yet, mandate no traffic on Main st. Turn it into a pedestrian mall.
Be sure the pedestrians are wearing proper foot wear though.
Wouldn’t want any unsightly holey sneakers, or untied laces.


Militarydad on Fri, 16th Feb 2007 9:33 pm


---

The next time you’re on Ralston street check out the area around the propane tank at the Pub Restaurant.
Tell me the last time you saw a dumpster that was any more unsightly than that.
Maybe our councilors should speak to the mayor about that.
Ya think?


Curt Springer on Wed, 3rd Sep 2008 6:22 pm


---

One little complication:

Croteau’s dumpster is not on his own private property. It is on city property.

From
http://www.ci.keene.nh.us/minutes/pld/2006_11_29_pld_minutes.htm

3. COMMUNICATION: John Croteau/Syd’s Carpet & Snooze Room – Condition for Revocable License – Fence Standards for Screening of Dumpsters on City Property:

Chair Jones recognized John Croteau of Syd’s Carpet & Snooze Room, 43 St. James Street, Keene, NH. Mr. Croteau stated that he received a $3,800 cost estimate from Mondanock Fence to build a fence according to the City’s specifications. He said the City requires that the fence be built on a concrete slab, which can add another $1,000 to $2,000. He was not sure whether a slab would still be required if situated in a parking lot. Mr. Croteau said the City supplied him a list of six names which supposedly have fences around their dumpsters: three fraternities at Keene State College; McCue’s Billards & Sports Lounge; the 7-11 on Court Street; and 43 St. James Street. Mr. Croteau reported that he visited McCue’s, the 7-11 and 43 St. James Street and discovered there were not any enclosed dumpsters.

Mr. Croteau said he counted 22 dumpsters downtown Keene. He also learned that Waste Management is opposed to the fences because it takes one-third longer to empty the trash and this would increase his cost. Mr. Croteau asked for clarification on the ordinance.

Councilor Joseph Bendzinski asked why the City furnished Mr. Croteau with this misinformation.

Medard Kopczynski, Assistant City Manager/Health Director, explained that the requirement for dumpster enclosures has been a planning requirement for quite some time. The present ordinance is being applied both retroactively upon complaint and for any new development. He was not aware of the list supplied to Mr. Croteau. Mr. Kopczynski reported that McCue’s has been given a temporary certificate of occupancy with one of the outstanding issues being dumpster enclosure, and is currently under citation. Mr. Kopczynski explained that Mr. Croteau’s situation is somewhat different in that it is being addressed retroactively and from the standpoint of site plan approval, as a condition for the use of City property. He stated that although the City does not actively seek enforcement it could, if that is the wish of City Council.

Rhett Lamb, Planning Director, reviewed that screening dumpsters is a requirement of site plan approval. Mr. Lamb recalled that in 2002, Mr. Croteau had requested a waiver on behalf of Syd’s, and received approval of a site plan process. Mr. Lamb further reviewed that the Planning Board had evaluated the site issues and determined that the project was not significant enough to require a site plan review, but instructed staff to handle the site plan process administratively. Mr. Lamb stated that staff conducted this review and imposed the requirement for an enclosure around the dumpster. Staff agreed to issue a temporary certificate of occupancy because the dumpster is located on City property, with Mr. Croteau’s commitment to install the screening. Staff also understood that Mr. Croteau would need to come before City Council in order to get a waiver to install the screening, because the dumpster is on City property.

City Councilor Paula-Ayn Phillips asked if Mr. Croteau would be required to install a concrete slab. Mr. Lamb responded that the Planning Board standard does not talk about a pad. Mr. Kopczynski responded that the City has not been requiring a pad in situations where there is pavement.

Mr. Croteau asked if a stockade fence would be appropriate. Mr. Lamb responded that the Planning Board requirement is for a 6-foot high solid wood fence. Mr. Croteau said he had been informed by Code Enforcement that a stockade fence and a link fence would not be appropriate; however, it now appears that a stockade fence would be adequate. He said the specifications for fences are in the 2004 ordinance, which happens to have been adopted after the addition to Syd’s. Mr. Lamb said approval was in 2002/2003 through the Planning Board regulation process; however, Chapter 18 of the City Code concerning enclosures of dumpsters was adopted in 2004/2005 and there may be different requirements for the type of enclosure. Mr. Kopczynski said there did not appear to be any conflict, in that the plan and the ordinance both refer to the enclosure as being solid.

Councilor Frederick Parsells asked if a stockade fence would be less expensive. Mr. Croteau said a stockade fence would be approximately $1,000 less.

Mr. Croteau commented that he has not seen any dumpsters with enclosures at the “mom and pop” stores along Main Street. He said it appears as though the sites are arbitrarily chosen and asked how many actually comply with the City’s ordinance. Mr. Lamb responded that sites are not arbitrarily selected. He explained that dumpster enclosures are a requirement of the site plan review process; if a complaint is received then enforcement action is taken.

Mr. Croteau said his addition was built three years ago but the ordinance was adopted in 2004. Mr. Lamb recollected that the reason this issue is before the PLD is not because of the original approval through the site plan review process, but because of the license Mr. Croteau requested to occupy city property with a private use. He said it was through the license procedure that City Council saw fit to take an enforcement measure on Chapter 18, and as a follow up to the original site plan approval.

Kürt Blomquist, Public Works Director, stated that as the code indicates, when it is not a site plan process it would be a complaint driven to the Public Works Department. He said the Public Works Department has not received any complaints to date, but after listening to Mr. Croteau, Mr. Blomquist said Public Works will follow up as required by City Code. When the code was adopted City Council wanted it to be complaint driven.

Mayor Blastos asked if staff makes sure requirements have been met before a certificate of occupancy is issued. Mr. Lamb responded in the positive; adding that any requirements not met are dealt with through the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. Mayor Blastos asked how long a temporary certificate of occupancy is good for. Mr. Kopczynski responded that temporary certificates of occupancy are a problem from the standpoint of management. Most are issued on single family houses and additions. Under normal circumstances they are issued because of weather conditions. Most temporary certificates of occupancy, other than the ones issued on the cusp of the season, are issued for 30 to 60 days depending on the circumstances. He recalled that Mr. Croteau’s building and McCue’s are the only commercial buildings that have temporary certificates of occupancy. He said the licensure issue is the final decision in this process where the City has stipulated that Mr. Croteau can use the property with the condition that he conform to City Code, which will also bring him into compliance with the site plan requirements.

City Councilor James Duffy asked if part of the rationale behind enclosures is that they will help contain trash. Mr. Kopczynski responded in the affirmative.

Mr. Blomquist pointed out that to his knowledge there is not a waiver provision within Chapter 18.

Councilor Parsells said he understood that Mr. Croteau was looking for a level of fairness and consistency from the City and that he was concerned about the cost factor. He encouraged Mr. Croteau to meet with Mr. Kopczynski and the other department heads.

City Councilor Pamela Russell Slack asked how much the fine was. Mr. Kopczynski responded $100.00 for the first offense, $200 for the second, and $300 for the third.

On a vote of 5-0, the Planning, Licenses and Development Committee voted to have staff handle this matter administratively.

Post your comment below. Login in the far right column to get rid of CAPTCHA. If you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

Name (required)

Email Address (required)

Website

Speak your mind

CAPTCHA Code *