Good evening.

I would like to call the March 12th, 2026 meeting of the planning board to order.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

One nation undervisible with liberty and justice for all.

Hey everyone, my name is Joe Fioli serving as uh chairman tonight.

Um members sitting tonight on the planning board.

Um to my right, uh Jim Harvey.

Good evening, Salem.

Alternate Vic Vic Hellenic.

Good evening, Salem.

Damon Norcross.

Good evening.

And to my left, Town Council rep Jeff Hatch.

Hello, Salem.

Alternate Jeremy Gilbo.

Hello.

And Sean Lewis.

Hello.

And we have Jacob Lafontaine for the planning director for planning support staff tonight.

The agenda for tonight is full as follows.

We have two items of new old business.

First item of old business is a Tuscan Village Master Development Site Plan, a public hearing for North Jewel buildings, a one-story 7500 square foot retail building and a one single story 3800 square foot retail and restaurant building at 21 via Toscana.

That's continued from 1113 2025.

And second item of old business is the young land holdings LLC site plants, public hearings for 7200 square foot warehouse and office building with a conditional use permit for reduced prime wetland buffer and a reduced parking and reduced parking at 92 Lowell Road.

And that's continued from 1014 to 2025.

Four items of new business, uh Duncan site plans, public hearing for conditional use permit for digital screens along a drive-thru lane at 227 North Broadway.

Second item, Bouchard subdivision plan, public hearing for two-lot residential subdivision at 18 Shannon Road.

Three Newton subdivision plans, public hearing for two lot residential subdivision at 205 North Main Street.

And the fourth item, last item of new business is a Mosher subdivision plan.

That's a public hearing for a two-lot residential subdivision to create a new duplex lot at 453 North Main Street.

Any withdrawals?

Thanks.

We have one item of minutes from February 10th.

Mr.

Chair, I move to accept the minutes from the February 10th, 2026 planning board meeting as written.

Second.

Motion looks like any discussion on those uh February 10th meeting minutes.

Um favoring substantive.

Okay.

Butters, please.

The abutters are as follows.

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

They are CHDOF 1 THC MF Salem, Tuscan 3000, Tuscan Village Block 3000, Tuscan 3000 Condo, Tuscan Village Block 1300, Tuscan Village Jewel Building, Tuscan Village Master Development, and that is all.

Uh Greenman Peterson is the engineer from that.

That's all thanks.

Uh through the updates.

Uh yes, Mr.

Chair.

So you last accepted or heard this plan.

It was accepted in November 2025.

Uh the proposal again is for two 7500 square foot uh sorry, one two-story 7500 square foot retail building and one single story 3800 square foot retail and restaurant, which has been identified as Cafe Nero on their elevations cafe.

Um since you last heard this application, the applicant has worked through third-party design review.

They've uh increased the sidewalk width to a minimum of six feet for our uh recommendation from our third party design.

They revised details, they've added a mid-block cross between the pocket park and building 1300, and have added decorated transformer screen and wood slats to build in 1040 to break up the facade, uh, which is the uh the retail building uh here.

And then they've also added street trees along Via Tuscana at the last meeting.

We talked a lot about their lack of street trees because they incorporated those on the South Jewel buildings that be Shake Shack and um Bobbles and Lace and whatever else is in that uh median strip there.

And they've now mimicked some of that here.

Uh we do have uh comments from our third-party design view shed that came in uh earlier this week in response to the revisions that were made, and I'm uh I think Mr.

Gross will be prepared to address these.

But uh in regard to building uh 1030, uh it says the applicant should consider actually both buildings 1030 and 1040.

But uh in regard to building uh 1030, uh it says the applicant should consider actually both buildings 1030 and 1040, so 1030 would be in the retail building and then 1040 being Cafe Nero.

Uh our design consultant has noted that our design guidelines state that uh the applicant should uh consider adding spandul glass to break up the long blank expanse to meet the 40% transfer transparent feature guideline in the town's design guidelines.

So they do have some expanses of blank walls.

We talk about this often.

Uh they've uh attempted to break those up on the retail building uh with these wood slats here, and uh that may accomplish it.

I do think that it says in the design guidelines that you can do it with architectural features as well.

One area I think that might need more work just looking at it, is probably this area here, and maybe they have the ability to add some architectural element here just to uh to break up that facade in the future.

Maybe that would be occupied by a sign, and that might serve that purpose.

But um, you know, they responded to the uh consultant previously that they wouldn't be able to because of uh the internal programming of the building, and I'm sure Mr.

Gross will talk more about that.

Uh they also noted the rooftop mechanical screening.

They noted that it would be advisable that the applicant not create unsightly vistas from upper floors and amenity spaces of the nearby residential units uh to the applicant's uh defense.

They they didn't do that on the south jewel buildings.

I do think it's important that we ensure that they're screened from the uh uh the street view from the uh ground floor level, um, which is what we've done at all other um buildings at Tuscan Village.

I think our design guidelines talk about from public right-of-way, but we've kind of treated the interior private drives at Tuscan as public right-of-way as well, and we'd want them at least screened uh from the from the travel aisles.

Uh in terms of landscaping, Mr.

Gross will speak more to this, but uh view shed has stated that there might be an ability to increase the plant in beds with maintaining the minimum width of six feet uh for the sidewalks to allow for additional trees.

Mr.

Gross had stated that uh they have some utilities that project out from the building and that that would uh limit the travel aisle, uh the sidewalk to less than six feet.

Uh but I'm sure he'll be prepared to address that.

And then uh the uh design guidelines, sorry, our design reviewers also asked asked for light and designs to be selected to demonstrate the design meets the design guidelines for recommendation.

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

I would I just ask the board to kind of discuss the items that are outstanding with our design consultant.

Um we did get comment today from uh engineering that states recommend for uh approval subject to add in a note to plan set that indicates the domestic water service services size need to be approved by the water department for intended use.

That could be incorporated as a condition of approval if the board moves to approve this.

Uh and that is all I have, Mr.

Chair.

Okay.

Um recommendation um the board's okay with it is to grant conditional approval um even with the uh comments outstanding.

I think so.

I mean, one thing you could one thing you could do is you could potentially condition.

I mean, some things uh I think it's probably better for the board board to make a determination on whether or not you think that uh you know the elevations that are uh proposed meet our design guidelines.

I think that would be something that we'd want the board to weigh in on if you feel strongly that the applicant should enhance the facade, then uh you know I think we would either ask them uh to revise the elevations or make that a condition of approval that they meet the 40% transparent feature guideline.

Uh in terms of the rooftop mechanical screening, I think it's important that again it's screened from ground level.

Um but I don't think in the past we've required them to be screened from, like for instance, the uh hotel or condo.

I think you can still see some of those rooftop mechanical units from the uh upper stories.

Um and then in terms of the landscaping again.

I think I I would I'd look to the board to see whether or not uh you're satisfied with Mr.

Gross's explanation that they can't increase the plant embed because of the utilities that are in the travel aisle.

That uh seems to be reasonable.

The lighting plan could probably be subject to design uh approval.

Okay, thanks.

I've got the applicant adding anything to add.

Uh no, Mr.

Chairman uh for the record, Mark Gross with uh Tuscan Village Development.

Um representing uh the uh Tuscan Village Master Development LLC.

Um Jacob, if you go to the elevations.

So thank you.

So one of the issues we are dealing with, particularly uh at the rear of these where there is very little glass is because that's particularly in this uh building 1030.

Um this is going to be essentially uh jewelry store um, potentially two different jewelry stores.

And uh the reason why the back is the way it is uh without any glasses for security reasons.

Uh they as with any jewelry store, they always have uh you know bolts or rooms where they you know store the jewelry watches, you know, all those things.

So we did add uh these architectural features on I'll say it's the the back third of the building.

Uh if you go to the next slide, Jacob.

And particularly in the back where you see the um the rear elevation, which would be facing uh cafe narrow, so that will also have an opportunity for signage there.

That this uh the back of this building is really no different than Shake Shack, which uh basically the back of that building is just blank um uh gray brick uh with no signage, and there are uh there's probably one man door there, and then there are some utilities on the back of that.

So uh if you go to the next 1030.

So again, um, you know, Cafe Nero is is the front, I'm gonna say the front section of this building, and where that blank wall is again, that's back a house.

Um in terms of the design consultant asking for some additional uh glass area uh would be impossible because that's where your kitchen is, so you just really can't have and I think the term is transparency in terms of the uh uh so spandrel glass isn't transparent, it's you know, just it's basically a fake window.

So I'm not sure that uh we certainly could look at maybe adding an architectural feature to break that up.

Uh but as far as glass or even spandrel glass, uh the span spandrel glass, which is just basically fake, you know, it's a fake window, eats up the room uh or the area within the wall, and so it's very difficult, particularly in that area where you have a lot of utilities, electric, uh telephone, other things uh that you need uh specifically in the kitchen area.

Uh so it's pretty heavy duty, so it's kind of hard to get uh you know those utilities in the wall if it's taken up by the spandled spandrel glass uh effect.

So we will take a look at doing something to break up that wall on on that elevation.

Uh I think the other, if you can go to the next slide, Jacob.

Same with the other elevation where you have um see where you have those exit doors.

Um so we can take a look at maybe doing something uh on that side as well to break up the elevation, but we certainly can't put glass uh to meet that 40% requirement uh for uh transparency through into the building.

Um next.

So we have a conditional use permit uh that we'll go through, but I'd like to address some of the other comments.

So Jacob, you could just scroll down to the landscape plan.

Uh yeah, maybe better yet.

Let's let's go to the site, go go back to the site plan.

So if you look um, you can see that the the planting beds that are along Via Tuscana uh on both ends of the building are wider, which uh because the building is narrower in that location, which allowed us to uh add some additional trees in there.

The ones that are interior or inbound from the ends, uh they're th they're less wide uh to provide uh a uh seven-foot uh distance between the building and the planter beds, and those planter beds are uh at a minimum to allow some kind of plant shrub planting in there, but definitely not tree planting uh in there.

And so the design consultant had suggested that we widen out those uh turbo, you know, another foot that perhaps we could get trees in there.

However, um as in the uh north uh jewel buildings, uh where utilities come in on either side of that building in those narrow areas, you have gas meters, electric meters, uh water meters that are exterior to the building.

Um there's really no good place to bring those.

So we're bringing them in opposite of those uh skinnier planter beds and putting in you know tall grasses, and that'll kind of screen it from from view.

Uh but this is not uh dissimilar to what you see for uh the other jewel buildings.

So in order to widen that out, you would so right now you got seven feet, those utilities uh come out from the uh edge of the building anywhere from a foot and a half to two feet.

So that would narrow that space up to five feet as it currently is, and to widen the planters out to be able to get trees in there, you would end up narrowing that even more to three, three and a half feet, which is a little tight for pedestrian access.

And these buildings are a little bit wider than the ones uh in the uh uh the other uh jewel building location.

Uh hence uh we did uh reconfigure uh the planting beds at at both ends of this, and we actually have uh probably the same amount uh with an additional two trees that we uh indicated we would plant in here uh to make up for uh some shortages that we had in the other jewel buildings.

I think we had two uh two trees we were short, and we we had uh indicated we would add those into this area so that it's consistent with the rest of the jewel buildings location.

Um Jacob, anything else?

Uh no, I think those are they talked about also the light.

Oh, and the rooftop screening, rooftop screening.

Um the uh rooftop screening, uh we tend to try to put uh those mechanical units uh in the center of the roof so you you actually don't see them uh from uh the street.

And so any ones that you would see from the street, we would uh screen those uh per the uh design guidelines.

I think that's it.

Unless you had uh they had comments on the light in as well.

I don't know if you wanted to speak to those, but um applicants provide the proposed facade lighting design for approval once tenants have been selected to demonstrate.

So that's something that we could condition.

So that's kind of where we're at with the uh with the with the uh uh design consultant.

I my understanding is that Steve Pernau hasn't been able to weigh in on, but uh I think the last time we were here, uh I think back in November last year, and I think he he's had all this information regarding the the budget on the uh traffic, and we we don't exceed the budget on the traffic, so we should be good on that.

Okay.

So if you want, we can go through the conditional use permit, or if the board has any questions.

If you just want to represent or state what uh the conditional use permits are that you're seeking, then we can reference those.

Okay.

So again, if the board has any questions on this, we like to answer.

Yeah, do you can you just uh state the conditional use permits that you're oh sure, yeah.

So Jake, I can go to that slide, please.

You can just say the ones you're you're seeking, you know, to summarize the whole thing.

So uh from section uh 490 501c lot coverage.

Uh the lot coverage for this particular lot is 93.8, very similar to the other jewel building lot uh for this uh building lot where maximum cover lot coverage is 70 percent is permitted in the commercial industrial district.

The overall cumulative commun cumulative lot coverage for the 120 acre size calculated be 69 percent, which is then uh less than the allowable lot coverage of 70.

And as we uh have always indicated that we would we made a commitment that the at the end of the project uh the overall lot coverage for the 120 acres would be below 70 percent.

Okay, and then 49701E, number of parking spaces.

So we have a total of 16 parking spaces that are located within the subdivided jewel building uh north parcel where the proposed uses of the two jewel buildings will would require 85 spaces.

Uh therefore a reduction of 69 spaces are requested for the jewel building's north lot.

Uh there are 192 spaces located in the temporary parking lot uh just to the north to the to the uh to the north of Jewel Buildings, and uh which will provide additional parking for the proposed uses in the two new buildings.

Uh we also have uh additional parking in the uh building 3000 garage, which is a short walk from here, as well as uh uh other parking in the area.

So and uh the overall parking deficit for uh the project currently is at 1,559 parking spaces.

Uh where an overall deficit of 1,875 spaces was approved under the original site plan uh back in 2018-2019.

So we are well under uh the uh deficit that we've uh had previously approved.

Great.

Thanks.

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

Go to the board.

Any comments, concerns, questions from the board?

Anything Mr.

Mr.

Um just uh Mr.

Lafontaine.

The um in the past the the applicant noted that the requirement for screening of rooftop units from a budding residential properties is traditionally been interpreted in the past as non-Tuscan residential properties.

I'm just at I'm is that accurate?

I think the way and I can pull it up, but I think the way that the site plan regulations read is that it's supposed to be rooftop mechanical units are supposed to be screened from the public right-of-way and public view.

So I think what Mr.

Gross is probably saying is that you know these buildings are interior to the development and wouldn't be viewed from uh a site, you know, maybe you could view it from 28 uh small portions, but probably not uh because it's you know interior to the site.

I do think that we've still required uh mechanical screening from you know, we've kind of interpreted their roadway as public roadway, even though it's privately owned, but we still want to ensure that we would apply the same regulation.

So my recommendation would be that um you know uh uh screen rooftop mechanical units from public view and internal roadways would kind of be my recommendation there, unless you feel strongly that they should also screen it from the uh residential units that are uh above these buildings, but I don't think we did that uh for the South Jewel buildings for instance.

Um is there any additional screening uh Mr.

Gross on the uh first jewel buildings?

Or are they in the middle of the building?

They're they're pretty much in the middle of the building.

Okay, so this would be consistent.

I did go out and look, but you you know, from third floor of our office, you can see all the mechanicals.

Anything else from the board nice.

Um Jacob, I I'm okay with uh the uh the landscaping, uh the explanation of the landscaping plan.

So and then uh since the applicant agreed to um the uh short up the uh architecture for the 40% coverage um uh comment from the design consultant.

I might as well make that a condition.

Okay.

So other than that, that's all I add.

Um further from the board?

Condition.

Oh, yeah, yeah, thanks.

Thanks, boss.

Get the commands of approval.

All right.

Um so recommended conditions of approval would be one submit staff and third-party traffic consultant approval.

Steve Perneau was ill uh recently, so he wasn't able to kind of give us the final sign-off, but we would reach out to him and ask him to do so.

Uh two, pay for outside inspections per direction of engineering depart uh division.

Three, no conditional use permits on plan.

Four, no deliveries by tractor trailers are prohibited.

Uh five enhanced build-in facades to comply with design guidelines.

Um I've got uh five submit facade lighting design for third-party approval prior to individual uh occupancy.

Uh so I think Mr.

Gross has stated that it'll be done as tenants are uh selected.

Was that six or was that five?

I'll have that other five as one.

I'm sorry, I do have that as six, I think.

One, two, three.

And then though I've got seven pay impact fees for schedule dated 101525 as amended.

Uh that as amended ties back to their master plan update where the applicant has agreed and and the planning board determined that this was a uh scattered and premature development and that the applicant would pay the impact fees as amended.

So again, uh they've calculated those, but they would pay them uh at an amended rate if we do so.

Um eight, we have provided certified as built site plan.

Uh nine construct all site improvements in accordance with the approved plan.

Um is ten now, seven, eight, nine.

Yeah, ten uh provide certified as built.

Eleven we had eight of eight as built.

Uh eight as as well, uh provide oh no, eight is don't I have uh construct all site and site improvement.

Oh no, you're right.

I have that twice.

Sorry.

So get rid of that one.

That's one less condition.

And now under other, we're at uh 11 or 10.

10.

Uh applicant shall operate business of parking lot capacity is not exceeded, and 11 applic all representations made by applicant or agents and all notes on the plan are appropriate as part of the approval.

Okay, thanks for the 11 conditions.

Um we can take a motion.

You've been doing it.

Mr.

Chair, I move to approve the site plan for a two-story 7500 square foot retail building and single story 3800 square foot retail and restaurant with the is it 13 conditions?

Yes, 11.

I think 11 final conditions as noted uh so eloquently by Mr.

Lafontaine.

I further move to grant a conditional use permit under section 490501 C to allow 93.4% lot coverage where 70% is required with reference to the letter from the applicant dated February 25th, 2026, and further move to granted conditional use permit under section 490701D to allow 16 parking spaces where any five are required with reference to the letter dated February 25th, 2026 from the applicant.

Second great.

We have a massive motion and a second to um grant conditional approval for the test control buildings with the 11 conditions noted and uh grant conditional approval for the uh parking um and lock coverage um discussion?

Yeah, okay.

It's uh 490701 E.

Thanks for that correction.

Keep it friendly amendment.

Any further discussion?

Um all those in favor.

That's unanimous, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh next item of old business on the agenda is the young land holdings LC site plan public hearing for uh 7200 square foot warehouse and office building and a conditional use permit for reduced prime wetland buffer at 92 road.

Uh butters, please.

The butters are as follows.

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

They are uh Curry Living Trust, Davito Junior Shrocken, Carnot, Wally, Jackson, Longden, Boylan, Patel, and Space Place, Salem, LLC, uh, and that we have young landholders, the applicant.

That's all.

I don't think any abutters are present.

Thanks.

You um take us through uh the planning updates.

Yep.

Uh so Mr.

Chair, this project goes back a little ways.

Uh it was accepted by this board on March 25th, 2025.

The proposal again is for a warehouse and office building 7200 square feet at 92 Lowell Road with an associated conditional use permit for reduced uh uh prime wetland buffer and reduced parking now.

So since they were last before you, they were before you in March when you accepted the plan, they were before you again in August uh of 2025.

Um and at that time you denied a conditional use permit, which I'll talk a little bit about.

But since that time, the building has been relocated further from the wetland toward the street.

The applicant is no longer proposing to have low bed trucks on site.

The prime wetland boundary has been confirmed by third-party agent, which is RCCD, which reduces the prime wetland buffer impact from 10,000 uh almost about 11,000 square feet to 3,836 square feet.

They've added fence post rail uh placards and move the wetland buffer uh area.

They've got a conservation seed mix.

So I'll probably go through the slides, it'd probably be easier.

This is what they had proposed uh as the existing condition plan back in March of last year.

So you can see can you just say what that reduction was again?

Yeah, it was about uh a reduction of 7,098 square feet.

Um so when they were originally submitted this plan, um, and we'll talk about this again.

We've talked about it the last couple times.

They uh had pre-uh uh they had a pre-existent disturbance.

They purchased the lot and the lot was cleared to where the green uh uh circle is shown, oval.

And then this was where the prime uh wetland boundary was.

So this is how it exists now.

It'll look a little bit clearer when uh we look at the building footprint, but again, so we had RCCD, our third-party wetland scientist go out, and uh I actually walked the site with them as well and took a look at the wetland flags that were done by their wetland scientists, and they confirmed all the wetland flags were in the in the correct locations.

There was one wetland flag, I think flag seven that had you know gone missing and blown away or whatever, so they reflagged that area, but it was in the approximate same location.

You can kind of see where the flags were here are substantially the same as what is shown today.

So going back to the October meeting, you ultimately did deny a conditional use permit for the 10,934 square foot impact, and you did so because you found that there was no feasible alternative, that there were there was a feasible alternative to the modification with less impact of the wetland, and that also the detriment detrimental impact of the wetland and buffer wasn't minimized.

So now that they've uh re-delineated the wetland and we've confirmed that boundary, this is what had been proposed, and it showed the building, you know, pretty near the existing limits of encroachment, and it showed some buffer plantings along the edge of the existing uh cleared vegetation.

Again, majority of the building at that time was in the uh prime wetland buffer and um as well as pavement.

So now that they've redelineated the wetland, that helped them because it pushes the wetland setback further back, but they've also pulled the building further from the wetland, and they've uh also pulled a pavement further from the wetland, and now rather than holding the wetland uh line here, that would have been their wetland buffer proposed under this plan.

So instead of this wetland buffer, they are now proposing to uh increase that buffer to this area here, and they're gonna remove their post and rail fence from the rear of the site to this area here.

So that does this is the difference.

The 7,098 square feet is what ultimately uh is the end result based off of the redelineation and the replacement of the building mirror towards um towards 38.

This is the memo that was included in your packet from our wetland scientist that uh agreed with uh the applicant's proposal.

So that's uh number three.

It says applicant proposes to modify the prime wetland boundary to match the edge of the regulated wetland, and they've noted that this is appropriate.

They also looked at their wetland mitigation plan and found that they uh had appropriate mitigation in terms of their seed mix.

Uh so seed mix should be selected by Mr.

Hurley and specified on the plan.

They've also noted that those post and rail fence should be removed uh to the front of their buffer plantings.

Mr.

Brewbaker's here, the uh conservation commission's reviewed this application yesterday, recommended advisory approval.

I don't know if Graham did you want to speak to the conservation commission?

Yeah, um so hi Creighton, uh community development.

Uh so we reviewed this conditional use permit.

Uh the the conservation commission unanimously voted to recommend to the planning board the approval of the permit uh with three recommended conditions.

Uh one was that uh a UNH cooperative extension approved wildflower seed mix be used as well as uh the proposed dogwood plantings be removed and substituted with another species on the planting schedule on sheet three, and then the third condition uh being that the applicant installs temporary silt socks uh as soon as possible until the final proposed filter sock and erosion control is constructed as identified on the plan.

Thank you.

And then this is just a an overview again.

We've talked about this, so I won't try to belabor it.

But this was the site condition on in 2022.

This was the site condition in 2024.

It's hard to see a little bit because the foliage is removed, but you can see it from the street view 2023, and then this was in 2025.

At the time uh there was commercial activity on the site.

We had sent uh notices that they should cease the activity.

Um more recently we've sent another violation notice out as the lot has been used for snow storage off-site snow storage, so there's been snow trucked in to the site from other properties to be stored there.

I think that's in part why the conservation commission wanted the erosion control established now because there'll be uh obviously uh all that will leach into the prime wetland porcupine brook.

Um so this was the wetland.

Uh sorry, this was the violation notice we sent in March of this year, March 4th, 2026.

This was a photo that was submitted that shows some of the truck uh the snow being trucked from off site.

One item that they've done uh and previously you'll recall that the rationale was that the you know the our design consultant our or not design consultant, our traffic consultant and our uh engineering division recommended that the building be removed further from the wetland closer to the street.

One of their rationales for it at the time was that um they had a low bed uh trailer that needed to access the site, and in order for it to have the turn in radius, the building needed to be further uh removed from 38.

The applicant is now indicated that there will not be they they've moved the building closer, and the site cannot accommodate a low bed trailer anymore.

So you know, the question would be, and they've said uh, but I think the board should also explore the fact that the low bed, you know, what is the change, why at one point was the low bed trailer uh essential to operation, and now they'll be able to operate without it.

We you know, the worst case scenario, the scenario we'd want to avoid would be you know, vehicles unloaded in the street and on 38.

Uh it's a state road, uh, but obviously the town has an interest, and I'm sure the state also would be concerned about that.

I did discuss this with Mr.

Purnow.

Again, he's been ill the last couple weeks, but uh one of his recommendations would be that the applicant uh you know state uh what the design vehicle is going to be for this site, you know, what the largest vehicle is gonna be, and that they provide a truck term plan to show that, uh which has not been done yet.

But that was a comment from Mr.

Purnow.

Um again earlier today, he hasn't been able to formally uh comment on the plan, but that was his recommendation relative to the change from the low bed trailer to now uh there no longer being the trailer on site.

We do have comments from uh senior engineer Jim Brown, uh which a lot of them mirror his previous comments um from uh our last meeting.

Says the storm water management plant indicates that roughly half of the site was recently cleared of trees and filled.

A gravel parking area was installed.

This was done without approval and as indicated on the plan set eliminated a portion of the prime wetland buffer.

Recommend no improvements be allowed in the prime wetland buffer.

Recently installed gravel in the buffer area be removed and the buffer be vegetated.

A truck turn plan should be added to the plan set, so that also echoes Mr.

Furnow's comments.

The proposed driveway width is excess excessive at connection to the street.

So that would go back to the design vehicle.

Uh you know, why would uh you know what design vehicle is trying to be accommodated with the uh existing width of the drive?

The owner's acknowledgement has not been signed.

Some state approval dates and numbers need to be added to the plan set, and a water demand benefit assessment will be applicable.

So those were Mr.

Senior Engineer Jim Brown's comments.

We went through some of the other items, some of the changes that were made.

I'm sure the applicant will speak to in more detail.

Uh there are impact fees that would be applicable uh if the application is approved.

Um recommendation is similar to what was provided at our last meeting.

It says in general board should require conformance with the ordinance unless there are unusual circumstances.

Board should review conditional use permit criteria attached and determine whether criteria are met.

Board should also require further review, explanation of how uh internal and external site circulation will be addressed and what the design vehicle is.

So uh that's the recap, and I'm sure the applicant will have more that as well.

Okay.

Does the applicant have anything to add to that?

Yes.

Uh good evening.

My name is Ian Ainsley.

I'm an engineer from ISA Brem.

Um so since the previous hearing where we were here, the board denied the wetland conditional use permit.

We kind of went back to the drawing board, so to speak, to see what we could do to make this a little more palatable.

And I would say the significant change that we've made is we've pulled the building forward, something on the order of 30 to 40 feet, and reduced that wetland impact, prime buffer impact from 11,000 to 3,000.

So, you know, almost a quarter of what it was before.

Um we worked with Rockingham County uh conservation district, their wetland specialist and our wetland scientist went out there.

They came up with a replanting plan, seating plan, um, additional erosion control.

So that's kind of all that mitigation area in the back.

So we've sort of enhanced that from what was there previously.

Um before the building, I would say roughly half the building was in the uh 100 foot buffer.

Now we just have a tiny corner in the back, so we've brought that forward significantly.

We brought it forward as far as we can.

If you bring it forward anymore, you start running into the side setbacks because of the shape of the property, you know, you kind of get pinched up there.

And then we have to fit the parking as well in the front.

Um we are asking for a second conditional use permit for the parking to reduce the parking from 13 spaces to 11 spaces, and I think that was actually something the board had suggested that we explore to see if you know, if do you really need 13 parking spaces, can you get rid of a few?

And you know, with the area that those parking spaces were taken up, can you now push the building forward?

And we did that.

Um it's a private site.

We're not expecting you know, customers like a retail facility to go there.

So, you know, we expect the private company can manage their parking on site, and they're not going to have an issue with you know peak times of people coming in and you know something driven by by customers.

Um that's that's really the gist of what we've done as far as the plan goes.

Um I would say the kind of follow-up on the trucks is you know, Jacob asked the question, why was it essential before and why is it not essential now?

I think we faced the reality of getting the conditional use permit denied before.

So we had to accept that we couldn't do you know what the paving company really wanted to do with that.

So their alternative that they've come up with is they're gonna park their low bed trucks in a different location, at least the trailers, and then they're just gonna have the truck piece coming onto the site, box trucks, things like that.

So they're still going to have their low bed trucks and equipment in a different location.

They're just simply not going to be navigated onto this site per se.

Um we expect that you know a box truck, something like a SU30, SU40, if you want to use kind of the Ashto terminology, but uh a delivery truck like a FedEx type truck would be the truck that could navigate this site now.

Um I think that's really all I have, so I'm happy to answer your questions.

Thanks.

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

Go to the board for comments.

Anything, Mr.

Norcross?

Just a couple of questions.

Uh Mr.

Lafontaine, did they um has the owner responded to the notice of commercial activity at the location?

Uh the owner has not responded to the most uh recent violation notice.

No, I think we had a discussion around the owner cut came into the town hall for different property around the same time we had discussion at that time.

Um but there was no formal response to the memo.

Or violation notice.

I think at that time you indicated that maybe activity had gotten carried away, which is similar, I think, to maybe the response to the previous commercial activity.

Um I was curious, I I did watch the conservation uh commission meeting last night, and there were some questions regarding uh where the snow came from.

And uh I don't think the owner of the property was there at the time.

I was wondering if we had any additional clarification on that this evening on where did that snow come from and what was what's the genesis of that?

So it came from the Rockland Trust bank parking lot as well as the market basket parking lot.

Okay, thank you.

Um and how far are you off on uh side setbacks?

So we are just about there, right?

You got 30.1.

The side setback is 30 feet.

We're 30.1 on one side and 30.5 on the other side.

And what are the setbacks need to be?

You don't like to go 30.0, there's just with building and stuff that you just can't get that precise in reality.

You want to give yourself a little bit of room.

No worries.

So um in Jacob is 30.

30 feet in the road, yeah.

In this district.

Okay.

Um think there's anything else.

Um looking at other questions I might have.

The um I I do appreciate uh the efforts on the part of the applicant to recognize you know, kind of where the last uh applicate, you know, the the building itself.

Do you have a count on how much of the building was in the buffer and what percentage or whether it's percentage or square footage that sits in the buffer?

Try to eyeball it.

Okay.

So it's a 4800 square foot building.

Before I would say, I mean, it looks like 80% of the building to me is in the buffer.

So something in the realm of 4,000 square feet.

Looking at it now, I would say something between 10 to 20 percent.

So, you know, maybe somewhere between 500 and a thousand would be my best estimate.

Okay.

And uh let last questions we um the the jet out on the right side at the rear of the building.

What is that for?

You're talking on the right, kind of behind the building?

Yeah, kind of behind the building back right there.

Yeah, the rectangle.

Uh that's the septic system.

Okay.

Yeah.

And the reason it's back there is because of the stormwater system in the front.

You have to have certain separation between the two for DES, and that was just kind of the one the one place it could go.

Um I was it was unclear to me on the conservation commission.

Uh will a car be able to park behind the building.

There's gravel access back there.

Um that's I would say mostly intended for emergency vehicles, should they need to get around the building.

Um a car could pack there, it's it's gravel, it would support a vehicle.

Um but we're intending for most of the vehicles to park in the front in the parking spaces.

Okay.

Um would you guys be comfortable with the condition that no vehicles are parked in the back?

Yes, we'd be okay with that.

Okay.

And uh Jacob has uh Mr.

Lafontaine, has safety uh fire look reviewed this yet.

Are they able to even access that?

Is there enough room for them to access the back of the bit the rear of the building?

Uh we haven't received comments from uh uh the fire department, but we could ask them that.

I think they generally need you know that here they have access to three sides, so I think that would it would be okay for them.

But I we could ask that.

Uh if if the board were to approve this, I think it would be subject to staff approvals, and that would be one item that we would want uh the deputy chief to address.

I I think the um uh you know my concern about this is with the we we know there will there will be maintenance.

Uh I'm sorry, I'm going off memory now.

There will be maintenance performed in the building.

It it's a working asphalt.

Yeah, you know, they're gonna stuff things wherever there's space, my assumption is I I don't want to speak for them, but uh anything that we could do to not have equipment and cars and oils and leaks and things.

I I think that's a reasonable condition.

It's you know, there's there's gonna be conservation kind of fencing and sideposts right behind that gravel area too.

So that's gonna be kind of a visible barrier that they can't do anything back there.

It's got to be renaturalized.

Um just for my own comments.

I I I prefer if the if safety, you know, if there's not a safety need to access the back of that building in that gravel area, you know, as much as you know, as much land that we can continue to recover uh and not have you know make it a available for storage, I think the better.

Uh my own my own comment there.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Yeah, Mr.

Norcross probably uh I just want to clarify he started to go down that road.

The use hasn't changed from the last time.

Correct.

It's still a asphalt paving company that would be using the building.

Okay.

So the trucks that are coming in there, like you said, are going to be we'll say dump trucks or dump truck size?

Sure, yep.

Or now there's not no track to trailers, but you said the truck may so the bobtail may show up there?

Yeah, so the the engine piece, you know, not the trailer in the back.

Just because you know, you bring it in there, you're gonna have a hard time navigating it with the space you have left.

Uh Jacob, for planning purposes, do we need to put a restriction on the length of the trailer here that could enter this property?

Because we all know as we can see by the number of violations that are already on this site continually.

I just I just see down the road if we don't add that restriction.

Yeah.

Yeah.

The property owner is gonna bring us track the trailer in there anyway.

Yeah, we had a recommended condition that there should be no use of low bed trucks on site, but I think what I think your point is better uh because I th we had applicant shell specify design vehicle subject to approval of truck turn plan to be approved by third-party traffic consultant.

I think we would we could probably add language to that to say that, you know, whatever I mean it there has to be a length there somewhere, and I don't know what the length is, but Mr.

Pernal would know what the length is.

Right.

So if we could get that from him and add that restriction, yeah, Mr.

Rokros here for uh just last thing from the conservation comservation commission meeting.

Um it was stated that the prior pictures that we saw with cars parked across the uh on the property, uh it was stated that the that those were there without the permission of the owner, and that was done by the and I just wonder if we could restated for the record in this meeting.

Is that the case?

Yes.

Um that was the abutter across the street that you know I think was desperate for overflow parking at the time and saw an empty lot across the street and you know just did what he could do.

And that's the position from the owner as well.

You're seeking on part of the owner.

Okay, yeah, great.

Thank you.

So thank you for moving the building forward.

Appreciate that.

Since we were pretty stingy when it came to invasions of the prime wetland buffer, but we've been historically pretty loose when it comes to things like reduced parking and setbacks when necessary.

Why not go one step further and clear the rest of the building out of the wetland buffer and just lose two more parking spots?

The reason for that um is the setbacks.

So it's maybe a little hard to see on the plan, but as you come closer to the street, the property actually gets more and more narrow.

No, I'm with you.

I'm saying that as somebody who has to make a choice here, I would rather choose to have narrower setbacks to your abutters.

Keeping in mind that one of your birds is residential.

I'm happy to go down that road as opposed to say leave any part of the original wetland buffer, which as far as I'm concerned shouldn't have been touched in the first place, give us the opportunity to revegetate most if not all of it.

I think the difficulty becomes should we reduce that setback?

It requires a variance for the zoning board.

So is that accurate?

That is correct.

There's only rural, so there's no innovative land use if they could rely on to allow the planning board to well.

It says yes to a lot of things, you know.

Everything.

We are not going to start a war with the zoning board tonight.

Um they did go to the ZBA twice, I think, uh, for the original proposal, and then there was a modification to the building size, so they have gone uh twice already, I think is probably what the applicants try to avoid.

Hmm.

All right.

One final question here.

Um with regard to your septic location, that is the actual collections tank, right?

That's not leech field.

That is the weech field.

That's the leech field.

So the tank is the tank would be either behind the building in that gravel area or sort of between the building and the dumpster over there.

Okay.

Okay, yeah, it's between the dumpster and the building.

Okay.

So thank you very much.

That weach field does meet uh the DES setbacks from the wetland.

Yeah, the leash field doesn't concern me quite so much.

Uh and then just to follow up on points brought by Mr.

Hatch and Mr.

Norcross concerns about emergency vehicle access.

Jacob is part of the truck turning study.

Are we going to be able to see that?

Uh yeah, we should probably have them do uh a fire truck turn plan as well.

Okay.

I appreciate that.

And Mr.

Ainsley, the SU 40 vehicle design, total width on that.

I don't know the book.

Yeah, you you speak in the length.

Um I think it's about a 40-foot vehicle.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

That's it for me for now.

Thanks.

Um along the lines of trying to find a way to fit this, fit this in.

You're it it appears to me that somehow the use of the building is being changed, meaning that prior we had large flatbeds coming in here and now we're not.

Is it I I don't remember.

Was has the building been shrunk at all?

Because the building is just it's a good question.

The building is the same size.

Um, you know, they they had sort of envisioned, I think, parking trailers in there.

Yep.

Even if they're not going to do that, um, they still have other equipment that they need to bring in.

Um they they want to get as much space as possible for their operation.

So we've tried to keep the building the same size so that they could have the same amount of space as before inside.

Right.

So is it possible to reduce the size of that building again to address the concerns the board is bringing up on the building?

I can look into that.

My my recollection from talking to the uh paving company is you know they they need kind of every square foot they can get.

Yeah, I could appreciate the need.

So, yeah, thank you.

I think you had it in the public.

Thanks, Boss.

Thanks, Boss.

Anything further from the board?

Um I think someone from member from the public, right?

If you want to come up and say something, uh name and address for the record, please.

David LaCroix.

Uh 442 North Main, St.

New Hampshire.

Not an abutter, here for another issue, but I was here last night, uh conservation commission just as an observer.

And if I recall correctly, there was talk about the gravel uh uh surfaces in the rear of the building and the parking issues around that.

And if if you check the minutes, I believe that there were some comments that were made where it I believe that the the fire department did clear uh either by lack of communication or some communication that it was okay for access for emergency vehicles.

And I'm not sure if that came across tonight with you folks.

Uh thank you for that.

Yeah, we'll have the fire department will still review what they have to have comment.

Um they have to provide input for uh as a condition for staff approvals.

But it was it was discussed last night and it seemed like it was resolved.

Okay.

Um the other thing that uh and this is just from an observation standpoint last night.

It I'm not familiar with the history of the property of violations or anything like that, but it seems like uh this group of folks have jumped through many many hoops and have stretched leaps and bounds uh to accommodate the board and have made drastic changes to the original plan.

So hope you guys are uh good to them.

Okay, thank you.

So thank you.

Thanks.

Anything further from the board?

Just a yeah, question.

Do we have a letter uh requesting the uh conditional use permit for working?

Uh you you do, it should have been included in your packet, but uh the applicant would submit it as dated February 16th, 2026.

And I'm happy to read either one of those if you would like me to no, I don't want to read the whole letter, please.

Thank you.

So reduce 13 to uh 13 is the required.

I always ask before I do.

Thanks.

Um can you give us the conditions?

Yep, uh recommended conditions of approval would be prior to building permit one, submit staff approvals.

That would require uh engineering fire.

I don't have any comments from fire uh in my packet.

Two pay for outside inspections per direction and engineer and division three, submit state permits, driveway excavation, etc.

Uh four uh applicant shall specify design vehicle, which shall be subject to approval of third-party uh traffic consultant relative to the maximum size and truck turn plan.

Uh five, I've got satisfied conservation commission comments per three 1226 memo.

Um, other I've now got sorry under prior to I've got six pay road impact fee of three thousand eight hundred forty-seven dollars and fifty cents and public safety impact fee of two thousand sixty-five dollars and fifty cents.

Um and seven, provide certified as built site plan.

Uh eight, we didn't really talk about this, but previously there was discussion about enhancing the screening of the residential abutter to the west with the continuous fence in addition to the uh plantins that are proposed.

Right now they have uh eastern red cedars, which are that was a recommendation from the conservation commission.

They provide some buffer, probably not as strong as our revite or something like that.

But if we were to put a you have a duplex here, and we have uh received comments from some of the residential abutters in the area.

So uh recommendation would be to add a solid uh vinyl fence or stockade fence to provide uh opaque screening.

And that would be eight if you're amenable to it.

Uh and then nine, construct all site improvements according with the approved plan.

Uh I think I'm at 10 now under other vehicles shall be parked at rear of the building.

11.

No conditional use permit for 100 foot prime wetland buffer encroachment and reduced parking on plan 12, no unloading or parking shall occur on mobile road.

Uh 13, there shall be no use of low bed trucks on site.

14.

Any proposed use other than warehousing requires further approval from planning board.

Uh 15, I think.

Is that right?

11.

15.

Uh dumpster pickup shall occur between 7 a.m.

and 10 10 p.m.

7 a.m.

and 10 p.m.

Um 16 applicant must operate business, so parking lot capacity is not exceeded.

And 17 all representations made by applicant or agents and all notes on the plan incorporated as part of the approval approval.

Thank you.

Um anything from the board.

Um just a clarification on number 14 about warehousing.

Any proposed use other than warehousing requires further approval where housing does not include on-site uh vehicle maintenance of any kind, correct?

That's historically correct.

Yeah, that's how they've calculated their parking demand uh similar to some of the other warehouses we've seen.

Um so we've added that note, for instance, on trolley lane, those are warehouses we've carried that note on other projects.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's it.

I just want to make sure too.

Um there is some office use proposed in the building.

I just want to make sure that condition doesn't I'm I'm not afraid of Xerox copy because I'm more afraid of oil spills, but thank you.

1516, yes.

Okay.

Anything further?

Not uh Mr.

Chair, I move to accept the site plan for young land holdings located at 92 Low Road Low Road with the 17 conditions as noted by Mr.

Lafontaine.

I further move to grant a conditional use permit under section 490706i to allow 3,836 square feet encroachment within 1,000 feet of the prime wetland buffer and a conditional use permit under section 490 701D to allow 11 spaces where 13 are required with reference to the letters from the applicant dated 21626 and 218 26.

Second.

Any further discussion on this one?

Uh yes.

No.

Okay.

Take a vote.

All in favor.

Okay.

Well, that's good.

61.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh next item first item of new business.

Next item on the agenda is uh Duncan site plan.

That's a public hearing for conditional use permit for digital screens along a drive-thru lane at 227 North Broadway.

The plan completes.

Yes, the plan's complete.

Ms.

Chair, I move to accept the plan as we second.

Uh motion second to accept the plan.

All those in favor.

That's unanimous.

Thank you.

Butters, please.

The letters are as follows.

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

They are 20 uh 223 North Broadway, LLC.

Ferrero, Croft, CMAB Associates too, life storage, state of New Hampshire DOT, and that is all.

Great.

Thanks.

We'll go to the uh applicant to present the plan.

Hi, Jen Roboshow.

I'm with Point Signs, uh, representing CAFUA management.

Um proposing the approval of a conditional use permit to upgrade their current menu board located behind the building.

This will be the second Duncan in town that we have the pleasure of updating.

Um I was before you last year for uh previous item at the other store.

We're proposing to remove the current menu board, which is uh four-paneled winged um internally illuminated menu board to the new product that they are using nationwide, which is a digital board, much like a television to present their um what they sell, prices, payment, and uh you move along for your purchase.

You can see the board right there, that's about 20 square feet.

We'll be reducing from approximately 50, 60 square feet.

So there'll be a reduction.

Um, as I mentioned, it's pretty much like a uh a television board displays uh what they're selling prices and uh payments that are due.

Um it is behind the building, it cannot be seen from the main roadway, and it is uh adjacent to the building.

There's two lanes behind that building.

I don't know if you've been there before that motorists can circle the building, make their purchases, and then head out.

I don't know if the board has any questions.

This is really a technological upgrade.

There's several in town, and I'm hoping for your consideration to uh approve as presented.

Thanks.

Jacob, I'm skipping your review on this one.

Is it just the three conditions still on here?

Yeah, uh I just have one for recommendation or discussion of counting on Mr.

Norcross.

Uh but uh our design guidelines talk about light letter and set against dark background.

When they came in for the one at 15 South Broadway, I think you also enforce this.

This is the uh only thing I'll show.

This is what they ultimately ended up doing there.

So when you drive by at night, it doesn't light up like a light bulb, it has a dark background.

So recommendations would be if the board is amenable.

One note conditional use permit for digital sign-on plan, two free stand and sign shall be light lighter and set against dark background or have perforated vinyl overlay or like kind, which is what you see here.

And then three, all representations made by applicant or agents and all notes on the plan are incorporated as part of the approval.

Uh it's partially viewed from the right-of-way, but it's pretty it's a pretty good distance.

Uh, if it was more visible, I think we probably want screening, but uh really up to the board.

This is what it looks like from the street.

So thanks.

Um any members of the public like to speak on the plan?

Um please.

You know this is a Dunkin' Donut sign, right?

Yes.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

And I am speaking tonight as a resident and not a member of the town council.

Uh I am in favor of the sign.

I am a frequent this frequent Dunkin' Donuts.

I'm a frequent uh kid.

I would say stockholder maybe, but I'm not but frequent customer of this store.

Uh when I was uh on the planning board, uh this planning board years ago when we approved this site, this Dunkadonut site, uh this drive-thru was approved for 12 vehicles to uh to be in line at the uh at the site.

And uh occasionally this this line will go out to the road.

It was originally designed so that if the traffic does get near the road, that there's a double pass where the cars could go around the line around the whole building and double back into the front pocket lot.

But that doesn't happen that often because a lot of people don't know that they could do that.

Otherwise the traffic is congested on uh on Route 28 south when this happens because the cars are out on the road waiting to get waiting to get in the line.

Uh this sign will, I believe will, and I've seen it at the other Dunkin' Donuts will enhance the traffic flow and speed it up faster so that the uh the the line isn't as long as it used to be.

And so that's why I'm in I'm in favor and I'm sponsored uh speaking in f in favor of that.

On another note, Mr.

Chairman, if I may, if I may uh continue.

Uh it's uh kind of unrelated to the sign.

Uh if I may.

Okay, please continue.

Okay, thank you.

I've been and I asked the young lady said she'll read uh relay the message to the owners uh but it has something to do with traffic circulation too.

But coming from the rail trail traffic, I've been approached by several uh electric wheelchair handicapped people coming uh using the rail trail that would like to use the facilities of Dunkin' Donuts will like to be a customer of the Dunkin' Donuts, but they're having a problem getting from the rail trail, they get over the brig onto the gravel pad.

But after the gravel pad, there's a triangular curbstone, and uh they can't get over that curved stone, and there's a section that's only three feet wide.

And the request my request and on behalf of these handicapped people who would like to use Dunkin' Donuts, if that if that one three feet, three-foot little section of curved stone be removed so that the with electric wheel kids can get down the gravel area onto the parking lot, it would make it much easier, and we don't want any catastrophes of uh people falling off their chairs heading into Dunkins.

So that's my request for the from the people, the uh customers of Dunkin' Donuts.

And like I said, the young lady from the sign company informed me that she she she'll re she'll re uh bring the message along to the office.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Pellateer.

Always great to hear from you.

Oh, another one speak on the sign, Dunkin' Donut sign, please.

If I could just so what I'm hearing is that he has a concern that uh participants of the rail trail that might be in a wheelchair or other type unit are having a difficult time getting into the parking lot.

And if they had their way, there's a section there of uh pavement area or curbstone.

If that was removed, it would make things easier for them.

I will absolutely relay that to the owners.

My question would be can they just do that, or would they be back before this group to remove that, or is that too vague of a question?

It might be too vague of a uh at least require uh informal approval from the board where we bring it under public matters.

But my only concern there is that I don't remember if the site's subject to a conditional use permit or if you have sufficient parking, because right now I think this was kind of an after-the-fact modification, and it makes sense and it probably complies well, it does comply well with our master plan where we want to treat the rail trail as a second frontage, but it's really something that probably when this plan was approved wasn't considered.

So I think this was an after-the-fact modification.

Like for instance, right now the side the crosswalk looks like it terminates into a parking lot and the pathway that they provided terminates in the parking lot.

So you know, be great to correct that, but it might be something that we'd need to review, unfortunately, if there's a conditional use permit, I think.

Okay.

So I will relay that information.

Um and then at the start of before my presentation, I think I missed Jacob what you were discussing, but I think I know what you were discussing.

So I believe you were presenting to the board that even though we're not here to talk about any of the other signage, your uh representing to the board that you would like to see a condition of the approval that the existing freestanding sign be opaque.

Uh well that was the I think that's what we did when you did the 15 South Broadway.

I don't remember if we did opaque or we just did dark.

You know there's a difference.

It was it was well dark.

I think it was like it would this is your this is the plan that actually you're not with I don't know.

You permitted the digital sign, and I think maybe DASCO sign came in.

Yeah.

And they provided uh this rendering, which I think is just a vinyl film.

So can we just quantify that you the board or your preference, the board's preference is a dark background with light copy versus opaque, which is different.

Well, I don't think that Duncan's does a dark background, right?

I've never seen it.

Uh so the recommendation would be that you do the perforated vinyl application on the inside so that uh the letters illuminate at night, not necessarily the whole box.

So that would be opaque.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

Is that amenable?

Or I think what I'd want to do is just replicate what we did at the other store.

Which was this.

Yeah.

Which was I guess opening.

With the same language and everything, so there's no mistakes.

Because we did agree to it at the other store, and and that would make sense.

Yeah, and not to belabor the sign anymore.

There was also directional signage that had in your packet had uh Duncan's cup.

They've opted to remove that rather than apply for a conditional use permit because directional signage is limited to directional uh rather than advertising.

So I just know that it's yeah, that's the condition we have in here is to make it match what was done previously.

Yeah, thank you.

Thanks, John.

Um somebody else want to speak on this plan.

Name and address for the record, please.

Good evening.

Paul David O'Brien of Sullivan Ridge Conduminiums also representing unofficially 227 North Broadway Duncan Donuts.

Uh so I do work there in the drive-thru.

Uh it sounds like you pretty much are are going to approve this, or I'm very appreciative of the board has not deliberated anything yet.

Well, yeah, but it sounds like you're pretty positive on it, is what I'm saying.

But um I just wanted you to know I wanted to echo Mr.

Pelletier's sentiment that it is going to speed up the delivery time, the uh drive-through time.

Um I'm a person who works in the drive-thru most of the time, and the orders being up on the board is going to move that line a lot faster so we can clear traffic on Route 28.

Um the board being smaller helps, but especially where I imagine a lot of these things are on timers, so maybe even your concern with the lights on the board.

It might be on the timer where it just shuts off at night anyway.

Because we're closed at seven.

So I just wanted to quickly reiterate those things, but um thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any anyone else like to speak on the Duncan Donut sign?

Um go to the board.

Any comments from the board?

Great.

Let's entertain a motion here.

We have three conditions.

Uh Mr.

Chair, I move to grant a conditional use permit for Dunkin' Donuts at 227 North Broadway under section 490-702 Eye to allow a digital sign where one is not allowed subject to the is it three conditions?

Uh with reference to the letter from the applicant dated February 11, 2026.

I think um so that is the end of the motion, but I didn't did they not uh I'm just looking at my notes now.

Was there one criteria that they did not discuss in the letter?

Yes, thank you.

Uh Mr.

Norcross, yeah, we would also ask them to uh address I think it was maybe criteria D.

Yeah.

Uh I think what happened was this uh because it's pretty much the identical application they submitted previously.

We had that on my review form in 24.

Just because I think they submitted the same thing, but they they had modified that for 15.

I'm sure they'll do it here as well.

Okay.

So moved.

Great.

We got a motion.

Second.

Got a motion a second to uh conditionally approve the Duncan sign plan uh with three conditions.

Noted.

Uh any further discussion on that.

We need to add this uh timed light situation that was just brought forward by a member of the public as a condition.

No.

Yeah, I think if they're gonna do the opaque or dark background, which I'm sure uh Ms.

Robushow and I can resolve uh I think I'd be fine if the board's amendable.

Thank you.

Let's vote.

All those in favor.

That's great.

Unanimous, thank you.

Thank you very much for your time.

Uh business new business on the site plans, the Bouchard subdivision plans.

It's public hearing for a two-lot residential subdivision at 18 Shannon Road.

Is the plan complete?

Uh yes, Mr.

Chair, the plan is complete.

Thank you.

Um entertain a motion to accept the uh subdivision plan.

Mr.

Chairman, it's time I move to accept the Boucher subdivision plan.

Oh, a second.

Um all in favor to accept the plan.

That's unanimous.

Uh butters, please.

The abutters are as follows.

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

They are McCone, uh Kennedy, Warren, O'Donnell, Barnes, Shea, Blobin, and that is all.

I believe your your name.

Barnes.

Uh yes, Barnes is here.

That's uh 26 Shannon Road.

Thank you.

I think we'll go to the applicant to present the plan.

Uh good evening, Mr.

Chairman and Board members.

My name is Kurt Meisner.

I'm with Meiserbrunn Corporation.

Um here this evening to uh represent Allison Bouchard in a two-lot subdivision.

Um property is approximately eight acres of land that's located on the east side of Shannon Road.

Um it's currently occupied by an existing duplex dwelling.

Um that property is serviced by an on-site well and an on-site septic system.

Um we have uh on the lots, there is a five and a half acre lot which the duplex is on that meets the zoning, and we're proposing a new uh two and a half acre lot, uh vacant lot right now to the north uh of that property.

Uh both of the sites will be serviced by on-site septic and well.

Uh we do have state of New Hampshire DES subdivision approval uh for our plan uh on that situation.

Um the site does have a prime wetland to the rear of the property uh along Captain Pond Brook, uh and that is delineated on the plan.

I it I believe it's shown uh in blue for easier viewing.

Uh there is also a uh prime wetland buffer that's shown in a sort of a magenta color uh on the plan.

And then there's the uh approximately the hundred year flood zone line, which is taken from the flood zone map.

Uh the reason we did not uh bother to go through to the nearest elevations is because it has it's inconsequential to what the proposed development is.

So uh the proposed development on the on the vacant lot is up towards the front.

Uh well, more towards the center, but in front of uh of that uh that line.

Um so that basic that's an overall view of what we're doing.

It's pretty straightforward.

Two lot subdivision.

Uh both of the lots meet all of the zoning uh requirements.

And uh we do have a common uh a common driveway, I believe.

Uh I'm sorry, it's a uh driveway easement on the front of the vacant lot to keep the existing driveway in its current location.

And I guess I guess that's it.

If you have any questions, I'm happy to help you out.

Thanks.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So they are proposing a um 2.57 acre parcel for a new single family dwelling.

There's an existing duplex that will remain on a conforming uh five and a half acre lot.

Uh in terms of the wetlands, there are wetlands on site.

There are no wetland impacts proposed uh with this application.

One thing I would note is that there is wetland on site, but it is non-jurisdictional because it's less than half an acre in size and it's not contiguous to the uh remainder of the wetland.

That's been the historic application of the planning department.

It's maybe something we should uh look at at a little closer in in the future because it is connected by a culvert, but I did uh look at our historic interpretation of uh contiguous and the culvert we've allowed to not have the uh wetland that's on the other side of the culvert um have a to apply for the uh 40-foot setback or 20-foot buffer, otherwise they would need a conditional use permit for the proposed house location.

The culverts on the other part of the wetland?

The culvert, so if you uh everything, you know, the you've got the prime wetland, and then it kind of wraps around here, becomes uh jurisdictional wetland because it's contiguous to the prime wetland, but then once you go to the existing drive, there's a culvert understanding culvert, and it goes to this wetland here that's less than half an acre in size.

So the historic application of the planning department was that it's not contiguous because it's separated in some part by uh culvert.

Let's change that right away.

Okay.

That's good to get to know.

Um so in that regard, we could potentially ask if the applicant is amenable to uh impose in like a I don't know what area they have.

Obviously they're gonna need to disturb some area because they've got a uh uh the dwelling and they could do site grading, I'm sure, but you know, maybe they can apply for a 10 uh foot buffer or something that to that effect uh and show that on the plan in this location.

Well, we're talking about wetlands.

I just wanted to uh I think I have it here.

Uh I just wanted to address some items regarding uh compliance.

I did discuss this with uh Mr.

Meisner uh previously, but in looking through the property file to draft the site plan review subdivision review form.

I noticed that we had a uh violation notice that I actually sent in 2020, and that was regarding the login activity that had ta taken place on site.

So this is an aerial photo from 2016.

It's a little hard to tell uh because we don't have uh this is from Google Earth, but you can see this uh area is vegetated.

This is an October of 2020, right around when that uh violation notice was sent, and you can see that vegetation had been removed, and there it looks like there's wood stacked uh in the approximate area.

And this is a more recent photo from 2024, which looks like you know the area is uh you know disturbed relative to the 2016 condition.

So I think in 2020 uh we were weren't granted access to the site from what I recall.

Um, you know, when this came up here, wanted to you know bring it to your attention.

We obviously talked about uh prime wetland buffer impacts uh earlier tonight, and that uh would it appears to be one based off of the aerial photos.

So when you go to the map or their plot plan rather, uh there's a jog right here, which looks like about the approximate area where the disturbance had occurred.

So I'd bring that to your attention.

Um we condition uh revegetation of the prime wetland buffer as part of this uh yeah, I think that'd be reasonable.

I mean it it's you know it's one thing if the disturbance has been there for you know, but prior to the adoption of the ordinance for prime wetland, but this is certainly something that we have record of in something that was more recent.

So my recommended sent and no response to the violation.

Violation was sent.

I do recall talking with it was a while ago, I do recall talking to the property owner, and I do recall that property access was denied at the time.

Um so I think at the time it was that we were gonna wait for the aerial photos to be updated so we could do further investigation and um I think I I get promoted and then my position uh got cut, so I get to try to figure out uh how to do code enforcement uh and everything else.

But anyway, uh that's the uh the summary uh you know recommended conditions of approval if you are satisfied would be to move to here in one hearing and grant conditional approval uh with conditions I can provide if and when you would like.

Yeah, sure.

Why don't you just give us those conditions?

Uh prior to recording plan one submit staff approvals, two note waivers on plans.

They do have a waiver because they do uh for the uh build envelope, it's uh not contiguous.

Um three uh set or bond monuments, four mark wetland buffer on site, five submit wetland mitigation plan for prime wetland disturbance, and six add buffer plantins along wetland for new proposed uh uh well that would be prior to occupancy.

Uh they would add those wetland buffer plantins or preserve a buffer along the uh non-jurisdictional wetland on their site.

Under seven, I've got fifty-foot wooded uh buffer strip along right of way, shall not be disturbed and only broken for new driveway.

And seven, uh is that sorry, eight, I think.

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

Thanks.

I'm sorry, what was the first condition?

Uh SMIT staff approvals.

Oh to the applicant present.

So you have anything to add?

Well, I'm okay with the conditions in that.

I just want to let the board know that when they bought the property, they if you could see just to discuss the prime wetland buffer issue.

Um they're just homeowners, they have a swimming pool in the backyard.

They don't know that nobody knows.

You know, if you're a homeowner, you see it may be a wetland, it may be, you know, it's it's way out there, the wetlands way out there.

You don't know that there's a prime wetland buffer.

My understanding was they just cut some trees down because their their pool was getting was getting no sun during the day.

So they cut that down.

I believe they stopped once there was an issue made of it, and that's where it sits right now.

So thank you.

Um like to speak on the plan.

Please name and name and address for the record.

With the podium right?

Yeah.

Um I just want to make my concerns regarding water.

If there's any I just want to make sure water in the wetlands, which is gonna be a right abutting my property, which is underwater, is directed away from my property.

I I I don't know if they can leave 20 feet of trees, uh if they can do some kind of tunneling to make sure water drains away from my property.

Right now I'm underwater.

I have the repumps going.

And um it hasn't started raining yet.

So I'm can uh I live next door, and I know how much water is in that land.

And I just want to make sure as they build uh however it's worked, that water is directed away from my property and not towards me on 26 and road.

So I don't know what can be done.

Sure.

Yeah, we could have the applicant address those comments.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Meisner, can you speak to the uh water off and uh yeah the navigation for the above on the site I believe we've shown uh infiltration trenches for uh around the house and um you know the driveway, it basically everything flows from uh the Barnes's property towards that wetland that's uh that Jacob discussed earlier where that culvert is.

So that water is going that way, and we're gonna infiltrate around the house.

So uh that property should be pretty well protected.

It's a little bit higher than than where we are right now.

Okay, thank you.

Um somebody else want to speak on the plan.

Please name name an address of the record.

Yeah.

Um Jim Kennedy, uh I live at 11 Main Street in Salem, but I own the property at 36 Hooker Farm Road where my ex-wife lives.

And I was just wondering if I can get some prints and want to know how it's gonna affect her property.

Uh happy if you want to come to town hall tomorrow.

Happy to make you copies of the plants.

Excuse me.

So if you'd like to come to town hall tomorrow, I'm happy to give you copies of the plans.

All right, thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thanks.

Thank you.

The same thing with the water thing.

There is a lot of, you know, we have the brook on the right side of our house.

I'm on the corner of Hooker Farm and Shannon.

So there is a lot of water going by into the wetlands on the right side of the house.

So I'm kind of interested in how that'll affect our property.

Rightfully so.

All right, so I'll talk tomorrow.

Thank you.

Um anything, Mr.

Meiser, anything to add on the water, same thing.

Um that property is talking about is quite a ways quite a ways away.

So this wetland on site is basically gonna gather whatever water is here.

Okay.

Thanks.

Uh anyone else like to speak on the plan for the public.

Go to the board.

Mr.

Norcross.

Mr.

Lafontaine, can you pull a GIS?

Would you mind for the property?

Yep.

And uh turn on the prime wetland filter.

Sure.

Thank you.

So this is the the resident that uh just spoke was speaking to the property in the kind of rear left of the property, right?

Uh Mr.

Kennedy, I believe.

Is he do the kind of the the larger behind the three homes?

So Mrs.

Barnes is at 26.

I know that.

Yeah, that's Barnes.

Barnes is here.

And I don't know.

The Hooker Farm Route one is over there on that way.

Uh it's right behind it.

This here?

No, no, no.

To the left.

Behind Mrs.

Barnes' home.

Oh, right here.

So that's the property uh Mr.

Kennedy was speaking of.

And that's a lot of property.

Wetland in that somewhere different than I was.

That's the ranch.

That's that okay.

So I I think the you know the the concerns are you know.

Are founded, I guess.

Just whenever you it's a single family house.

We're infiltrating the roof right there.

Um, you know, this is a this is a huge wetland.

There's you couldn't even calculate a difference in elevation of that water with what would come off of that roof.

And that roof's gonna infiltrate into the ground, so um there'll be no concern for that.

It again, too.

This this site goes that way.

The topography comes down here, and that's why that culverts here, that's why that wetland that we showed is here, and that all runs that way.

Green.

So I appreciate this reminder you're talking that through, just taking a look at it with the abutters that we're here to discuss it.

I think it's helpful to you know visualize it.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Uh anything from the board.

Okay.

Well, that uh entertain a motion.

Well, just a question before we motion here.

Sorry.

All right.

Are we doing a C UP for wetland mitigation?

Uh they they would have to submit a separate application for uh CUP.

So I think what they're uh what the approach would be now would be to have them uh provide a wetland mitigation plan and then re-establish the wetland disturbance or the wetland that's been disturbed offer that's been disturbed.

Okay, the applicant would have the option to seek a conditional use permit as an alternative, but I think right now the the uh logic would be that they're gonna re-establish the disturbance.

Okay, so we've got the waiver and it's just a standard subdivision after that.

Yeah, the waiver is for the build and envelope because um right, yeah.

Okay.

Okay, Mr.

Chairman.

At this time, I move to uh here in one hearing and approve the Bouchard two lot subdivision plan and further move to approve the waiver requested under section 278-6 column 4.2 in the Meisagram Corporation letter to the board dated February 6, 2026, uh, and to take into account all conditions read as record by Mr.

Lafontaine.

Great.

We've got a motion and a second to uh grant conditional approval for this Bouchard subdivision plan here in one hearing and grant the uh building envelope waiver with the eight conditions and then we'd uh any further discussion on that?

Yep.

Um I just wanted to say that for the the abutters that are here um you know if this goes through and there is a another site plan for building a home there, they still have to go through all the you know uh engineering and you know ensuring water is not you know infiltrating your properties and that they're to minimize certain things which is not a lot oh I don't know if they're gonna need any left and all that all the longer roof you know things like that we follow up on three can I so I I but I also just want to say that that is that particular piece is not really the you know for us to consider at this moment.

No, so there'll be an opportunity.

So I just want to make sure that you knew that you were heard and we we listened to we can have a review senior engineer for infiltration that's a discussion.

Uh Jacob just on the condition for the submit the wetland mitigation plan.

Can you just could we modify that to submit the wetland mitigation plan and mitigate the wetlands because it's just a plan right now on the commission?

Yeah, and for the board's information in the abutters information, it's in the rural zone, so there's a 50-foot uh buffer across the front of that property, and in your regulation, it allows for us to penetrate through that for the driveway, and if there's other infrastructure required, and in this particular case it's just the driveway.

So in that area, we'll be cutting enough uh swath for the driveway to go through, not clear clearing the whole thing.

So it is protected by your zoning regulation.

Thank you for that.

We have a motion a second to uh hear one hearing, approve the conditionally approve the bouchard site plan with the conditions and grant the a building envelope waiver.

Um all those in favor that's unanimous, thank you.

All righty um the next item of new business, third item of new business, Newton subdivision plan that's a public hearing for a two-lot residential subdivision at 205 north main street.

Is the plan complete?

Yes, the plan is complete.

Mr.

Chairman, at this time I move to accept the Newton subdivision plan is complete.

Second.

All those in favor.

That is unanimous.

The abutters are as follows.

If you're here, please indicate by saying so they are Custo, Martin, Newton, Sainz, Smith Revocable Trust, Brzewski and Brigham, Eaton, Margalian Family Revocable Trust, and that is all.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman.

Again, my name is Kurt Myers Rama Fiserburn Corporation here tonight to represent uh Jason and Sharon Newton uh in a two-lot subdivision located uh at 204 uh 205 North Main Street.

Um we had been to the zoning board.

Uh my plane is very small, so I can't really read the date, but um back earlier this year, and uh we received a variance to create a lot uh that was uh undersized, so we have a one-acre lot and an existing dwelling uh barn and uh single family home uh items on uh on the existing parcel.

Um the proposed both of the lots are serviced by uh municipal water and an on-site septic system.

Uh we do have state subdivision approval for that septic system on both of those lots.

Uh we're just proposing a single uh family home on the on the one-acre lot.

Um there's no wetlands on the site, there's no floodplain on the site.

It's a fairly straightforward subdivision application.

Um I think that's probably about all I can tell you.

There's an existing home and in infrastructure and a proposed new one-acre lot.

We uh we are asking for a waiver on the uh irregular shaped lot.

And what we did was we the lot itself is irregularly shaped to start with, the the whole lot in its entirety, and we tried to make the um the new one acre lot as rectangular as we we could, which is basically two parts of a rectangle, and the existing lot where the home and the barn and the yard is that portion is irregular, but there's a uh a tail that comes down to North Main Street, which is the access for that.

Uh the driveway is shown on that plan.

But uh that's the reason for that.

Okay.

Any questions?

I'm happy to great.

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

Okay.

Anything to add here, Jacob?

Um, no, not really from uh planning perspective.

I would just note that we did receive comments from senior engineer Jim Brown, which stated uh we offer the following comment comments for your consideration.

The approximate area of proposed pavement disturbance in North Main Street for the proposed water service needs to be shown in a demand benefit assessment will be applicable.

Those are items that could be incorporated as part of an of the approval.

Um if your concerns are satisfied, staff recommendation would be to uh grant the waiver for regular lot shape, it move to here and one here and grant conditional approval subject to conditions I can provide if you when you'd like.

Sure.

Why don't you do that?

Uh recommended conditions of approval be prior recording plan one submit staff approvals, two no waiver on plan, three setter bond monuments, four under other 50-foot wooded buffer strip along right of the way shall not be disturbed and only broken for uh new driveway, and then five, all representations made by applicant or agents and all notes on the plan are incorporated as part of the approval.

Thanks.

Of course.

Sorry.

Uh Mr.

Meisner, uh in trying to create the break more regular shapes of the irregular uh the I don't know, I think that's kind of the north boundary on 26B.

Why is why would you not make that in line with the uh custot's custos lot line?

Why does that judge like that?

Well, yeah.

So it if the shape of the new lot, the the vacant lot would still be the same.

It would still go up and over.

And we tried to give the the new lot as much space uh towards the back.

So there's a topographic change right at where that rear lot line is.

So we tried to stick with that, and we wanted to get that to exactly one acre, so that's where that came in.

Now I would say uh the irregular shaped lot portion of your ordinance.

Um I think originally it was intended when we were doing a lot of uh I'll call them flag lots or pie shaped lots, and houses were ending up behind other houses, and so in this particular case, we none of that is created by this, so we could move that house anywhere in that um let's call it the first throat on the left hand side, as long as it's within the building setbacks, and um you know you wouldn't it wouldn't be behind the other house.

So the shape of the lot really I don't want to say it's inconsequential, but it it's gonna be irregular shaped anyway.

So we did our best to get it as a one-acre lot, hit that topographic line.

Uh Mr.

Lafontaine, is there any concerns there?

Do you do you understand what I'm saying?

I guess yeah, no, I think it's a good point.

Um, we didn't discuss it at the staff level, but I I think you're right.

I mean, it would make sense to have it in alignment with the uh property in the front, and they could probably have come in a little bit closer to North Main so that they wouldn't have lost the one acre.

But um, not even a not even a you're you're talking about if it would uh uh go further north so that it would be in alignment with the Cousteau's property.

Yes.

Mr.

Meisner said we wanted to accomplish one acre, so if you were to go further north, you'd probably come further in to the east, if that makes sense.

Um forward.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um which I'll take your word for it if you're comfortable with it.

We should leave it at that.

We always kind of struggle with a regular lot.

I do agree with Mr.

Meisner.

I mean, it it's almost the apparent lot is almost rectangular, with the exception of the fact that it's got a cutout in the middle of it.

Uh so you know he's probably got a good argument to make that it's an existing uh irregularly shaped lot and that he's not making it less conform.

And I just don't know that we could modify the lot line without a resubmission.

I don't think I don't think that he could um I mean I I I give you can stop there.

I really more curiosity than anything.

But it's something to be mindful of.

If there was a measurement to the madness, all right.

Thank you for indulging me, Mr.

Chair.

Welcome.

Anything further on this one?

Okay.

Go ahead.

All right.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, I'll make a motion at this time to grant the waiver for this uh for the Newton subdivision plan.

Uh granting relief under section 278-6 colon four and further, I would move to hear in one hearing and approve the subdivision plan as presented with all conditions listed by Mr.

Lafontaine.

Motion and a second to uh approve the new subdivision plan uh here one hearing, grant the all-sheet lot waiver and uh grant conditional approval with the four conditions.

Any further discussion on this one?

All in favor, thank you.

Okay, last item new business made it uh motion subdivision plan.

Uh mocher, mojo.

It's uh public hearing for another two lot residential subdivision to create a new duplex at 453 North Main Street as the plan complete.

Yes, the plan is complete.

Mr.

Chairman, at this time I would move to accept the Mosure subdivision plan is complete.

So all those in favor butters, please.

Yeah, butters are as follows if you hear please indicate by so in saying so they are uh Ceron Revocable Trust 458 North Main Street LLC, 22 Armour Road, Realty LLC, Whipple, uh Hutchins Trust, Woodhead, Salem by uh Woodhead is here, and uh Hutchins, Salem Bible Church Inc.

LaCroix LaCroix is here, uh Jameson LaShawn Realty Corporation, uh Lenny Lawn Farm uh revocable trust of 2025, and that is all great.

Thanks.

So it looks like I cornered the market on two lot subdivisions and eight acres of land.

Um again, my name is Kurt Meisner, and with Meiser Bram.

In a two-lot subdivision that's located on eight and a half acres of land at the intersection of North Main Street and Irma Road.

This parcel currently has an existing four-bedroom dwelling that actually fronts over on North Main Street.

What we're proposing this evening is to uh construct a duplex on the five acres that uh to the northwest of the property.

Um we do have state subdivision uh approval on that uh location for that well and septic on that partial uh and we've shown uh we've shown the wetlands and the wetlands buffer.

There is a small area of wetlands that's uh to the rear of the proposed duplex.

And I will tell you that historically, and I remember the times that this this type of work was being done.

Uh I believe when they were building Route 11, someone went out there and dug a couple holes to see what kind of material was there.

They just left the hole as it sat over the time and over the years.

Wetland developed on that site because they breached the water table, and uh that's what that small wetland is.

But that wetland does not carry with it any uh building setbacks because it's smaller than 20,000 square feet.

Um so I guess it's again it's pretty straightforward.

That's what we've got.

We did ask for a waiver on the the building envelope.

Um your regulation requires that it's generally uh square or rectangular in shape, and we do have the area for that, but it's uh it's basically it's shaped around the edges of the property and along the edge of the wetland.

So uh we fit it in there, but it's uh you know the lot itself is kind of pinched in a pie, and uh that's why we asked for that waiver.

Okay, thanks.

Any questions?

We'll go to the planning department staff comments.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So uh as Mr.

Meisner stated, it's a proposal for a two-lot subdivision to create a new duplex lot, which will be five acres, uh, and then the residual lot will be 3.77 acres with the existing um uh single family dwelling.

And in terms of the wetlands, uh Mr.

Meiser has noted it it's it's really kind of shoehorned kind of into the between the the front setback and then the wetland setback, which is uh shown to the rear.

So the the orange is the uh wetland setback, and then the 30-foot setback is this dash line in the front.

Um so the uh setback if it's proposed in that location should be marked in the field and then confirmed post-construction because there's really no margin of uh error uh in in that location.

And then 20 foot wetland buffer should be marked in field.

Um we've been seeing that done with placards, uh just to ensure that there's not no disturbance to the wetland buffer in the future.

Setbacks met, but the buffer is 20 feet.

Uh wetland note needs to be updated.

So uh the note is on the plan, uh, but Mr.

Meisner's gonna add the note of delineation.

He's identified that Mr.

Hurley uh delineated the wetland uh in 2025, Mr.

Meisner, is that correct?

That's yeah, it's correct.

It was fall of last year.

Okay.

Um but we had asked him to update that note.

Um lot size calculations are okay.

Uh hot shape lots again.

They're the existing lot is odd, they're not really making it all that maybe they're you can maybe argue one of them's becoming more rectangular.

Um building envelopes, they're not met.

So as Mr.

Meisner noted, uh you can kind of see.

I just took a close-up, which is kind of blurry, but you can kind of see the 15-foot setback is this dashed line here.

So that's supposed to be in a square or rectangle, more or less, and they've kind of had to be creative to accomplish that.

Um the other thing is we talked about the building setbacks just being met, so you can see that building setback is here, and then you can see the uh the 50-foot no-cut buffer.

So they're also requesting a waiver to disturb that uh 50-foot buffer, which is required in the rural district, and then they would uh in lieu of the existing buffer would replicate it with street trees.

Um we know that a final as built plan is required.

Again, they're require requesting those waivers.

Probably more consequential, and I don't know, Mr.

Miser and I have been on an opportunity to discuss this.

Um I talked with Mr.

Brown, our senior engineer earlier, and um I I think their comments that are certainly worth discussing, but again, I didn't have an opportunity to discuss them in advance.

But Mr.

Meiser or Mr.

Brown, rather senior engineer Jim Brown notes recommend proposed house be located outside of the 50-foot no-cut buffer and recommend a shared driveway and entrance to the street.

So in discussing that with uh senior engineer Jim Brown, the idea would be that the uh the house would probably be in this location rather than along the frontage, and that would allow them to retain the uh 50-foot uh no-cut buffer, and then it would also allow them to be further removed.

I mean, this is you know, about as tight as it gets between the wetland setback and the front setback, you have a little bit more buildable area here, and again, I haven't had an opportunity to discuss that or explore it with Mr.

Meisner.

I'd be interested to know what his thoughts are, but uh that was something that uh senior engineer Brown and I talked about.

Um if board's concerns are satisfied, um would recommend that you grant the waiver if you're satisfied, uh conditional approval, subject to conditions.

I can provide different one you'd like.

Okay, we're gonna give us those positions.

Uh recommended conditions would be prior to recording plan one, sit submit staff approvals to note waiver on plan, waivers, three setter bond monuments, four marked 20-foot wetland buffer and plant street tree sparred occupancy.

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

I think there should also be a uh mark one uh no, it is on there.

Uh we'd want them to mark the wetland setback too, because we just don't we would if they're gonna propose in that location, we don't want them to make any mistakes.

Thanks.

Uh any members of the public like to speak on the plan of the board comments, um, please uh name an address for the record.

Yeah, hi, I'm Anita Woodhead.

I live at one and three Armour Road, right across from where this is going to be built.

And my concern, one is water.

Um it's always in the 26 years I've lived there, it's always been wetland.

So I would love to see the map that you brought up that shows the wetland in that area, just so we can all see that.

Um the other concern is um Miss Woodhood, do you mind just being a little bit closer to the mic?

We have a recording secretary who's not present.

So, yeah, I'd love to see the wetland map that you brought up for the Shannon Road proposal.

Absolutely.

And um, I just I'd like to know.

Sorry, I'm going blank.

Um it's late.

I've been up since 4 30, so please bear with me.

Um yeah, I mean, there's been why there's wildlife over there and everything.

So like the construction.

Oh, how close would that duplex be to the current business right down the street?

What's what's the footage between the business on the corner of Irma and 11 and that and the proposed duplex?

I'd have to dimension it on a plan.

I don't know offhand.

Okay, so that's a concern there.

And that's a concern.

Well, it's it's quite a busy corner there with Irma Road and that area.

We have the um the plaza at the end of the road, and you have uh 11 people coming flying off 11 and the duplex being right there, right towards that end of that crazy intersection.

Thank you.

So those are my concerns.

To dimension from the intersection is probably from the proposed location of the duplex.

Yes.

That's probably about 600 to 650 feet based off of map geo.

Okay.

And then you have the wetland map up?

Uh wetland map is up as well.

So you can see the wetland overlay is in green.

Um, sorry, prime wetland overlay.

We don't have the jurisdictional wetland on map geo, but uh prime wetland.

The wetlands are very clearly delineated on our map.

They are correct.

Yep.

And those were flagged just last summer.

The heavy dock line there, that's that's the location of the wet line.

Yeah, my concern is um our spaces Armour Road and you want to can you come back to the uh podium?

Yeah.

So my can my concern is that our driveways come out on Irma Road and North Main.

Irma Road, we're constantly getting flooding and water and poolage of water from the rain runoff.

So that to make sure there's enough rain runoff and sewerage upgrades if this does go in and it doesn't impact that area.

So uh again, just to relax some of the concerns about that.

Um the I'm looking at the soils test here, and uh we've got fairly deep water tables for Salem, New Hampshire.

And one of them we have a 37-inch water table, uh, which is where we're trying to design on.

Uh and it's it's a fairly sandy soil, uh single grain and loose sand, which is sort of like septic sand or almost beach sand.

Um so that water will infiltrate right in, and we have shown infiltration trenches around the building again for it, and I will tell you that every time we do a plan, Jim Brown suggests infiltrate the roofs, infiltrate you know the runoff.

So uh we just add that on the plans now as a standard operating uh procedure.

So you know, we uh the I think Jacob gave her the distance to the building, and again it's it's it's I'll say one driveway or potentially two.

Uh Jacob mentioned moving the building, which we can we can probably I'll say we can probably move that building when we do an individual septic design, but for me to put it on before the approval on that, I need the state requires that we give them a 4,000 square foot area, but that is absent of the building being in it.

So if I put the building at that location, then it would be in that and it wouldn't meet their regulation.

So the locations that we show you when we come here are potential locations for a building.

When we do the individual septic designs after you guys create the lot, um that's when we'll get an exact building style.

So you see these are rectangular, they're shown like 30 by 70 or something like that.

The exact building won't be exactly 30 by 70, it'll be you know 28 here with a jog here and a different style.

Uh but we place those on always within the building setbacks, and and when the Board of Health uh approves the plan, they make sure that we meet all of the other building codes and zoning codes for the town.

So I think there's an opportunity for us to do that here.

Um and I think that that could potentially uh could potentially lead to a single driveway coming out onto Irma Road.

Thank you for that clarification.

Uh anyone else from public like to speak on the plan.

David LaCroix, 442 North Main.

Um the uh the building plans and such are uh pretty far away from my property, where the structures are gonna go.

Um but my property is uh at 442, it's uh just across North Main.

My property starts at the intersection of Irma Road in North Maine, and um I've been in the property since 2018.

I bought it, beautiful old historic house.

Uh and have been dealing with water from closing day.

Day I closed, there was two feet of water in my basement.

Uh, because this the uh the sump pumps failed on the day that I closed for the property, day before everything was dry because the pumps were running.

Um every bit of water from this parcel here, every bit of it, even as much as it gets infiltrated down into the into the soil, uh it comes in the direction of of my property at 442, goes underneath North Main Street through a culvert, which is currently being undermined by hydraulic pressure, and there's a guardrail uh alongside there uh that's actually beginning to collapse.

I mentioned it to DPW last year and haven't heard from them since they said they would take a look at it, I guess, but nothing's happened.

So now the street is beginning to collapse from I believe hydraulic pressure uh from what's kind of being shown here is very minimal wetlands, but there's a lot of water.

A lot.

And so once that water passes through the culvert, at some point in the past history of my property, there was um a seasonal stream that looks to have been dug.

And I don't know if it was dug by the town, a property owner, but it goes along the entire uh back portion of my property line and continues along the back portion of the property lines of neighbors further downstream.

And I'll tell you this.

Come April May, it's uh class three rapids uh coming through there.

We also have water.

We have we do subpumps.

Please come to the podium.

But there's already someone there if you want to wait.

If you just want to wait.

So there's a there's a lot of there's a lot of water.

And um, you know, I manage it, you know.

It's I've got my sump pumps and I maintain them and I keep them running and all of that.

I just don't want to see any increase, any changes.

And I don't know if Conservation Commission has actually been out there.

If there's been an assessment of the wetland recently where it's been properly classified, um I think I would ask that that be considered.

Um I don't object to any of the plans.

It's not a problem for me.

I just want to make sure that it's done in a way, because this could go south fast with the amount of water that's that's running through.

So that's all I guess the applicant did give a good explanation on the on the water runoff and design.

We can ask them to uh further clarify based on your concern.

And I'd invite all of you, you know, do a site walk, particularly conservation commission, uh, to see uh the dynamics, you know, the the real world effects of of what happens uh with the water in that area.

Thank you.

And we're boots.

Thanks.

Did you want to come to the podium to speak on the water issue?

We also have um we've had to put in a sub pump on one side, and then that did not maintain the water.

We had to put another one on the other side um of the duplex.

We also have a culvert on the property to pull away water, and we have extremely sandy soil.

Our whole front yard is all sand and water just drains off of it.

So thank you.

Uh anyone else from the public like to speak on this plan.

Uh Mr.

Meisner, do you want to just further clarify um water runoff in the wetland?

Well, sure.

I I guess anything.

Anything further you could provide?

So yeah, I mean, we have the infiltration taken care of on the building itself.

Um the abutters speak of their issues on their properties, both of them are actually across the street.

Um, we do show a large wetland on the property, so we know that that's wetland that it's a it's a large area out there.

But um we're staying away from that, and we're up in uh in the corner where it's appropriate.

Uh again, I'd say that DES has approved the plan and they've seen it.

Um sandy soils, there's great soils that infiltrates the water right into the ground.

I would probably make a make a subjective guess that the houses that were talking about a historical house maybe put I don't want to say too low in the ground, but low enough in the ground that groundwater could infiltrate the bottom of the of the uh the basement.

There's no planned wetland disturbance here.

No, there's no wetland disturbance here.

We're staying far away from it.

Um we're not touching the wetlands, we're not going near it, and we're infiltrating all of the water that we create uh into the ground.

We have to wait till the phone's done.

Yeah.

Can I ask Mr.

Magnus?

Yes.

Um would you be amenable to withdraw on the waiver for the 50-foot uh just uh no cut buffer?

Or are you how confident are you that you could relocate the house to uh the area to the north?

Well, I I you want me to commit to something I'm not a hundred percent sure of, but I I feel ninety-five percent sure of, but um I guess I would say okay, we'll do it, and if we find out somehow that we can't do it, I guess we'd have to come back.

That would probably be the mechanism I'm trying to say.

I don't know what this board be amenable to us coming back as a public matter for that.

Maybe the subdivision, I don't know.

Or maybe we could leave it in, but make it a stipulation that we design an individual septic system, get it approved by the Board of Health with the encouragement of moving it to the north and and getting out of that 50-foot pop round.

Would you mean what about a condition that says that the applicant will relocate the house uh to the north of the isolated wetland um unless determined that it's not feasible or something that affect to that effect?

I mean that reason.

Yeah, that's fine.

I mean just and then a hundred percent sure.

Well I think that would allow you the ability if if you know I think right now the board would be under the assumption that you would relocate it, and then if you determine that it's not feasible, then I think that would probably be maybe a public matter where you could ask the board and say, hey, we tried, but uh we're not able to accomplish it.

Yeah, and and and we've made some provision here in the event that we needed to do that.

We've made a provision to plant street trees in that.

Obviously, if we move the house, we wouldn't need to plant those street trees, so uh there's a little bit of a benefit.

Okay, Mr.

Hatch.

I was gonna ask the board if they're if that's what they really want is that they want that house to be moved.

That's to me.

I'm not sure I want it to be moved closer to 11 in that intersection.

That's just my feeling.

Um Jacob, if we could um with that 111 intersection being improved with the rotary and the construction, can we can you get with the town manager and the DPW and have someone go out there because a lot of what they're describing from the abutters seem like there's a serious drainage problem already.

So I think what they're talking about is this area right here.

And I think this is the abutter with the historical house in the stream runs down along there.

Yeah.

That would probably say it would probably be a DPW cleaning the the cover.

Your problem.

Yeah.

So if you get with them and say, hey, can we send someone down there, take a look at the culvert, let's see if the culverts failed.

Uh whatever we can do, maybe this we can improve the drainage there somehow.

Yeah.

It's and maybe we can tie it in, you know, the cost of that intersection and because some of that road is gonna have to get repaired when they start digging it up.

Okay.

I'll do that.

Uh I think that I I do understand the concern about uh relocating it closer to the intersection.

I think it's still be about 600 feet away, and the uh exchange would be that rather than two curb cuts on Irma Road, you'd have a single drive that you tee off of.

And I think that probably still we're just approving the subdivision here.

You guys can handle that at the building permit where it's actually going and the the actual location of the the footprint of the building.

Yeah.

Once again, Dave LaCroix 442 North Main.

Um I don't I don't see that any of their building and structures and position or anything like that has any impact on the amount of water.

So I I can I can support this plan, but I I will uh plea with with the board to really take a look at that uh the culvert at North Main and those drainages.

But I'm happy to meet with anybody in person.

You want to come out, I can point out what I see and uh and show you what's going on.

And if it's at all possible, I don't know if there's uh storm drainage uh underneath North Main that that rather than having a culvert that just kind of runs it downstream behind all of the residential homes there if we can just tie into storm drainage uh from that area.

Because it's uh it's a high volume of water.

Okay, yeah, we can have the planning department uh check with the Department of Public Works on that, as Mr.

Hatch noted.

Uh yeah, Mr.

Lewis.

Just uh clarifying question, Jacob, on procedure.

Just to make sure I know where we're at.

We're addressing the waiver and the subdivision plan that is in front of us, there's a stipulation, however, that's gonna give Mr.

Meisner an opportunity to come back without refiling.

I got that correct.

I think that would be the approach that you know uh you would if you're comfortable with it, you would grant the waiver and you would uh for the disturbance with the assumption that he's gonna be able to probably uh uh withdraw that because he can locate it further north.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anything further from the board?

Okay.

I don't know.

Uh yeah, I'll just read them again because I added Oh, you already gave them to us?

Yeah, I don't just the four.

Uh I've got submit staff approvals, no waivers on plan several bond monuments, and I also have under other applicants shall relocate dwelling to the north of isolated wetland unless determined to not be feasible.

And uh that's uh six mark twenty-foot wetland buffer and plant street trees per occupancy, and then uh seven, all representations made by the applicant or agent.

And uh I'll know it's on the planner corporate as part of the approval.

Can you say the relocation condition again, please?

Yep.

Uh applicant shall relocate dwell into the north of the isolated wetland unless it is determined to not be feasible.

Something to that does that make sense.

I don't want to put a stipulation that they have to do it.

It's just a subdivision.

You guys handle that.

Uh yeah, but I mean you're also granting the waiver to allow them to disturb the 50 foot 50 foot buffer for the house location.

Yeah.

Uh you could I don't know that'd be covered under staff approvals.

I mean, I I think the benefit would be that one, they're not pinching the building setback and the wetland setback, and then two um you have the singular driveway likely in to the north of it.

So I think those are all probably benefits is that there's probably less risk of impact to the wetland.

And then there's also just a single curb cut on Urbur Road.

And they're amendable to it, I think.

I don't want to make things more complicated.

Please don't.

But I believe that in the um 50 foot buffer zone.

It's I believe, and Jacob can tell me if I'm wrong or right.

I don't know if he has it right there, but I believe it allows for the driveway and infrastructure to be placed in that.

So I don't think you would need to grant a waiver for that because this would be driveways and the building.

It's just driveway and roads in the in the uh subdivision plan.

Yeah.

Maybe only be drop.

It just says driveways.

Yeah, and the site plan rags, yeah.

Yeah.

I I know we've done it with septic systems before, but never a building.

But okay, sorry.

Okay.

All right.

What do we do?

You want to find a motion?

Do something?

Fine, I'll make a motion.

I'll make a motion.

You do it?

No, go ahead.

All right, fine.

All right.

I wasn't set up for it.

To be clear, we have two waivers for this one, Jacob.

Yes, it's building envelope and uh buffer.

All right, thank you.

All right, Mr.

Chairman.

At this time, I am going to make a motion relative to the motion subdivision plan first to grant approval of the two waivers.

Uh first under section 278-6 colon four, and the second under section 278-6 colon 7.5.

And we've further moved to here in one hearing and approve the motion subdivision plan, including any and all conditions read into the record by Mr.

Lafontaine.

Okay.

Nice.

We get a motion and a second to uh approve the motion subdivision plan uh with the four conditions in order to grant the uh uh waivers for building envelope and uh um the uh 50-foot buffer strip and uh here in one hearing.

Any further discussion on that?

All in favor.

That's unanimous.

Thank you.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Any public matters?

Yes, uh, I get a couple of public comments for you.

Um first item we came to talk about quite a bit, but uh I think it should be.

Uh that's not what I have for public matters, but um you have uh in the past 89 Lowell Road, you've approved office trailer uh a couple times, and they're looking to relocate it.

New England Adjustment Bureau, you recently approved to relocate to uh Main Street.

They want to instead of having the office trailer back here, want to propose it in the area where New England Adjustment Bureau is.

I think they're likely taking those buildings down, maybe and then putting the trailer there.

So it uh the letter states for our conversation we would like to move the location of the office trailer to where New England Adjustment Bureau is located.

We have not set the trailer yet, but would like approval from the town of Salem.

So that's where they want to set it rather than in the area here, uh, which was ultimately uh approved by you maybe a month or so ago.

Okay.

It's buying a fence, right?

What's that?

Is it buying a fence?

It I believe is behind the fence, and we also I think previously stipulated that it would be temporary, like they'd have to renew the permit within a year.

So it probably would be reasonable to carry over that same condition.

Okay.

No problem.

Um CTRs here.

So let me pull that up.

This is I think something pretty quick.

Um, if I can make sure I have it.

Uh the chair and I discussed this, and the applicant did a good job of uh providing uh a memo to rationalize um or justify with their interpretation of the ordinance.

So there's a dance studio that's proposed at 50A Northwestern Drive.

And initially the determination by staff or by me was that it would require a uh a variance because uh the dance studio I initially categorized as a health club recreation sport facility.

Uh we had play ball get a variance, and we had uh the big uh uh sports dome get a variance as well.

Uh in talking with the applicant, they noticed that studios are allowed in the uh industrial district.

So they had questioned whether or not a student, you know, a dance studio could be categorized as a studio.

We don't have a good definition of studio in our ordinance, of course, because that would help us.

Uh I think the only thing that we have is nude model studio, which you know that is neither here nor there, but that's the closest we could get.

And um, so in talking with the chair, I think the chair had felt that you know it was reasonable to categorize a dance studio as a studio in absence of uh you know a definition that would exclude the use.

Are you comfortable with that?

Yeah, that's what I that was my that almost been for a while.

Yeah, for what it's worth.

I couldn't see making someone go for a dance studio for a variance in the district.

Yeah, it was just I I thought that was fine.

The word sounds good is good enough of me.

Yeah.

All right.

Uh so uh thank you for sitting through them even.

Um I could see that maybe I come have you been here all night?

I bet well I actually came right off the ski mountain, so okay.

And I'm like, I'm gonna get the I was walking you guys line.

Like I can make it.

Thank you.

I was gonna apologize if you he warned me.

He said they have a lot of applicants, so I either I said they might not have questions.

So good night.

I think I'll I appreciate it, thank you guys.

Um 287 Lawrence Road.

This was the World Missing Church Society Church of God.

You approved this application in December of 2024.

Uh the applicant has recently come in for a condition uh for a certificate of occupancy.

We went out and did a site inspection and they did an as-built site plan, and there's some pretty significant uh work that hasn't been complete.

Uh and I say that because the work that was uh scheduled to be complete was really just striping, and they haven't done the striping.

So uh it's not like they had a whole lot to do, but the amount uh the work that they had to do, they they haven't completed.

So this is their as built, and this just highlights the area.

You know, these spaces were supposed to be restriped, these spaces were supposed to be restriped.

These were supposed to be reoriented as parallel spaces.

These ADA spaces are supposed to be revised to be compliant, and there's new ADA spaces here.

They've got the upright signage, but not the uh spaces themselves.

And then uh these stripe, these were supposed to be restriped, and then uh dumpster enclosure.

So this kind of calls out it on the this was the proposed plan.

Um so the items to do it, otherwise they're never gonna do it.

Okay.

Um they they they had their proposed, yeah, they're proposing, and I don't know if they're here, yeah.

They're proposing to submit CO, and uh I'm happy with that.

They they were initially trying to figure out a compromise.

I think they did some of the landscaping.

Uh we similarly have the concern because sometimes we do issue conditional, well, we issue occupancy uh and then we take in an escrow account and then the work often doesn't.

That's fine too, but if we get the CO here, they're never gonna do that.

They're never gonna do that with the same.

No way.

Yeah.

I agree.

Yeah, I mean, in in the you know, from my perspective, it was a little because it's been a year and a half or so, you know, it's maybe and I talked that the applicant about that too.

You know, it's one thing if you get approval and there's a short window and you don't have the opportunity.

It's they they have done uh some work on site, but it's not you know, it was more so maintenance, and they submitted that too.

And uh, you know, I'll just show it to you real quick just out of their uh out of courtesy for them because they submitted it, but this was kind of their narrative about the compliance.

Obviously, my big concern would be the ADA space.

We we certainly want that to be compliant.

They showed that they removed some trees, they filled uh a lot of uh potholes and uh other areas.

So they have been doing work on the property, but they still need to hot top it and um and and stripe it.

There was also some discussion about the dumpster enclosure.

They submitted this narrative to show that uh the turn-in radius is difficult for their uh uh jump truck or the truck to get the dumpster.

Uh there was some discussion about maybe instead of fully enclosing it, providing maybe a L-shaped panel here so that it's obstructed from the right of way on Lawrence Road, which seems to maybe be a reasonable compromise if the board's okay with it.

But it sounds like the consensus of the board is to hold them to the striping.

I mean the weather is getting better.

I think they're hoping to get their uh their CO before April, but uh you know striping before you're gonna do that this weather.

Okay.

All right.

Chuck it.

All right.

Um this is another one.

This is uh 380 Main Street.

I don't have the approved plan, but I did look at it relative to the approved plan.

They want to make some modern mod uh modest modifications for the most part.

I think this approved plan had the rock uh facade going up to this area here.

I think what they're proposing now probably is more in keeping with the uh the area and residential character.

Um they submitted a narrative with this, and I think they're also looking to redesign the rock wall so it won't be quite as extravagant as what they had proposed.

I could show you the uh approved sign if you'd like at a future meeting.

And they also want to get rid of the gate and potentially add these parking spaces, which I've asked them to have.

Uh I said that we'll have that reviewed by PER now because generally you don't want spaces that back out into the main travel aisle so close to the uh exit.

But anyway, in terms of the elevations that have been changed, I mean are you guys comfortable with the elevations that are currently proposed?

Yeah, I don't see any issues.

I don't know.

What's with these applicants always getting us excited with the architecture and then reneging them the designs?

Yeah.

We can always say no.

He does have uh yeah.

I have no problem saying no.

Yeah, this was uh summary by the architecture that was provided, and um, what are you speaking of there's some tremendous burden as to why they can't do what they said they were gonna do originally?

No, well the architect talks about the change in material and it's the same architect.

Um what does he say here?

Uh at all the sliding doors, uh Juliet balconies and decks, the surrounding exterior wall will be ASEC and with ASUC trim at the edges.

This will provide an accent to the large exterior wall surfaces, especially on the addition portion of the building and break the linear length of the built-in site lines.

That's their rationale for it.

So um I can I can uh send you the approved elevations.

I honestly I don't think they're uh bad.

I don't have any issues with that.

Okay.

And then I'll have the parking reviewed by Perno.

What was the reason about the the wall with the sign on it?

Um let's see.

And what are they changing it to?

Uh so this is what the approved wall is now.

Uh not the approved, the proposed.

So it's kind of it's more modest and it's a round veneer.

I think uh uh Mr.

Abear owned it at the time, and I think he had kind of a more uh detailed wall.

So that could always wait.

I don't think they're looking to install that right now.

So if you want, I could bring it this is the one that they already proposed.

No, this is they've got one where they're looking for occupancy, building three, which is furthest back.

They've are you've probably seen building two is uh you know underway pretty uh pretty strong.

And then this is building one closest to um Main Street.

So that's the one that they're looking for the revisions to, and then the wall is in front of that.

Uh but that's the one everybody's gonna see.

So that's the one I'm concerned about.

Yeah, yeah.

So this is what they are proposing it.

And which we don't sound like they're not asking for certificate of occupancy on the one that is about to be completed.

I mean they're looking for CO and building three.

And are there revisions on building?

No.

Is that what it's gonna look like right there?

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

I'll find it.

Yeah, I mean, I I think it's I think honestly the revisions were that they had kind of more stone, uh uh like a stone veneer, and they've eliminated that and replaced it with ASEC, I guess.

Still looks good.

Yeah, putting it in too much trouble.

Yeah, which I don't have, I should have pulled up the plans and I probably could, but um honestly I I compared the two of them and I didn't uh I thought they were kind of nice additions for the most part.

They did.

Um I'm trying to think if I've got anything else.

Mr.

Uh Brubaker has some items too.

Oh man.

I'll I'll try to be quick.

Um so each year the each of the council, the budget committee, and the planning board uh uh sends a representative to the CIP committee.

Uh I'm the staff liaison to the CIP committee.

Uh we typically meet during the day uh during the summer, like four to six meetings per year.

Um and we're would be happy to get uh member recommended either tonight or you could discuss it.

Does anybody want to do that?

You're the boss of that, huh?

On the ball, he's got all the experience.

Sean's got all the experience, so I think he was the chair.

Wow.

Looking forward to another year with Sean.

The rain continues.

Might as well become the chair again.

Chair it again.

Don't troll me in a public meeting for any place.

Um and then um starting April 6th, this was kind of identified in the master plan, but uh expansion of public transportation services was one of the things that was um looked over.

We currently have cart, which is um uh a subset of the Manchester Transit Authority, but Salem residents can uh go uh on cart for two dollars per ride anywhere in Salem Dairy, London Dairy, Chester and Hampstead.

So that's a kind of and then there's also a shopper shuttle that is that goes to different affordable housing complexes and senior housing complexes uh and it takes them to different shopping locations like Market Basket and Target and whatnot, and that's free for residents on Monday, Wednesday, Friday mornings.

Uh we're getting a new service called Miva.

It's short for Meravac Valley Transit.

They're out of Massachusetts, they actually got a grant from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation to come up uh from Lawrence uh at the T stop up through Methuan, there's some stops and then up 28 up to Tuscan.

They're gonna stop at the Aldi Plaza, the Target Plaza, uh MGB at Tuscan, and then uh at the Overlook Lake.

That's awesome.

Um there's uh they're on the website under community um and public transportation.

You can find some more information on the bus system, uh the routes on there.

There's an a map and an announcement flyer as well.

So time schedules.

Did you coordinate that?

Uh uh myself and Bianca actually owns the planning board.

Nice work.

I'm gonna I'm gonna be one of the first riders.

I'm gonna take a ride on April 6th.

Employee of the year.

That's that's right.

It's indicative.

Yeah.

Um just because I don't want us to get out by 9 30, I'm just gonna run through these real quick so I can make sure that they're ready.

We're good with uh consolidating educational uses, we're good with adding personal service uh category to business office districts, and you're good with this language proposed for cigar bar, which would just say I think what hung us up was that at one point we added uh cigar bars that provide music and dancing, and then I think our attorney got kind of confused about you know uh exactly how we enforce that.

So this would just kind of leave it as a blanket prohibition on any uh cigar bar, any any project that comes in under RSA, uh whatever it is, uh 1782.

Is that okay with everybody?

Yeah, but I thought the whole thing was we want to prevent a nightclub.

We could add night clubs being to nightclub.

Yeah.

So you're saying in addition to the cigar bar, we would also prohibit nightclubs uh as well.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

I think well the problem with the cigar bar, right?

Is that I thought it was the the requirement is uh it's uh it's a revenue requirement, right?

That gets confirmed by the state.

Yeah.

We don't really have a stake in, and in the meantime they can do whatever the hell they want, pretty much.

Well, what's happened is that they they end up functioning more like a nightclub, and they have state regulations that say they can't serve food and it and the hours end up being like I'm open, you know, I'm open eight p.m.

to one a.m.

And they can serve booze.

Yeah, they're theoretically making was it 60% or more, 80%?

It was a high figure.

It was a fairly high figure for a facility that's also allowed to sell alcohol.

Yeah, but not sell food, but I can definitely door dash something.

Yes, you could bring it up.

And also dance under the disco ball.

You could, yes, yeah.

You can always restrict the hours instead instead of the use.

Yeah.

We could we could talk more about it.

I just figured um in you mean in the uh ordinance or just uh when it comes first uh site plan approval.

No, just you know, in the ordinance.

Yeah, that's a great idea.

Just restrict the you restrict the hours.

That's a great idea.

And then you don't have to worry about 11 p.m.

and then you won't have any night global.

Eleven, my god.

Yeah.

That was kind of sad.

What are you batman?

Jesus, go to sleep, wait.

Okay.

So we'd so restrict cigar bars, we'd restrict their hours of operation relative to residential uh dwellings.

Is that kind of how we do it?

I just think the big cigar bar, right?

Yeah, I thought the biggest problem was you know the residential location.

Yeah.

Now this one that was proposed, yeah.

There was we had nightclub concerns and stuff like that because of the amount of people.

Yeah.

But if we just rest use the area restriction that we got here and then restrict the hours to eleven.

Yeah, I think that's a good idea.

You know, or even you know, you could do midnight, and you're not you're still not gonna be a nightclub.

No, you're pushing it.

They serve food as long as they serve food you can do it.

So as long as they got a standard located in a commercial district one mile from any other human being on their phone because it's any other human being I like that standard.

I mean any one of those restaurants out there that serve alcohol can stay open until two in the morning or one in the morning whatever it is.

Yeah because you have that issue with um the new development of the old Sears building so I think that's a good idea Jacob if we just put a time okay yeah okay yeah we can you should probably put cigar bar I mean right cigar bars and and s smokes one of those hookah bars are all the same right yeah I think it's the it's the RSA that they're using the provision with yeah we can reserve that and restrict the out to you for uh your review if if everyone's comfortable with that.

Okay.

Yeah.

Uh were there other items I mean we I know we have to do the commercial and industrial uh I talked about uh increase in our square footage of ADUs and I don't know that that was well received um no let's not do that okay um and then uh what was the other anything else that doesn't even matter anyways because the zoning board will just grant the variant so did you guys get into short-term rentals?

Yes we did pass an ordinance in the fall I think to prohibit short-term rentals uh transient uses okay and we're just managing the ones that pre-exist that so we have a set that would be pre existent and that we wouldn't be able to enforce the ordinance against but any new short term rentals we would say are prohibited under the transient uh use in our it that's how we define residential uses now okay okay I'll keep we'll keep at these and we'll try to get them back to you um maybe we'll do like a once over and uh the 24th and then try to post them publicly for the April 14th agenda whatever that date is yeah I don't know what we do about that.

I mean when is it when is it an ADU versus a duplex at that point.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Is that it?

That's all I've got out of here.