Good evening.

I would like to call the January 13th, 2026 meeting of the planning board to order.

Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge allegiance to the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible liberty and justice for my name is Joe Fioli serving as chairman tonight.

Members sitting on the planning board tonight.

Damon Norcross.

Happy New Year.

Bianca Carlson.

Good evening, Salem.

To my left town council rep Jeff Hatch.

Good evening, Salem.

Chuck Sabah.

Hello, Sue.

And Jim Harvey.

Good evening.

With us from the planning department is Jacob Lafontaine.

Agenda for tonight is as follows.

We have one item of old business that's the Salem NIM LLC site plan.

That's a public hearing for a change of use for 19,000 960 square foot restaurant and entertainment use with a conditional use permit for reduced parking at 11 Mall Road.

Three items in new business.

First is the Canaby Lake Toyota site plan.

It's a public hearing for conditional use permit for additional wall signage at 417 South Broadway.

Second is the Fouchetty subdivision plan.

That's preliminary hearing for two lot subdivision of 59 Millville Street and three Saraj Realty LLC site plan.

That's a public hearing for amended site plan and phasing scheduled for 6,000 square foot office vehicle maintenance and dry ice manufacturing building in a 20,000 square foot warehouse building and paved track to trail storage area and a conditional use permit for wetland setback at 44 Pelham Road.

Any withdrawals tonight?

We have one item of uh of regular meeting minutes from December 9th, 2025.

Mr.

Chair, I move to approve the minutes of the December 9th, 2025 regular meeting minutes of the planning board.

Second.

Motion is second to uh accept the December 9th, 2025 meeting minutes.

Any discussion?

All is in favor.

Right now we'll go to our first item of old business.

That's the Salem NIM LLC site plan.

Um butters, please.

The abutters are as follows.

If you're here, please indicate by saying so that our Roxal Mall, Tuscan Village Master Development Artisan at Tuscan Village Development Holdings, Roxell Mall uh LLC, and that is all.

Uh thank you.

Um to uh staff for comments and then we'll get to the applicant.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So they were last uh the applicant was last before you in December uh of 2025, and since that time they've made a variety of uh revisions to the plan to address some of the concerns that were raised at that meeting.

Those changes included uh enhancements of the architecture, which we'll go over.

They've added four windows, two actual, two decorative, false windows, uh made improvements to the western facade, added pie lasters, banners on the northern facade, enhanced the entrance to Game On, revised the sign detail to have true sizes, and have updated the C the conditional use permit to reflect that.

Added ADA tip down and a connection to the south connection also to the north uh on uh the pleasant street pathway.

The square footage has been clarified as 19,960 square feet, and they've updated the equipment and dumpster enclosure materials in a truck turn plan has been submitted.

Uh just would go through these.

I'm not gonna I'm gonna go through them real quick because I don't want to steal the applicant slender.

I think they've done a good job uh since since they've last been before you.

This is Loretta's last call, the elevation here, uh, and it remains substantially the same as what was shown to you at the last meeting.

This is what initially was shown to you by the applicant.

You recall that they had this uh kind of this more grand entryway, and uh they had made some enhancements to the rest of the facade, but they eliminated that uh that grand entryway, and they've since uh made modifications, the windows, the entryway, um, and they've got the uplight in uh initially the cornice was uh black, it'll be white so that it can reflect that up lighting uh and then it'll change color depending on you know if there's a uh uh event, if there's a game, uh could be you know black and gold for the Bruins or green for the Celtics, what have you.

Uh, this is the elevations that were proposed uh at the last meeting, uh, and this is what they look like now, so certainly some significant enhancements.

There was some discussion about how we could enhance that uh northern facade um you break up the the expanse of uh wall, and they've done so with the pie lasters and they've also added these banners uh which were inspired in part by the banners that you see at their location at Funway Park, their uh flagship location.

Here are some additional examples.

One thing we did talk about in terms of the signage, and I spoke with the applicant uh just now was that uh we we kind of anticipate the creative signage that they're proposing here.

Uh we don't do that in our in our actual our current sign ordinance, but we do so under the Tuscan Village Sign Standards.

And uh what's interesting is that this applicant, uh the Lions group, they actually own uh King's Bowling uh that franchise, and it's actually uh they've done such a good job at other locations that it's referred to in the Tuscan Village Science standards.

So one thing uh speaking with the applicant we talked about was just making sure that those taglines uh comply or consistent with what that we've seen at Tuscan Village.

Uh for instance, particularly the live music sign, just to make sure that it's secondary.

Uh, there's some ratios there that we could apply from the Tuscan Village Science standards uh to that signage, as well as uh the entry away signs, which don't really show up great here, but will show up in the applicant's presentation.

There's um home of the goat fan here, and then there's some additional tagline signage here.

Again, that's signage that's not allowed under our current uh sign ordinance, but is allowed under the Tuscan Village Sign Standards.

Aside from that, I you know, I say all these comments in acknowledgement of the fact that the existing building has been severely neglected for a long period of time, and the applicant has made a great effort to uh make significant improvements.

We showed the Dix House of Sport because uh they're gonna do something similar.

This facade actually uh was consistent between the Sears uh primary building and the outbuilding, and they're gonna similarly paint the base here and then paint this kind of that green monster motif.

Um so we show that as a precedent example.

This is an example of the board requiring uh architectural improvements in the past.

They've made an a number of pedestrian improvements.

They are going to connect uh the pathway here.

There's a path that connects all the way up to Pleasant Street.

They're gonna connect here.

Uh they are going to provide a crosswalk to complete this connection as well as the connection to Cinemark, and then they'll have a pedestrian uh connection to the parking field to the south.

One thing we talked about at the last meeting was uh you know, our design uh guidelines recommendation for granite curbin.

Most of that's because in New England uh the granite curb in is durable and doesn't get chewed up uh during the winter months.

You can see this is some of the bituminous curve that exists in the plaza in that parking lot, and um it does get chewed up and gets patched periodically.

Uh so you can see Cinemark has granite curbing around their site, but a lot of these out islands still have bituminous uh curb.

There they're proposing concrete curb, which is more durable than the bituminous, but uh also gets chewed up.

You can see that here uh on their site entry, and then here around their primary building.

So these are just call-outs to show that we have required it for Cinemark.

I just asked the board to uh to discuss whether or not you'd like it maybe in certain areas, maybe around the primary building, maybe uh on the exterior of the parking lot, not as consequential, but you can see here it was used uh along the entirety of Cinemark, and you can see it doesn't get uh chewed up nearly as much as the uh the granite sorry, the bituminous or the concrete curb.

And then there was a question at our last meeting of whether or not you required granite curb and uh vertical granite curb for uh the casino, and we did, but in or you did rather in a in a more limited fashion, uh the out uh islands are not, but this is the primary entryway, and they've required it there, or you've required it there.

Uh the other thing that we talked about a lot was the landscape, and the applicant has updated the uh landscaping plan and they've reflected the existing mature vegetation.

There's a lot of mature vegetation uh on site, uh particularly this kind of uh alley or uh entryway here that looks pretty attractive, and then some of this these other trees here.

Uh my understanding is that the applicant has agreed to retain the existing vegetation and then supplement it with additional plantins, and I've asked that to be a note on the plan and then reflected on the landscape plan.

They've got revisions to us as of today.

So if the board were inclined to act on this plan, I think one of the recommendations would be uh that they submit staff approvals in addition to our typical staff approvals from engineer and fire uh etc.

I'd also recommend that uh plan and be included in that so that I can just go through the outstanding items to make sure that they've addressed these items because uh they did uh revive get revised plans to me today this afternoon, but I haven't reviewed them entirely.

Uh but I think they're all minor items that you know I just would need to go through and verify that that those have all been done.

One of the things that uh I'd like or the board should consider is the impact fee.

Included in your packet is a memo from uh Steve Pernau, our traffic consultant.

Uh essentially we asked the applicant to calculate the the impact fee.

Uh in this instance, they've calculated the rate for uh the prior use, which was the automotive center as a small retail use.

There's not a perfect category that uh that this use fits into.

You can see that based off of our current uh schedule.

You know, certainly the new use, they're they're gonna categorize it as a high turnover restaurant.

It's maybe a little bit more unique than that, but I think that's a reasonable approach to use the high turnover restaurant rate.

But the question would be whether or not they are credited the impact fee uh for a small retail rate, which is five dollars and fifty-seven uh cents sorry, five dollars and fifty-seven cents per square foot, or if uh we calculated it as a automobile seal automobile BL sales, uh which is three dollars and ninety-four cents.

It does end up being a pretty substantial uh difference.

The impact fee, of course I've don't have it directly in front of me.

The impact fee for the uh small retail rate, I think ends up being uh somewhere around six thousand dollars, and then the um the impact fee for the um auto sales is uh somewhere around like $38,000.

So I did look through some other comparable projects earlier today, and um we looked at the town fair tie town fair tire, uh which was approved in 2000.

At that time they made a contribution towards uh Route 28 improvements, and they only paid 2700 square feet at 2700 dollars for that project.

So that really wasn't a great example.

Um the other one that we looked at was Pep Boys, which was approved in 1995, and again, that wasn't a great example.

What they did is they used uh trip generation.

They said, you know, what is the current trips, and in that instance was a little unique, Mr.

Hy some of you people, some of you board members who've been here for a long time will remember that it was a pretty unique land use.

There were 49 uh manufactured homes and then five trailers with commercial uses.

So they created a uh trip generation for that use, which is uh relatively unique to have commercial trailers and manufactured homes on one site, credited it for that, and then they ended up at $15,481 for that.

So again, not a perfect comparison.

I think the one that was the best or the closest I can find it, of course, was um for key collision, which was approved in 2013, so a little bit more recently.

And at that time, uh in the review forum at the first meeting, there was a discussion uh that the board should determine whether or not key uh collisions should be calculated or classified as light industrial or as a small retail use.

We didn't have auto sales as a category that was adopted in 2018 when Salem Ford came in.

So at that time uh the light industrial calculation was 20,644, and then the small retail was 52,576.

So, of course, in that instance the applicant would advocate that you know they're not gonna be uh small retail use because they'd have less of an impact fee due.

In this instance, of course, it's in the applicant's interest to ask for the larger credit.

So uh they still we still didn't assess a specific use category to again we did it by trip generation.

And in that instance, the trip generation calculation required an impact fee of 27,000 uh closer to the 20,000 dollars that would be due for light industrial uh rather than the fifty-two thousand dollars that was gonna be due for small retail.

So uh I give all that to you, and I think at the end of the day I was just as confused as I was to start before I reviewed all that, but I just wanted to let you know that in terms of uh the historic application options are again.

Our two options we're not suggesting that they use light uh light industrial in this instance.

The consideration that we've given is that they use auto sales or that they use um small retail.

In that instance, we didn't have automobile sales, we just had uh light industrial, and then we had um the retail small retail rate.

And what's the rate for auto sales again?

The rate for auto sales is uh currently three dollars and ninety-four cents per square foot, and the rate for um small retail is five dollars and fifty-seven cents per square foot.

Okay.

So uh I know that the applicant applicant's gonna also speak to it, but I just wanted to spend some time on our historic application of auto uses and uh so that you have that for your context.

The reason if you look at the bottom of this page, it says that for ne unique land use categories.

Um it could be determined by multiplying the number of new daily trips by the new use by 235.

My sense is that since we adopted that, I think in 203, probably nobody is gonna use that because that number of balloons very quickly.

So the applicant is almost you know, always gonna try to make a justification for why they fit into one of these categories rather than the 235 uh times new vehicle trips, which is historically kind of how it was handled in those other instances.

Here we're trying to kind of fit two semi somewhat unique uses, the uh Sears Automotive Center, which we don't have a perfect category for, and then um you know Loretta's last call, which I think is reasonable to concede that it's uh consistent with the high turnover restaurant, even though there's some unique program.

Um aside from that, uh that's just the staff summary.

I do have conditions of approval prepared if the board's concerns are satisfied.

I'd ask you to talk about the impact fee, uh, the granite curb and uh the revisions they've made to the architecture, and um the applicant has a pretty excited, exciting presentation, so I'll try to uh wrap mine up here.

Okay, thanks.

Good evening, uh Mr.

Chairman, members of the the board.

Uh my name is David Campbell.

I'm an attorney from Nashua representing the Lions Restaurant Group and its holding company who's the applicant Salem Nim LLC regarding the proposed transformation from an abandoned Sears Tire Retail Center into two restaurants under one roof, both being game on and Retta's last call.

Um also presenting tonight will be uh David Joakin, who is the CFO and a principal of the Lions Group, um, and Richard Schlichting from Langan.

Um Patrick Lyons had a last minute conflict and asked me to make his uh apologies to uh the board tonight for his absence.

Um this is a continued hearing from December, where we received great feedback from Jacob and the board.

You told us what you wanted, and the Lions Group and its consultants, including uh the its landscape uh design architect, Rabbity Architecture and Design out of Chicago and Orlando have endeavored to meet your expectations.

Um Jacob, David Joachim and myself had a Zoom call with Gravity over the holidays to address the exterior uh sizzle that the board made it clear they wanted.

Um, which I believe have been satisfied.

I think it's satisfied Jacob with only the few staff comments he's made uh and will be addressed tonight.

The board wanted uh the game on patio restored, it is.

You wanted a TV outside, there will be uh our goal tonight is to hopefully get final approval uh so that we can start this project as soon as possible.

Uh that's our goal, and hopefully we can meet the the board's uh expectations.

Uh let me set up the presentation by showing the existing uh condition of the property.

You've seen some slides already that Jacob put up.

Um here are a few uh elevations.

Uh I mean, I mean it just shows you what's there now and how plain and it's been that way a long time.

Um then we have some elevations that shows what's being proposed.

The nighttime ones are great because they really show what's we're kind of the I mean a lot most people are gonna visit this in the evening, and it shows that you know we're gonna wash all sides of the building with light.

Um there was a comment at one point about having black around the top, but the reason there's white is because if you have black it absorbs light and the white allows the wash to happen so that the the building's illuminated.

Um there are gonna be uh more elevations to follow in Richard's presentation.

And you can see on the corner there, you see how the brick meshes that was one of the things that Jacob wanted instead of just having a corner.

It kind of alternates between the the uh transition from the red brick to the brown brick, and it's a nice it's a nice feature.

Um gravity put together a um 3D video walkthrough of the building, uh which we'd like to share with you tonight.

And uh afterwards, David Joachim will walk you through uh what you see and really the vision of these two restaurant concepts coming to life in this video.

So roll the roll the movie.

So that incorporates uh you know the the design changes that were made to the exterior, uh hopefully uh to the satisfaction of the board, but based on and because of your comments from the last meeting.

Uh David, you want to talk about the video and uh good evening.

Uh my name's David Joker, as David Campbell said, I'm a partner at Lions Group and the CFO uh for north of 30 years now.

Um we're really excited about this project, obviously.

Uh the work that Gravity has done uh in the second iteration uh is excellent.

Uh we feel that the design elements we've added to the exterior uh really would draw the customer in and create a sense of uh need to want to go to these these two spaces.

Uh the interior space, you can see when you looked at the video, we have 10 bowling lanes.

We have uh uh a whole section of gaming with Papa Shot, uh air hockey, uh games like that for kids and adults alike.

Uh the sports bar uh seating area also has, I don't know if you could see it, but up in that right-hand corner, there's kind of like a VIP area that people can rent out for private events with your own TVs scheduled to or a program to whatever you want to watch, whatever games you're watching.

Uh this is super popular in Boston.

We were the Ohio State Bar, uh, believe it or not, during the college playoffs at game on.

Um have to admit this, but Bleacher Bar is the Buffalo Bills bar.

Uh but all businesses equal, as people well know.

Uh so uh we're we're really excited to get up here and uh and introduce these two products to the city of Salem, the town of Salem.

Um we think that game on represents the best of the sports bar um uh business segment, and Lorette is clearly is the leader in the country music segment.

It's the best country bar in Boston by far.

Um so we're we're just super excited to get up here.

Uh as David said, we heard loud and clear uh that we were too focused on the interior design work on the last iteration and not focused enough on the exterior design work.

Um I'll say the gravity uh knew that and uh we didn't listen closely enough.

This time we listen better.

Um so we're really proud of what we put together and work with Jacob on to try and get a sense of what the town was looking for in terms of uh an exterior experience um and you know how it interfaces with the roadways, how it interfaces with uh the rest of the mall tenants uh as well as Tusk and across the street and the and the apartment buildings.

Um so we're just really excited to uh come up here, get these two projects getting underway and getting open sometime this summer, hopefully.

All things being equal.

We'll go well we'll there go through the go through the agenda and then we'll uh go to board comments.

Um as David said, my name is Richard Schlichting.

Um I work with Langen Engineering.

We did the site civil and um landscape architecture and lighting design for the plans.

Um so just to give you a little bit of an update.

Um since you all here last time, I won't bore you with the exact same spiel.

But um we basically just tried to take all of the board's comments, Jacob's comments, traffic comments, and make sure that we accommodated everything.

Um for starters, we connected the um plan west um sidewalk to that existing sidewalk and um have a pathway across to the west.

Um on the east, we also added a um crosswalk on our drive to connect to the existing sidewalk, which we then um are going to restripe across a crosswalk and have a proposed sidewalk connecting that crosswalk.

Saying crosswalk a ton of times here that connects that uh sidewalk to the parking area to the other sidewalk that um heads more north to the other um residential area um which was a comment you guys brought up last time.

Um we absolutely agreed.

So we added that in not shown here, but we've also um updated our landscaping plan just to make sure that uh more existing trees were shown.

Um and we are calling out to make sure that all existing um landscape is um preserved in the final condition.

Um obviously trees are great aesthetic to the plan.

We want to make sure that still happens.

That was our intent.

We just didn't show it in the last one.

Um some other comments we received, um, if you go to the next slide, were um just some movement um concerns.

Um this is showing a garbage truck coming in and out and um picking up trash in the um dumpster enclosure um plan south of the building.

Um it's uh luckily it's a pretty um roomy drive aisle, so no issues there.

And if you go to the next, um we also had the traffic comment of a fire truck making sure it can make um this turning radius, um which it can.

Um, you know, all of this is existing, so um we presumed this would be the case, but double checked, wanted to show it, um, and it does.

And if you go to the next one.

Um but the um a lot of the comments came from um talking about the elevations of the building.

Um so I just want to walk you through the signage, um, what we're doing to um kind of break up the walls, um, make it aesthetically pleasing to the patrons.

Um so first, this is the um plan north of the building, the game on entrance.

Um we will be having the um sign one, the mural um right on the brick, um right at the front entrance, um, as well as sign two and three to um give the classic game on you know experience, drink play win, big sign that they have also down at Fenway.

Um additionally, um there were um concerns about windows in the front.

Um we did add two real and two um fake um windows um along this elevation, um and on those windows we put home of the goat fam, which is um kind of a tagline for New England.

Um yes, there's also vestibule windows um on this side as well, um, just to really open up that area um as requested from last time.

Um moving to the um plan west, this is Loretta's um main entrance.

Um you can still see the um signs two and three from this side, but those are the same signs.

We're not doubling up.

Um moving over to Loretta's though, we have the um main Loretta's sign, sign six, um, as well as the large guitar with light up strings, sign eight, and then sign nine, which will be used for um the live music acts that will be performing at Lorettis.

Um we also have sign seven, which is the star and Loretta's logo, um, which you will see again on the next slide.

On the plan south, we have two more of the stars, as well as the Loretta's sign again just on the building above the patio.

And then on the far right, you have that game on logo Jacob had mentioned, um, which bends you around the corner, and you can also see the um braided bricks.

And you can also see the um braided bricks.

And then the final side, which was plan east.

And then the four um banners.

Um these are just example photos.

Um we will figure out exactly what it will be, but it will be like a sporting aesthetic, something similar to Fenway.

Um that will be kind of figured out as we go.

Um but this matches the general vibe of the intent, I guess.

Um and again, you could see the front from this side, which um shows game on sign and the drink play win.

Um we just want to talk about the traffic.

Um we also got a comment, uh we got a list of comments from the traffic last time.

Um we did um close out those comment response letters.

Um obviously the impact fee, it's a big discussion here.

David will be up once I am finished explaining everything just to talk on that a little bit more.

But um basically the reason we're asking for a cup in this situation is we are removing 16 spaces.

Um there have been a number of cups um in this lot and area over the years, um, and um obviously they have gone through since we're talking about them.

Um but um we're basically asking for 16 more um of a removal.

And if you go to the next slide.

Um we did a parking utilization study.

I know I talked about a lot of this last time, so I would just hit the key points.

Um, but this is the area we called um C.

It is a portion of the mall parking, um, which has a lot of shared um um spaces.

And if you get a next one.

Um basically we looked at the um parking in these areas, and on a typical Friday, Saturday, um we just had a lot of excess parking um with over a thousand spaces, and um it was the determination that 16 spaces is not going to really change the general um requirements and capacity of the area.

Um we also did Black Friday um counts, and we're still under that um proposed number.

And if you get a next one.

Um we also just did a quick calc based off the previous approved um designation of this building.

I know we're talking a lot about Sears and now Loretta's and Game on, but it was previously approved to change to a restaurant.

Um with the Loretta's Game On and C counts and everything, we do believe that there will be less daily trips than the previously approved restaurant.

Um like I said, we closed out all the comments.

We felt like this was a very adequate solution.

A couple of these spaces are to be to remove to help with circulation and um pedestrian access.

Um yeah.

And then I will call up David to talk on the impact fee.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um so I just want to address the uh the impact fee.

Problem is nothing really fits perfectly.

I mean, it it's an imperfect uh um ordinance, I guess, in the sense that it's it's it's hard to match the uses exactly.

I mean, we know what the fee for the restaurant's fee is it's the net that comes to it.

Now we obviously went with the small retail, which most benefited us, and using the automobile sales at you know, balloons of 38, which we think is very high and a little onerous.

Understanding the 6638 is very low.

We'd like to make a proposal that we double the net fee from the 6368 to 12,736.

It's really it's up to the board to decide what they want us to charge for a fee.

We respectfully request that you know that you allow a 12,000, you know, double that net fee 12,736 as the fee you would charge for the uh for the traffic.

And uh that's for you to consider and debate, and I understand that, but that's our uh that's what we'd like you at least to consider tonight.

And other than that, I guess we'd like to open it up to questions.

Thank you.

Yeah, we'll go to the board for uh um questions, call it's concerns.

Members of the public um okay, thank you, boss.

Um any members of the public like to speak on the plan before we go to the board.

Thanks.

Um did you have something you want to add?

Oh no.

Um thank you for the the hard work.

It it shows that you took the uh feedback into consideration.

Um and uh also for offering or trying to come to some middle ground with regards to the impact fees.

Um just point of a uh put an inquiry, Mr.

Uh Lafontaine.

Are are we able to do we need to stay by the book in terms of one or the other?

I it seems a little bit I mean, it's very it makes sense to just cut it down the middle or come up with something else, but are we even allowed to do that?

We didn't really discuss a hybrid fee with uh um with our traffic consultant.

I mean, uh I guess what we're trying to do is we're trying to capture I think it's understood that this use is gonna produce more traffic than the automotive center.

Um what was the trip generation you said it was about 27k?

It was uh it's 235 dollars per new trip.

So that is a methodology.

What they would do is they would take they would project the trip generation, obviously they can't count right now, but they would project it for the SAR Sears Automotive Center, and then they would take whatever the increase in trips is projected for this use, uh which they have projected the trips for this use, um, but we haven't had them, you know, produce the trips for the pre prior use.

A lot of applicants are you know reluctant to use that because I would say that now at 235 dollars per trip, that number does become very large pretty quickly.

Um but then it becomes the difference of what was it does, but that that's that's how the methodology is supposed to work.

And it was I mean, our our impact fee schedule was updated uh in 22 or 23.

We just recently updated it with PHB.

So presumably that you know that figure is uh what they believe should be applied for unique land use categories.

That methodology hasn't been provided here.

They haven't calculated the uh prior use.

But I would say that's how uh I was hoping that when I looked through the the other files, I would find something you know really easy, and they kind of went there with the um key auto center, and then they kind of walked it back and did uh ended up at a hybrid.

They ended up a little bit higher than light industrial and not quite as high as the uh small auto uh small retail, which would have got them to 50,000 um and ended up paying 27,000.

So that was that's kind of the best precedent example I could find is that the board uh you know, in 20 um uh 2013 determined that uh you know the collision center, not that it's you know a perfect example to what Sears had done, but that that collision center was more akin to light industrial than it was to small retail.

Um the impact fee is large.

I mean 38,000 is is is obviously a large amount of money.

Um I would say that Cinemark had paid uh I don't want to speak out of trying, I think it was like 400,000, I think for that, but that was obviously a surface parking lot that was converted to a a new 12 screen screen cinema.

Uh but you know a lot of these impact fees are are large uh numbers.

So um the prior application, which was proposing two um restaurants and then a retail use, uh that was assessed an impact fee at 26,680 dollars, and that was to occupy a portion as as two uh about two-thirds is restaurant, one-third is retail.

Um, and that was in 2017, and we've since updated our impact fees.

So I mean, obviously we want to do what's fair, um, but uh you know, I mean the board has kind of can previously said all right, you're you're similar to light industrial um for these automotive or similar automotive use, and then did assess a 26,000 dollar impact fee in 2017.

So uh just provide that for context.

Um the 27 that's based off the trip generation, that's the trip generation from that they presented for uh um key auto, yes, or key collision.

Oh oh is for the 27 was for the yeah, yeah.

This one is pretty so Steve Pernau's calculation, and again it we're we're trying to fit kind of imperfect um you know uses that don't fit perfectly into these categories, but the delta is pretty large, right?

So if you if you call it a small retail sixty three hundred dollars, if you call it a uh auto mo auto sales, it gets to 38 805.

I mean, one thing I guess you you could do, and we've done this in other instances is you know, obviously the applicant wants to to get the approval tonight, you you could potentially approve it with the higher figure, and then we could continue, you know, this could be revisited.

You've done that in the past where an applicant has been approved subject to an impact fee, and then they've come back in and they've said, you know, well, because of this reason, uh, but entirely up to you.

I mean, we didn't talk about a hybrid.

You know, Steve Pernow says um, you know, as requested, the applicant provided an impact fee calculation based on the current fee schedule using small retail rate for Sears Auto Credit and determine that the impact fee attributable attributable to the proposed change of use is $6300, $68.

If the board is more comfortable with using the auto sales rate for the credit, then the net fee is 38,805.

And then he uh just says it's reasonable to expect that the two proposed restaurants will generate more vehicle trips on the former former automotive center.

Um so uh you know we we really up to the board.

Um, but like I said, even though it's a large number, it's probably not entirely out of the realm of what you've charged on other projects.

Um were you uh I I think I'm leaning towards um going with the uh small retail um calculation if we have to choose one or the other, uh, and I would really say that I you know I I think the property's unique.

It's been standing vacant for so long.

Um, I I think you know, benefit of the doubt here to try to get this thing, you know, going.

Um I don't think it's unfair to other applicants.

Um I don't know, just kind of thinking out loud on it.

Um but if we had to make a decision one or the other, I think at this point, I think I would probably argue to just go with the lower um lower impact fee.

Thank you.

Mrs.

Saber?

Yeah, first of all, thank you for coming back and making those changes.

I think they're important.

As a restaurant guy, you know, I've I was almost born in a restaurant, I've run them, I've opened them, I've shut them down.

And lots of times you end up shutting down brilliant concepts because you cannot bring the return in.

So we you gotta be careful when you when you're dealing with a restaurant, it's a completely different animal.

It is not an automotive center, right?

Um and in an automotive center, you know, first of all, cars are coming in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out all day.

People are gonna come here as a destination, they're gonna stay there several hours, okay, and enjoy the evening.

Uh the music, the food, the libations, etc.

Um, so I think you know, it it's I think it really should be some form of a hybrid, and if we can't do that, then possibly go with the um small retail, um, but make it over a two-year period where the second year would be subject to coming back and using, you know, well, looking at how it's going, what's going on, et cetera.

Because you may find out and say, hey, it's fine, you know.

I mean, I've been there before.

Um as far as um hours of operation are till 2 a.m.

Tell you back at 2 a.m.

2 a.m.

I don't have a problem with that.

Um I think it's an ideal location for something like this.

I think it's gonna enhance the entire mall Tuscan area.

Um so I don't have a lot of problems with with anything that I'm seeing here to be quite honest with you.

If if the if the sticking point is the uh the fee, then I would go with a higher over two-year period, but have allow them to come back after the first year if that's possible.

We yeah, we haven't done that in the past, but I did just think of um, you know, Dick's House of Sport, you assessed an impact fee for Dix House of Sport for their multi-purpose field, uh 15,000 square feet.

That was assessed without a credit, but it was assessed at uh a $38,000 uh impact fee for for traffic.

Um $38,480.

When you approve that you stated that uh pay road impact fee of $38,480 uh or submit trip generation analysis for unique land use category.

So you could take a similar uh to be reviewed by our third tra uh party traffic consultant.

You could take a similar approach in this instance, and you could say that they could pay the higher rate or have it uh reviewed by our third uh party traffic consultant for unique land use category.

I mean I just wanted to put it in context because uh well, obviously I don't want to beat up uh somebody and and be unreasonable.

I just want to make sure that we're applying our uh our impact fee schedule consistently for uh for applicants.

Right.

That's the most important thing, right?

Set precedence and whatnot.

Yep.

Okay.

So basically I'll just stay on the same path until we move on to something else.

But we really what we're talking about is whatever we decide which way we're going, they're just gonna pay the difference between what was paid before and what they own out, correct?

Yeah.

So in that case, I consider what was there before a small retail.

You go in there, you buy a tyres, some people most people had them install the tires, but you could get other things that you could get batteries, you could get tools, uh well, maybe not tools, but you know, other things that you could use the your car needed.

So to me, I would consider it a small retail, and that's the one I would use to provide them the credit that they need.

I mean, it to me it's it's keep it simple.

Um I'm gonna go against the green here and say that I think it would make more sense to have Sears Auto considered as automobile SELs for the reasons that you just laid out.

I think it aligns better with automotive sales.

Um however, I do think $38,000 is high.

Um I'll compare it to what Jacob just said.

Oh well, right.

But I think in general, I mean, I think 30 38,000 would be high.

Um I would agree with the hybrid approach.

However, I I don't know how we would necessarily calculate that.

And if we went the route of like we did with Dick's House of Sports, um, I imagine that it the applicant would end up paying for the third-party traffic consultant.

Would would that cost be outweighed here?

I I don't know what that bill would end up being.

Like, does it does it really even make sense if you're spending money on the traffic consultant versus spending money on the traffic impact fees?

Like does it really even matter at that point.

If I could, Mr.

Chairman, to answer that point.

You know, I I think we we consider that too.

So we came up with what if we just double it and be done with it.

Yeah.

Um, you know, double the net fee that we were proposing.

Uh that was a reason for it.

I mean, as far as precedent goes, you can justify it hybrid in the sense that it doesn't fit, so you could back into it.

Certain percentage of this and certain percentage of that get you to this number.

I mean it just seems like something that we'd prefer not.

I'm sure that probably the board wouldn't uh like it hanging out there.

I I mean I think it's something that we should we we should try to resolve.

Or it and obviously it's up to you.

Yeah, sounds fair.

Yeah.

Um do you have any thoughts here?

Last minute.

Yeah, so I I looked at it and thought, uh, what if we split the difference?

So the difference between the two is 32,437 or 16,218.

If you add that to the 6368, they're at 22,586.

As a compromise between the two options.

Which gets them closer to the impact fee that you assessed um in 2017.

I mean, I don't know.

The impact fees don't generally they didn't they didn't go down, they they went up uh quite a bit uh from 22.

Um generally what was a percentage?

Well, I could I could probably tell I just have to look at the old one, but you know, they went up quite a quite a bit.

Um for certain uses like uh you know the next fast food restaurant that opens in Salem is we're gonna have a lot of road improvements uh you know but um I could I could get you that figure if you want.

Oh I think we're good.

Um yeah, my thoughts are just uh keep it simple and end it end it tonight and and use the uh small retail and um it's uh you know I don't just don't want to set the precedence of just having ambiguity in uh assessing um impact fees and whatnot.

So can I say that's one question?

Um Jake.

Yeah, as far as impact fees go.

Yeah, there's only two categories.

Well, so the idea ITE, the uh Institute of Traffic Engineers, I think is maybe the acronym, it has a ton of category, land use categories, but rather than have our consultant VHB when they calculated the impact fee schedule, try to capture all the possible uses.

We tried to use kind of general uses that most items could fit into.

And that's how we've kind of arrived at the calculation.

Um is there is there a fee, an impact fee in other areas in New Hampshire that include restaurants as a category, because from my perspective, I've paid them in the past and they're specific to three restaurant categories.

Because from my perspective, I've paid them in the past and they're specific.

We have three restaurant categories.

It doesn't fit succinctly succinctly in the auto sales.

Um at maybe the risk of making less friends.

But I just want to provide this out uh for for your reference.

Um you assessed an impact fee for the casino uh traffic impact fee of 1.13 million uh dollars.

So these impact fees are not small amounts.

I know $38,000 is I mean, I you know, certainly can pay uh I just want to make sure that you're aware of all the elements because I I just want to make sure that we're equitable when we apply impact fees.

We had a 400,000 dollar impact fee for the Cinemark uh 26, 23,000 assessed for this building previously.

Um what did I just say for uh 38, I think for the Dix House of Sport, and then over a million dollars for the casino, and that was based off of their trip generation analysis.

And I I guess I would say I I think we are being consistent in terms of prior use.

Okay.

Um or at least I'm attempting to be that I I don't think we're breaking precedent to such a degree that you know, I mean the other um applicants have been much larger, very different circumstances, you know, we put a lot more clarity in terms of where they fit.

Um so I just that's me.

Well yeah.

The casino was um was a unique land use category, and then um the I don't know what we assess the multi-purpose field at, but I think we assessed it at a health uh health and fitness club rate.

But okay.

I would just uh one of the items, Mr.

Fontaine, that you wanted us to um have an opinion on is just the curbing.

You know, I I personally would like to see curbing uh granite curving around the primary facility.

Um I think it's consistent with what we've required others, you know, other applicants to do.

Um we do I I I think there's this movement, you know, to it it looks better, it lasts longer.

Um I don't think I would extend that, you know, at least in my own opinion, uh, extend that to the uh the islands that are in the parking lots or anything like that.

But I think consistent with uh what other uh tenants that that are in that uh parking lot.

Mr.

Chairman, can I address that?

Please um so our thoughts on that are um the concrete, if you look in these elevations, the various elevations, it gives a very clean and uniform look all the way around the the building.

Uh it is concrete, it's not asphalt.

Um, you know, as Jacob says, you know, I I guess it's not as sturdy as granite, but granite also is in sections and it gets jostled and it and it doesn't have that necessarily that clean look all the way around.

You know, using high high-end concrete, you know, with with a you know great p PSI, you can uh you can achieve a look that uh we think looks really good with the with the renderings and uh it like I say is uniform and clean.

And that's that's the look we were hoping for, and that's why we went with it the way we did.

Right.

And uh for me.

Um I think part of the thinking through this is that the the same flexibility that we provide on the design standards of Tuscan with regards to the building, I think that extends to kind of that granite curving, you know, kind of appeal aesthetics.

Um that it kind of works hand in hand.

Uh it's kind of consistent, it goes through.

Um so I just kind of another thought on that from my perspective.

Mr.

Chairman, one more thought on that if I could.

Um we also looked at the casino and noticed that there was a lot of concrete there uh curving that was wasn't there there was some granite, but there was also a lot of you know concrete curving.

So we we we look we looked at that considered that told the architect that made his renderings kind of based on that that thought.

So that's that's what we have to offer on that.

Thank you.

Yeah, Ms.

Hatch.

Jacob, can you go to I guess that slide?

Which uh the overview is something that shows the Cinemark parking lot and we'll say this parking lot.

I think that's in their presentation.

Here we go.

Okay, so let's talk about C2 with a theater is for a minute.

The only thing that the board did back then was to make them put granite around the perimeter of the building itself.

Um it's around the perimeter of the building, but it's also uh in this area here along uh that whole blue line there.

Um the whole blue line.

I think it's uh in this, it probably starts around this area and then kind of wraps around to probably somewhere around here is where it where it stops.

And did they did they require them to put anything because most of the cars that park for the theater park in that thing, that parking lot between the two buildings.

Did they make them do any of the islands in there?

There's I think only these two islands.

I could probably um I don't know if I have a photo of that.

But those might be bituminous.

There are areas that are bituminous curve, and you can see if I can find it.

So that these are this shows Mall Road here, and it shows that the rear of the site is wrapped with granite, vertical granite, and then still here as well.

This is the north end of the Cinemark.

Uh this is behind Cinemark, so the uh west facing facade.

And this is the area uh Mr.

Campbell, or attorney Campbell's correct that this area is really the limits of their uh vertical granite curb and most of the rest is still bituminous.

Um and then I don't know if I have uh angle.

Yeah, so this is south of Cinemark, and you can see that this is bituminous.

Yeah.

And then uh I think the vertical granite starts right around the building and then wraps around to the rear.

Okay, so my feeling is with you is the parking lot's basically a shaded thing, so that you know, to make the applicant pay for the islands in the parking lot, I think is um unfair.

Let's put it that way.

So I think they should have the sidewalk that goes around the perimeter of the building.

That should have granite immediately around the building, Mr.

Hatch?

Yes.

Okay.

I mean, that's that would be the walkway around the building that goes people going that they would walk on.

So I to me that makes sense to be granite.

But to start getting into the islands and things like that, I I just don't think that's fair to hit them up with that.

Yeah.

Anyone else have sentimental curb?

I agree with you.

I think granite curving all around?

No.

Granite granite around the building.

Oh, I mean on the board.

Yes.

Oh, okay.

Sounds like the consensus is to go with the granite curving just around the building.

Um and then uh as far as the impact fee goes, uh, you know, I guess I just I'd like to put it to bed here right now.

So my thoughts are just to use the uh um that small retailer.

I don't know if you want to deliberate more updating off.

Uh yeah, of course we're gonna take them up on that area.

Just check it.

I was just checking.

Yeah, probably going to be.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Something to lean on here with uh uh for reasoning.

Um but uh I don't know if you want to debate it more if you want to vote on it.

Be good with it.

Just for my two cents again, just again to why I want to use the the retail is you know think of also down the road someone's gonna look at this and say, well, how come what was their reasoning behind charging that?

Yes, and then they could look at that use of the auto sorts like, okay.

I could see how they thought that was a small retail.

So that's to me that's why I want to use that likewise.

Um I I'm still adamant about the um automobile sales rate versus the small retail rate.

Um personally I would rather take the approach of applying the higher rate and then approve it uh you know, approving the plan if we choose to move in that direction tonight, and then we can always come back in the future uh at a later date for the you know uh reduction or whatever it may be.

Um some sort of further negotiation.

No, I know, and it wouldn't be the full plan, it would just be the impact fees.

Um and the impact fees wouldn't be due for quite a while, so there's there's quite a bit of time between now and when it's due before you know it this would actually need to be paid uh for us to be able to work that out.

Someone want to make a motion to use what what uh um use what uh fee to uh here to uh for to assess the um traffic impact fee what uh use I'll make the motion that we use the small retail rate as the uh credit for the impact means second that have a motion and a second anyone to debate that one Mr.

Hatcher are you using the small retail rate or are you gonna take the applicants the small retail rate all right so we're gonna assess it at you're gonna assess it at six thousand three hundred sixty eight dollars keep that's simple okay I'm not I'm not playing a guessing game here motion a second on that any further discussion all those in favor to use that's okay well we'll use that right then okay we're moving on um any further discussion from the board just a couple of questions yes uh so Jacob from a signage perspective uh well I guess first they just by comments to the applicant I think the uh exterior looks fantastic and all of the things that you've recommended I think you've created a magnetic uh look there that's gonna draw people in um but are we gonna run into difficulties with signage as far as the amount that's presented here's signage everywhere and I'm not saying it's a bad thing but obviously there's there's there's limits to what can be used so I think they do have a large amount of signage um but I I think it is something that we anticipate and allow through uh conditional use permit at Tuscan village.

Uh one of my recommendations would be that the banners um this is similar to what you would do at Tuscan Village uh you actually had an applicant at one point come in with a request for banners but that prior to issuance of a sign permit because I know right now they're real preliminary and they need to finalize them but prior to issuance of a sign permit for those banners I think it'd be appropriate for them to present that to the board.

And then the other thing that I would recommend is that um you know the taglines be revised to comply with the Tuscan village sign standards.

I just think the ratio is a little off on some of them.

I think the live music isn't really uh secondary to the Loretta's last call and then I don't think I don't really have a lot of heartburn personally with the taglines for game on but I think we for consistency's sake and site continuity between Tuscan village across the street from this and this parcel I think um I think it'd be appropriate the other thing is too is that I know the site isn't located at Tuscan but I mean there's not really there's residential abutters on Pleasant Street but they're certainly buffered from the sign and then uh you know aside from that you've got Tuskin as the residential butter.

So it seems to make sense to apply a similar standard for this site as you would um for any other or sorry uh any other at Tuscan so you feel that that that this is doable there isn't any big conflicts based on what's presented and what could be approved.

Yeah I mean I think I I I think any modification should really come back to the board.

I mean the the guitar sign is very large but I think the way that it's presented makes sense.

You know I'd worry if in ten years from now somebody else comes in and and they want uh whatever the dimension of that guitar is but they want to make it you know something much different so you know maybe any modification to the to the signage requires further approval we generally do that under public matters but we do that for Tuscan uh for instance they have a certain a special provision that allows you to uh incorporate artwork as you know into the to the signage you saw that at the uh the ice cream store and uh variety of other locations at Tuscan I see that this kind of akin to that so um you know I think any modification to the signage should require uh further approval review and approval from the planning board okay thank you and then just one question for the applicant and it's simply out of curiosity uh between the the two units that are going to be uh operating there what's the revenue mix projected between the two as a part of the whole because you operate these concepts in the wait away can we ask that Jacob dollars I'm talking about percentages all the time roughly two thirds one third to the larger space being game on would be two thirds about two thirds okay sorry I wasn't asking for dollars yeah Mr.

And then uh Mr Fonte that uh goes to the the banners the banners you know the idea the banners are great.

Um is there anything that we can do to limit those to not be uh advertising, meaning you know, two for one specials and that it's actually art that in support of um the the look of the yeah I I think so.

I think um you know the condition I have right now says receive approval final banner design from planning board and maybe we could add a secondary uh stipulation that Mariner shall be artwork and not advertising.

Yeah, because I agree yeah, we'd probably don't want it to just not that you would cheapen your butt precedent.

Okay.

Anything further from the board, Ms.

Calvin?

Um I think the the new design looks really great.

Um you guys really did a great job here.

Um and I also think that a lot of the a lot of the you know quote unquote signage is definitely more in the direction of artwork.

So while yes, there's quite a bit of signage per se.

It doesn't really feel like signage to me.

Um I'm totally fine with the amount of signage that's here.

Um I agree with the the ratios of um the tag lines.

Maybe just work with Jacob on that.

Or you know, yeah, I would be fine with that.

Anything for the board?

Um I just some feedback.

I know Jacob asked for feedback on the elevations too, just so just um I appreciate you listening to the board and taking everything into account that we that we mentioned.

Um Jacob, do you want to read the conditions into uh the record?

Yep.

Uh recommending conditions of approval would be one uh submit staff approvals in this instance it would require that would include planning uh division approvals just to address the outstanding items that were revised today.

Uh two, pay for outside inspections per engineering division.

Uh these are all prior to building permit.

Uh three revised tagline sign to comply with Tuscan Village Sign Standards.

Four, receive approval of final banner design from planning board banner shell uh be artwork, not advertising.

Uh where that was one, two, three.

What was I on four?

Uh five, revised granite curb and around revised curb into granite, vertical granite curb around building.

Uh six, any modification to signage requires further review and approval from planning board.

I'll probably just administratively I'll probably bump that to five just so that the signage is all together.

Um prior to occupancy, we've got uh seven pay road impact fee of six thousand three hundred and sixty-eight dollars.

Uh we've got eight provide certified as built site plan.

Nine, construct all improvements in accordance with the approved plan.

Uh six, no conditional use permit.

Sorry, I'm counting the uh previous.

This is ten, I think.

Ten, no conditional use permit for parking and signage on plan.

Eleven applicant must operate business so that parking lot capacity is not exceeded in 12.

All representations made by applicant or agents and all notes on the plan are incorporated as part of the approval.

Um thing I didn't talk about and uh I didn't discuss with the applicant is um there wasn't an intersection, not to talk more about traffic impacts and and contributions.

There was an intersection contribution that was associated with the prior approval.

My assumption has been that that's been paid under the Cinemark proposal.

I haven't confirmed that with finance.

Um that number was significantly lower, and I imagine if there was uh uh fee attributed to it, it was probably paid majority by Cinemark.

Um but I just wanted to note that uh to the board uh so that you're aware of it.

We could stipulate that staff confirm that uh remainder of uh impact sorry, intersection uh fee has been has been paid.

Intersection fee.

Yeah, the town wants to improve, and we have a actually what we required of Cinemark uh was that they provide us a sketch.

They hired an engineer to uh show a sketch of Mall Road and Pleasant Street reconfigured.

And the town eventually would like Mall Road to be the through movement, and that Pleasant Street would tee onto Mall Road and the traffic, you know, Route 38 rather than stopping and then having to turn on again on to Route 38 would would be a through movement.

But Cinemark had had provided uh uh the engineering services for that, but they also had to make a contribution to it.

I think that was a paid by Cinemark, but I would just like to confirm that there's no balance.

I think it was 50,000 uh dollars, I think, uh, without having the form right in front of me.

But Mr.

Chair, yes, is that a uh is so is that a thirteenth condition?

Yes, that'd be a thirteenth, and I would put that uh prior to occupancy.

So that would be condition number uh 10, and then the others would would bought uh would bump downward uh it oh anything further from the board.

Uh with that I'll entertain a motion.

All right, hold on to your hats, guys.

Uh Mr.

Chair, I moved to grant a conditional use permit for parking under section 490-701D to allow 4,563 parking spaces where 5,573 are required with reference to the letter from the applicant dated November 18th, 2025.

I further move to grant a conditional use permit for signage under section 490-702H to allow 18 signs where two are permitted with reference to the letter from the applicant dated December 29th, 2025, and further move to grant conditional approval of the site plan with the 13 conditions as noted by Mr.

Lafontaine.

Second very nice.

Um have some uh big motion to grant the conditional use permits of parking and signage and uh approve the uh Salem game NIM game on Loretta's last call site plan with 13 conditions.

Um any further discussion on that one?

Um all those in favor.

Uh it's unanimous.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is uh new business.

Um it's the Canaby Lake Toyota site plan.

That's a public hearing for conditional use permit for additional wall signage at 417 South Broadway.

Uh is the plan complete?

Yes, the plan's complete.

Ms.

Chair, I move to accept the plan as complete.

Second.

Uh motion of second to accept the plan.

All those in favor.

That's unanimous.

Abutters, please.

The abutters are as follows.

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

They are H E G 436 South Broadway, LLC, 14 Garibedian Drive, LLC, the Birchers Academy of Academics and Arts, uh, the Birch's Academy, PRM Auto, Salem Scores LLC, AHE properties, 242 Lawrence Road Condo, SDL Farm LLC, Merklin LLC, 392 South Broadway, CFI PropCo 2, SDL Farm, another British Academy, 6 Gary Bedian Drive, PGVG LLC, Town of Salem, State of New Hampshire DOT, and that is all.

Thank you.

We'll go to the applicant to represent the sign plan.

Mr.

Chairman and members of the board, thank you for being here tonight.

My name is Michael Harvey.

I represent Harvey Signs, located at 30 Osgood Street in Methuen.

We have been contracted by Canaby Lake Toyota to apply for sign permitting and install signs for their new uh used certified used vehicles lot.

Uh on behalf of the applicant, Canaby Lake Toyota, we respectfully request a conditional use permit pursuant to subsection 490-702H in the town of Salem zoning ordinance.

The applicant's project site is identified on Salem Tax Map 144 lot 204 and is located in the commercial industrial district, subdistrict C or CI-C.

In support of the the proposed sign package, the applicant would like to request a conditional use permit for the following purposes.

They're allowed up to 100 square feet, and they are proposing 134.85 square feet for wall signage.

Thanks, yeah, yeah.

We'll get there, we'll just hear from uh a planning department uh for their comments.

Uh uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So I won't add too much to Mr.

Harvey's presentation.

They are uh requesting those three signs that are uh shown here that it really mimics uh sorry mimics what that you see at their existing location across the street.

Um so this is what they're proposing, and then if you look at the street view, um you have Honda there, but you have the the their primary building here and it mimics uh you know the signage if you can see it.

And now it says Canaby Lake, of course, because they rebranded, but it's very similar um to what you see there.

Uh aside from that, I don't have a whole lot.

I mean I I did provide some uh excerpts from our um our sign regulations.

One thing I discussed with the applicant was whether or not they intended to have another uh free standing sign.

They have uh or they had a free standing sign, still have it, I believe, uh, but it's you know relatively dated.

It's probably the old liquor store that was just repurposed.

Um Mr.

Harvey at the time when I asked wasn't sure whether or not they were gonna repurpose that.

Initially I thought it hadn't had been removed, but uh Street View shows that it's been uh lying down for a couple of years.

Um so you see it in 25, and I think it's there in 23 too.

So if they're gonna repurpose the sign, or or if they do intend to have a free standing sign, my recommendation or for consideration would be that the freestanding sign shall be no greater than six feet high, so it'd be a monument sign, lower profile.

Um we don't see that too much around 28.

We see that more so on Main Street.

So really for the board's consideration, I could understand um uh you know it very well may not be conforming.

So even if you don't want it to be a six foot uh monument sign, you know, it'd probably be reasonable to ensure that it it uh meets our current regulations, which is a maximum of a hundred square feet, uh twenty feet tall.

Um so really for your consideration.

If it was on Main Street, say I'd probably push harder and say we should really you know try to do a monument sign there.

But uh really for the board's consideration on that one.

Uh also recommended that you uh uh have a condition that the sign shall be channel lighters.

Um that's what they have at their existence sign, that's what they're proposing here, but just to reinforce that it makes it easier as properties change hands down the line, and uh it is a recommendation on our design guidelines, uh similar with the freestanding sign.

Generally we're looking for uh dark background uh light lettering on dark backgrounds, but they haven't uh maybe Mr.

Harvey knows whether or not they're gonna repurpose the existing sign or if they're gonna replace it.

But my sense is that if you were to grant this conditional use permit be reasonable to have the freestanding sign be uh modified to can at least comply with our current organ uh ordinance.

That's all I've got.

Thank you.

Uh any members of the public like to speak on the plan.

Any comments from the board?

Anything?

Yeah, just to save them.

Uh thank you.

Um so is that sign gonna be put back up or are you eliminating that?

Because it doesn't show on uh last week we did receive a call from our planning director and we sent that message to the client and we did not hear back.

As far as we know, we have just been contracted to apply for and install the wall signs.

And all the plans that we have in front of us do not show anything for a ground sign, but I I do know car dealerships love signs.

So if you are to put a stipulation in, that would make sense.

So um Jacob, what do we do?

Just go with the three the the building signs because I think you could grant it and then I mean I guess you could say freestanding sign shall comply with you know current sign ordinance.

There's an argument to be made one way or the other because you know if you if you abandon a sign for six months, uh then you lose your your vested nonconform and status.

But hard, I guess, you know, I haven't seen this before, but I guess they could maybe argue that the sign, this was it in 2023, and then again in August of 25, it was still down.

Yeah.

Right, yeah, it's it's a legal argument.

But um, but I guess what I'm trying to get at is if you grant the three signs on the wall sign, it seems reasonable to say, hey, can you upgrade your your freestanding sign?

Yeah.

I think if we go ahead and give the three signs on the wall sign, then I think you're right.

We do the monument sign up front.

So six six feet.

Condition for that.

Yeah.

Mr.

Kristal Fantine, what is the frontage of the building?

Um I should have normally I do that calculation and I didn't do it in this instance.

Um it is.

I'll give you an approximate.

It just might take me one second, but you're right.

I have the calculation is just over just under 2300 square feet in area for the frontage of the building.

Do you know how um linear feet?

I mean linear feet.

That one I don't have, I'm sorry.

Yeah, Jacob on the back, so I think it shows the length of the building.

It gives us a hundred, is that right?

Is it at the yeah, that's the dimension right there, right?

100 feet.

Yeah.

So uh at a hundred hundred feet, I'm gonna just be my same stickler that you guys are tired of hearing about.

Sign it.

I think it's I I really would like to s see uh stay within the hundred square foot maximum that the citizens voted for in mass um for.

I also don't and I I think they can easily get away with it.

The the Canaby Lake, you know, the you know, part of the CUP is um, you know, helping wayfinding.

I I don't know that the Canaby Lake branding is helps with wayfinding.

Um I get the used car, I get you know the Toyota.

Um I understand the the desire to have branding, but I also you know don't think that we really need as big these the signs to be as large as they are.

Um and again, just to bring it back that that that that hundred square foot, you know, one sign was uh was passed by the voters.

That's not something that we just kind of pulled out of pulled out of thin air.

So I think you know, at this point with this, I I think I I'm inclined to I I do have concerns about the amount of signage for a hundred linear foot building.

So you'd be okay with the three signs at a maximum of a hundred square feet.

Personally, I'm okay.

Yeah, I I think just staying to that.

I you know, I think what we're trying to do is that you know it's just not one big as advertisement as we're driving down you know 28.

I I really think that's what it was.

Well, we've we've we've done some things to and and they're close to the road, they're not you know, this isn't a uh BJ's or um uh my other favorite one, um Erlington Cove Factory, where it's way off the it's not Burlington Co, it's Burlington Deals Brand Wow.

If I could just respond to that, Mr.

Chairman.

Please we we did the calculations for you so that you could weigh on that, and right now the signage that's proposed takes up 4.2% of the wall.

It does have a hundred foot setback from the street, and not all the buildings are that far back, and that's why they chose the size of the letterings, and along with that, I do know that Toyota, we've done a lot of their dealerships, they do require that their buildings have the brand mark, have the dealership name on it, and whatever services are offered at that center.

This particular use for this building is the certified used vehicles.

That's why they have three separate signs.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Um I I did a measurement.

Well, I just looked at map geo, so it's approximately 85 uh linear feet on the front.

It gets a little bit wider towards the back, probably a hundred square feet towards the back.

But in uh Mr.

Chair.

Um we we approve I I believe the site plan came before us.

They're expanding in the back, correct?

It's they're not expanding sideways.

That's correct.

They're expand into the rear, which is uh this edition here.

Okay.

Yep, so they did come before you and they got approval um back in November of 24, and you condition that the sign detail should be reviewed and approved by approved by the planning board prior to issuance of sign permit.

All right, thank you.

Anything further from the board on this one?

Um Jacob, you want to read the conditions in here?

Uh recommended conditions of approval would be one, no conditional use permit on plan two sign shall be individual channel letters.

Sounded like the consensus of the board might have been that the freestanding signs shall be no greater than six feet in height.

Um for all representations made by applicing our agents and all notes on the plan are incorporated as approval.

And uh as Mr.

Norcross considered, you know, one of the recommend or one of the considerations would be whether or not you want to uh limit it to a hundred uh cumulative a hundred square feet between all three signs.

Sorry, Jake.

Um how many conditions?

Uh total well it'd be it'd be four if you don't limit it to a hundred square feet, it'd be five if you limit it to a hundred square feet max cumulatively.

Yeah, got it.

Okay.

So I'm happy to make the motion go, even if I don't agree with it.

Um you're trying to get a feel of who wants to see the hundreds of does anybody else care about the hundreds of the I'm okay with that because I mean the it's wide open in the front.

Yeah.

I mean, and the attraction is the flag out on across the street.

It's not like any keeps it consistent with the other building.

And you know, those billings are pretty close to all in line with each other.

I mean, if you go back to the tax map, you can see it on the tax map.

So I'm okay with what you're saying is the 100 square feet.

I'm good with that.

Okay.

And question for the applicant.

You sent a letter for the uh CUP.

Um what is the date of that letter?

I don't have that in front of you.

The letter I sent in or the letter that was sent back.

Uh it's not dated, but it was submitted back in November, I think.

Yes.

Um I don't have the date in front of me.

Sorry, it's referenced the letter.

Oh, just reference.

I can always think it was the summer.

Okay.

Uh ready to make a motion.

Mr.

Chair.

Wait a minute.

The condition.

Mr.

Hatch, you you you er are in favor of uh yes reducing the hundred to a hundred square feet total.

So I'm on.

Oh.

So hold on, I just want to crystal clear.

What is proposed is more than less than or equal to 100 square feet.

They're proposing 136 square feet, 134.

And we would be saying that you can't go bigger than 100.

Yeah, cumulatively.

So they could still have three signs, but their cumulative total wouldn't exceed.

Is that going to be detrimental?

We would have to come back with a resized.

The the challenge is probably going to be making it so it's legible from the street.

That'll probably be one of their concerns.

So they'd probably be looking to shrink the Toyota sign because the other ones direct attention.

Yeah.

Yeah, the Toyota sign currently is 78.67 square feet.

So then we're going to make them shrink the Toyota to 40 square feet?

That seems small.

Yes, does it?

Comparatively speaking, we're not saying how many signs they're going to have.

No, no, I know.

But if if they I agree that you really can't reduce the other two signs.

So if the only option is to reduce the Toyota sign, now the Toyota sign is really small, and that's probably going to feel off with the scale of the building.

Maybe the Toyota sign should be on the freestand sign.

Well, maybe, but I can't imagine they're not going to want it on the building.

Well, we it would so another option would be to continue when they come back before us with another design.

Yeah, if they uh the applicant prefer to do that continue, be fine.

Oh sorry.

Would you like to continue to propose a modification?

If that's the direction the board wants to go in, we're just looking to comply for them.

Okay.

I know it's tough for you.

Yeah.

Within just to give you an idea, and you've you've dealt with a lot of the dealerships on that corridor there, you've seen a lot of the signage.

Brands like Toyota have a brand book and within the brand book are a selection of different size kits based on building size, frontage, what's allowed within the district.

So unfortunately, not everything's custom made out of their catalog.

They would go from whatever that size sign is and shrink it down to the next size down.

It could be slightly smaller or dramatically smaller, but to lose uh 30 square feet, I I'd be interested to see what they have in their brand book.

I don't have it in front of me, so I don't know.

Yeah, that's fair.

What are the size of the the uh dimensions of the I guess it's on here, I apologize.

So yeah, one sign is 78 square feet, one at 37, one at 19.

And the letters are are a foot three, so they're 15 inches tall.

No, the Canterby Lake is uh a foot six, so they're eighteen inches tall.

Right.

Yeah, I mean I understand what Mr.

Nor we have in or you have rather in the past held applicants to uh one essentially one square foot per linear foot of frontage, and um I think that's what you're probably trying to get at.

I mean, in this instance they have less than a hundred linear feet of frontage on the front uh portion.

But this is Ms.

Carlson.

Um I completely understand the the one square foot per linear foot, and generally I would agree with that.

But I think again, I'm gonna go against the grain here, that I think what they're proposing is not unreasonable.

Um given what the sign what the signs are.

Like the the Toyota logo has to be the Toyota logo, they can't really change that, and if their brand standards are, you know, it's it's this size, it's this size, or it's this size, like if they have set sizes, like then it could be way out of whack scale-wise.

And do we want it a disproportionate scale of the sign in the building?

That's gonna look silly.

I would rather them, I would rather give them the extra 30 square feet.

Uh my recommendation, well, unless the board wants that, what you could do is you could continue it um to our next meeting.

I think we don't generally do that, prefer something this minor.

You could probably continue it to January 27th, and they applicant could come back with two iterate, you know, you could show one uh that he's currently proposing, uh cumulative 135 square feet, and then one that would show the elevation with a hundred you know square foot uh total.

I don't really come back to the side.

I think I agree with you.

The way they're it's fine.

Get rid of the monument sign.

We don't need another street sign on 28.

Okay.

If they don't know that they're going by a Toyota used car dealership with a new car dealership on the other side of the street, then they're blind and they can't drive.

So come on.

I mean, it doesn't matter, right?

The monument sign disturbs me more than anything else.

The reality is that if someone's going to a Toyota, they're probably gonna end up at the new car dealership across the street and then be told to go across the street.

So like I I don't see any harm in just giving them what they're asking for.

Don't make them come back.

No, I I don't want them to come back.

I just don't want I don't like the monument sign, but if everyone doesn't mind, Mr.

Chairman, at this time we we do not have any plans for the monument sign.

Yeah, yeah, we put it in.

I know.

Yeah, I am most of us are aware.

Well, they're they're entitled to a wall sign and a monument sign.

It's been down for the for our sign under our sign ordinance.

So let them come back if they want to sign afterwards and we can fight them then.

Yes.

Yes.

Yeah.

Perfect.

Exactly.

All right.

I have a motion.

Yes.

Ms.

Chair, I move to grant a conditional use permit for signage under section 490702H to allow three signs where one sign at 100 square feet is allowed with reference to the letter from the applicant and subject to the five conditions noted by Mr.

Lafontaine.

And the five is with the hundred square foot sign.

The fifth one.

That's correct.

Is the one hundred square foot sign?

100 square foot limit combined.

Oh no.

Is there a second?

We said no.

No seconds.

That's not what we said, right?

Huh?

No, that's no, that that is it.

So that you'd have they they could have the three signs cumulatively no greater than 100 square feet, uh, and they could have one monument sign at no greater than six feet tall.

Oh, I thought we were going with the three signs on the building the way they are in getting rid of the monument sign.

Well, we were until Mr.

Norcross had to be the sign police.

Um, so now we have a motion and a second with those five conditions to keep it 100.

Um keep a total of 100 square feet.

Uh Jacob, if we vote for this, what they're gonna have to go back and come back and present a new um, just change the plan and give it to you.

And then if you vote for this, I think that they would be entitled to put up the three wall signs.

Yeah.

And you you want you would you like to review the monument sign?

Is that what you're no?

There is no monument.

Oh, you you want to do the three wall signs in lieu of a free standing sign?

Well, I thought we were just doing the freestanding sign shall be great, no greater than six feet.

Correct as a condition.

Yep.

Yes.

Okay.

So they could have a free standing sign.

It has to be a low profile monument sign, and they could have three signs on the building.

Yes.

No greater than 100 square feet.

Wasn't that Mr.

Norcross's motion?

That's the motion.

Yes.

But but if we vote in favor of that motion, the only way for them to get the 130 square feet would be for them to come back and revise the plan.

Yeah, and it really should be a material change.

We'll get a variance.

Right.

Yeah.

So they shouldn't just come back with the same requirement.

It'd have to be a material change.

So, you know, you wouldn't want an applicant to continuously come in to ask for the same thing until you get tired.

And so then we'll be opening the door for a free standing sign.

I see.

If this motion fails, can we make another motion?

Yeah.

We doubt that.

Yeah.

For the 130.

Yep.

Okay, I'm I know what I'm gonna do.

All of your cards.

Oh man.

I'll tell you this side.

You talked me into it, so I mean, hey, I was on his side, so you had the back up here.

Um, motion a second with the five conditions.

Um to uh grant the conditional use permit for the three signs and uh uh keep it to a total 100 square feet.

Um that uh all those in favor.

Well that doesn't pass, so uh against okay.

So that's that motion fails.

Two four a new I think Mr.

Hash would make a motion, Mr.

Hatch.

Would you like motion?

I'll go ahead and make a motion that we grant the applicant's request with the four stipulations stated by Mr.

Lafontaine and allow them the hundred and thirty-six square feet, the three signs with 136 square feet, that's a total 134.8.

Yeah, okay.

134.8 square feet.

Second.

Motion a second to um uh uh grant the conditional use permit for the three signs as the plan is and with the four conditions noted discussion on that one.

All in favor opposed great passes for two passes.

Sorry about that.

Congratulations.

That was fun for everyone.

Thank you very much.

Y'all have a good night.

All right.

It was fun.

Riven, really.

All right.

Next item of uh new business.

Next item on the agenda new business is uh the Fuschetti subdivision plan.

That's a preliminary hearing for a two-lot subdivision at 59 Millville Street.

Um plan complete.

Yes, the plan is complete.

Is Chair I move to accept the plan as complete?

Second.

Uh motion a second to accept the Fuschetti subdivision plan.

Um all in favor.

That's uh it's unanimous of butter space.

Your butters are as follows.

If you're here, please make it by saying, sir.

There are Fuchetty Garcia McKinnis.

Salem School District Burns, Donahue.

Town of Salem, and that is all.

No, I mean I threw it away at something.

Um thank you.

Um to the applicant to present the plan.

Good evening, Chair.

Thank you, board.

Uh Eric Salovich, Northam Survey, um Dover, New Hampshire representing the owner and applicant, uh, Jackie Fretty and Jason Parent, owners of 59 Millville Street, Salem, New Hampshire, also known as Tax Map 81 lot 2946.

Um this parcel of land is uh 22,000 square feet.

It is a half acre in size, it is unique in nature in that it fronts uh public right-of-ways on three sides being Millville Street, Taylor Street, and Franklin Street.

I have a 20 to 30 minute presentation that I can go through, or I can't do it.

Alright, so we'll cut it a little short.

Called your bluff, because I don't have a 20 minute repetition.

Yeah, we get it.

Um this project started out as a conceptual survey for our office, and that conceptual plan was submitted to the zoning board of adjustments uh and was heard on the October 7th, 2025 meeting to do a two-lot subdivision without ample uh size.

Um the plan you see before you um showing two lots, approximately a quarter acre a piece.

Uh one is eleven thousand eighty-nine square feet.

That will be the lot that has the existing home on it, and the uh the new parcel is ten thousand nine hundred and eleven, and you can see on our subdivision plan before you that as a result of the subdivision uh the plan uh the new lots are equal to or um adequately sized to other lots in this neighborhood.

Um this neighborhood was an early 1900s development.

Um the lots were very very small, and uh that depression era survey, and many homeowners bought up several parcels to make their lots a little bigger.

Um, but many of the lots that exist in that area today are significantly smaller than the minimum lot size of 25,000 square feet.

So uh plan went before the zoning board and it was approved.

It has uh granted stipulations which are listed on the survey before you under note 17.

Um those are roof runoff shall be infiltrated, existing water and sewer mains proposed and water and sewer services shall be shown on the plan, and the driveway shall be located as far removed from the intersection as possible.

Um during working with Jacob and staff, um we received you know Jacob's recommendation, uh, which was on December 18th, 2025.

We were working through those which um had a lot to do with title block issues and adding the zoning board, the ZBA decision, uh lot closer calculations, etc.

etc.

Um, a lot of those were addressed.

Um we did print the board has an older copy of the plan.

Um I think you have three plans now, maybe just two.

I don't know if Jacob actually printed with the application.

Um so we do have a copy of the plan that shows the Salem title block um as depicted in your ordinance.

Um that it's not preferred by my office.

Uh we would prefer to use our standard title block, which is uh like every every other survey that we produce and we have on record.

Um it shows the pertinent information from the subdivision ordinance that we need on a title block.

Um I'll leave that decision up to the board.

We are uh capable of reproducing the survey with either title block.

I just uh feel personally that one is more aesthetically appealing than the other.

Um moving on from that.

We did submit a waiver with the application in regards to trying or attempting to punt a lot of the um engineering review design aspects, which which is unique to Salem when we do these types of two lot subdivisions.

Um then yesterday we received a review letter from the engineer.

Um so we circled up at the office and kind of pulled together today, which is why you got a last minute submittal because we figured it was easiest to just answer the questions.

Although most of what you see is preliminary, we don't have design plans for the house.

Um so some of the engineering aspects may have to change, but it does flow with what is required in the city of Salem.

Uh I personally had a phone call with uh the town engineer um James Brown this afternoon and reviewed the changes that are shown on the plan today, and he is um acceptance of that.

So I think we're moving in a positive direction.

Um I can review that letter and go over some of the stuff that we're depicting on the survey.

Um I don't know how much you know I think we get we have the letters here.

Um so uh we can reference those if we need to.

All right, so uh with that I'll turn it over to the board and answer any questions.

Yeah, thanks.

We'll go to uh the planning department for for staff comments.

Uh thanks, Mr.

Chair.

So I won't try to add too much to Eric's presentation.

They did get a variance back in October.

Uh he's read those stipulations.

Um we've had you know a couple iterations that I think the original plan was a bit different than what's currently shown today.

Uh are you rem are you uh withdrawing your waiver request because you have the minimum basement floor elevation and you have erosion control shown on this plan now?

I believe we're just gonna withdraw the waiver, yeah.

Just wanted to make sure.

So uh Eric did work with uh with senior engineer Jim Brown earlier today to address some of the outstanding items.

I think you have a copy of Jim's memo from yesterday.

Um so I don't have too much to add.

The the variance is requested for an undersized lot.

I think the background here is that these were lots that the applicant alleged were potentially involuntarily merged, which is similar to the lot that you saw on Millville and Dyer, where they went to the town council, got an involunt they unmerged the lots through the town council, came back to you for a lot line adjustment.

In this instance, they didn't present that case to the town council.

They said we know we want to have the lot centered on the lot, so it wouldn't do much good to uninvol uh to unmerge them rather because they wanted it in this specific area.

So they went to the ZBA, CBA granted a variance, they're now before you.

Um had the request for the waivers, they've added that.

They've one of the comments I had was that the driveway needs to be removed uh as far from the intersection as possible.

Uh uh Eric has done that earlier today, so you can see here that it's as far removed, well, about as far as removed as you could possibly get on dire is a little more sensitive because the setback or the distance from the intersection was a lot closer, or you know, relatively a lot closer than what they have here.

So recommendation.

Oh, the one thing I want to talk about is the standard title block.

Uh Eric talked uh about that a little bit.

I haven't experienced that and I don't know that uh so I I did commend Eric because it's always fun to have conversations with uh new individuals.

But I even asked Ross when I said, Hey, have you had issues with standard title block?

Um and not really.

Uh you know, I mean I I understand the way he's presented it.

Generally, you could probably be made to look a little bit prettier.

Um, you know, uh a lot of times we see it shifted over, but my anyway, my recommendation would be to continue to use the standard title block.

We've used it for the last at least 35 years.

I think even plans uh you know from uh the 70s have a similar title block.

So my recommendation would maybe be to support uh the staff opinion.

Uh I Eric did a good job because he said there's nowhere expressly stated in our subdivision regulations that says the standard title block shall be used.

I guess that's a kind of a legal interpretation of what standard means.

Uh, you remember an applicant came in and said what is executed mean that the lease hasn't been executed yet uh and tried to kind of make an argument about what that meant.

But anyway, um recommendation tonight is if your concerns are satisfied, would be moved to here in one here and grant uh well not to grant the waivers because they've been withdrawn.

So grant conditional approval subject to prior to recording plan.

One submit staff approvals, particularly uh engineering and assessing.

I think Jim's okay, but we would go on his final sign off.

Uh an assessant hasn't assigned a lot number, so we'd want them to weigh in as well.

Uh two setter bond monuments.

Uh three, we would just reinforce, even though shown here, driveway shall be relocated as far removed as from the intersection as possible.

Uh, we're not going to note the waivers on the plan because those those have been withdrawn.

So condition number four is all representations made by applicant or agents and all notes on the plan are incorporated as part of the approval.

Great.

Jacob, if I if I may just hop in the first time.

Of course.

You just thanks, sure.

No, no problem, Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, you may.

Thank you, Chair.

Sorry.

I was looking for that approval, but um I in speaking with James today in regards to the engineering review.

Um we were talking about the monumentation and showing the monuments that are going to be set on the lot.

And you know, my answer to that is your subdivision ordinance is relatively clear that it's granite bounds up by the road, and then you know, pipes or pins in the rear.

Um he made a comment to me that he believes most of these corners can be iron rods, and just the one by Franklin Street and Millville Street needs to be a granite bound.

Um I was a little confused by that at first.

Uh I don't know if it was from the age of the subdivision or because the lot the right-of-ways are so straight through there.

Um you do see pipes found at all the other front lot corners, including you know the lot right to our rear.

There's an iron rod um with a Meisner cap, which is a more modern survey.

Um would the board be okay with iron rods at the property corners?

They're significantly easier to put in.

Um they're just as durable.

That's a 36-inch length uh piece of rebar.

Um I can set a pin in 15 minutes versus digging a granite bound.

Yeah, I I agree with you, but I think that question's beyond the board.

Yeah.

I think it could be addressed through engineering approval.

So if Jim's okay with it, then so if Jim's okay with it, let's get it in an email and roll.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any further discussion from the board?

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

We already do that.

Members of the board like to um can we go through the merger one more time?

Just what I understand.

So the differences between this plan and the one on um Dyer and Millville.

Yeah.

So the one in Dyer and Millville was it was an involuntary merger.

Yeah.

Um that's why the lots then needed to be separated, correct?

Correct.

Yeah, so the onus uh the state RSA says the owners is on the town to demonstrate that some owner in the chain of uh some owner in the chain of ownership voluntarily merge it.

If you don't have that, then the town council is essentially compelled to sure on merge it.

That's what happened there.

I think this applicant has alleged that on the original subdivision that it showed it as three lots.

The reason why they did not go through that process is because even if they got that variance, I think they were gonna have to make a lot line adjustment anyway, and probably go to the ZBA depending on where that adjustment goes, and then also to this board.

So they kind of went to the ZBA, the ZBA granted it when they went to the ZBA, they did present that the original subdivision um had shown it as as multiple lots.

But they don't need to go to town council to unmerge the lot.

No, because they've created a new substandard lot because they the ZBA has.

The ZBA can grant relief for any lot in the community.

Uh you know, if they want.

So why didn't why didn't Millville and Dyer do that?

Um because they wanted to um go to the town council and get the subdivision.

Yeah.

This is just an image of the original 1923 survey.

Yeah.

So we could have turned this into three lots.

Okay.

That would be I was just trying to understand the the process more so and how it's how it's different.

There's obviously been uh quite a bit of contention about what happened with the house on the corner of Dyer and Millville and how it got to the scale that it is, though.

It it was allowed Dyer was interesting because they really only altered it by you know a few feet.

They just want to give the relief to the existing dwelling.

Right.

Okay, let's stick to this plan here.

Right.

But that's I'm trying to understand how that plan was different than this plan and how we got to this point.

That's all I'm trying to understand here.

So it's um I just want to support the um the planning department on the title block.

Um just that you hear from the board.

We like the old we like the other title block.

Um and then I heard a little frustration on your part, I think, at the beginning, uh, in your opening statements about the unique process that Salem uses with regards to you know erosion and other things as an engineer that works in many towns.

As an engineer that works in many towns, you have to understand that different towns work different ways.

This is the way we work.

Apologize you're frustrated.

That's just the way we do it in Salem.

Um then that I'm good.

Thank you.

Mr.

Ambassador, anything further from the board.

Um okay.

We'll detain a motion.

Uh Mr.

Chair, move to here in one hearing and grant conditional approval subject to the four conditions noted by Mr.

Lafontaine.

Second.

Do you have four conditions?

Uh yes.

Uh well, one submit staff approval.

Yeah, four total.

Sepond monuments driveway.

Okay.

Okay.

Motion is second.

Uh any further discussion.

Over favor.

Oh, that's unanimous.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Bart.

Thank you.

Yeah, and I wasn't never frustrated.

Um it's always good conversation.

No, I agree with you.

I'll just say thank you also on behalf of your client for you know, working quickly and diligently to make the amendments.

So well done.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, guys.

Have a good evening.

Thanks, guys.

Very good.

Okay.

The uh final agenda item of new business tonight is the Sarage Realty LLC site plans public hearing for amended site plan and phasing scheduled for 6,000 square foot office vehicle maintenance and dry ice manufacturing building and a 20,000 square foot warehouse storage building, and cave track the trailer storage area with a conditional use permit for reduced wetland setback at 44 Pelham Road.

Um plan complete.

Yes, the plan's complete.

Ms.

Chair, I move to accept the complaint the plan as complete.

Second, it's late.

Motion a second to accept the plan as complete.

All is in favor.

Uh that's unanimous.

Uh butters, please.

Uh the letters are as follows.

If you're here, please indicate what I say.

So they are young landholdings, uh Denise Young Coastal Realty Corporation, Hardens and Carbone, Cartoon Realty Trust, Store Capital Acquisitions, 11 Industrial Way condo, uh MCJB Realty Trust, UCI properties LLC, Titus and Molly LLC, PKB Real Estate, uh 11B Industrial Way Realty Trust, B, Mr.

Fulton Realty LLC, 11C Industrial Way, 7 Industrial Way Condo, Green Roof Realty, Wright's Centennial House, Coppinger Trust, 7 Industrial Salem, Ajack Realty, and that is all.

Thank you.

Go to the applicant to present the plan.

Good evening.

The record Chris York from GPI.

Well, my voice is a little harsh hoarse tonight, so I'll try to be quick.

I know it's late too, so uh we had a nitro for an amended site plan and a conditional use permit.

The 44 Pelham Road.

So I'll start with uh the existing building, kind of go there first.

So last month we went to the zoning board and got a variance for the use of the building.

So back in 2023, the site, the original site plan approval, the existing front building, the proposed use was warehouse office space and storage.

We got we went back to the zoning board in December for variance to change that to dry ice manufacturing store vehicle maintenance of the uh tractor trailers in office space.

That's part of the dry ice manufacturing.

There's a 50-ton CO2 tank that is proposed behind the building on a concrete pad.

Concrete pad is 28 feet at its nearest point to the wetlands.

We're at 40 feet required, so you need a condition use permit for that.

We went to conservation commission twice to get their comments and feedback.

They did vote to recommend to the planning board.

So that's the first step.

So step two.

The applicant owner went to the town probably six to eight months ago to get occupancy for the front building.

They were told they could not because shown on the previously approved site plans.

The front building was part of phase one, which is basically the entire site minus phase two, which was a future 20,000 square foot building, kind of the center of the property.

They were told because the buildings in within phase one, they would they could not get occupancy until all construction was completed.

So we're here for the main reason we're here is to kind of break up that phase one into two separate phases, phase one A and phase one B.

I met with uh Jacob and Jim probably six months ago at this point to kind of get an idea of what they that would be the best way to do this.

So basically, phase one A now incorporates the first 250 feet of the new roadway that's proposed that's currently under construction.

The first 150 feet of roadway would be paved, all the drainage infrastructure would be built at that during that time as well, any utilities.

That way the tractor trailers, which are not allowed to use the existing driveway, be able to come into the new driveway, you know, wrap around, and then to be able to access the existing building so they can then maintain those that tractor trailers as well.

So phase one B will be the rest of the site, which is currently under construction and all of the paved area up top, but kind of the middle area, the trailer storage.

While I was working on the phasing plan, the applicants wanted to also use the top part of the property for more trailer storage if needed.

The original plan showed it as kind of a future development area.

It was calculated in the stormwater report as pavement impervious, so it is included in the drainage report.

So all the runoff from that area does go into the underground retention systems that are proposed as part of fate, you know, as the original plan approval.

It was originally proposed as gravel.

I think for now they want to be able to pave that and use it for more trailer storage if they need it.

Like I said, it's included in the drainage report, so there's no new uh adverse effects to the site itself.

It's already included in the you know, the furnace areas already included.

Um that's and that's a the gist of it.

Um even a quick I can certainly answer any questions you have.

I get the applicants here as well.

They can certainly answer any questions on the use of the new building or the use of the uh existing building and any questions you may have on the dry ice manufacturing vehicle maintenance.

Okay, thanks.

We'll hear from the staff comment uh staff with their comments, and then uh we'll go to the board for calling questions.

So thanks, Jacob.

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um so as Mr.

York stated, the applicant did come in uh for a permit at one point, probably about six months ago, maybe even more at this point.

And uh they wanted to do uh vehicle maintenance and dry ice manufacturing.

That was uh different use that was uh than was proposed to to this board and also the zoning board of adjustment.

So um parsels a little funny, and uh well as we go through our comprehensive zoning update, maybe we should take a look at the zone in line.

But uh the first hundred feet, maybe two hundred feet is is zoned rural, and the remainder of this site is zoned industrial.

I think the idea was at one point to kind of preserve a rural character along uh this portion of Pelham Road, but I think that's kind of changed over time.

But uh regardless, they had to go back to the ZBA because they weren't anticipating uh the that same use or didn't propose it.

They're also are proposing a 50-ton uh CO2 tank that's gonna be uh 38 feet tall.

Is that right?

30 feet.

Approximately approximately 38 feet tall.

They got a height variance from the zoning board of adjustment for that as well.

Uh they went to the uh conservation commission, uh Creighton community development uh program manager is here who provide staff support to the um conservation commission, and he's provided a memo that's in your packet that he could speak to uh if and when you would like.

Um aside from that, there are some changes that this uh plan would affect the impact fee, for instance, not to talk more about impact fees, but uh the use uh configuration changes, our impact fee has been updated.

So there'd be a new impact fee uh calculation assessed to it.

Um aside from that, I guess I'll just go over I'll go through some images I have.

This is what the uh street view was from 2019.

Um so this is just relative to the landscape, and they they had some trees that were planted along the frontage.

Um this was probably kind of overgrown, maybe not really landscaped, but uh certainly well vegetated.

Um those were shown on the plan in 2023 when you approved it back in uh no uh September of 23.

Um they still have you know that I went by the site uh a couple maybe a week ago, and they still have uh some nice vegetation landscaping along the front of the building, but they did uh remove all those, they were probably relatively mature at this point, trees in the front.

So one thing I would uh recommend as a condition of approval would be that um that vegetation be re-established in accordance with the approved plan.

Um so I just have some images of that.

So you can see that here they they are do have a vegetative buffer uh to some of the property to the so the uh east, and they are proposing some plantins to the rear of the site, and then also significant wetland plantins.

I think they've got 36 high bush blueberry uh bushes uh to mitigate some of the wetland impact.

And then you can kind of see in in this area here along the frontage.

That's the area that uh where the vegetation is missing.

These were each uh tree that uh was not there.

I think this one uh was removed as well.

And then another thing for consideration is again that you know, looking at that photo, this was kind of more just overgrown vegetation, but it did provide some buffer from uh Pelham Road.

They're gonna have that.

This is the the concrete pad here where the uh CO2 tanks gonna go.

Uh obviously, even if you plant our barvides, it's not gonna screen everything, but it might go a little ways to screen and from this street view to be approximately in this area, and because of the grade, it might help a little bit from from Pelham Road if the board is inclined to ask for some uh screening uh of the uh in this area here.

This is just a highlight the relief that they're requesting for the conditional use permit.

It's 28 feet where uh 40 feet is required.

There was some discussion, I think, at the ZBA and I believe also at the conservation commission about why uh would the why do the area need to be in this location, why couldn't it be to the rear of the building?

Um and I think the applicant was prepared to answer or answer that previously and be prepared to answer tonight.

I think it was mostly because of the uh CO2 tank itself and it wanted to be in a more protected area, but um uh Mr.

York will recall better.

Uh one of the more consequential items that uh I've asked Mr.

York to address that hasn't been addressed at this point is the truck turn plan.

So this is the truck turn plan currently, but it really kind of is to show uh you know how deliveries gonna occur during phase two operations.

They're gonna be doing vehicle maintenance and and uh maintenance of uh uh trailers uh associated with tractor trailers.

So obviously we're gonna want a truck turn plan that shows how those because they because they're restricted from using the Westerly Drive.

We want to see how the uh tractor trailer is gonna get here, and then it's uh I'm sure it'll just back down, but it's a bit of a way to back down.

We want to see that movement, and then we also want to see the movement to access the uh trailer storage to the upper lot because that wasn't anticipated under the previous approval, and they are now adding additional uh trailer storage to the top of the site.

Uh if the board would be comfortable, one recommendation would be to um require um uh that the truck turn plan be revised and reviewed potentially by our third-party traffic consultant.

You reviewed the initial plan, so it probably would make sense to have them review the truck turn plan, uh, which I would imagine would be relatively minor lift.

This is just a closer review of uh that run where the tractor trailer will have to get to have the uh trailer uh enter the building.

Um aside from that, they previously were granted a waiver by the board for the elevations.

They didn't want to provide elevations for the second phase because it's very preliminary at this point.

That's the building here.

You granted that uh waiver with a condition of approval that um elevations be submitted prior to building permit for phase two.

Uh the second driveway I acknowledged was previously um restricted to uh to only personal vehicles, not the commercial vehicle traffic, and that's because of the uh proximity to commercial drive intersection.

Uh impact fees we talked about uh the current rate based off of the current configuration is 17,168 dollars based off of office manufacturing warehouse.

That is for traffic, and then for public safety, it would be $7,709 based off of office and industrial use, and that's for public safety.

Um again, we acknowledge it was previously reviewed by our traffic consultant.

Uh I asked Mr.

York to confirm whether or not trip generation will increase.

They previously anticipated 96 additional weekday trips, and uh Mr.

York I believe is prepared to answer that.

Uh loading doors, uh, we'll want those shown on the plan because obviously now they're gonna use this building for for tractor trailer maintenance or uh the trailers themselves, so we want to know where those load indoors are.

It's not shown on the plan.

Uh the other item we wanted was the build-in set back to phase two, just to have that shown on the plan.

Those are items that could probably be conditioned as part of the approval.

Um aside from that, we talked about the ZBA.

We the parking calculations, they're okay.

Uh they've provided or they've proposed these temporary spaces that I just just I've asked Mr.

York to note are temporary and will be removed under phase two because they conflict with their truck turn plan.

Um, but they'll have adequate spaces based off of the phase occupancy of the site.

Um aside from that, the sign detail has not been uh submitted, and I would reinforce the condition of approval that they uh submit that prior to issuance of sign permit.

Um I believe that is all uh staff approvals are still pending from engineering and fire, but those could be incorporated as part of the approval.

Um if your concerns are satisfied, recommended approval would be to grant conditional use permit for wetland impact and conditional approval subject to conditions which I can provide if anyone you'd like.

Okay.

Okay.

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

Um go to the board.

Anything, Mr.

Mr.

Harvey.

Uh just a question.

So the the building that's adjacent to the large CO tank or CO2 tank, is that where the dry ice will be manufactured or yes.

So that's not a maintenance facility, that's a manufacturing it's a combination of office space, uh the vehicle maintenance and dry ice, so it's three different uses in the building.

In that building.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Wilker?

How tall is the existing building?

Trying to get a sense of 38 feet storage tank right next to it.

What is that?

2016.

24.

24, 25 feet.

Um you guys are okay with Arbor Vides at least attempting to cover that cover up that monstrosity a little bit.

Yeah.

Okay.

And uh Mr.

Sher.

Um and then there's just no other place.

That the side of the building, I consider the back, but it's the farthest away from Pelham Road.

That's where you actually are loading or you have vehicles entering the facility, right?

That is the only feasible location for the CO2 tank.

Okay.

All right.

That's all I have.

Okay.

Ms.

Kelson.

Um I know and in reading through the um the memo that Creighton had provided about the conservation commission.

One of the notes is that the weight of the tank in the pad should be considered in proximity to the wetland, and the applicant should look into the stability of the soil of the proposed tank and concrete pad.

Um are there any concerns about that whatsoever?

I'd like to I'll let the experts speak to that.

My name is Daniel Cox.

Um, so what we're gonna end up doing is uh we're gonna follow all of the American concrete institute requirements.

So we're gonna do a soil survey to talk about the consistency of density of the soil.

And we'll follow it's it's ACI 306R 10 and 22, which talks about concrete pads on slab and on grade.

So we're gonna follow that.

Typically, we we will bring it below the the frost line.

It's required that you have a minimum of six inches of uh one inch crushed stone.

We're gonna double that for the crushed stone components.

We also are gonna be using the gauge five and six uh rebar with the fencing.

It's going to be almost to think of it like a a skeleton.

So we're gonna build build that framework, and it's also required for the concrete for 4,000 PSIs.

We're gonna have a minimum of four eight to fourteen inches.

Again, we're gonna exceed that 14 inches, and then we're going to include that in the overall plan for um for that pad just to make sure that we are kind of going overboard, if you will, to build the pad for safety and security reasons.

Okay.

So yeah, we're gonna exceed those requirements.

Sure.

Um and then also on the memo, there was um the appkin should consider putting up safety and awareness signs around the CO2 tank.

I assume that's standard percent.

Yeah, that's standard, and we're also gonna fence in the area.

Okay, that was my next question.

It was about some sort of safety fence that you sing.

And the other thing that we're going to do, although it's not an industry requirement, uh, we're installing monitoring systems on the tank, which will have vacuum tubes from the tank to the building.

And when the pressure drops, if there's any indication of that, because it's very consistent, it's gonna be an automatic shutoff.

Sure.

So we're gonna include that as well.

And what would the safety fencing look like?

It's gonna be the it's gonna be an eight-foot-tall chain link.

Okay.

Good.

Anything further from the board.

Okay.

Well, very well then.

Jacob.

Uh recommended.

Uh recommended conditions of approval would be one, submit staff approvals, two, pay for outside inspection for direction of engineering division.

Many of these were already included in the original approval, but we'd want to, I guess, reinforce them since they've come back in.

These are uh from the memo that Ms.

Carlson had noted.

And the conservation commission has recommended that geotechnical information to ensure the soil support can support the concrete pad be submitted.

You know, we could have that deferred to the building department probably, uh whatever they would they'd prefer.

Um as a condition in here.

Well, they they've recommended conditional approval with uh recommendation for geo.

So I guess if you want, we could say submit staff approvals include in building department if that makes sense.

Maybe that wouldn't that would cover um that item.

I don't want to have them provide something that the I thought they had a soil study in here.

Do you have a soil study?

Those there was a those soils.

They they have done the soils, they did it in 22, I think.

Um was there anything in like in that close proximity to the wetlands?

Um, at the time in 22 and under the previous 2023 approval, there was uh that was just gonna be uh undisturbed area uh because the building was already there.

Yeah.

Um I don't know.

I mean, I could I talked with the building inspector earlier today, and he said we don't generally require the geotechnical uh, you know, but uh you see they could do borings, I guess.

But I mean I I'd kind of would ref defer it to him if that makes sense to the board.

Um we could put that in there and then just to be satisfied.

Yeah, I can't tell someone to do borings or test pits, no, I don't okay.

So maybe we'll just uh in terms of that aspect uh we can acknowledge that you know uh in terms of staff approvals we'll consult with the building department in terms of the geotechnical uh information.

Um the other items are uh that the conservation commission recommends the conditional use permit be granted with that additional buffer plantings are uh are added, particularly those high bush blueberry uh bushes, and I think that Mr.

York indicated that that was agreeable to the applicant at the conservation commission meeting.

Uh that the applicant should consider putting up uh safety slash awareness fence and signs around the CO2 tank.

Uh the weight of the pad, the weight of the tank and pad should be considered in proximity of the wetland.

Uh look into the stability of the soil.

So again, that goes back to the previous comment, in that the applicant should consider putting in safety fencing around the CO2 tank.

Um so I I think that the I think that the building in the fire department approval will probably help with some of that, and the applicant has already noted that they're gonna install a fence around the tank, so we'll ask that that be added to the um plan.

Up to you how you want to incorporate the conservation commission's recommendations.

Yeah, I would just add it as a condition.

So submit conservation commission uh comments per uh, address conservation commission comments, yeah.

Okay, for 1826 memo.

Okay.

Uh so that's our third condition.

Uh that's all prior to building permit, prior to occupancy pay road impact fee of 17,168 dollars and public safety of 7,709 dollars.

Uh five, reinstall vegetation at the front of the existing building and add screening uh at Arbor Buddies are arbor VITES for screening uh of the CO2 tank.

Six provide certified as built site plan.

Seven, construct all site improvements in accordance with the approved plan.

Eight, note variant variance, waivers, and conditional use permit for wetland impact on plan.

So that would include those prior uh waivers and uh variances that were granted.

Uh nine, receive planning board approval of sign detail prior to issuance of sign permit.

10 received planning board approval for elevations prior to building permit for phase two warehouse and storage building.

Eleven truck traffic shall be restricted to Easterly Drive.

Twelve, vegetation landscaping and signage shall be kept low to ground or set back sufficient set back sufficiently from Pelham Road to ensure adequate site distance.

13 all representations and uh made by applicant or agents and all notes on the plan are incorporated as part of the approval.

Jacob and I guess to ask a question.

Yeah, first the Mr.

Shay.

For the uh certified as builders want to make sure that's for phase 1A, correct?

Uh or interim as built of phase one A so they can get there.

Uh yeah, so I guess we would say prior to uh occupancy submit phase uh certified as built of each phase, something to that effect.

Okay.

Okay.

Any further discussion from the board on this one?

Chair.

Uh just one last question.

Do we anticipate greater um trips?

You know, more what's gonna happen to traffic here?

We have more uh vehicles entering and cleaning the facility based on anything that's new.

I don't anticipate.

I think it'd be a microscopic increase.

The office space I think was gonna be doubled, although 850 square feet is for a future office base and their kind of their second floor area.

So it's square footage of the building hasn't changed, so it's still they just maintain their own trailers and it's their own business, so they're not gonna be able to do that.

I was thinking more of the additional storage space in the back for trailers.

Is that is that high volume?

Is it or is that was that already contemplated in the original plan?

I think it was contemplated.

I mean, I think it probably comes and goes in terms of the you know Sonny can probably answer the question better than I can.

Uh Sonny Chohan.

Uh drill to here.

So the back of it is just going to be for additional space if we need to increase, have more storage capacity, basically, and we're future-proofing everything we're doing here just to future-proof our business uh for future growth.

That's basically yeah.

So that's the purpose of it.

Great.

Thank you.

All right.

Anything else?

Do this.

All right, Mr.

Chair.

Um I move to grant a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a concrete pad 28 feet from the wetlands where 40 feet is required by section 490-706E4 with reference to the letter from the applicant dated October 20th, 25, and the with further reference to the letter from the conservation committee dated uh January 8th, 2026.

I further move to grant conditional approval of the site plan subject to the 13 conditions noted by Mr.

Lafontaine.

Second.

Nice motion and a second to uh grant the conditional use permit for uh the reduced setback for the uh tank and uh grant conditional approval with the thirteen conditions noted.

Um further discussion on this one.

All in favor.

Uh that's unanimous.

Thank you.

Cheers, thank you.

Thank you.

Good night.

Okay.

Just like to say thank you to everyone once again.

And what we're trying to do here, we're changing the industry in the dryest manufacturing.

So gonna I'm really pleased that we're gonna be based in Salem, New Hampshire.

So thank you very much.

Nice, got a plugin.

Uh just have a couple of quick items of public matters.

First item being uh 89 Lowell Road.

This is L L and S.

I think maybe I don't know, it seems like maybe six months ago or so you approved uh the temporary storage, uh the temporary storage of store storage trailers in this approximate location.

Uh I think previously it was just for storage, I think.

And this is now proposed to be an office trailer, so it'd be temporary occupancy.

Well, I think they're thinking maybe like a two-year time frame, and that eventually they might replace it with a more permanent structure.

But you've previously approved um uh two storage trailers uh in this approximate location.

They'd now like to put a office trailer in that location.

Are you comfortable with that be on a temporary basis up to maybe two years and they'd have to come back?

I don't care.

They build in a village.

That's what we usually do.

Like what do we do at the casino?

That's what eighteen months temporary construction trailer?

Yeah, but uh the only distinction I would see there is that that's active construction, yeah, and that this is I think more for their general operations.

Oh, okay.

Um so really I mean that's uh I I have the I think included in your packet was the memo fromficial impact.

Frederick Bruno.

Probably clean some place up.

If I can find it.

It's trash yard.

I don't know how clean I can get.

Um but yeah, so i essentially it'd be a temporary basis be for office operations, and then it eventually may get replaced with a a more permanent structure.

Um do you want to start with 18 months and then have them revisit it in 18 months or why not?

Okay, that's fine.

Someone else's problem.

Where are you going, Mr.

Hatch?

Uh anyway, um Casella waste at 53 Pelham Road.

Uh you granted an approval for 53 and 57, I think.

57 is under construction.

I think that's the old roller rink or I think it was a roller rink at one point.

But um they would like you granted a site plan extension to them on January 25th, 2024.

They would like to uh request an additional year extension to that uh request.

They said the applicant is currently in the process of obtaining the site workslash building permits for the design and anticipates that the building permit will be issued subsequent to approval of the proposed septic design for the building expansions.

The proposed septic design was completed and submitted to the town of Salem by SFC on January seventh, 2026.

It will be submitted to the state for approval.

Um another one year extension.

Yep.

So it's a motion to uh extend the uh Casella 53 pellet rules I plan.

Second.

I wasn't making a motion, but I'll second it when it comes.

You said he would entertain one.

Well I'll still second it when it comes.

Mr.

Chair, I make a motion to extend the site plan for Casello one additional year.

Got a motion and a second.

Uh all in favor?

We should let Jacob what is the date?

Um they opposing?

Oh, we got one opposed, so it's uh 5-1.

I don't see it in his memo.

It would be on the attachment, which I could pull up, but um I imagine it was probably around January 20.

But it's clear based on the request is all I care about.

So so we'll grant a one-year extension from the uh time of approval.

Okay.

Um aside from that, the only other thing I would note is that we didn't receive any submissions for our January 27th meeting, our next meeting, so we could hold that meeting and oh come on, you know how this goes.

Yeah.

I always just like to you know ask.

But if you if you didn't have any kids, you know, and you were just single, I'd I'd definitely have the meeting.

So Creighton will be able to do that.

You know, now I know why we didn't continue.

I can't be here anyways.

Yeah.

Okay.

So um we will cancel the uh because yesterday was a deadline for continued items, so we'll cancel the January 27th meeting and meet again February 13th or so.

Sounds good.

Well, any notes on the special guests?

No.

No.

We should we should adjourn.

Oh shouldn't we shouldn't we talk to the special guest?

Didn't he apply?

Uh he hasn't submitted an application yet.

Are you scared?

You got a second?

Perfect.

Yeah, second.

All those in favor to adjourn.

Out.