Good evening.

I'd like to call the April 14th, 2026 meeting of the planning board to order.

Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

So the Republic for which it stands under God and indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

My name is Joe Fioli serving as chairman tonight, members of the sitting tonight with the planning board.

To my right, Jim Harvey.

Good evening, Salem.

Victor Helenick.

Good evening, Salem.

And to my left, Tower Council Rhett Paul Pelletier.

Good evening, Salem.

Chuck Sabah.

Good evening, Salem.

And Damon Norcross.

Welcome back, Councillor Pelletier.

Thank you.

Play good being back.

And with the planning department tonight, we have Jacob La Fontaine as Planning Director.

The agenda for tonight is as follows.

Three items of new business is the Duncan site plan, public hearing for conditional use permit for digital screens along the drive-through lane at 36 Lowell Road.

Second item, SDL Farm and GDD properties subdivision plan.

It's a preliminary hearing for a lot line adjustment at 272 Lawrence Road and 423 and 445 South Broadway.

And the last item of new business is the Willows Park site plan.

It's a public hearing for an additional single family rental dwelling at 9 Hampshire Street.

Any withdrawals tonight?

No withdrawals, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

We have one item of uh minutes from March 24th, 2026.

Ms.

Chair, I move to accept the minutes from the March 24th, 2026 uh planning meeting as written.

Second.

Okay, motion second any discussion on the meeting on meeting minutes.

No.

Um in favor.

Staying.

That is 51.

Um 501.

And with that, we'll go to the uh first item of new business, Duncan site plan.

Um conditional use permit for uh some digital screens at 36 Lowell Road.

Um butters, please.

Yeah, butters ours.

Yep, that's chair.

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

Get a second on that.

Second, motion to accept the plan.

All those in favor.

That's unanimous.

No can't have any butters.

Thanks.

Yeah, butters are as follows.

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

They are Delaware Drive and Lowell Road, LLC, JSJ Properties, LLC, 40 Lowell Road, and uh Industrial Park Condo, Benea, another Benia, Lowell Road Land Holding, uh JSJ Properties International Signal, Genco Consultants, Services, LLC, Low Road Land Holdings, Delaware Drive, and Lowell Road, LLC.

Uh Nemsha Holdings, LLC, River Road, Office LLC, Lural Road Land Holdings, Hoosia Properties, Eastern Pneumatics and Hydraulics Inc, North American Realty LLC, SJF Trucking, Eastern Pneumatic and Hydraulics 40 Low Road.

That's all.

Nice one.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um to the applicant to uh quickly present the plan.

Hi, uh Jen Point Signs.

It was here last month.

If you remember seeing me and what I had to say, all applies the same.

I know that uh we are here for the menu board, but I know signs are important in Salem.

So we have presented the changes to the freestanding sign will in fact be an opaque face.

Only the copy will light at night, which is what Salem uh in my past here has been the preference.

We're replacing some faces and some directional signs.

Uh they will not have logos, as is part of the practice here in Salem.

And um, we're gonna be replacing the wall sign.

But the the key for why we're here is is the menu board, which is an upgrade.

Uh we just completed maybe two weeks ago, North Broadway, quietly.

Haven't heard any complaints.

So hopefully this one will go the same and you will all vote in the affirmative.

Great.

Thank you.

Um Jacob, anything to add to that?

Nothing to add.

The applicant has agreed to the same conditions of approval that you uh applied to uh North Broadway.

I just recommend that you uh carry those over for this application as well.

Okay, makes sense.

Can you give us those conditions?

Those conditions would be uh one, no conditional use permit for roof sign on plan.

Sorry, with for menu board on on uh plan.

Free standing sign shall be opaque uh or uh light lighter and set against dark uh background, uh which is what they've done on the North Broadway one, and then all representations made by applicant or agents and all the notes on the plan are incorporated as part of the approval.

Great, thanks.

Three or four conditions.

Is that three or four conditions?

Uh that would be three.

Okay, thank you.

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

Um any members of the board like to speak on this one like that, Mr.

Chair.

I move to grant a conditional use permit for digital sign along the drive-through lane at 36 Lowell Road in accordance with 490702H with reference to the letter from the applicant dated March 27, 2026, and subject to the three conditions as outlined by Mr.

Jacob Lafontaine.

Second.

Got a motion of second to um accept the Duncan site plan and grant the conditional use permit for the uh digital screen.

Um discussion on that.

All in favor.

Okay, that's unanimous.

Thanks.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um next item of uh new business is the SDL Farm and GDD properties subdivision plan, preliminary hearing for lot line adjustment at 272 Lawrence Road at 423 and 445 South Broadway.

That's the plan complete.

Yes, so plan's complete.

Ms.

Chair, I move to accept the plan as complete.

Second, all those in favor.

That is unanimous.

Ums are as follows.

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

They are uh GDD properties for Nando 447 South Broadway LLC, Gilman in Sliny, Boscajarian Irrevocable Trust 450 South Broadway LLC, H E G 440 South Broadway LLC, HEG 436 South Broadway LLC, H E G 438 South Broadway, Pacific Realty Limited Liability, the Birches Academy of Academics and Art, SDL Farm, PRM Auto, Salem Scores LLC, 242 Lawrence Road Condo, 277 Lawrence Road, and World Mission Society Church of God.

That is all great.

Thanks.

Sure.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and Board members.

My name's Kurt Miser.

I'm with Miserburn Corporation.

Um here to represent uh the uh two applicants in a lot line adjustment, and I'm gonna come up to the board to show you because there's a lot going on.

There's a lot going on for a pretty simple plan.

Um if you look over here at the at the uh the detail of the properties, there are actually three properties involved here.

There's a small lot here that fronts on South Broadway, another residential lot here that fronts on Lawrence Road, and a large parcel that as you drive by it, and if you you probably recognize it as a Donabidian farm down off of Lawrence Road.

So family members own all three parcels, they're all related to each other.

And what they're looking to do is we're looking to add this parcel here, which is called parcel, I think that's C.

I can't really see it on the it's a little blurry.

So this strip of land here.

We're looking to add that to this residential property, and we're looking to trade off, so to speak, this triangular piece that's gonna go to the uh to the farm, and then this smaller triangular piece here, which is gonna go to the farm.

That'll leave you with a residential house line here that's uh existing, and that house has been there for I'm not gonna tell you how long, but it's been very long time, probably 60 years or more.

So the idea is that uh the property on Lawrence Road needed a little bit more land because they're gonna intend on building some kind of a garage or something, and they need they just want more land.

Uh and again, where they're family family members, they're willing to swap land with each other.

So basically, pretty simple land swap.

Um the uh residential property on um South Broadway is serviced by uh municipal sewer and water.

Uh the one on Lawrence Road has a uh individual septic system and water, but that does not require state subdivision because the lots actually getting bigger, so the state doesn't require that.

So we do meet all of the uh zoning regulations and I guess that's it.

Thank you.

Pretty straightforward plan.

Uh Jacob, any comments to add anything to add?

I don't really have anything to add to Mr.

Miser's presentation.

Uh recommendation would be that uh if your concerns are satisfied that you can move to here and one here and grant conditional approval, subject to conditions I can provide if anyone you'd like.

Sure, please.

Uh recommended conditions of approval would be one submit staff approvals.

This is prior to recording plan.

Two, set or bond monuments, and then under other three, all representations made by applicant or agents and all notes on the plan are incorporated as part of the approval.

Thanks.

Any public comments?

Any comments from the board?

Very good.

Mr.

Chair, I move to here in one hearing and grant conditional approval for lot line adjustment as submitted at 272 Lawrence Road and 423, 445 South Broadway, subject to the three conditions as outlined by Mr.

Lafontaine.

Second, nice.

Got a motion a second to um here the SDL Farm GDP property subdivision plan of one hearing and then that great conditional approval with the three conditions noted.

Further discussion on that.

All in favor, that's unanimous.

Thanks.

Very good.

Thank you.

We may have just broke a record.

Yeah.

We've got one more.

Um next item is uh Willows Park Inc.

site plan.

That's a public hearing for additional single family rental dwelling at nine Hampshire Street.

Uh the plan complete.

Yes, so plan's complete.

Ms.

Chair move the plan as complete.

Second.

Uh all in favor, unanimous aboters, please.

The butters are as follows.

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

There are North Associates, LLC, Willows Park, Inc.

Kaufman and Untied, Taro, Dan's, Sarno and Morass, Foss, Goule, Goule is here.

Uh Stum, Linear Retail Salem Number 1 LLC, Nolan, Jaya Giant Tyla and Cochilbian.

So it's Patel, and then another Patel, and that is all.

Um, thank you.

Uh to the um applicant to present the plan.

Sure.

Good evening.

My name is Anne Ainsley.

I'm an engineer for Miser Brem.

Uh, we were before this board, I think, in 2023.

Um, this is a property that had three multifamily apartment buildings on it that go back several decades.

We came here in 2023 to construct five single family houses on the same lot that was done by variants.

Um, what was unique about that project is they were single family houses that were rentals, so they were detached single family units that were rental.

We were trying to differentiate you know some of the housing options at that time, especially after COVID when prices were skyrocketing.

Um, all five have been built.

I think we're actually about to get the occupancy permit for the fifth one, or at least we're trying to.

Um, and since the project has been built and it's been pretty successful, there's some room in the front of the property where they could add a sixth unit.

So that's what we're here to ask for.

We did go to the zoning board, I believe, in October to get a variance for that sixth unit.

They did grant that variance.

Um, so we are proposing the sixth unit in the front of the property close to Hampshire Street.

Um it would be sort of on the corner of Hampshire Street and Morningside Court.

Morningside Court is the road that's internal to the site.

It would be the same unit, the same house as the other ones that were built.

Um it would have a drip trench around the roof for drainage, which I think was something the zoning board was looking for, and we did similar on the other units, and it would be connected into town water and town sewer.

Um it's pretty flat out there now, it's a field, so wouldn't be a whole lot of grading.

You could pretty much just pitch the driveway right up and put the slab right there without having to fill.

Um we are going to screen it so you could see along the perimeter of the plan.

There's some green shrubs that are shown uh that's to screen it from the neighbor.

And um we've located it.

There's some existing trees out there along Morningside Court.

We've located it to preserve those trees so they don't get disturbed.

Um that's the gist of the plans.

I'm happy to answer your questions.

Thanks.

Go to the planning department for step comments, please.

Uh so about too too much to add to Mr.

Ainsley's presentation.

They are proposing a six detached unit.

Uh, you previously approved five units back in July of 2023.

All of those, I think three of them are occupied, two are in the process of seeking occupancy, Mr.

LaChance paid impact fees for one this morning.

Um Mr.

Ainsley noted that they are going to preserve some of the uh mature vegetation, which we appreciate.

That's just shown here.

You've got some pretty uh it's certainly that silver maple uh is pretty mature, obviously, and then you get two other trees that they're also gonna preserve.

So we appreciate that, and they they've added those to the plan.

The house will be located in this general area here with a drive that will come in between these two trees, I believe.

Uh in terms of uh uh wetlands on site, I would just talk a little bit about an existing encroachment.

Uh we did have um, we have sent violation notices.

It's it's uh an encroachment that was done by the abutter at 5 Hampshire Street.

Uh I think that recently we sent a notice in December, and then we sent another notice as recently as maybe two weeks ago, I think, or within the last week, uh, because the uh abutter hasn't taken any application.

And I would acknowledge uh you know uh for the La Chance's sake that you know it's not uh an encroachment that they've can uh that they've done, but it's on their property.

So this was the property in uh 2005, and you can see this was 2008.

Uh so you can see pretty substantial encroachment into the wetland.

Um this is 2010, looks like they pulled it back a little bit and maybe did like a some kind of trench in uh to the rear of it.

And this is how it exists today.

This is uh March of 2025.

Um just for reference and relative in relation to the La Chance's property, the applicant's property, you know.

This is kind of the approximate property line in this location, and then you can see that encroachment over here.

Um staff's request tonight would be uh to add a note back to the plan that says encroachment to be removed.

That was shown.

I didn't put it in my slide, but it was shown in the 2000 um 23 plan.

So it said existing encroachment shall be removed.

Uh that was the plan for these five units that were uh uh already under construction, some of which are occupied.

So recommendation would be that we get that note back on the plan.

We'll continue to work with uh the applicant and the abutter to remove it.

It's about a uh 3,463 uh square foot encroachment into the wetland there.

Um so I wanted to apprise you of that and uh request that that note be back on the plan for this application.

In terms of drainage, the applicant has indicated that there are uh proposing drip line trenches along the perimeter of the new dwelling.

Uh they do have existing catch basins and those outlet to Hampshire Street.

Uh outside engineering approval hasn't been received for this uh application, but it was received in 2023 for the larger development in the back of the site.

Um it hasn't been recommended by the engineering division for the scope of this proposal because it's a single family rental.

Uh they're here before you tonight because it's a commercial property, obviously with a multifamily uses and now uh six single family rental units.

Uh they do have a driveway uh on Hampshire Street uh that will be I've got too many windows open here, um, on Hampshire Street.

That'll be about 70 feet from the intersection uh with um Morningside Court.

So they do show that that enters here.

Um the applicant has addressed some of the comments we had.

We asked the applicant to confirm that the driveway has a depth of 20 feet off Morningside Court.

They have added that to the current plan.

Uh there are impact fees, they'll pay uh $2,222 uh for the traffic impact fee for this unit.

Um we needed elevations.

The applicant, I think, confirmed that the elevations will be consistent with the 2023 uh uh elevations that are already constructed, so it'll mirror those same uh same same dwellings that already exist.

They do have the variance that was granted uh in October of 25, as Mr.

Ainsley noted that was uh approved with conditions uh including roof runoff shall be infiltrated, infiltrated, existing water and sew remains and proposed water and sewer services shall be shown on the plan, which I believe they've done now, and they have to record an amended deed restriction after legal review to be paid by the applicant.

Uh the applicant has proposed all of these as rental units, and that was a condition that the zoning board had required for the five house lots.

So there's a restrictive covenant that says these units shall not be converted to a conduit of a form of ownership, and we would carry that uh carry that over.

They would amend that restricted covenant to include the sixth unit.

As did I in terms of compliance, we discussed and reviewed the encroachment from Five Hampshire Street.

There are public safety impact fees that'll be due prior to occupancy as well as uh school rec and um uh school rack, public safety traffic.

Uh outside inspections that says that also inspections are required.

I don't know that engineering would require that.

That'd probably be something that we can handle at the staff level, but that could be covered under uh staff approvals.

Um so the proposed units use the existing dumpster on the property.

That was similar to what the other five units do.

And the applicant previously recorded that restricted covenant, that'll need to be amended.

Uh if the board's concerns are satisfied, recommendation would be um to grant conditional grant uh conditional approval subject to conditions I can provide if anyone you'd like.

Okay, well, you give us some conditions.

Uh recommended conditions would be prior to building permit one, submit staff approvals, two add uh existing encroachment shall be removed to the plan set.

Under three, prior to occupancy pay impact fee of nine thousand two hundred and eighty-one per unit.

Uh four, record deed restriction, dwelling to remain rental unit after legal review to be paid by applicant.

Five, provide certified as built site plan.

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

Uh there should probably actually be a maybe that's seven.

There might be an eighth one that would just say that all conditions associated with the July 11th, 2023 approval remained in full force in effect as to carry over that uh those previous conditions.

So eight conditions.

Eight conditions, yep.

Thanks.

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

Please name it, name and address for the record.

Steve Goulet, 12th Pond Street.

And I would ask you to reject this application till they finish the previous one.

Originally they wanted 11 houses, then they settled with five with the town with the understanding they were going to put the retention pond back in.

They didn't fill in their land, but since they filled in that land's been filled in, my land keeps getting uh flooded out in the back.

I just talked to his son, he suddenly worried about insurance because uh there's a car locked there now, and he's worried about somebody sliding on ice and falling in.

So I mentioned to him like they did on House Street, they put a fence around it.

Because as of right now, they've had no intention of had all some along, it could have been dug out, and nothing's been done with it.

So that's what I ask you.

And to be honest with you, I have some pictures here taken a few days ago.

Uh there's been actually some gravel added to it.

It's more level now than what it was before.

I have to pick to see if you'd like me to bring them up to you.

Is this the lot?

Uh this is we had the but Mr.

Goulet, can you uh bring them like well?

I'll bring them up to the board if you want to speak to the mics or recording secretary.

I'm sorry, what was the question?

The pick these are the pictures of the lot.

These are the pictures right here where the uh pawn used to be.

Is it on five Hampshire Street?

Do you think or is it?

Yes, five Hampshire Street originally filled it all in.

The town has the pictures of everything.

And uh show us some of that, Jacobs.

Yeah, let me see if I can pull it in that uh but as it is now, it floods out my backyard.

When they first uh filled it in, we lost trees and everything back there, but the state made them to get big sum of it back out, but now it looks as though uh some gravel was added back there.

So uh Mr.

Gooley, uh you probably can't uh it in this general area is where you observed additional gravel.

I'm sorry.

The photos that you took were they taken in this area here to the rear of five Hampshire?

Yes.

Yes, right, yeah, right in through there.

And where is your house?

Go straight back right there.

Go out to Pond Street.

Which address are you, Mr.

Goul?

Number 12.

So 12 is this one here.

So the other thing is.

And number 14 goes back there too.

So yeah, the encroachment is in this area, and Mr.

Goulet's house is this lot here.

Um the houses were built in the 40s, and we never had this problem up until it got filled in.

Mr.

Goulet, would you mind stepping uh pointing to where the pictures were taken, please?

This is the uh lot here, right?

That's correct.

So yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So just for our recording secretary, uh Mr.

Goulet stated it was they were taken in this general area to the rear of Blue House Pizza.

Anything we can do about that, Jacob now.

Um we're working hard and our code enforcement officers working very hard to resolve it.

Um obviously it's difficult because the applicant here it's on their property and they obviously bear some responsibility, but they're certainly not the ones that that did it.

So uh, you know, we have sent notices to the uh abutter at 5 Hampshire.

We've copied the applicant on that, and we have talked uh to the applicant's credit, we've talked with them uh at length about you know what they could do to address it short of potentially ex excavating themselves.

Um you know, obviously we prefer to uh avoid that obviously because the la chances aren't the ones who uh conducted the activity.

Um we we can continue filled it in.

Uh 5 Hampshire Street.

Oh, okay.

So if you s um this is the location of five, and you can see that they're utilizing it for parking and uh they think there's other store other items on there as well.

So the la chances don't really have access.

Uh this is all wet here, so it's kind of you know, uh bisected by the wetland between their parking lot in this area here.

Um you know, we've discussed a couple options and uh I think we continue to work with uh the applicant to try to address it, whether you know the applicant had raised potentially putting a fence up along their lot line to prevent you know for further utilization by the abutter.

Uh they talked about potentially removing it themselves.

Um we also talked about trying to work with the uh the person who violated the ordinance to try to get them to address it, which would be the ideal scenario.

That's where the violation notices are currently going.

So I I think Oh, so you you the town is sending out violation notices?

Yeah, yes, we are.

We we have two that come about from this application application?

No, there's a history, so that I think the town's been aware of the encroachment, and there's been a lack of response, I think, to date.

Um the applicant went to the ZBA maybe a couple years ago, and the ZBA declined to hear their application because of this encroachment.

Um at the end of the 5 Hampshire Street.

At 5 Hampshire Street.

At the end of the day, we we just want it to be resolved.

I I think the applicant for their sake too uh wants it to be resolved.

And you know, it is on their property, and uh I'm not gonna speak for the applicant, but you know, they I assume they probably don't want this activity on on their property.

And um I think just to have it shown back, which is what it was shown on the 2023 plan as I I think I showed you that, it just said encroachment shall be removed, existing encroachment shall be removed.

Uh so again, this is the 23 plan.

I would ask that that note be carried back over, and then we would continue to work with the applicant.

Um, there will there was some uh some staff members who felt that this should be resolved prior to their final occupancy, they have you know, two more house lots.

I could see a strict interpretation, a strict application that would do that.

My preference would be to avoid that, that you know, now that they're doing a sixth unit, that would kind of allow us not a lot of time, but some additional time.

I would maybe ask the board that we grant the uh occupancy for the two units.

Uh they're looking for four and five, and then you know, work with the applicant and the abutter to address this.

Condition the occupancy of uh the sixth unit on the uh removal of the encroachment?

We could, yeah.

I mean it is it is their property.

I hate to to do that to the uh uh property owner, but I mean uh at at the end of the day, uh it's been there for almost you know going on 20, almost 20 years if you look at the 2008 to some extent.

Actually, it may be a little more recent than that, because 2008 was the aerial that didn't show the encroachment.

So at some point after two thousand eight's when they started to do the do the work.

Um so I guess that's what my hope would be is that we would continue to work at the applicant who to their credit has worked with us to date, and then uh the abutter who has not, you know, who's really the one who's uh conducted the activity but has not um resolved it.

So this is 2000 April of 2008, looks like when they began to do the encroachment.

Uh they brought it in a little bit in 2010.

This is uh current day, so you can still see it's maybe not to the extent where they graded, uh, but it is still there.

Um so I just couldn't imagine not knowing where my land is and just doing work on somebody else or knowing what I was carrying.

Well he's carrying the right.

That's why I think that's a good idea.

Yeah.

Did you have something, Jim Tad?

Yes.

He said at the time.

Well, one second, Mr.

Unless I'm do you want to do that.

Mr.

Goy go ahead.

Uh Nolan told us at the time when he was filling it all in.

We didn't know.

He said it was his land and he was gonna fill it all in and make it so the neighbors could get to their backyard because he was renting out his uh yard because uh had for trucks.

So they would dump in a lot of stuff to stay in the town have pictures of it all.

And uh after the trees come down on our property and everything came down on the boat, went to talk to him and he told us where to go.

And he wasn't gonna do anything.

And since then the backyard's been wet.

Jacob, so uh so going back to 2023 when the applicant that's before us now submitted uh request for uh to add what five houses?

Yeah.

And and how was this um invasion into the into the wetlands?

How is that tied to that that approval in 2023?

Well, it was shown on the approved plan uh just the way this is the actual plan from 2023 that was presented to the planning board.

So if you look here, it identifies the existing encroachment, which is identified on the plan that's been submitted today or for today's meeting, and it had this note that said existing encroachment shall be removed.

Uh so that was in uh July of 2023 when you approved this plan.

You know, we're so almost three years ago that was the request.

Right.

Yeah.

Um it still exists today, it has not been addressed.

Correct, yeah.

Yeah.

Um so I don't know why we would uh extend any other uh things to this applicant when they haven't corrected the issue that they were asked to correct.

No, compliance of the plan.

So you so you're saying for the existing units you feel you find they're not in compliance and that you wouldn't allow this to reset.

Should they rip them down for them with supposed to be?

No, they uh they wouldn't re I mean it would be a condition uh precedent, you know, so you prior to occupancy uh it would be removed, which was some of the uh discussion at the staff level.

And for the other two?

So right now they're using two that don't have occupancy.

So yeah, they have occupancy for these three, and then they're looking for occupancy, you know, probably pretty soon within the next week or so, if not sooner, uh, for these two.

You know, some of the discussion was that uh sorry, this unit's not shown because this is the 23 plan, you know, that this unit would kind of reset that uh potentially so that we could issue COs for these two units as the applicant, the town and the abutter work through the encroachment.

What what is the removal the uh that wetland re uh encroachment removal consist of?

It would probably be replication.

Yeah, so it would probably be uh it would obviously escapate the fill and then they would have to do some kind of uh replication plan uh or restoration.

You know, how are they gonna, you know, plant in probably and then you know, I guess we'd want to look at the historical photos and just see, you know, see approximately how far the encroachment exists.

You know, it might not necessarily be that it's just up to the applicant's uh property, maybe they've you know need to even remove beyond that.

So and you were working on this, you guys were working on this before the plan came?

Uh yeah, so we've sent emails as re or sorry, letters as recent as December of 25, and then we sent another one, uh, I think was maybe within the last week or two.

Um at one point I did talk with an engineering firm that the abutter uh had consulted with, but I don't think there's been any movement since that time.

That was probably soon after that December violation notice was sent.

Um but it's you know, at the staff level.

Uh I don't think we've got any other correspondence from the abutter, the applicant I've been in frequent communication with.

Okay.

How would that change the water profile?

Is there a way to know we uh Didn't say pipe data goes out to 28?

Yeah, I mean uh I imagine it would increase capacity, I guess, because right now you got 35 ish, you know, 100 square feet of uh of fill, and um I don't know if it would solve all the sure drainage problems of the abutters uh raisin, but I mean I imagine it would increase capacity and if you restore it and have some uh vegetation there might help too with the recharge.

Makes sense.

Yeah, so just a bit confused here.

So we're looking at this map, right?

This Jacob right here.

That's correct.

That's the overview plan.

So the three yellow apartment buildings, they're on Morning Court, whatever, right?

Morningside Court.

Yep.

Okay.

This property that's listed as being on Hampshire Street, but the access is all on Morningside Court.

Is this the same owner as those three apartment buildings that wants to do that?

Yeah, it's all one lot.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So if you look at the termination, it'd probably help a little bit when you look at Map Geo, because it lights up the whole lot.

Unfortunately, Map Geo is not updated, but those five units are back here under construction.

I can drive by there every day.

Yeah, I know what it is and where it is.

My question is why aren't they just accessing onto Hampshire Road?

They can do that by right, correct?

They are accessing onto I don't see that there.

I see it on Morning Side Court.

Where is the driveway?

Well, Morningside Court is this private drive here.

Yeah.

And then Morningside Court terminates at Hampshire Street, and then they have they they can access Hampshire here.

The applicant, uh, if you're talking about the the abutter, the abutter has access also on Hampshire Street, but they they don't they can't uh get between the two of them because there's wetland in between.

Is that what you're no?

I'm talking about right here.

Right?

Where's Hampshire Street here?

Uh it's hard.

Let me pull up that plan.

Here, right?

It's on the list.

So why don't they just access it right here instead of going down Morningside Court?

Oh, oh, you're talking about this the driveway.

Yeah, they're they're they're calling it Hampshire Street.

It's not Hampshire Street.

Hold on a second, Mr.

Angela.

Our preference would be to have the site drive onto Morningside Court because you don't want trips on the primary road.

So you you I mean you still have trips, but when people when traffic is exiting, you want it to exit onto Hampshire, sorry, Morning Side Court, not Hampshire Street.

Is that what you're asking?

Yes.

Yes.

So the the staff preference would be to have it where it's proposed.

Yeah, that would be especially because we're trying to keep this all internal, one property, sort of one development, one owner.

All these units are accessed off of Morningside Court, just the overall property fronts on Hampshire Street.

Okay, so you're not gonna sell that property to someone to live there.

You're gonna rent the property.

Correct.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

And that whether it comes here or here wouldn't change the approvals needed.

It would be the same use of the same property.

The only difference would be the the driveway location.

Thank you.

Do you have something else for a little crisis?

I do.

Um I if the applicant could just speak to what uh what they have done to entice or force five to you know get rid of the encroachment.

Between the time this was originally approved and now.

Okay.

Uh good evening again.

My name is Kurt Meiser with MizerPram.

So I just want to make certain a couple of things are clear here.

The owner of this property did not fill any wetlands.

The owner of five Hampshire did.

They did that some 20 something years ago.

The issues have been we've tried to work that out over time and um rebuffed it each of the attempts to do that.

Um, obviously, because that person at five would lose a bunch of his parking lot that he put into the wetlands.

Um there would be some let's call them legal issues that go along with this.

Um and I I would say that for our owner to just go out there and just tear it up and rip it away.

Uh that could be considered someone's property, someone's personal property.

Someone's personal property.

I put the pavement down, is that what's that?

The owner's property, right?

Well, it's on the owner's land.

Yeah.

But the fill and the pavement that they put down was at the abutter's expense and could be considered a violation of that person's poor property.

So they've been trying to work that out.

I had made the suggestion that where that had been filled so long ago that it may be that it would be prudent now to we could grant an easement over that portion of the property, just leave the pavement as it sits right now and not go in there and degrade the edge of that wetland any further.

Or the board can push that to be removed.

But I would say that there's gonna have to be some kind of legal wrangling between you know the two owners, and you know, you just can't you just can't go out and start digging up someone's parking lot.

Sure.

So here's a thought on it.

Look, we this was approved and conditioned on that being fixed, and it was known.

Um we we believe, based on Mr.

Goulette's uh statements that that is uh you know causing wreaking water havoc on his property.

Um so my question is the the applicant knew they were aware of access was difficult, aware that um it existed and it was a condition of approval.

What has been done?

Like what what did the applicant believe was going to happen there?

Well, so I was involved with the original approval, and in fact, when the abutter talks about the wetland flooding his house, his house is some 400 feet away, it accesses a different property.

The topography, he he's some 10, 15 feet higher than this area.

This area doesn't flood his property.

That water that's in at his property is coming from across the street and down.

Um and that was banged around the first time we went through.

Um we had hoped that along the way we would have a cooperative uh neighbor, or maybe they would feel some shame or some obligation to uh to fixing to remedying that situation.

Uh that's not the case.

So what I would be concerned about now is to hold it against our applicant for what someone else did to his property.

And so they can still try to push forward, maybe with a little bit of help from the town, maybe the town's attorney might throw a letter in and and help them out.

Um, but um, you know, I I just I feel like it's a hardship to we'll try, as we have, but this is a hardship that was uh signed up for that was conditioned that we agreed to, but I just if I may, just to uh Mr.

Goulette, if you could come forward, um can you just respond to the statement from Mr.

Meisner uh who doesn't know what's going on?

Who knows topography pretty well and has a pretty good opinion.

From there and came up towards my house.

I have a some pine trees, perfect low.

It during a snowstorm because of all the water and the flooding that trees were coming over, and we had to go out there, cut the trees from the boat, use a come along, get boards to put under we had to move the boat 24 feet.

So the water is definitely coming from the back yard.

Okay.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Gillette.

Till here it was filled in, we never had a problem there.

All right.

You know, it was probably I I would think about 2008, maybe 2009.

Well, it's only a few years old, I believe, at the time.

Um can the advocate do wetland perform a wetland mitigation in a different area?

Uh like the same area.

I don't know if they really have to satisfy that condition.

I don't know that they really have room uh with the site's kind of built out.

I mean, maybe in this area, maybe uh thank you, Mr.

Goulet.

Or maybe back here.

But there potentially.

That so the the last thing I have is for Mr.

Lafontaine.

I um I don't often criticize in public, or I try not to, but the I'm a little concerned here that this is project has been going on and we're only like our first violation notice was sent to them at the end of last year.

And I guess my continuance so one, I think the town is probably started a little late here in addressing the issue.

The second thing I'd ask is what is the how can the town resolve this as you know what what are our steps as the town uh how much pressure can we apply?

Well, ultimately you'd have to take them to court likely.

You know what I mean?

So we we've sent a couple of violation notices.

Um I think there's a history of violation notices too, but dating back to the 2008, I'd have to look at that.

And I'd want to confirm with Mr.

McDowell that we haven't sent anyone prior to the December one, but it could be the case that we didn't send a violation notice until uh this past December, which I understand uh, you know, if the plan was approved in 23, uh I acknowledge that it should have been done sooner if we hadn't.

Um so generally our our uh code enforcement processes will send uh three notices from the town, and then you get your third and final violation notice.

And if you're non-responsive to that, then we would uh potentially reach out to the town attorney and have the town attorney send it from their office uh in consultation with the town manager's office, and then we would kind of go from there.

So it would really depend um, you know, one uh you know how strongly the town feels that this needs to be addressed.

And in in most cases, you have an applicant that comes to the table.

The only sign of assurance I've seen in this instance was that I talked with an engineering firm, you know, so if you at least reach out to an engineer and firm and said, hey, what can I do to resolve this?

Um that's really uh the extent of it.

Um so to your question, code enforcement can be pretty arduous.

It could it's time consuming and often involves uh you know going to court.

And I also recognize that you were undermanned in the or under staff in the uh zodin.

Uh that maybe some additional resources from the town might help uh these types of scenarios.

Um, you know, I my my last thing is just that it it appears as though legal that what the uh you know it seems to me legal action on the part of the applicant to ensure that a condition um you know was met uh at some point between now and then would have been an order.

Um it's you know, if now we're facing a situation where the the owner can't access it because they'd have to go over the uh uh or the applicant would not be able to access their own property to to remedi remediate this issue.

Um and the town would be forced to drive up our costs and our expense, you know, involving a lawyer.

Um I I'm I'm interested in tr in the truth on whether or not that is creating water uh um you know, at at 12 Pond Street for Mr.

Goulette.

Um I I know Ethan had it or we filled it in?

Yeah.

So I I don't know.

I'm I'm just gonna I'm well thinking out loud, I apologize.

The applicant is not meeting the condition from the first plan, so uh it's still the same property.

Um I don't know.

I my thought is just condition the um uh that encroachment to be that that condition that condition from this uh from that previous plan on this plan too.

Okay, that would give the sorry Mr.

Chair, yeah.

Uh it would give the uh uh applicant an opportunity and the town an opportunity to resolve it um and I think in the end term if the board would be okay, I guess we would hold them to that sixth unit instead of the fifth if you're okay with it.

And then again, that would that would allow some additional time for all parties.

I think you should look into w what uh uh wetland mitigation in a different area and for the same for the same square footage.

Okay.

Are we allowed to condition uh that the applicant takes leg legal measures?

So the town isn't paying for this.

I don't think so, yeah.

Okay.

All right.

So if we don't do anything, will they have to go do something legally to do that?

I mean, I think this this is kind of like making the situation even worse than it exists today, and it doesn't make sense to me.

Yeah, my opinion.

My recommendation was just to put the same note back on the plan that says existent encroachment shall be removed, and that would allow us again an opportunity.

You could reinforce that with a specific condition that states that prior to occupancy of the sixth unit uh the encroachment shall be removed or uh you know that condition needs to be met.

What I'd like to see is the condition on this plan is that condition needs to be met.

It's the same law.

So that should be added back to the plan.

Yeah and it should be listed as a condition of approval.

So in addition to the eight, you would have a ninth condition that says prior to occupancy, uh existent encroachment shall be removed.

Yeah.

And then we could work with the applicant and the abutter uh, you know, during the construction of of this sixth unit to either come up with a plan to remove it or to come up with a mitigation plan or replication.

That works.

We would be okay with that that square footage that um uh of wetland area.

Yeah, I think the only thing I would just say there is I I think that it uh wetland replication is two for two to one, but uh you know, we'll we'll figure it out with them.

I just didn't want them to say, oh well planning board told us it was one for one, but yeah.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

I I'm still at a bit of a loss here.

So when this was approved almost three years ago, and that was a condition to rectify it, what was the trigger point for that to be enforced because they've already built what, four units, five units, so when you and three are occupied, so what does this all mean?

Uh and it's something we could revisit, but planning board past practice typically for a phase development would be that you know we would work with the applicant and reason to address something prior to either final occupancy or the last half of occupancy, depending on how many units they have.

So in this instance, we issued CO for three units.

Uh we do we still have four and five, the the other two units that have not been issued a CO yet.

If they weren't seeking a sixth unit, I guess then you could either say, hey, you can occupy maybe four, but you need to have a plan before you occupy five.

You know, I mean i you're right, the trigger would be now.

Uh this will allow me but of course if they weren't submitting a request for an additional unit, they would be forced to do something right now that they haven't done so far in order to be able to get occupancy for those last two buildings that they want in the next week to ten days.

And and what we're gonna do is let them have another chance to take their time to do it while they build a sixth unit and give them occupancy for the last two that they haven't earned because they didn't fulfill the conditions of the plan.

That's what this is how I read the situation, so tell me where I'm wrong.

I I think what you've outlined is accurate.

Um in a lot of instances we try to work with the applicant, but you know, I guess the hard line stance would be, hey, it needs to be done now.

Uh but you know, I I think there might be, I hope that there is room.

I mean, it hasn't happened the last three years, but uh obviously the applicant, we've had significantly more conversations with the applicant as of late than we had in the past, and the abutter hasn't been responsive beyond the engineering firm.

But that would be one path of compromise to say you can occupy these, but you can't occupy that final one.

You could take a hard line approach and say no, it was conditioned in 23 and needs to be addressed now.

I don't want to compromise any more.

I think the hard line approach is the only way to go.

It's the fairest thing to do.

Could I make a suggestion maybe in that if we were to condition the approval on the occupancy of the sixth unit, we could move ahead with the fourth and the fifth unit.

We'd come back to the board within, let's say three months, to give you an update on what legal steps we've taken to address this situation, or whether we were able to do a mitigation plan for the wetlands one way or the other.

And I'm just saying three months because I think lawyers work slow.

Um engineers work a little bit faster.

So potentially, you know, we could come back and say to you, we've got a mitigation plan.

Um, but you have to understand, please, that he can't just drive an excavator over this guy's parking lot and just pull in and ripping it out.

Well, and it hasn't been done.

It's been there's been discussion about what was gonna happen.

And if you heard uh I don't know if it's goulet.

He said they talked to him back then and the guy told them uh take a hike.

So seems to be a little bit of a pattern.

Um but again uh this gives the board some leverage, it gives them an opportunity, gives our client an opportunity to we could come back, maybe we come back in a month from now and say, hey, we got a mitigation plan all set, or hey, we're going to court in six months from now because that's the best we can do.

Um, I I I feel like it's a little bit unjust to take it out on this applicant.

I I understand there's been time.

Um, but uh you know, like I said, legal things work slowly and uh we'll make every attempt that we can to resolve the issue in one way or another.

And uh a mitigation plans feels easier to me because I feel like I can go to the office tomorrow and work on it, that I can't go over to Five Hampshire and grab the guy by the arm and say, hey, I'm going in the backyard with an excavator and too bad for you.

He said, I'm going in the backyard with a dirt and pavement and too bad for you, Mr.

Lachance.

We're doing it.

And so we were violated.

And you know, we're trying to find a way out of that.

Mr.

Chile, you just have to speak at the microphone.

But uh Kurt, what does the construction timeline for this unit?

Do you know?

This unit?

Yeah.

Well, I mean, I guess I would tell you that it would take it probably takes six months to get it to completion.

Maybe not six months, but is m is Mr.

Lachance.

Are you is he looking for a permit like, you know, I mean it is I would say looking to construct it this year.

Okay.

I was just trying to think about consuming.

And that's why I suggested three months I come back to the board and tell you where we're at.

And I was just trying to figure a trigger uh and it doesn't sound like it'd be prior to building permit because prior to building permit probably wouldn't work with your construction.

I would tell you the if we do it legally, there's no way that's gonna happen before a building.

For well, for a a plan, I guess here not to be to be resolved.

Say wait.

But so you know, prior to building permit, you could present uh a plan to the board of how it's gonna be resolved and what your update is.

I I I guess I would say we could well I I know league if we do it the legal way, if we're ripping it out, I'm not gonna be able to do that before a building permit.

If we do a mitigation plan, I would be able to do that.

I guess we could if the board's comfortable with it, you could look for an update prior to building permit, and then if I build and permit, you know, you maybe you'll have a little bit more information of which path you think is more likely, and then at that point if you if the board needs a uh update in three months or a month, uh right now I'll tell you it feels to me better to do a mitigation plan because I feel like I can go to the office tomorrow and start working on it.

I can't get a judge to hear a case.

Was it you is the town gonna be okay with that, Jacob?

Are you gonna be okay with that?

Is the town gonna be okay with that?

Well, that's satisfy the you know.

Um I guess it's up to the planning board if it's satisfying.

But they would provide an update to the board prior to the building permit.

Well, I I think we you'd still keep the same uh condition that prior to occupancy that they would remove the encroachment, but they would provide you an update prior to issuance of building permit just to kind of have a trigger, because otherwise it's you know, the building permit is a very easy trigger.

They're gonna they submit the building permit.

I say, okay, you know, what do you have for the mitigation plan, bring it back to you if you're satisfied for you know the direction they're heading in, I would sign off on it.

But it would give us it would give the applicant a little bit of opportunity to figure out, you know, maybe they can go back to the abutter and you know, there's pressure obviously from the town.

There's presumably pressure from the applicant because it's an encroachment on their property.

We might know more at that time if and then still hold it to occupancy that we'd still anticipate it'd be removed.

Um some way prove that that is not creating the issue on the abutters.

Creating the the water issue.

Well, I can give you elevations of his property and this property down here and tell you if that was flooded by 15 feet of water, Methuan Lawrence all the way down a new report would be gone.

You know, it's just not happening.

We did bang that around a lot.

When we we if you I don't know if you folks we did a duplex up top, and we did the duplex first.

That was uh when all of this stuff fluffed up.

Um Jacob, I I don't know if um conditioning it uh a wetland mitigation prior to um building permit would be sufficient.

I think it should be done.

Um like it should be done, not bringing a present the plan to a mitigation plan to the planning board.

I think it just should be done before there's any any building permit issued.

Yeah, I mean I guess because you know the board it seems the board's in agreement here with it's been three years to satisfy that condition, and you know, it's and I understand we have the challenges of it, but still, I mean we we were here for two minutes and then we we came up with an idea to have a wetland mitigation, right?

So what in lieu of you know for the same amount of square footage in lieu of removing that.

Yeah, one thing you could do is you could continue the plan and allow the applicant to come back to you if you know some of these questions answered.

Um that'd be an option.

Yeah, it's probably a good idea because I don't think any of the votes anyways.

Okay.

Great.

Um I don't know how the board feels about that.

I think three years is a long time, and things should have been happening during that time.

It didn't.

Yeah, I'm not gonna ram it up uh the town's nose right now.

I don't think it's just yeah.

I I think in the interest of getting two additional uh residential units online and housing.

I I think I would be in favor of um uh conditioning the uh the sixth house uh maintaining the financial incentive for um for them for the uh applicant to resolve it.

Um disappointed that it we're at this point, but we're here, but I I I just wouldn't want to hold up two two units coming online.

Uh I think there's two people ready to move it.

Right.

Well uh you don't think you well I don't know uh I don't think we can have the votes um because it's three three people up here.

Yeah, I guess I think you can have the votes.

I think uh I think a continuance my my suggestion is to work with the town and then bring us something on uh mitigation for the um on how that um condition can be met for um the plan comes back with that sure if we decide to continue it.

Yeah, uh it just one question for you when I suggest, or maybe Mr.

Norcross suggested a mitigation plan that doesn't do anything for and I'm gonna call it a violation of Mr.

La Chance's property, nor you know, so the abutter quote just does what he does, and the parking is there and the in the wetland filling is there.

So we're talking about mitigation in lieu of that.

So that stays it is I would tell you that we would seriously try to do some kind of easement on that and still get them to take it out.

We'll still try.

Um because it's just not right.

You know, you can just can't go fill somebody's property in and stop parking on it because I think we all agree with that.

You know, yes, we do.

And that's that's where we're at.

So yeah.

So yeah, I work with the town on um on that.

Yeah, we'd love to get the town's help because uh they can just thumb their nose to us and and that's that.

Well, that's not quite true.

I I I just I would quibble with that just a little bit, Mr.

Meisner.

You have the same legal rights to your own property that the town would enforce, and in fact, you have the financial interest in order to spend the money to do it where the town is spending money.

So I we're ending up in the same place, but I I just want to just be clear that my expectation would be the applicant who has the financial incentive, you know, should be spending the money to deal with that.

Yes.

Okay, what do we want to do?

Continue.

Mr.

Chair, I move to continue.

Yeah, second.

Yes, motion a second.

Do you anybody want to discuss anything on that?

Just one more one question for Mr.

Meisner.

Um I can recollect it.

I mean you would quote me if I'm wrong or not.

The the water in this wetland is coming up from the north.

It's coming onto your onto your client's property.

It's not coming from your clients properly.

Correct.

So it's coming from Pawn Street down.

Correct.

It comes from Pond Street down and then out to Hampshire.

Where the encroachment is in the wetland filling is downstream right of Pond Street.

So if I recommend record when you put the duplicate up there on Pond Street, we had that arm that continued down and it mitigated down to the east part of that that wetland area for our mitigation at that point too.

Um I'm just trying to figure out if a if a chunk of that corner was taken out to add to add to the wetland to mitigate that.

Yeah.

If the water is coming in, we had the same situation years and years ago when we when the town took the trailer park on 28 and and and dug that all out because the water was coming across the 28.

We dug it out.

What and what happened to that is gonna stay, I think it's gonna happen to this as well.

What it does, it fills up and becomes a sponge, and that and that area just fills up for all water and it keeps on going, keeps on filling because it doesn't have an outlet big enough.

Now it won't keep on filling.

The water travels through.

It'll keep it.

But it'll fill that spot and then it'll travel through.

It won't come up in elevation.

All right, so you so it won't come up in elevation.

It won't come up.

It won't come up in elevation.

All right.

Um that's where I'm at too to continue it.

Okay, thank you.

Uh so uh discussion motion.

Yes.

Uh so I would now that a motion's been made, I just want to speak openly.

I would I am gonna speak against my motion.

I I really would like I I really think this should be approved.

Let these guys let these two, you know, if we continue this, that holds up two units, two people moving into rental units for when's the next time that we can hear this in two weeks, or would it be well it doesn't hold up those two rental units.

Well, they don't have certificate of occupancy.

Yes, the board would have to maybe separate from your motion that you currently have, you know, we would maybe have to ask you if you're comfortable with issuing uh COs for those two units.

Um the applicant works through the items on the sixth unit.

I'm not no so I uh and when's the the next hearing that they would be able to go to the beginning of May?

It'd be May 12th because they need to have a revised materials in 15 days in advance, which would have been yesterday.

Yeah.

So what we're at risk of doing here, what I think the the practical terms of it is is that we're gonna hold up these two for another month.

Um you know, people moving into these units for a month for an issue that can't even be resolved between now and then.

And we fault is that right.

It is the applicant's fault, but yes, it is.

Yeah, and they came that's the question approval for something where they didn't meet the conditions of approval.

Yeah, that's the big issue here.

Right.

And so they're asking us to forget about that or kick it down the road so that we can do something for the next one.

Right.

But we could be back here in six months and they still haven't done it, and the guy's unreasonable and he won't talk to us and how about if we do this.

How about if I'll make the suggestion of a motion that if if we were to get a conditional approval tonight, hold up the building permit so we can't get started, and we'll come back to you on May whatever.

What did you say?

May 12th is the next meeting of continued item to go.

And show it to you folks, and the town will in effect be in control of that sixth unit that would be more financial incentive to the client to push that along.

And I'm not saying that's not why he didn't it's not done.

He did attempt, but um if you were to do that, I would agree with Damon.

Those two units could get moved along.

He have a unit in hand, the board would be holding a permit, and we'll come back to you.

I'm going on a limb on May 12th with the plan of what to do.

Yeah, I I appreciate that.

The problem is that you're not gonna have any votes because it's a split board up here.

Is this the six it's even board, there's six members, and I don't think the board I know I know exactly what you're trying to do.

I'm just telling you what's telling you the reality of what's gonna happen.

Is it's you're not gonna have enough votes, and then yeah, so your best bet is a continuance, is what I'm saying.

Yeah, if you were gonna vote to deny the plan, I would tell you that it'd be crazy to us.

We'll continue.

However, as an alternative to that, uh conditional approval would we can come back to you on the 12th with something else.

Yeah, this is a very forgiving board and a very forgiving town, as you know.

I'm just saying, as as all the times that I've presented plans and and been on that side of the podium.

Uh if a condition hadn't been met in three years, there is not one municipality that I have gone in front of that would find that acceptable as been and that is forgiving assailant.

And as you know, Salem is a very, very forgiving town.

Um so with that, we have a motion, a second to continue the plan.

Any further discussion?

All the favor.

So I think just need the feedback is we need a mitigation plan on and an update on what's happening with the town and then be a butter, and if there's going to be a wetland replication, whatever the plan may be, it needs to come.

Uh that'll I think that'll satisfy the board here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Public matters.

Yeah, I've got a handful of public matters.

Um, this is uh 15 Armour Road.

The board was really excited that we're gonna be out of here real quick.

Yeah, I know.

I've got quite a few actually.

Um this one I I've got a couple that are pretty easy.

This is 15 Armour Road, uh, place to grow, it's a daycare there.

The state licensing is changed so that you can now, without really making any modifications, you can now have an increased enrollment.

So they can now uh I think have an additional five students based off of our parking calculations.

That's almost you know one space.

So I'd ask them, hey, has there been any changes uh at this multi-tenant site?

This is where Moose uh ice cream is uh that would accommodate your increase and your uh increased demand of one space.

They said that Easter seals used to be located at this location, and it's uh they uh had services that they'd have uh a number of uh clients, and that's converted over to a uh service use, uh salon, I think.

So it does ultimately result in a uh increase in their parking ratio or sorry, a decrease in their parking ratio.

So I imagine the board would be okay with them increasing by five students.

We saw a similar application on Styles Road, same ex same explanation.

Oh, yeah, right, right.

Yeah, um 11 manor parkway.

This one's pretty minor for the most part.

Uh I think building and fire are gonna look at it a little bit closer because they want to uh relocate an egress store.

So right now, it's might be easier to look at this.

Right now they have an egress door here and a catwalk, and they want to remove the catwalk, close this in, make it a window, and then relocate that egress door to the front uh because it's a change to their exterior facade.

Uh would be under the board's purview to weigh in on.

Um, but relatively minor change.

Yeah.

All right.

Uh this is uh you uh your role as a planning board, you have a uh advisory role uh on municipal projects.

This is the hedgehog hedgehog park pavilion.

They want to put a new 3,000 square foot shelter.

So uh we overlaid an old plan that we had on file.

This was the existing shelter, they're gonna uh overlay it with a 50 by 60, so much larger uh shelter, but kind of holding that same setback from Hedgehog Pond itself.

Um just wanted to bring it to your attention uh municipal project, so you can make advisory recommendations, but I'm sure we all appreciate the improvements to the recreation.

It's not it's not us as parking, right?

No, the parking, they've got a parking field to the front and side to the west, yeah, right here, and then this is their other parking.

Right.

So they made a lot of improvements over there, and this was one of them.

Um 15 Charlie Lane uh was approved as uh with a condition that says any proposed use other than warehouse and requires further approval from the planning board.

The applicant submitted uh application and noted that they might have a future showroom.

So I'd ask for some clarification on what a future showroom would entail.

Uh ultimately uh I went out today and I guess I just realized I didn't send the photos.

Um but ultimately it's uh like a TV where they would display product side and and shingles and they have a conference table there.

Uh the rest of the space would be a warehouse, and um whether initially I thought it was maybe like a wholesale.

He doesn't he said it's really not even that, it's more so he's got warehouse and somebody wanted to come and look at product.

My only thought would maybe be that it would constitute office space, but they removed the mezzanine office, so their office space is uh is under what was approved by the board anyway.

So uh comfortable with that.

I don't have any issues with the uh it doesn't sound like okay.

Yeah, I just said we'll be offering meetings, potential buyers, no transactions.

Yeah, uh similarly the other tenant was for uh restaurant equipment store, so this is commercial restaurant equipment.

They also came in with uh area identified on their plan of showroom.

I don't think showrooms quite the right turn uh term.

I might just ask them to modify that.

But I went out today and you know it's uh commercial refrigerators, it's uh the uh you know where your bar can uh contents would be.

I don't know what you call that area behind the bar where uh they work out of, but it's all commercial equipment.

And uh it says that on occasion a customer may stop by by appointment only to view a specific large item before it's shipped.

Um so again, I was out there again today, and uh, you know, it's not like a I don't know, frigid air or you know, like it's not a personal refrigerator, it's commercial.

It's pretty common photo.

Yeah, so I just wanted to make sure because again uh when I initially saw it, I said showroom's not generally consistent with the warehouse use, but uh it did look reasonable when I went out there and maybe we just have them clarify that it's it's not really display, it's a warehouse that I guess you could come and look at your your commercial fridge.

Another municipal project uh or municipal site, uh, wanted to mostly just make you aware of this.

I guess Miles for Moms is gonna be at the Field of Dreams, it's a 5K and vendor market.

Uh not so much concerned about the 5K.

I'm sure police and uh police will probably look at that in terms of their circulation, but uh it's a little bit different than what they typically do with the concert series, they're gonna have vendors throughout the field of dreams park, kind of have like a event that goes back there.

Should be a good event, but just wanted to bring it to you because they've applied for a temporary event permit.

That's nice.

Good.

Um this one I don't know that really needs to be here, but uh in years past they haven't applied for a temporary event permit.

We're trying to do a little bit better with our interdepartmental communication and make sure that everybody goes through the proper channels.

So the town wide yard sale has submitted a temporary event permit.

You're probably familiar with it because they've done it the last at least few years.

Oh yeah?

I was it.

Oh, okay.

All right.

Yeah, we've seen other towns do it.

I didn't know Salem.

Yeah.

Yeah, so they'll uh they've got one scheduled June 13th, and then I'll have another one September 26th.

Um so again, I mean, most of it is just dispersed throughout the community.

I haven't received any concerns about it in the last couple of years, a couple few years it's happened.

But uh again, uh we appreciate that they're coming in applying for the temporary event permit and uh allowing you know the other departments to weigh in on it.

So I wanted to bring it to you and make you aware.

Um this is uh Tuscan Village.

So uh went out today, they've got a couple projects.

They got the North Jewel buildings, which you approved.

And there's still some comments that are pending our third-party design consultant.

They got uh comments today, but there were still a couple of low-hanging fruit, I guess is what I would call them that are outstanding.

And I just wanted to one bring it to the board, make sure that I was on the right track, and two, uh, get your concurrence about uh the sequence of construction.

So uh this uh is to show one of the outstanding comments is about uh site lighting.

In their photometric plan for 1040, which is the building, the northernmost building on the back side of Cafe Nero.

Uh on their photometric, it shows low light levels at the entrance.

Uh what it doesn't account for is they have some wall-mounted lighting, similar to these southern jewel buildings.

And the applicant has kind of said that based off of the ambient lighting, it'll provide sufficient lighting in that area.

My thought is that um, you know, maybe one thing we could do is prior to uh sign an occupancy, we could kind of go out and evaluate it.

Um but right now their photometric plan does show 0.0 at the entrance.

Uh our design consultant was concerned about you know adequate lighting.

Well, if there's adequate lighting, why don't they just update the photometric way?

Yeah.

They said that the the wall packs don't show up on the photometric, I guess.

So I don't know if they if their illumination levels are that low that they don't show up, but um it is something we could work with the applicant on.

Because I asked the same question.

I said, Oh, well, you and and they acknowledge that here that they've added wall-mounted uh lights and uh that they've also added some uh bollard lights as well.

Um so I mean one thing we could do is we could um say unless the board has felt you know felt that the existing light levels at the South Jewel buildings uh is not adequate.

Our our uh site plan regulations are kind of uh broad, it just says it doesn't give like a uh foot candle, it just says that adequate site lighting shall be provided.

So that was kind of why I thought it would maybe be okay to take the approach where it's a little bit nebulous where we would say, all right, your photometric showing zero, but you're saying that you've added wall packs and bollards and it's gonna have adequate lighting.

So I don't think they're gonna design that area with low lighting anyways.

Right.

It doesn't make sense.

Yeah, right.

Yeah.

Um the other item that came up has already been resolved.

They would uh they were missing a crosswalk at the northern terminus of the jewel building, so we added that, and then the other one was about the landscape and our design consultant and at the staff level advocated for uh additional plant inspection.

Uh we wanted a you know, similar to what we talk about on uh on Main Street on Via Tescana, we wanted a kind of uh tree-lined uh uh uh roadway.

The applicant is working to try to figure out how they can accommodate some additional trees there.

Um right now I think they have 15.

They think they have the ability to at least add two without interfering with utilities.

But I guess I wanted to put those on your radar.

Uh I've asked the applicant to submit a email in response to our site visit today.

We have a uh foundation only permit that we've had for a little while, but I haven't signed off on it yet because we haven't had a finalized site plan to sign yet.

So their their ask is that we would sign the uh I as I as your agent would sign the foundation only permit, and then prior to them going vertical with construction that these uh outstanding items would be addressed.

So I wanted to kind of get your feeling if you're comfortable with that.

I don't think they're all that consequential.

I think the site lighting would be in the landscaping is gonna be consequential when they go vertical because at that time they'll be doing that work.

But the foundation permit would allow them to mobilize as soon as tomorrow so that they can begin uh pouring uh not even pouring the foundation, they just want to do excavation.

Are you comfortable with that?

Yes, uh I'm comfortable with a written statement from the applicant.

So if the applicant kind of summarizes, we I think we had a productive conversation today.

If the applicant summarizes that, I think that that's okay.

And then prior to issuance of the building permit, we would have this resolved.

Right.

Um similarly, uh the um the casino, we still have pending comments from our third-party design consultant on that.

Again, mostly relative to their facade lighting.

So I've held their facade, they have a facade demo and construction and then also another phased permit.

And I've held that because I wanted to ensure that our third-party design consultant was okay before I we issued it.

Uh they are looking for that permit so that they can begin demolition.

We did get comments from the design consultant today, uh, mostly clarifying comment.

They want to know, you know, uh if the they've got some corners lighting, so they want to know uh whether it's neon lighting or uh LED, and they also wanted to know if that lighting shuts off uh when they're not in operation.

Uh so kind of cleanup items for the most part on that.

So I guess I would ask the same or they've asked the same that I would be able to sign off on that permit while they kind of close out the uh comments from view shed on that one.

So they already have all the scaffolding up to remove it, right?

I just drove by there.

They've done yes, they put the scaffold scaffolding up.

They don't have the permit to begin work yet, but I think they were prepping up.

It's a it's if it was just the demo permit, then I would have signed it.

But um, and I think it's mostly because it's you know, sometimes I'm like the squeaky wheel to build them because I say it's easier for me if you break out this project and you know 10 phases, but uh um it's demo facade construction, and then it's also um I sent I think some of the interior work under the uh a plan that you approved back in December for the new tenant.

Well, if you give them the permit, then what's a stop up from just building it the way it is on the planet, right?

Well we've already seen that we've already saw that said they couldn't put the uh their lay down yacht up until after uh uh Christmas holiday, and they went over right ahead and did it, right?

Yeah, maybe, yeah.

Can't really um yeah, I I get what you're saying.

I mean, I guess my thought is that the the remaining comments I think are all that consequential, but I mean I'm happy to have them you know address it uh before I sign it.

Really up to the I'm I'm the board's agent, so I don't want to uh my thoughts is they uh you have them address it before I just feel like a couple of obligations first.

I just feel a company like that hires a contractor with the same cultural mentality as a big company like that.

Yeah um that they'll they'll uh just go ahead and just do it.

Okay, like we've seen with the lay down yet.

Okay.

So maybe one thing I could do is I could talk with the building department because it I think we're all probably comfortable with the demo, we're just probably more concerned about the address the uh the theory.

Shouldn't it shouldn't be that hard?

Shouldn't be that hard.

Because they're like I think there's three or four uh you know outstanding comments, and then uh oh one was a speed table.

So we have a there they have a speed table proposed at the southern exit, but um to put the speed table there, it's gonna reduce the clear clearance to maybe 13.7 or something like that, which is pretty tight.

So we also talked to them about alternatives.

So one consideration was to place the speed table with uh speed bumps on uh outside of the uh pedestrian bridge so that you wouldn't run into the clearance issue.

So that one seemed to be pretty easy.

So if the board's okay with that one, it would just be I think the applicant had three or four comments on the facade light, and and I I think one would take a sentence and the other one would take a little bit of a.

Okay.

I appreciate the feedback.

Um I get the direction.

Um State Line Pay Saver wants to do uh Mother Day flower sales.

They've identified uh this is um almost at the Methuan line, right in front of Lowe's and on the line, right?

Yeah.

Uh so what they would like to do is uh occupy this space with uh flower sales for Mother's Day, 10 a.m.

to six p.m.

May 8th, 9th, and 10th.

They've done that in the past.

Um if they have they might not.

Yeah.

Yeah, they probably haven't come in recently.

We have another individual who sells flowers on North Broadway.

They've come in annually for a long period of time.

So that we haven't brought back to you because generally if they if you approve it, we kind of reissue it on an annual basis.

The other thing is that that the pay saver parking lot um has access into the strip mall.

So you can go from the strip mall into the pay save, but or from the pay say, but out to the strip mall, and then go on to um uh Hampshire.

Yeah, that doesn't show on issues with this plan.

So there's I mean it's like yeah.

Yeah, I think fire would and build in with a for crash protection, and then you know, make sure the travel ail is not a three day.

Yep, three days uh May 8th through 10th.

Yeah.

And they'll have one person.

Uh Kennedy Lake Toyota um wants to make a couple modifications to their plan.

Uh this one's pretty minor.

I think it was shown on an amended plan previously, but instead of right now, or when you approved it, it was a right out and uh it was a full access exit.

And now it's just gonna be right only, which is probably a benefit.

Um then they also want to relocate uh they had two trees here, they removed one of them, they want to relocate another tree here.

And then uh they had approved, I think it was uh I can't remember the species, but it was a tree that would grow pretty tall, and they've got utility lines above it.

So we've worked with the applicant to address that.

They're gonna replace the uh trees in the front with uh a smaller variety.

These are some of their replacements they want to do um drought tolerance substitutes, and then also the the shorter uh tree.

It was I think a hemlock maybe.

So okay with that, I imagine.

Okay.

So I'll work with the applicant to make sure that the species identified are on our design uh recommended plantins, which the conservation commission is helping us update right now with you shed.

Uh this is the dumpster enclosure, so that dumpster is located here.

Um when it was approved initially it was over in this location.

They relocated it over here, and we asked for it to be um uh vinyl uh fencing because of the uh visibility that has some visibility from twenty-eight.

Uh the applicant had a vinyl fence on their approved plan, but they've requested to change it to a chain link fence with um privacy slats.

Uh you know, their primary concern is maintenance.

Obviously, uh in the past I've advocated for the vinyl fence, particularly in areas where it's high visibility.

I guess here the the question would be, you know, it is kind of to the rear of the site that we'll have display vehicles, so maybe it's not as consequential in that area.

But I just wanted to bring it to you and see if you had any concerns about the change of material.

No.

Okay.

And that's it.

I get the zoning amendments, but we've kind of talked about those.

I'll just try to finalize those and bring those to you.

But uh I know we thought we were gonna have a quicker meeting and we won't spend more time.

Very good.

Thank you.

I won't be here on the next meeting.

Okay, here we go.

Okay.

Second.

All those in favor?

Yep.

Go ahead.