Good evening.

I would like to call the October 28th, 2025 meeting of the planning board to order.

Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation, other God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

My name is Joe Fioli serving as chairman tonight.

Members sitting for the planning board tonight.

To my right, Jim Harvey.

Good evening, Salem.

Bjarca Carlson.

Good evening, Salem.

And to my left, town Council Rett Paul Pelletier.

Good evening, Sal.

Chuck Sava.

Good evening.

And Damon Norcross.

Happy early Halloween, everyone.

With us from the planning department, planning director Jacob Lafontaine.

The agenda for tonight is as follows for items of new business.

First item is the Tuscan Village Block 1300 Epicurean Site Plan.

Public hearing for a conditional use permit for three temporary banners exceeding 50 square feet at 24 R via Tuscana.

Second item is uh the Salemi Family Trust Subdivision.

It's preliminary hearing for a lot line adjustment at 175 and 177 Main Street.

Uh Sphere Realty, Labrador Enterprises and DJR Realty Subdivision.

It's a preliminary preliminary hearing for a subdivision at 11 Shadow Lake Road and 374 North Broadway.

And the last item is a Lowell Road Solar LLC.

It's a public hearing for one and a half megawatt commercial solar energy system and associate equipment on a capital landfill at 87A Lowell Road.

Any withdrawals tonight?

No withdrawals, Mr.

Chair.

We have one item of uh minutes tonight.

Mr.

Chair, I move to accept the minutes from minutes from the October 14th, 2025 Planning Board meeting meeting as written.

Second.

Motion of second to accept the October 14th meeting minutes.

Any discussion on that?

All in favor.

Abstaining.

Okay.

Thank you.

With that, we'll go to the first item of uh new business.

That's the Tuscan Village Bar 1300 Epicurean site plan.

Uh conditional use permit for three temporary temporary banners.

Mr.

Chairman, I move to accept the site plan as complete.

Second.

All is in favor.

That's unanimous.

Um voters, please.

The abutters are as follows.

If you're here, please indicate by saying so.

They are Tuscan Village Block 1300, Tuscan Village Master Development, Tuscan Village Block 1200, Tuscan South Village, Tuscan Village Tool Building, and that is all.

Thank you.

Go to the applicant to present the plan.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, for the record, my name is Mark Rose.

I'm with Tuscan Village, Salem, uh representing Tuscan Village Development LLC.

Um with our upcoming uh first phase of uh occupancy for the residential units in building 1300.

Uh they are looking to put up uh three um temporary banner signs uh on the building, and I just want to take you through that and then I'll I can go through the criteria and the uh conditional use permit.

So Jacob.

So this is the uh facade facing uh 28, and you can see I think this is the uh smallest uh sign out of the three.

Uh and as you can see, it's located um that building to the left of the sign does step back, but that whole uh facade is uh the residential from the uh second floor up.

And uh this sign is uh 175 square feet.

And uh next slide, Jake.

Oh can you go back to that?

So one of the things that Jacob and I talked about is that with some of the signage, particularly with uh the larger signs that we are requesting, and in the past we have requested uh we kind of looked at what the what the uh ratio of the sign area was to the building facade because it is a fairly large building facade.

And in this case, uh this banner uh is about six percent.

Uh the area of the banner is 0.6% of the uh total square footage uh of the uh facade.

So we can go to the next one.

So this is on the south facing side, and it's in the uh upper uh left corner of the building.

Uh this will be uh again facing south in that corner.

Uh actually that's that's interior to the uh development.

Uh so really the only uh people are gonna be seeing that are are the people that are uh interior to the development.

Um I think that's important because we do get a lot of people that come to the village and maybe looking for an opportunity for a rental, or for people who are living in other uh rentals in that area may decide they want to you know take a look at these and go over.

So uh I think that's our biggest audience is basically people who are coming into the village.

So this uh this sign is uh 253 square feet, and this ratio of the uh uh building facade uh to the sign is 0.8 percent.

Let me go to the next one, Jacob.

So this is on the other corner facing west, uh upper right hand side, and again, this is facing uh internal to the to the village.

Uh this is the largest or the larger sign, which is 297 square feet, and that has a ratio uh to the building facade of one percent.

So next slide, Jacob.

And these are just kind of the larger details.

This is the uh the one at the uh south uh southwest corner.

Um building signs one and two.

Go to the next one.

This is just a bigger larger version, and this is the one uh that is the smaller of the the three signs, and this is the one facing uh 28.

And then uh that if the board, before I get into the criteria, if the board wants to ask any questions, I'll be glad to answer.

Otherwise, I can go right into the criteria.

Um I don't think I think that was enough.

We normally just reference the letter from September 22 uh requesting the uh conditional use permit.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Uh go to the planning department for staff comments.

Uh I don't have a whole lot to uh to this presentation.

They are very large banners, but as you can see from the uh elevations I've provided, um the buildings are also very large.

I did a uh ratio of calculation based off the linear uh footer frontage from Mr.

Gross.

I think his are probably more exact, mine were ballpark, but uh none of them exceed uh uh greater than one uh square foot per linear foot of frontage based on Mr.

Gross's calculations.

Mine were slightly lower, with the exception of the one facing 28.

So you know the Tuscan village sign standards they allow for a 50 square foot sign.

Uh these are obviously much greater than that, but I guess the the thought would be to discuss the uniqueness of this building.

There's not too many uh buildings quite this size.

This is probably one of the larger buildings in the development in terms of mass, and then obviously it it's uh it's six stories, and they are temporary in nature.

If if the board were to approve and grant the conditional use permit, one of the recommendations would be to reinforce the duration, which is already in the Tuscan Village Science Standards, but it'd be good to condition that.

These would only be able to be uh on the building for 12 months or 80 percent occupancy, whichever occurs first.

So um, you know, at no point would they be up for greater than one year.

That's uh that's all I have.

Thank you.

Any members of the public like to speak on the plan?

Go to the board for comments, yeah.

Ms.

Carlson?

Um so do you have you already gotten certificate of occupancy for the building?

No.

Um that'll be I think it's a week from tomorrow.

We're working on it now.

We're gonna be walking the uh site with Jacob preparing the as built uh for that.

And when were the signs installed?

I'm sorry.

When were the signs installed?

The um actually before I filed this application, uh the two on the southwest corner were installed by the marketing company that is working for uh Tuscan.

Okay.

So uh those are internal to the site.

I suggested that they take them down before we um and unfortunately I was out of town for a couple of weeks.

Um to agree, but tend to agree.

But um in any case, I think it may be helpful if you were able to get a date to send a Jacob to lend me one up just so we can be able to track the 12 months.

Yep.

That'll be helpful.

Um that's all I have.

Thanks.

Um how just how large are the signs that are up now?

They're those sizes that I have.

They are the size.

The actual signs or are they because they looked a little for whatever reason I thought they looked a little different from this.

No, I think those are the signs, although I drove through today, they look they may be replacing them because the wording, the lettering for epicurean, is large case for the first letter and is lowercase for the lower ones.

And it should all be uppercase.

So they're probably going to be replaced.

All right.

With the lettering being the epicurean being all uppercase letters.

And then are will any of these signs cover any of the windows?

No.

Okay.

They're all in the area between the top of the window and the parapet.

Great.

Thank you.

Anything further from the board?

Yeah, Ms.

Harvey.

Just a curious, Mr.

Gross.

The sign that's I I guess what I would say is furthest from the populace, and where we get the most visibility from traffic is the smallest sign that you guys are asking for.

The one on 28.

And that's be is that because the 28 traffic is not seen as a key element to the business model?

I you know, I gotta tell you, I mean, looking at that sign from this viewpoint, it's it's probably not going to be extremely visible from 28.

So uh because that even though that building looks fairly close, or that portion of the building looks fairly close, it's it's literally you know, maybe a hundred, hundred, maybe a hundred and fifty, two hundred feet from the street.

So yeah, I think that was the whole reason for the one on the corner being the the largest of the three, or the two are the largest, is that we're gonna get more inquiries for the apartments from foot traffic because they're literally gonna be you know looking up and have lots of reader more visible.

So just out of curiosity, thanks.

Uh yeah, Mr.

Sava.

Just a comment.

Um, you know, in the future, you really have to come in to do this before the signs go up.

Can you agree to that?

So if this happens again, there'll be no sign changes.

Right.

Uh no extensions to the 12 months.

Right.

No, there won't be.

Okay.

We're hoping that the 80% is going to happen well before 12 months.

So we're looking at 100% occupancy, and that just means the units are going to be available, doesn't mean tenancy uh by spring of next year.

And one other question now.

When will the retail uh stores be opening?

Um well, the first one Whole Foods will be open.

That's the biggest retailer in there.

Um June of 2026, I believe.

Okay.

So anything further from the board?

I don't have any concerns on the signs.

Um I'll obtain a motion.

Mr.

Chair, I'm uh Mr.

Chair, I move to grant a conditional use permit under section 490-702 subsection D and Section 11D of Tuscan sign standards to allow three temporary signs that exceed 50 square feet, and where uh is where one's allowed?

Oh, I believe it's one at 50 square feet.

Yeah, is it are we is it conditional use for I think they're allowed to have one per built and frontage?

Is that how the Tuskins are?

One per yeah, one per frontage.

So there's three.

There's actually four frontages.

Okay.

Um, but we're only using three because the other one, the northern, no one's gonna see that.

Apologies.

Let me uh just start that over.

Mr.

Chair, I moved to grant a conditional use permit under section 490-702 subsection D and section one one D of Tuscan sign standards uh to allow three temporary signs that exceed 50 square feet.

This is granted granted subject to the four conditions that I will read or Mr.

La Fontaine will read.

Uh I could read just because I made a modification to uh condition two if that's okay.

Yep.

Uh conditions would recommended conditions would be one no conditional use permit on plan two signs shall be removed after a period of not more than twelve months, which shall be retroactive from uh when signs were installed, or 80 percent occupancy of the building based on occupancy permits, whichever comes occurs first, and then three any modification to sign requires review and approval from planning board and all representations made by applicant or agents and all notes on the plan are incorporated as part of the approval.

This is granted subject to the four conditions as outlined by Mr.

Lafontaine with reference to the letter from the applicant.

Second got a long motion, a second to uh grant the conditional use permit for the three signs with the four conditions noted.

Um any discussion on that?

Um all in favor?

That's unanimous, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh next item of um new business is the Salemi Family Trust Subdivision.

That's a preliminary hearing for a lot line adjustment at 175-177.

Is Chair move to accept the application as complete?

Second motion and a second to accept the plan.

Um all in favor.

That's uh unanimous.

I get the uh butters, please.

Yeah, butters are as follows.

If you're here, please indicate by saying so.

They are Hanson Family Revocable Trust.

Hansen family is here, QDEC, Levy and Tate and Wittaker, Valholi, uh JM Foy family, Applesteen, Applestein is here, goslin and dun.

Goslin and Dunn are here, and uh Salemi 179 Main Street and East Windfield Realty.

That is all uh thank you.

Um go to the applicant to present the plan.

Yeah, good evening, Mr.

Chairman and Board members.

My name's Kurt Meiserm with My Zebram Corporation here this evening to represent the Swami uh family trust.

Um what we have before you this evening is a uh I'll say it's a fairly simple lot line adjustment.

Um we were we went to the zoning board back in October of 2024 to create the lots as they were previously configured.

Uh we went to the planning board in December of 2024.

You folks approved the plan uh back then, and as you know, we have a proposed development in the back of the property uh for some uh condominiums, and during the design of those sites, we found that we needed to adjust this lot line uh that's between uh I think it's 175 uh is the front building with the existing home on it.

Uh we needed to move that lot line uh some 26 feet uh forward and to accommodate the infrastructure and the design of the parcel that's out behind it.

So fairly simply we meet the zoning requirements on both lots as was approved by the zoning board, so we we don't diminish those in any way, and we're just looking to move that lot line forward a little bit.

Um nothing else changes on the site as we see it right now.

If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Uh thank you.

Uh Jacob, your comments.

Yeah, um, so as Mr.

Meisner stated, they were before you um previously for the uh the subdivision which you had proved, and at this point they are uh conveying uh uh let's see 0.08 acres from the parent lot 175 to the new uh lot for 22 uh townhouses, which is 177.

Um I've just taken Mr.

Meisner's uh uh that's all I want to do.

Here we go.

I've taken Mr.

Meisner's plan and I've just highlighted that area.

It it's this area here, which is the point zero, sorry, 0.8 acres that is gonna be essentially kind of absorbed by this back parcel.

And as Mr.

Meisner uh indicated, that is to accommodate the development.

Uh they are still gonna have the required lot area for duplex.

Uh the frontage remains the same.

They still have 150 feet of front, uh, 150 feet of frontage, right?

Um so they meet all zone in for the for the uh lot that is got the duplex on it.

This would be to accommodate additional development.

Um they did get a variance to allow the use on the back site.

Uh that is not under the jurisdiction of this subdivision, they'll have to come back in at a future time to uh show you the site plan and how they're gonna develop that back parcel, but this is to convey that portion so that they can accommodate the development.

And uh if your concerns are satisfied, my recommendation would be uh to move to here and one here and grant conditional approval, subject to conditions I can provide it if if and when you would like.

Uh thank you.

Yeah, why don't you read those into the record?

Uh those conditions would be uh prior to recording plan one, submit staff approvals, two setter bond monuments, and then under three all representation is made by applicant or agents and all notes on the plan are incorporated as part of the approval.

Thanks.

Anyone like to speak on the plan?

Any members from the public name and address for the record?

So Kent Hampton, 20 Martin Avenue.

So by moving the lot line forward, how does that accommodate the development plan?

Is my question?

Yeah, we can have the uh applicant answer it, but uh really we're just doing doing a lot line adjustment.

They'll come in for another, they'll come in for another hearing for a cycle.

How by moving it forward, what does that do?

Is that allowing for additional space?

Um that's my question.

Okay, yeah, we can have the applicant answer that one.

Sure.

So when we entered into final design on that, we found that the some of the infrastructure needed to take up a little bit more space.

Uh we needed some room to accommodate uh drainage structures and parking areas and such.

So we're just sliding that forward.

Um it doesn't it it doesn't change anything that we're doing in the back.

We don't get more units, we don't you know it doesn't really change the site other than it accommodates the infrastructure.

Okay.

Anything further?

Anyone else like to speak on the plan?

Well, Kendrick Dunn, 10 Barnab.

Um with him taking whatever that space is that's what is it 26 feet or whatever?

Yeah, it's point zero uh point eight.

So is that coming off of his other property?

It is yes, yeah.

So is that a rezoning thing?

Well, the the duplex lot is still gonna have enough area and it'll have enough frontage, so it's still gonna be a conforming lot.

So it doesn't warrant uh him to go back to the zoning board because uh owns it.

Yeah, well, the lot that is gonna be improved by the 22 units is gonna become larger, and then the duplex lot is gonna uh still be conforming.

So the wonder thank you.

Um anything further from the public on the plan.

Um anything from the board let's get all detain a motion.

Mr.

Chair, I moved it here in one hearing and grant conditional approval for the lot line adjustment subject to the three conditions outlined by Mr.

LaFontaine.

Second, motion a second to uh hear the uh select me subdivision plan in one hearing and grant the uh approve the plan with the three conditions noted.

Any discussion on that?

All in favor.

That's unanimous.

Thank you.

Alrighty, thank you very much, though.

Next item of new business uh for uh on the agenda tonight is uh the realty, labrador enterprises, and DJR Realty Subdivision.

That's a preliminary hearing for subdivision at 11 Shadow Lake Road and 374 North Broadway.

Is the plan complete?

Yes, the plan is complete.

Mr.

Chair, I move to accept the plan is complete.

Second.

Motion to second to accept the plan.

All those in favor, that's unanimous.

The abutters are as follows.

If you're here, please indicate by saying so.

They're Gagnon, Bailey, Lucier, Madison, Eggley, uh Melissos, uh, Dancero and Wilkinson, Lemieux, Canaby Corners Management Services, Town of Salem, Ormos, Inglace Inglesia, Pentecostal, Casa de Restauration, State of New Hampshire, and State of New Hampshire DOT.

I tried.

I tried.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Jared Gott from the debate group.

I'm here representing the uh three clients, Sophia Realty, Labrador Enterprises, and DJR Realty.

Um this is uh plan that's already been approved once before by the planning board, and we're back uh for an amendment for the two rear lots 3529 and 3528.

Um previously those two lots were to be merged with this subdivision, and now what we're uh aiming to do is keep them separate.

They're two separate uses.

Uh 3528 is actually uh portion of the parcel in Windham for Rogers Auto, and 3529 is uh for a duplex lot in Salem.

So the owner wanted to keep the two lots separate as they're under two different zoning, and all the items for the front parcel 3531, that's to remain the same, the same uh areas obtained from 3528 and 3529 from the previously approved subdivision.

That's all to remain the same.

So it's just for uh no longer merging those two rear lots.

That's all.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Thanks.

Yeah, um, so I won't add too much to the presentation.

They are uh just essentially re-established on this lot line that had previously existed.

They came to you uh with that lot line eliminated to put the lot line back.

Uh they had to go to the zoning board and they did receive a variance uh in August of this year, and that was because to reestablish this uh uh property line.

This lot becomes less conform and because they conveyed this portion here to the uh the commercial lot in the front.

So ZBA granted the variance back in August, they're gonna come back to you.

And uh at the end of the day, this these lots will exist as they historically have.

Um but nothing changes in the front of the lot.

Uh would acknowledge that they did acquire some DOT right-of-way, and that was presented to the board, I think earlier this year uh for informational purposes.

Um that'll be kind of formally shown on this plan as well.

Um aside from that, we are still pending some staff approvals.

If if your concerns are satisfied, recommendation would be uh to grant to sorry to move to here and one hearing and grant conditional approval subject to conditions.

I can provide different one you'd like, which would be prior to recording plan one, submit staff approvals, two set or bond monuments, and then three all representations made by applicant or agents and all notes on the plan are incorporated as part of the approval.

Thank you.

Anyone from the public like to speak on the plan?

So just for clarification, Jacob, they had originally proposed to r remove the lot line separating 3528 and 3529, and now they're asking to put it back where it was.

Exactly.

Yep.

Is the uh development going to move forward?

The forward development supposed to.

Okay.

Yeah, one thing in your review form, I won't want it too much, but we in the past you've talked about some compliance matters at on the site.

We are still working to address some of those.

Um I think they've made some significant improvements, but uh you know, there are some things that don't comply with their existing site plan, and we can work through that with our uh code enforcement officer.

Is there uh is there a timeline on this?

It looks like there's like new signage all around the site, like a new tenant or something out there.

Yeah, I don't know if you uh I'm Eddie might be able to answer this better than I can, but uh uh you want to come up and uh no tenants yet was to look into after the closing with Rogers, we need to uh list it, see what you're gonna have for tenants.

But so far we haven't closed with Rogers, so we'll be able to list it as the way it is right now.

Yeah, I meant to tenant to the existing of the existing property.

We don't have anything yet.

We haven't got that far.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um yeah, name I guess name and address.

But I also um had a question.

I guess what it so what is going on with the fence company that's there now?

Is that is that site being acquired?

Do you do you own that site?

Mr.

Mr.

Spear, could you introduce yourself for the the record?

And then she'd asked the uh question.

So sorry, could first could you introduce yourself?

Oh, my name is Eddie Smith.

Eddie Sphere, yeah.

Yeah, and you're the owner of the Yes, I'm the owner for uh 370 for Broadway.

Yeah, so you're the owner of the site where the fence company is currently correct.

And so the compliance concerns that that you had were related to the fence company that's there currently.

That's correct, yeah.

So the fence company is new?

No, they've been there for a couple years.

Four years.

Okay.

They just put a bunch of signage up recently.

Yeah, but yeah, for they're not gonna be there for the new project.

So naturally.

Okay.

Um, but so you're working through the compliance with code enforcement.

Yeah, we did send a uh violation notice, I believe, within the last month, and I know uh Mr.

McDowell who's like code enforcement enforcement officer and myself visited the site.

And there's a couple other items too that um where you know that there's their display areas and spaces that were previously approved to be parking, which you know.

So if the site gets redeveloped, that kind of cures the uh the violation or non-compliance, but uh it has been a few years since I think you initially uh 2021, I think is when you initially approved the consolidation and lot line adjustment.

So we'll continue to work through it in the end term.

Sure.

I guess my only ask is to make sure that you're working with the tenant and with Jacob in our code enforcement officer to cure those issues ahead of the redevelopment.

Okay thank you anything further from the board emotion Mr.

Chair I move to here in one hearing and grant the waiver and grant conditional approval subject to the three conditions noted by Mr.

Lafontaine the motion a second to um here the subdivision the sphere go DJR realty subdivision for one hearing and uh approve with the uh the three conditions the two conditions noted any discussion all is in favor uh it's unanimous thank you thank you have a great night thank you and the last item of uh new business on the agenda tonight is a low road solar LLC that's a public hearing for a one and a half megawatt commercial solar energy system and associated equipment on a cap landfill at 87 AOL Road is a plan complete yes the plan is complete is chair a move to accept the plan as complete second motion a second to accept the plan of all in favor it's unanimous butters please the abutters are as follows if you hear these indicate by saying so there turner homestead uh automotive recovery services the veto truck and space place Salem ML Brady LLC Silva and that is all thank you go to the applicant to present the call good evening my name is Naomi Prahl I'm a civil engineer with NOBIS Group and I'm here tonight on behalf of Lowell Road Solar LLC.

The project in front of you is a reapplication for a project that was originally approved by the sale and planning board in 2015.

Fun fact the previous approval was almost 10 years ago to the day it was October 27th 2015.

At that time the project was not completed because the landfill actually needed a new cap um which was completed in 2023.

Jacob if you could bring up sheet C2 which I think is page seven of the PDF perfect C2 right?

Yes C2.

So the proposal now is to construct a one and a half megawatt solar array on the existing landfill at 87 Lowell Road.

The landfill is owned by L L and S and I'm sure most of you are familiar with that site.

The panels will cover approximately four and a half acres and we will be surrounded by a seven foot high wildlife fence.

There's access to the top of the landfill from an existing gravel drive the gravel drive comes off of a paved driveway that is off of Lowell Road.

In terms of visibility these panels are approximately 12 feet high at their highest point and they will be visible from points along Lowell Road because you can see the top of the landfill from there.

There are however trees on the east west and south sides for screening and I also want to mention that the panels come standard with an anti-glare coating now obviously there won't be any impacts to traffic the panels really don't generate noise these do not move so the only noise is the hum of a transformer which is centrally located on the top of the cap.

As far as the landfill cap itself there aren't going to be any neglect um bad impacts to the cap because all of the foundations for the panels are gabian baskets so they're stone filled baskets they just sit on top of the surface so we won't be digging into that landfill cap in any way all of the electric conduit will also be above the ground there are wetlands on the site to the east and south of the landfill but we are well outside of the 100 foot prime wetland buffer so we don't have any impacts to wetlands or to buffers as far as safety we have provided an emergency response plan with our application the solar array is surrounded by a fence as I mentioned to prevent unauthorized access there will be two locking gates for fire department access as well as a Knox box provided.

We did have a request I believe from the fire department to provide some training for their personnel as to how to respond to emergencies.

So after that time the panels will be decommissioned.

There are actually a couple things that could happen my understanding is that the lifespan of these panels these days is actually more like 35 years.

My understanding is that the lifespan of these panels these days is actually more like 35 years.

So there is still some life left in them after the 25-year period.

They can be moved and repurposed, taken to third world countries for you know other people to use.

But the other alternative is that they can be broken down and they are almost 100% recyclable.

As far as stormwater, when the landfill was capped recently, they also constructed a large detention basin to the west of the landfill.

At that time when they did the stormwater model, the cap of the landfill was assumed to be impervious cover.

So that basin is sized to accommodate basically anything you could pave the entire top of the landfill, and it would be sized appropriately to handle that.

So adding the panels doesn't actually contribute any additional stormwater runoff.

And the stormwater will just go into that detention basin.

We have requested a couple of waivers with our application.

One is for the provision of the stormwater calculations for the reason that I just noted.

The other one was just, I think, for our vicinity plan at a scale of one inch equals 100 feet.

We do have other permit applications that we have submitted, and our pending one is to the NHDES alteration of terrain bureau.

And that is for the area of the solar panel array, which does exceed 100,000 square feet.

We also have submitted to NHDES solid waste for a type 1B permit modification.

This is basically a modification to the existing permit for the landfill, which will allow the solar panels to be placed on top of it.

So basically the installation of the solar panels on the landfill cap is creating a productive use of an otherwise non-productive area.

And it will also contribute to lowering the tax rolls in town.

So at this point, if anyone has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Thanks.

We'll get there in a minute.

We'll have a little listen to the planning department's comments.

So as she said they you did approve this back in uh October of 2015, and since that time we have adopted a solar energy ordinance, so they've come in under that provision.

Um essentially kind of the same proposal here.

When they came in in 2015, they did get third-party engineering review.

As the applicant noted, it is now capped and the entire area is treated as in previous area.

So they requested that stormwater waiver uh in discussion with our senior engineer.

I felt it was appropriate.

Uh, you know, I think the AO or uh DES was comfortable with uh you know not requiring an amended.

Oh no, you are gonna get an amended AOT.

I think we are getting the AOT, but they had actually suggested just requesting a waiver for providing those calculations.

So if DES was comfortable with it, our engineer is comfortable with it, it seemed to be appropriate.

Um the vicinity plan waivers, uh they're kind of a conservative approach.

I don't think we generally are that strict about the the uh scale there, but they did to their credit uh request it because that criteria hasn't been met.

Uh there are a couple of minor items from the uh from the plan and review form uh regarding the access width and the zone line, but those are things that I think that could be handled at the staff level.

Um aside from that uh fire access and turnaround lane were provided.

We did get a comment from our deputy fire chief for guard and train, and I'll just read uh you know, can you please have the contractor provide a fire department access plan?

Uh they did provide that in the emergency uh response plan, and they also have this sheet here uh C2 that uh is it C2 or uh C1 shows the emergency response plan and where the uh ladder truck for the fire truck would have to be stationed uh to access the array.

Um recommendation there would be because the uh the fire department is uh requesting training.

This would be our first commercial array, and it's um similar to what we did when Tuskin built uh parking garages.

We've historically had parking structures associated with a mall, but when we get our first parking garage, we coordinated with the applicant to have training for the uh the fire department so they could uh you know be familiar with how to respond to that structure, and we'd request the same thing here.

Uh recommendation would be that we have a condition that says um fire department training shall be uh included in the emergency response plan.

Aside from that, we are still pending some staff approvals, but those could be incorporated uh as part of the approval.

If you'd like, I could read recommended conditions.

Uh sure.

Recommended conditions of approval would be prior to building permit.

One, submit staff approvals, two, post decommission and bond equal to the cost of removal of approved facilities.

Three, submit approval from uh NHGS.

That's for the solid waste management facility permit modification and AOT.

Also it would be to add uh fire department training to the emergency response plan.

And then prior to occupancy, uh I think we're at five installation and operation shall comply with 497 14 solar energy systems, which is our solar ordinance, and then uh six provide certified as built site plan.

Seven, construct all site improvements in in accordance with the approved plan, and then under other all representations made by applicant or agents and all notes on the plan are incorporated as part of the approval.

Great.

Thanks.

Um the waiver on the stormwater calcs, that's because it was already done for the cap well they previously done on the previous approval.

Well, the so the previous approval hadn't been capped yet, so we did have them go to RCCD for third-party engineering review.

Uh and speaking with our senior engineer, uh, because the entire cap is treated as an impervious area, it's almost as if they had a roof-mounted array, you know, because you're putting it on already impervious areas, so we wouldn't have somebody do a drainage analysis if they had a commercial solar array on the roof uh if you had that area.

Uh so it's kind of treated the same way here.

Okay.

Okay.

Thanks.

Any members of the public like to speak on the plan?

We'll go to the board.

Yeah, Mr.

Pelletier.

Thank you.

Um I have noticed uh quite some time ago that the cap is visible from Brady F to the west from the uh from Campbell's golf course.

I'm just wondering if this is if the solar ray panels are far enough away from the edge of that property line.

Uh so that you mentioned that it's not being seen from the west.

It would they won't be seen from the list, but I was just wondering if you're gonna be far enough away, or is the fence back there gonna uh going to block the visibility from Brady F to these panels?

Uh so the fence itself is actually you can see through the fence.

It's a it's a wildlife style fence, so there's opening so that wildlife can pass through.

Um so you will be able to see through the fence.

Um I guess there at the the landfill is a little bit higher, I think, than it used to be now that they've put the cap on.

Then it's all grass now.

Yeah.

Um I don't know if it's retained, I don't know if it's ever gonna be a problem to anybody.

I just wonder if you can see it because when I'm but I'm sitting there eating my ice cream at the uh at the ice cream stand looking at that cap on the there, I can see it all leveled off.

It's high, it's all leveled off, and it's all grass.

Then you'll be looking at solar panels when you're gonna do that.

No, we look at a solar panel, maybe.

I don't know.

Yeah, we we generally would require some type of screening, but because of the nature of this project, you know, they they can't plant on the on the cap.

I think there is some mature vegetation.

I think if there was any controversy, we could have people the public in here today.

But we don't yeah, it says when feasible shall provide screening.

So I you know, I guess the applicant would allege that they can't provide screening uh in this instance because of the plan.

Anything uh further, Mr.

Rocros.

Uh Mr.

Lafontaine, could you help with what we're actually waiving?

Like which uh so there are uh two criteria in our site plan regulations.

So the vicinity plan um is a requirement in our site plan regulations, but it needs to be to a certain scale, and uh honestly we're not overly you know strict in that interpretation, but again, in this instance the applicant uh felt they would they had wanted to apply for the waiver, and then the stormwater is also found in our our site plan regulations as well.

Um I can get the specific citation.

I mean, I think I think the applicant is five, six references.

Yeah.

Anything further from the board?

No.

No.

Uh just a comment.

Um I learned something new today that a basket full of rocks can be called a geo-ballast foundation.

So I think that's that's pretty cool.

Nice.

Last thing, Mr.

Chair, uh at the risk of making you mad.

Uh in 10 years, this you know, it's 1.5 uh megawatts.

Megawatts.

What was it originally proposed for?

Do you have any idea?

I believe it was 1.3.

Okay, that's what thank you.

Good.

All right, we'll tame a motion.

Uh Mr.

Mr.

Chair, I move to grant a waiver and grant conditional approval to the applicant, subject to the eight conditions noted by Mr.

Lafontaine with reference to the letter from the applicant dated September 23rd, 2025.

Second.

Okay, a motion a second to approve the low road solar site plan.

Um with the eight conditions noted and grant the waivers for the vicinity plan and the uh the stormwater calc.

Uh any further discussion on that?

All is in favor.

That's unanimous.

Thank you.

That was the easiest solar hearing I've ever had a part of.

I've been on that side many times.

Thank you.

Near and dear to your heart.

It usually doesn't go like this.

Well, it's not on your roof.

Well, that's good.

Uh just have a couple items of that was a fast four uh items on the agenda.

There's a certain individual not present on the board this evening.

I think the motion is a very good thing.

Which is usually worth it.

It's worth about 20 minutes, give or take.

So I didn't use his name.

Thank you.

Uh 125 uh South Broadway.

This is uh location of Barnes and Oval.

There's a Bank of America ATM out in the parking lot.

And they're doing some upgrades to their existing lighting, but they'd also like to add a couple of light posts for uh enhanced security.

I think they did have uh incident there within the last month or so.

So on this plan here are shown the two new locations.

Um I did speak to the chair about this.

I don't think they've been installed yet, but we essentially told them they could proceed due to the uh you know the public safety risk.

Um they and based off of the board's decision on chasers, which is an abutment parcel here where the board is comfortable with uh you know several additional light poles that seem like this would be appropriate.

Uh no residential abutters really, there's some further away at Tuscan, but uh no direct residential abutters.

I just wanted to bring that to the board's attention.

So uh the one the one shown in blue uh in these squares will uh be added to the property soon.

Okay.

Um the uh temple of witchcraft uh was approved by this board in November of 2019.

They require uh requested a two-year extension.

Uh maybe that was 2021, and then they requested a year extension last year.

Uh they are requesting an addition.

Uh recall correctly.

Yeah.

Uh I'd have to revisit the religious organization.

I mean it's not gonna be fine.

Well, uh I'd have to revisit the meeting minutes, but would you would you be amenable to grant in the one year extension?

If you'd like, we could get them to provide more information.

Uh what are they doing again?

What's that?

What are they doing again?

Which spells?

Yeah, it's a community room.

I'm not concerned about the witchcraft.

What is what is the plan that they are proposing?

Uh 50 uh 700 square foot community room.

So there's an existing barn on site, and that barn would be converted to the community room.

I don't know if you can see that here, but um I think they got approval like in 2013 for some modifications to the primary structure.

And then this would be for this uh this barn here to convert that to the community center, and they also have some site improvements.

Uh the parking, I think would be uh in addition to what they currently have.

Um let me get this straight.

This was the final extension for them, right?

That's that's based on my recollection.

I believe which could be wrong.

Yeah.

So we're gonna have another final one when they don't do anything.

Well on this one, I mean, when does that stop?

I can I can ask them for some additional information if you'd like, or you could deny the extension and they would have to come back in.

Uh I guess one thing that you'd want to consider is has anything changed in this last six six years, and I would say that zoning uh in this area probably hasn't really we haven't changed any zoning lines.

I don't think we've changed any uses that would kind of affect this property.

Um just this location, I don't know.

Yeah, that uh I'm sorry, it's on uh North Policy 49 North Policy Street.

49 uh kind of like right across from this is Canada.

Oh, that'll be that close.

It's on the same side of the road.

Yeah, this is uh I'll just read the email because I I haven't provided it to you yet.

But this is from uh Jocelyn Van Bokelin, and she's the treasurer with the Temple of Witchcraft.

Her email states I'm the I'm ready to ask for an extension for the approved site plan for the Temple of Witchcraft at 49 North Policy.

Our original approval was November 19th, 2019.

Since then we have slowly been gathering funds.

However, we foresee this being a long process.

Please let me know what would you you would like from us to formally request an extension.

So they sent a similar email uh last year and I think two years prior to that.

So they are still continuing to gather funds.

Uh if you'd like, I could have them submit more of a formal request and some additional information if you'd like.

And they do still have time because the uh you know you could review this at the November uh 13th meeting, I think is our next meeting, if you'd like.

Up to the board.

I I like the idea of having a temple of witchcraft, so you know, um four extend granting the extension.

I don't want any spells cast.

They're not going to be using it like in conjunction with Canaby on their uh haunted uh Halloween uh things.

No.

That may be a good tie-in.

No, I mean I I don't have a permanent religious, I get that, so we gotta be very careful.

But I mean, how many times do we allow them to come back?

I just want to know.

Can they just continue doing this year after year after year for 30 years?

Well there's no uh limit in terms of how often how frequently you can grant a restriction.

It's just for good cause.

So I mean I guess the board could question whether or not you feel good cause is is satisfied here.

Um they have requested an extension on the same basis uh you know multiple times now.

So uh I I think I if the board were to start.

I I just see nothing has really changed.

I I I don't really I don't think we need to see it again.

I don't think they need to go through the rigmarole again.

Um I don't think we're in the business of just having people come to restate the same thing.

I I'm okay with it.

Oh, you mean granting the extension?

Yeah, yeah, nice.

Yeah.

My question would be uh from a funding perspective, how close are they to being able to fund it?

Yeah, because this has been going on for how many years since the original submission?

Well, yeah, it was approved in 2019, you know, so six years.

So six six years, and I haven't gathered the funding yet.

So my question would be if it's if they're only at 10% of their funding goal after six years, then it may not be a realistic thing, and we let it expire and they can resubmit it when they actually have a feasible uh opportunity to do it.

Rather than carrying it forward for the next 20 years.

So I would prefer that to be honest.

To me, it doesn't make sense to continue it if they're not in the ballpark.

If they can express that they're close uh to doing it, then give them another year because we're not gonna cause them extra work.

But if they're 10 years out based on their fundraising efforts so far, then why should we keep giving them extensions every year when they're not it's not realistic?

It's yeah, I could gather more information from them if you'd like, and we could bring it to our next meeting.

Um and I can kind of convey I understand.

I mean we we probably wouldn't want to continue too many plans uh you know indefinitely.

Um I know here is kind of a unique situation, but I not that you're not that it would set a precedent, but I mean so I guess we like would would we do this for other applicants?

Because like we're I I don't I don't know of any other applicant in any other situation that we would just let them come back year after year after year, like or just continuously request extensions before they actually do something.

We did it for Millville Arms is probably the classic case that I've been that I've been involved in, like that I've seen come across a number of times.

I don't know how long that's been.

Uh less um less than this, but yes, they have requested I think multiple extensions at this point.

Sale of housing.

Salem Housing, Millville Arms.

Oh well that's a but it's the it's another it's one that I didn't think of, but I mean how many extensions did we grant them or have we?

Probably two, two or three, maybe at this point.

Depending well, their plan was approved more recently though, too, so they may not have requested a two-year extension uh similar to this applicant.

You a lot of boards would get frustrated if you continuously come back and you don't see some progress uh towards the the site plan application.

I can kind of I can meet with them or and discuss it more so we have a better understanding of you know what the the timeline is here rather than um right now it's really just been the same same email.

So let's what do you have to do?

You have to send them a ma a letter in the mail saying, hey, your site plan is that we don't we don't notify you when your site plan expires, the onus is on the applicant.

So what would happen would be that if they don't send this letter and they come in for a building permit, we wouldn't I wouldn't sign off on it as your agent because they wouldn't have a valid um uh site plan.

So they are mindful.

They probably they have been timely in their requests on an uh annual or biannual basis.

Um but at this point it has been uh the email and then I'll send a formal request saying the planning board is granted your one year extension or your two year extension.

site plan is that we don't we don't notify you when your site plan expires the onus is on the applicant so what would happen would be that if they don't send this letter and they come in for a building permit we wouldn't I wouldn't sign off on it as your agent because they wouldn't have a valid um uh site plan so they are mindful they probably they have been timely in their requests on an uh annual or biannual basis um but at this point it has been uh the email and then I'll send a formal request saying the planning board is granted your one year extension maybe your two year extension um so the taxpayers are paying you to keep renewing the site plan yeah that I guess the cost too high yeah to draft the notice and then send it out and um yeah um the only thing that concerns me is it's a legitimate religion yes yeah yeah so that's an issue but still I mean three extensions ten years that's a long time yeah well I can gather more information they still do have you know the site plan doesn't expire till the 19th so you know if we were gather more information I could bring it to you at our next meeting and then you could make a determination there and I can convey this discussion for that just approve it I don't want to mess with which is I I have no issue with approving it but I think we should more information do a little bit of due diligence to figure out how far away they are on you know where they're at in their funding their fundraising goals um if they have any sort of realistic timeline because I mean it's been quite a while um since we originally granted it so I think it is it worth at least asking the question um but aside from that I don't I wouldn't have any issue with extending it but the final time yeah that would the acting time right the final time after the final time of the final time right if they were here I'd it would be a hard no from me for an extension just saying because I mean it gets to a point of lunacy where we can just continue these things forever.

Yeah yeah and that's not a typical a lot of boards would get no continuously come back to them restate and get a better idea and then we can make an intelligent decision still may be a no for me but I don't know.

Okay.

Yeah I'll I'll be sure to convey this conversation and get more information for you.

Two North Broadway they came in uh back in July I think for a conditional use permit for the digital signage this was kind of what was presented this was what was presented to you at that time uh they have made some modifications they've changed the uh the color of the digital font from uh uh red to white uh this is kind of their current iteration what ended up happening is we um or you had told them that they shouldn't they can't exceed six feet which is what's required under the depot village overlay uh for monument signage and initially it had this cap uh which you know the sign itself was six feet and then they had a cap on top of it that exceeded six feet so uh they came in kind of with an iteration and they kind of just topped the cap off and uh you know I I thought that that was not really kind of the direction that we were given but anyway are you are you comfortable they've done a really good job with the building I think that we could probably work with them to you know kind of have the sign mimic the building and and really be a compliment to the site but I just wanted to bring it back to you because I've gone a little bit back and forth with the sign company also trying to coordinate with uh the Cideropolises uh maybe myself and maybe the chair if uh everyone's comfortable are you comfortable with us trying to uh come up with the detail that works and then if it doesn't we could always bring it back to the board but you know if the chair and I are comfortable is that work for you I'm okay with it for me for the chair.

Yeah okay um aside from that I don't think I have anything else.

We do need alternates if anybody's uh watching at home and interested uh we do have uh openings for alternates so feel free to reach out and we'll we'll get you on the board.

Motion to adjourn.

Second all is in favor planning board meeting closed