I'd like to call the April 28th, 2026 meeting of the Planning Board to order.

Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Under God and Liberty and Justice for all.

My name is Damon Norcross, and it's my pleasure to serve as chairman.

The members of the planning board sitting tonight are on my right, uh, Victor Hillinick.

Good evening, Salem.

Jesse Jean.

Good evening.

Bianca Carlson.

Good evening, Salem.

And on my far left, uh Paul Pelletier, Town Council Representative.

Good evening, Salem.

Chuck Saba.

Hello, Salem.

And Mr.

Jim Harvey.

Good evening.

Great.

Also with us tonight, we have Jacob Lafontaine, the town planning director.

Creighton Brewbreaker, the community development program manager.

And working the video and audio this evening is Mr.

Brendan Knalt, uh producer from Channel 23.

Thank you for uh all your hard work.

Uh the agenda for tonight's meeting is as follows.

Above the bar, uh sorry, uh new business, above the bar site plan, which is a public hearing for 4,125 square feet, children's dance studio at 50A Northwestern Drive, Unit 4, Map 96 Lot 104 65, the Clark the Subdivision Plan, preliminary hearing for two lot subdivision at 8 Atkinson Road, Map 29 lot 6445, an EIP Northeastern Boulevard Site Plan, public hearing for a conditional use permit for additional wall and freestanding signs at 9 Northeastern Boulevard Map 88 lot 7501.

Mr.

Lafontaine, are there any withdrawals?

Uh Mr.

Chair, I received a verbal request to continue the second item of new business for the Clark Subdivision Plan.

I don't have that confirmed in writing, so my recommendation right now would be to uh once that point in the agenda comes up to continue the application.

Uh assuming the applicant isn't going to be here.

To accept and continue.

Uh correct.

Okay.

You're saying just curve not here.

Uh Mr.

Meisner indicated to me last Thursday that he was going to continue the application.

I sent him an email request to confirm and haven't received a response to that.

So you're welcome to stay, but I'd imagine Mr.

Meisner would present the plan for you.

Uh you're welcome to wait and if Mr.

Meisner shows up.

He did not confirm in writing that he was gonna continue the application, but he did verbally confirm uh on Thursday that he'd send uh an email.

Okay.

But so I guess if if you want to wait, we could wait till that point in the agenda.

And if uh okay all right, thank you.

All right, great.

Uh before this evening's uh meeting, we had an opportunity to interview Mr.

Uh Gibbs for the alternate position on the planning board.

Uh at this time I'll uh uh invite a motion.

Mr.

Chairman I move to approve Mr.

Bob Gibbs as an alternate for a two-year term for the planning board.

Second seconded by Mr.

Pelletier.

All the uh any discussion on the matter.

Um we've this is only for a two-year position.

Correct.

Okay.

That's all right.

Any other questions?

Discussion.

All those in favor, signify by raising your hand.

All those opposed unanimous decision.

Congratulations, Mr.

Gibbs.

Welcome.

Welcome.

Um, we'll get you sworn in and then you can be part of the poll for uh future meetings.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh we will table minutes uh until for the April 14th, 2026 meeting.

Uh till the next meeting, and we'll move on to new business.

Why are we tabling it?

I don't think we have the votes.

I don't think we have any people that we're here.

Okay.

Um business, uh, above the bar site plan public hearing.

Uh Mr.

Mr.

Lafontaine, is the plan complete?

Yes, the plan is complete.

All right.

Mr.

Chair, I move to accept the plan is complete.

Second.

There's a motion and a second.

All those in favor of accepting the plan.

Opposed.

Passes unanimously.

Um Mr.

Lafontaine, reading of the butters, please.

The abutters are as follows.

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

They are Udo, Fritz, Revocable Trust, Reps Refasado, Asabuco, Faber Family Associates, Palm Brothers Development, Jameson Realty, 50 Northwestern Drive, Salem Pioneer Associates, and that is all.

Thank you.

Um we will go to the applicant to present the plan.

Good evening, Chairman, members of the board.

My name is Tara Aquilina.

I'm a civil engineer at SFC Engineering representing above the bar Amanda Robert tonight.

My goal is to answer any questions or concerns you may have.

And I'm presenting the site plan application for the proposed change of use at 50A Northwestern Drive, Unit 4A, Map 96 lot 10464-4.

Existing today is a five-acre development fronting on Northwestern Drive, located in the industrial zone.

Currently, it consists of two two-story industrial buildings identified as 50A with 11 units, approximately 46,000 square feet, and building 50B with 11 units and approximately 31,000 square feet.

All the existing units are a combination of office and warehouse and operate Monday through Friday during the day.

The site is served by municipal water and sewer.

I'm proposing a change of use in building 50A Unit 4 from an office warehouse to a children's dance studio.

Modifications for the change of use include retrofitting the unit's interior.

No improvements to the site or building exterior are proposed.

The 4,125 square foot unit 4 will be renovated to accommodate three dance studios in a waiting area.

The use is anticipated to operate Monday through Friday from 4 p.m.

to 8 p.m.

As well as Tuesday and Saturday from 9 a.m.

to 1130.

This use is compatible with the surrounding uses and is primarily operating off-peak hours.

The dance studio will serve a maximum of 36 students and flying employees.

The property provides a total of 174 parking spaces.

I personally have visited all the existing units on the property and calculated total parking demand of 144 spaces, inclusive of the proposed change of use.

Traffic associated with a dance studio will occur primarily during off-peak hours and is not anticipated to result in congestion or adverse traffic impacts.

In conclusion, the proposed use is permitted in the zone, and the property offers sufficient parking for the existing and proposed use.

No adverse impacts to abutting properties, traffic conditions, or municipal services are anticipated.

The proposed change of use will not result in any increase in building footprint and previous surface or disturbance to environmentally sensitive areas.

And I appreciate the board's consideration of the request and respectfully ask for your approval.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

I don't have too much to add.

I just acknowledge that you know the plan was previously approved quite some time ago in April of 1988.

Since that time they've made some minor modifications of the plan, primarily relative to parking.

These are all uh noted uh by the applicant, and you can see uh the parallel spaces have been added to the front of the site, and there are some spaces that have been added in front of the load-in base.

Um Tara and I talked earlier, and you know, staff recommendation would be uh certainly to reinstall the ADA spaces when the plan was approved in 1988.

It was approved compliant with uh the American with Disability Act, and they had six uh ADA spaces proposed today.

There's two existing.

So if the board were to act favorably on the plan, uh recommendation would be that that be addressed prior to occupancy, ideally sooner, but uh that would certainly be the trigger that we could use to ensure that those are done.

Um aside from that, uh you know, I would acknowledge that the in terms of uh building improvements, the elevation drawn uh narrative notes that there's no improvements to the building exterior, uh the parking configuration.

Again, it's somewhat discrepant from what they were originally approved with, um, but for the most part, probably not all that consequential.

All the spaces were approved at 9 by 20.

So I would ask that that note be put back on the plan.

Tar and I talked about that earlier, and and I believe she was amenable to that.

And then the parking spaces that have been added in front of the load in base.

Uh, we would ask that those not be shown, you know, those be removed, not shown on the plan, uh, because it's generally not advisable to have the the park in those locations.

It wasn't a condition uh that was shown on the original 1988 plan.

There are impact fees that would be due uh due to the change of use.

It was previously a warehouse, it'll now be uh uh you know a membership club that is the most comparable or sorry, health fitness club.

It's probably the most comparable that we have in traffic.

So that fee would be nine thousand seven hundred seven, sorry, nine thousand five hundred and seventy dollars.

And then uh for public safety impact fee again conversion from uh the industrial manufacturing use uh to the current use, which is one thousand one hundred and ninety-six dollars and twenty-five cents.

Um noted the hours of operation.

There's pretty minimal overlap between the proposed use and the existing industrial uses.

I think it's really probably just the Tuesday from 9 to 11 30 a.m.

The applicant has submitted some photos showing you know the site conditions during uh the weekdays with uh you know parking availability, 46 spaces empty, uh 41 spaces empty, 42 spaces empty at various times.

So um oh, one thing I didn't discuss with the applicant, and I just want to note here is the board should consider whether the existing lighting is adequate for the proposed use.

I don't I haven't viewed the site for a light in, and I don't know what the existing site lighting is, but I'm just thinking that because you're gonna have um you know, some classes that'll be dark, particularly during the winter, you know, that those four to eight p.m.

classes and you'll have children in the parking lot.

Uh that could be something that we could potentially take care of prior to occupancy just to ensure that they have uh the site light and added to the plan and that it provides adequate illumination, which is what's required under our site plan regulations.

Thank you.

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

If not, we'll uh turn over to the board.

Uh questions, Mr.

Helen.

Uh first uh question on the parking analysis shown on this on this diagram here.

Um where'd that data come from?

So I went into every single one of those 22 units and measured their existing office versus their warehouse, and then with that calculation I created that chart.

Okay.

So office is 300 square feet is one space, and then warehouse is a thousand square feet per one space.

So very good.

And did you chat with any of the building owners about their usage beyond your calculation?

Um, so what to get in, I knocked on the door and they let me in.

So those are all the tenants that were there, not necessarily the owners of them all, if you will.

Um but you know, they're like, okay, this is our office area, Tara, and this is our warehouse.

And it was very obvious one from the other.

Um so that's as far as I went and made it.

But I did talk to all the units, like I didn't just barge in.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

Ms.

Carlson.

Um my question is for Mr.

LaFontaine.

Um as it relates to the impact fees.

It looks like we're calculating the in fact the impact fees based on the conversion from warehouse use to a health health and fitness club.

Um in the SFC memo, it states that um the salem the sales zoning ordinance permitted uses table lists the retail and commercial services use studio as a permitted use within the industrial zoning district.

However, the ordinance also lists dance hall and health clubs recreation and sports facilities as entertainment and recreation service uses, which are not permitted in the district.

Um I'm not saying that I I don't think this is a good use for the building.

I I think it is.

I just want to make sure that we're applying the impact fee correctly, and that that doesn't trip up a potential visit to the zoning board, which I I don't want to I don't want to put on them, but I I just want to be cognizant that we're not calling it one thing in one application and another thing in a different application.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, I don't think so because uh you the board did make a determination on it being a permitted use uh under public matters uh maybe a month ago.

I can't remember which meeting that was, and I think we issued a decision notice in the case.

Yeah, the impact fee uh schedule is difficult because you can't reasonably capture uh all uses, so we're often in the position where we try to uh under the impact fee schedule, try to find a use that is applicable for a variety of different uses.

You are all aware of that because I we've done that uh uh on a sports field.

I think we categorize that as a health and fitness club, uh or you did.

Um so I don't think that the fact that the impact fee schedule um you know says health slash fitness club, and then our ordinance prohibits it.

I don't think that those I get exactly what you're saying, the the line of logic, but uh I think that you know, a studio, you've designated this a studio, and I think a studio is most uh comparable to a health and fitness club.

Right.

You know, I we looked through the I think even Tar and I might have looked at it together at one point, and um you know, there's there's a finite number of uses, and it seems like uh this would be the most appropriate.

Yeah, I I definitely agree that this would be uh probably best referred to as like a a health or fitness club and a studio.

I'm not disagreeing that.

I just want to make sure that we're that we're being consistent.

I understand that the impact fee schedule is really kind of difficult to navigate as far as the different categories go.

Um I just want to make sure we're not putting ourselves in a position where technically this should be approved by the zone by the where they should get a variance in the zoning board because we're considering it something that's not permitted in the district.

Does that make sense?

And I don't I don't want to send them to the zoning board.

I I certainly don't.

I just I want to make sure that we're doing our due diligence here.

Yeah.

Yeah, I mean I guess it's not something that we specifically discussed when we brought it to you under public matters to make a determination it was a studio.

Um Tara did draft a uh you know very well crafted letter kind of outlining the justification of why it was felt that it met the criteria of a studio.

Um, I I don't think the one precludes the other, I don't think, just because the uh impact fee schedule, I think, even has uses that aren't expressly like listed in our in our table, right?

I think it's just kind of uh VHB, who's our traffic engineer for the impact fee schedule, uh, is the one who produced it and they use IT calculation, so the the terms that might be used in ITE aren't probably they're not pulled from our ordinance.

So I think you know, looking at the table right now, you know, it's certainly not a hospital or daycare or movie theater, you know.

So it just seems like I think you can still categorize it as a studio with the understanding that for the impact fee uh you know it's best categorized and its impacts associated with it are most comparable to a health and fitness club.

Okay.

Is the applicant in agreement?

Yeah, they did they almost think they don't coincide, like they are you know, you almost have to take them separately.

You know, we looked at the ordinance zoning wise, and we categorize it as a studio that was most appropriate, but looks like the impact fees didn't talk to the zoning when they made their definitions of seemingly you talk about it.

You know, you try to read it and be like what's best fit here, and so I think Jacob did a great job, but yeah, I understand what you're saying.

Yeah, but I mean, yeah, definitely don't want to go to zoning, and I don't want that.

Yeah, and I I don't I don't think it's appropriate.

I think that the impact fees didn't coordinate when we wrote up the zoning ordinance and what's permitted or not.

So I think he's doing a good job trying to find the fee that's correct, which that's is the point.

I think I think it'd be difficult too because you did issue, you know, we issue a notice when you act under public matters and make the determination, so it might be a little tricky to go back and say, well, actually now uh are not a permitted use.

Um I may not have been here potentially, I just don't recall.

Um in any case I figured I would ask the question.

Yeah, public safety is another good example.

We only have what's that six categories, so you know you you try to have to capture all the uses under six.

Yeah, uh for this use we categorize it as a retail use, which is consistent with what we did for club Pilates and other kind of membership clubs or you know uh even though you know it's it's a finite, I guess, number of uh categories we have.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

Uh Mr.

Love Fantasy and I I only have one.

Are are we um okay to just in terms of the motion itself?

Um granting conditional approval on this plan, or do we need to state change of use in the uh motion?

Um I think you could get grant conditional approval for the change of use site plan, is that what you're asking?

Yeah, yeah.

Changing okay.

Just want to make sure.

Okay.

Uh I think we're ready for some conditions.

Yeah.

Okay.

Uh I have prior to building permit one, submit staff approvals.

Two remove parking spaces in front of Loden Bays and add site light into the plan.

Uh under prior to occupancy, I have three pay road impact fee of $9,570 in public safety impact fee of $1,196 and $25 cents.

Um at four now, so that's add four for a total of six ADA parking spaces.

And five, I had uh ensure uh adequate site lighting is provided.

Six applicant must operate business so that parking lot capacity is not exceeded, and then seven all representations made by applicant or agents and all notes on the plan are incorporated as part of the approval.

Thank you, Ms.

Lafontaine.

Uh uh seven seven conditions total.

That's correct.

Great.

Any other discussion?

Uh if not, I will entertain a motion.

Mr.

Chair, I move to grant conditional approval for above the bar change of use application subject to the seven conditions as noted by Mr.

Lafontaine.

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

Any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, we'll take it to a vote.

All those in favor, signify by raising your hand.

All those opposed unanimous.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on, the clerk subdivision plan.

Mr.

Clark, have you heard from Mr.

Meisner at all?

Okay.

I guess we can wait and we'll go to the third item.

Go to the third item.

Okay.

Okay.

So we'll take the EIP Northeastern Boulevard Boulevard Site Plan public for additional wall and freestanding signs at nine Northeastern Boulevard and that 88 lot 7501.

Uh Mr.

Lafontaine, a reading of the abutters, please.

The abutters are as follows.

If you're here, please indicate by saying so there equity industrial northeastern development, car, temple of witchcraft, Tate, Beninati, EIP Northeastern Boulevard, 5 Northeastern Boulevard, LLC, Chase On, Davis, Mathis, Rose, Noel, Brooks Property, 2 LLC, D Stefano, Dunkley, Canaby Lake Realty Corps, Williams, Peralta, Buckley, Policy Brook Park, 2 Realty LLC, and that is all.

Thank you.

We'll turn to the applicant to present the plan.

Good evening.

Thank you to the chair and board members.

My name is Joan Hannesy.

Oh.

Sorry, one second.

My apologies.

Mr.

Lafontaine, is the plan complete?

Uh yes, the plan's complete.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, I move that we accept the plan is complete.

Second.

Move and seconded.

All those in favor.

Unanimous.

Thank you.

It's uh the JV chair up here.

So apologies.

Thank you for your your patience.

Oh, I think I have your obligation to keep my comments short.

We can get Bruins in Celtic.

So we can we've owned um uh nine Northeastern Boulevard since 2008.

We developed it fully occupied it.

The leases have turned.

It's kind of interesting.

We took out loading docks.

It was office light manufacturing and warehousing, and now we've put them back in over the years as we've re-tenant it.

And that's with the primary reason why we're here.

It's a very large property.

We're trying to manage traffic flow.

Um all the tenants have their own access to directly into their space, which is um unusual with loading docks, except for an office tenant.

And um the newest tenant in there is uh SINCOR, they make um the uh airport um uh machines to send you luggage through.

They're the ones that work.

The new ones that you see.

Um they've moved um from Massachusetts uh with about 400 jobs, and um they're gonna have a grand opening.

We're gonna try and get the signs in with your approval.

Okay, um deal with traffic control, and we're what we're trying to do is it is a large building.

You can see we want it to circulate in as you come up northeastern boulevard, circulate around the building, in particular all truck traffic, and that's what you'll see.

A pretty robust package to um clearly get people to where they need to go.

And um I think that's it.

It's it's a kind of speaker itself.

We brought uh Brian Pierce, who was our designer, signed designer.

If you have any technical questions or questions about that.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

La Fontaine.

I just have a couple of comments.

Hopefully, they won't be too long.

I I did prepare the uh applicant and let him know that I had some thoughts on the uh signage here.

So let me just pull up.

For the most part, I think you know the directional signage, the wall signage, it all makes a lot of sense.

It's a large uh multi-tenant campus uh development, and it makes a lot of sense because the intent of the signage is really not so much for advertising as it is for wayfinding, uh, you know, so that when they have deliveries or employees or customers uh that they can find their way around the large campus.

So for the most part, not a lot of concerns of the staff level regarding uh the directional wayfinding package that they submitted.

It's a lot of signage.

Um I think they've done some good things to try to reduce the repetition, for instance.

If you look at what they're proposing to do over their load and bay doors, uh, you know, they're looking to have kind of one for the most part, have one sign and then have that uh replicated throughout.

Uh I guess I'm kind of just going through because we um so you know that this I'll touch on too.

This is their existing freestanding sign, and they're looking to enlarge that uh where a hundred square feet is allowed.

They want to add another row of panels.

Uh, this is the free stand and monument sign that exists.

Uh one thing I've talked to the applicant about is that right now it just says exist and monument sign to be replaced, but it hasn't given us a uh detail of what that new sign will be.

Uh the zolner sign is existing.

Uh they are proposing uh two new tenant signs here and here.

Uh what's interesting about those is that uh those are tenants that don't have frontage on on that area.

But I uh my understanding is that this is their primary entryway anyway, you know, will help with wayfind and see CS here, and then analogic is here, and then their primary suite I think opens up back here.

But uh those would be the ones that would be advertised in the front, and that's in part the relief that they're requesting here.

Um the nine northeastern right now, that's the site name, and uh there is potential from what I understand that this name could change if they were to rebrand the uh plaza.

So I just want the board to be aware because we don't generally regulate address signs, which is kind of a loophole, but we would potentially be interested if it was you know uh plaza name.

Um so right now I think the applicant has proposed it as nine northeastern, which is what exists in uh what it currently is called, but with the understanding that I think that they would potentially rebrand the uh the site uh so that nine northeastern rather than being the address could be something else.

They've noted that here with a placeholder name.

I don't think that these signs, these signs are uh probably compliant based on the frontage that those businesses have, they're just not on their respective frontage.

Um so they have so this is like a hundred some odd pages, so I'll try to go through them real quick.

Uh but these are the the ones that they have at the loading docks, and again I think they've done a good job by trying to consolidate signage.

They have a couple other areas where they repeat, you know, it's repetitive, so you have uh multiple signs for the same business, but I think this is a pretty effective way to do it where you uh you know direct the delivery driver to the area where the loading bays are, and then they could be at Nora's eighth bay or something to that effect.

So I do appreciate that they've done that.

Same thing with extreme networks.

Um they haven't done a bunch of repetition.

Uh there's a couple of loading bays where they have, but it's pretty minimal, and I think more importantly, that a lot of the signage is not viewed off of the site.

Um, you know, there's some pretty dense vegetation here uh between the residential abutters on North Policy and then a lot of the other signage is along their you know private uh drives here.

Uh that being said, uh, I did talk to the applicant about this.

I I really think they've done a really good job with their current sign package.

I think that um for in terms of site continuity and our design guidelines.

I think there's really uh a theme throughout the property, and not even just nine northeastern, but the entire uh northeastern boulevard, uh, the development on nine northeastern boulevard.

So this is your uh wayfinding, your existing directional sign here, and it has a minor uh stone base.

This is a uh rendering of their existing monument sign, another uh stone base.

You can tell the you know, the nine uh that's consistent throughout, and they're consistent in material and colors, which is what we would want uh in our design guidelines.

Uh here is kind of what they're proposing.

Uh I also called out a couple areas because it's not just the signage, it's a lot of site features that uh rep uh replicate the stone walls that the stone bases speak to, and what they're proposing right now is uh kind of a uh black base, uh kind of a more contemporary look, but I think that the uh current existing is something that you know the board should consider advocating for, and and I think the applicant is willing to hear some feedback on it as well.

I just called out some other they did a really really good job with this area where they've uh I think previously these might have been loading docks at one point, and you know you'd never know it looks it looks great, and uh they've this whole patio here is got a stone wall that kind of uh outlines it and uh this entryway and again I another stone wall along northeastern, and this is the nort for north northeastern boulevard.

So this is an off-site sign, a sign on a different location, but you find these stone bases throughout uh for Northeastern, and I think it adds a lot of site continuity to our industrial park on Northeastern Drive.

So that's uh my long-winded way to say, hey, I think they've done a really good thing here.

Maybe we can see if they could uh continue to keep that.

And then my other uh sticking point, the applicant's already aware of this.

Uh you know, I I have uh the at the staff level, I think we've historically it's no surprise.

We've historically uh been concerned about additional signage, more area, greater quantity uh along the 93 corridor.

There's a lot of uh multi-tenant buildings, everybody wants more signage, and our recommendation historically has been to you know uh try to have the signs comply uh as much as possible.

Right here we have an existing sign, it's 26 uh feet tall where 20 feet would otherwise be permitted.

It's 120 square feet, uh, an area where 100 would be permitted, so it's already a non-conforming condition, and they'd like to you know install a second row of panels that would make it about twice as large almost as what exists today.

Um so like I said, we're generally uh you know opposed to these uh items.

We have a lot of uh demand from uh tenants along 93.

I think there's a way to advertise uh your properties and and do so effectively without um you know inundating uh you know 93 in Salem with with signage and uh the other thing that I would just note is that this sign uh is really kind of the opposite of their site signage.

Their site signage is you know, wayfinding sign it, so you can find where you're gonna go.

But this sign is actually really just purely advertising at this point because you're beyond exit uh two at that point, uh, because it's merely just visible to northbound traffic, and when you see it, you'd have to go up the route uh to exit three and turn around or go uh kind of a convoluted way uh to this site.

So uh there's historic precedent for the the board where you know we've been concerned about uh larger signage.

Um you did so on Key Wade and Drive uh, you know, within the last couple years, uh and we had a similar uh perspective on that.

So you know, to allow it, but uh to not necessarily um to have it conform with with our requirements.

Our master plan, I had an excerpt in here that just says that uh, and this was adopted in April of last year, as you're aware, you adopted it uh to maintain high quality development, uh including signage and to preserve visual buffers along the roadway in I-93.

So I do have concerns about the uh the free standing sign, the the size of it, and um my other item would just be to see if we could keep the stone bases on the other sides.

Great, thank you.

Would any members of the public like to speak on the application?

Seeing none, we'll go turn to the board.

Who has a question?

Mr.

Pelletier.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I remember when the sign was at this board for approval.

Uh and I'll stipulate what I my feeling of it back then and I'll do it again tonight.

Is that these signs?

The this was like visible from the Route 93 north only.

But we don't want for safety feature, we don't want a sign that's small enough that motorists have to turn and read it.

We want to we want the sign not amonggous, but we want that sign adequate enough so that motorists can look at it at a glance as they're passing by it, knowing that the naturally knowing that they're gonna have to turn around if that's where they need to go.

But I remember this sign coming in front of the board, and we approved the sign because of that feature.

And uh, and I'll stick to that tonight as well.

Uh I still I think that it looks kind of bare with sticking up with two poles coming up there.

Uh I don't know if they wanted to add on to this or not.

That was the intent, yes.

It would dress it would, you know, it would dress it up and make it look more appropriate.

Uh if it's the same size, if this board agrees that it should be the same size, it could be out straight, or maybe a little s well, a little smaller for for adequate for what the business uh is uh is attempting to uh to relate.

Uh as it uh it being in a sign for advertisement.

Uh yes and no.

Uh if you're going to if you're going to this this uh partial and you need to get to this building, and you don't know that you need to take exit two or is it one to get here?

Uh to me it's not advertisement.

It's telling you get it its direction, yes.

I would say what it's a direction that hey, you passed it, you need to turn around.

But we don't want uh people reading that sign.

We want we don't want people turning driving the motors and looking over there and saying, oh, yeah, yeah, I need to go that way.

No, you want to see it at a glance.

What's on that sign so you know it's big enough for that.

Yeah, so Mr.

Pedleteer, just to clarify your comments.

Do you believe that the current language uh size, etc.

meets your requirement of being not having to squint, or are you saying that it no, it's at this side right now.

I've looked at it many, many times going by it.

It this is legible.

You're okay with the side for a motorist.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Just the panel below it is the same size, right?

So you're gonna see that's correct.

Six locations on there.

Yes, yeah.

Okay, okay.

And the bottom, I don't recall.

Can you see the base of it when you're on 93?

The ground.

Perhaps uh in the dead of winter you might be able to, but it's yes growth thing.

There's trees around it, so it's nothing that you're looking at.

It is set for uh pretty far back from the highway.

Yeah, as I recall, I don't remember ever seeing the base, so it's fine.

It would be helpful for the number of tenants and identification from the highway if we couldn't lodge it.

Any other questions from the board?

Ms.

Carlson.

Um will this sign along 93 sort of speak to the proposed change of the more modern signage throughout the site?

Or were you proposing to basically keep this sign the same, just add another row?

Add another row.

Just think we keep it simple and keep it simple and add another row.

Obviously, there'd be new signage up above consistent so I guess with that um I know that in looking through the new sign package, um, the change of the various signage throughout the site.

I really like that, and I think it brings a bit of modernization to that site.

Um and it definitely goes really well with that uh that front facade that we had seen that was the loading docks that then was converted, uh, which looks great by the way.

I in looking at that after you said that it was formerly loading docks.

I was like, oh yeah, that that does look like that.

Could have been at one point in time, but otherwise I would have never known.

There were eight.

It was set up with four and four on each side when it was the digital days.

Yeah, it looks great.

Um but in any case, I think that it it looks like you're you're sort of going for a brand change here, and this free standing sign along 93, in my opinion, doesn't speak to the signage throughout the rest of the site.

Um with that being said, I would not necessarily be in favor of enlarging that sign, but I would be in favor of changing that sign to speak better to the other signage on the site.

Okay, if that makes sense.

Thank you.

Yes, it does.

Um Mr.

LaFontaine's comments about um the stone base.

I like how it is consistent throughout the site now, but I also kind of think that not having that brings a bit more of modernization to the existing sign package, but that's where it's kind of conflicting where we're still uh like are are we are we going modern?

Are we keeping things the way they are?

Now I I think we need to kind of pick a direction.

Well, it was the intent to a newer a newer look at it.

And I've see it, I see it in a lot of office parks, they're going away from that with the metal bases.

Yeah, I I agree.

Um, but I think we need to pick a direction.

Uh that would be my feedback.

Okay.

Thank you.

If that's helpful.

Any other questions?

Uh Mr.

Chair.

So I I think two things.

Um I'm not really in favor of enlarging the sign, it goes against the the guidelines that we've established as a town.

Uh and secondly, I I would like to see stone basis on the new signs you're proposing because it'll be consistent with everything else that's on the site at this time.

Thank you.

Mr.

Helen.

Mr.

Lafontaine, could you return to that uh overall site plan that uh bird's eye view?

Yeah.

No, this one.

And could you point to me where this sign is?

Is it possible to find that on this picture?

Is it right here?

Yes.

If you actually uh sir, would you mind uh just there should be a microphone there?

Just so we can capture you.

Our recording secretary is not here.

So I think Jacob's got it right there in that clearing, right?

Yeah, right.

Okay, great.

That's the sign right there.

And and just asking, what is the ground like there?

It looks like it's a little bit depressed from the from the highway.

Like the elevation is down at weighs.

It is, yeah.

It does, yes.

Let me just ask uh there's been some concerns about the consistency of the images, um, the the theme, if you will.

Uh yeah, good good work on the overall theme.

I mean, it when I look at what you have here, you could be in Silicon Valley.

So that's that's a con compliment.

Um even if you made these changes with a stone base and such, would you even see it?

Um I know that is cause for speculation, but the pylon sign of stone base, is that the question?

Yeah.

Well, I don't think you'd see it.

I thought we were talking about on the property itself.

Well that is on the property.

Correct.

This is a lot of fun to do for me.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I wouldn't uh would you mind showing one of the examples just to Yeah, of course, yeah.

These ones here, they so they currently has a stone base, and I wouldn't necessarily recommend that we do a stone base on that pylon sign because of the other thing.

Oh, so that is not being discussed.

No, no, no.

There was a comment I think that if you know if the board, you know, that you might want to consider and you did that actually at the Key Waiden drive site too to have some vegetation at the base of it to reduce some of the scale.

You know, generally we're trying to enclose those uh signposts, but um I didn't really get into that here.

Uh wouldn't uh recommend a sign or stone base uh on the pylon sign though.

Okay.

So you're actually recommending nothing more than the two pylons now.

The the applicant is requesting.

Yeah.

In your opinion, you're not advocating any changes there.

Just the two.

At the staff level, we we were recommending that the applicant uh retain the sign at 120 square feet and 20 six feet tall because it is uh already um not conforming with your with the town's regulations.

Um so recommendation was not to enlarge this, but to consider uh retaining the stone bases at their directional signs and their monument sign on site.

So one additional question for the applicant.

Looking at the the sign that is there, uh are you proposing changing that sign?

Like not just adding to it, but actually changing the look of the sign.

The the names will change a bit, and now there are this a bigger tenant presence there, right?

In numbers.

Obviously, the building's the same size.

But um so that was the driving force so you could see SINCOR analogic um EIT, which are all light manufacturing office, military um applic military um contractors.

And um we have CCS and Nora.

So uh what you're saying is they would be just three more panels.

All the panels would be new, and it would be it would enlarge.

Um I correct?

All the panels would be new would be consistent, and the sign will be getting larger going down.

Yeah, yeah.

And the font itself would remain consistent with the font that's on this part.

Yes, in the in the building area, yes.

Yep.

All right.

Thank you.

I think they have got a Brandon package that um we don't have of the complete, right?

I think you're the pylon sign still needs to be rebranded, and then also the monument sign, from what I understand, those are not reflected uh as proposed in this package.

The directional signs, I think that's probably what they would do is they would follow kind of the motif of the proposed directional signs, but it it wasn't actually included in this packet of how they'll do that with the pylon or the monument sign.

If it would help, um perhaps we should withdraw that pylon sign from the package and come back with more detail on what we're proposing.

Would that does that make sense to the board?

But just the pylon sign?

The highway sign?

The highway sign?

Yes, sir.

Um we're happy to are we allowed to you could withdraw that request from the package and then the board could act on the remainder of the signage, which I think is probably the priority for the applicant right now, anyway.

Sure.

We have the governor coming on June 9th.

what we're proposing would that does that make sense to the board the pilot sign just the pylon sign the which the highway sign the highway sign yeah um um we're happy to are we allowed to you could withdraw that request from the package and then the board could act on the remainder of the signage which I think is probably the priority for the applicant right now anyway sure we have the governor coming on June 9th for um analogic which by the way we're we we're over a thousand employees in the building now it's a big food the um food court has opened up again and it's great to have it um well i you know the I I'll just give you a couple of thoughts I the the sign package is great I'll just reiterate what everyone else has said and you guys have done a wonderful job on that property and uh it you know is just a absolutely great uh location um I it sounds to me as though we're centering in on you know I I I think some feedback on whether or not you feel strongly as a board whether or not those should have uh the rock base uh and you know have conversation around that um does the applicant have a would you be open to adding rock to the bottom if that's great if it was the opinion of the board you know the pun would be we're in the granite state south where that is um it is consistent I hadn't looked at it Jacob pointed out to me I mean I think it's a minor modification the same the same signage is going to be visible right yeah and I don't disagree if the board's um you know in favor of that okay so any other questions uh Mr.

Lafontaine can you read some conditions to us?

Uh recommended conditions of approval would be one note conditional use permit for signs that be in the directional wall signs parking management signs with all advertising on plan and then two uh retain stone bases and then three all representations made by applicant or agents and all notes on the plan are incorporated as part of the approval okay great um and without objection we will remove the pylon sign from the discussion we're comfortable with that yes okay so we're removing that um any other further discussion before we entertain a motion I will entertain a motion okay Mr.

Chair I move that we grant a conditional use permit in accordance with 490702 to allow updated wayfinding signs a greater number of wall signs and parking management signs in accordance with the plan with reference to the letter from the applicant dated April 7th 2026 and subject to the three conditions as noted by Mr.

Lafontaine second second we have a motion and seconded any discussion uh Mr Lafontaine do does does there need to be a condition on the uh maintaining the rocks or we we discussed it I did have it is okay I apologize to you sorry rookie mistake sorry guys you're doing great uh all right no further discussion we'll take it to a vote all those in favor signify with raising your hand and it's unanimous thank you very much appreciate your time yes thank you and good luck with the governor okay uh clerk subdivision plan Mr.

Lafontaine Mr.

Clark is no longer here and I haven't uh received anything from Mr.

Meisner so recommendation would you continue to the May 15 uh May 12th just make sure May 12th 2026 meeting uh yes May 12th 2026 and this would serve as the notice okay great uh I will entertain a motion to continue until May what's the date May 12th May 12th Mr.

Chair I move that we uh continue the Clark subdivision plan until the meeting on May twelfth second moved and seconded all any discussion all those in favors and it's unanimous thank you uh public matters I have a handful of public matters hopefully not too many uh sir you're from the spigot lodge is that correct uh we had a request from the spicket lodge at 107 Main Street to place a food truck at the rear of the site uh I think we might have talked about this at one point a little while back it says dear town of Salem on behalf of the Spigot Lodge Realty remains proposal for your consideration regarding the rental of a designated portion of our parking lot at 107 Main Street they're seeking approval to rent a section for a license inspected and fully insured food truck operator.

So the location that they've shown is here at the rear of the site uh kind of further removed from the lodge itself and uh wanted to bring it to you and see if you had any concerns I kind of vaguely feel like we spoke about this at one point and uh I apologize if I'm not recalling the feedback that was received at that time uh anyone have any feedback we did we determine thank you Mr.

Did we determine if traffic to this food truck was gonna enter from Broadway you know or is it all entering from uh main I think it they should only be able to enter from Main Street because even if the there's a fence around yeah we uh when you when you approve the uh uh revisions of the gas station I think that there's a way for traffic to go uh westbound I don't know why but the pages westbound to North Broadway but I don't think the traffic flow is supposed to go uh eastbound to this site um that doesn't necessarily mean that people wouldn't be able to do that hypothetically but um I think the traffic flow pattern is supposed to go towards North Broadway if and when the oh it's not if when the gas station opens when Ms.

Carlson um the feedback that I had at the time and that I um would state now is that my only concern is that because of the fact that there is a fence around that parking lot and that the food truck is set a bit further back it is quite a bit of visibility from um North Broadway.

So potentially putting some sort of signage at the food truck that states that the entrance would be on Main Street I think would probably be a good idea just so that people aren't trying to pull into that empty parking lot and confused as to how to get in.

I think that that may be it but otherwise I don't have any concerns feedback anyone else I agree with that.

Okay.

Okay.

So it sounds like we're okay with it as long as we do a little wayfinding okay happy to work with granite basis no I like this yeah um see Mr.

Lechance's here as well so I um I did speak with the chair uh who's not here obviously I don't have a slide for this one but this is for Nine Hampshire Street um and this was regarding the encroachment so you continued the application at your last meeting and uh Mr Chance has indicated that right now he has uh five of the units under construction and three are occupied two are not occupied.

The indication at the meeting when the when you reviewed the application continued it was that um you wanted the encroachment to be addressed prior to issuance of future occupancies.

The chair uh did uh chair's opposition to granting the the fourth occupancy uh but my understanding was that he would be okay if I were to present it to the full board uh for your consideration um that being said I I did meet uh with Mr.

Glechance and Mr.

Nolan who are both here and uh Mr.

Meisner and our code enforcement officer Mr.

McDowell uh last week I think uh and we did have a productive discussion uh they're considering you know how to address the the encroachment and how they could resolve it um I told Mr.

Lechance that I would share uh the request with the board uh if you'd be comfortable with adding or not adding uh issuing a uh CEO for the fourth unit and then holding the fifth unit until the encroachment is resolved so um I did discuss it with the chair the chair was opposed so I want to make sure that that's kind of known um and um my understanding was that it was okay to bring it to the full board and can in case you had a different uh opinion um comments for those that are up to speed on this petition I mean on this application before um Ms.

Carlson actually before we Jake would you mind just pulling up that property yeah because I think we're gonna need to let me see if I can um see if I can pull it up I think it's yeah good so this time this gives an overview somewhat um it the encroachment area is here it's more effective when you view aerial photos to kind of see the extent of it but um you know at some point I believe it was maybe mid 2000s 2010s um you know this encroachment was was done and um it is in paved area and essentially an extension of this parking lot into the wetland you can see the edge of wet here um on the prior plan that you approved for the five units these five units under construction here these three are occupied these two are seek an occupancy um there was a call out that said encroachment shall be removed uh that was in 2023 so and the uh for those that were not there uh alternates the the complicating factor here is that there is no access to that part of the applicant's property uh through their own property they have to uh go over the abutter's property in order to remediate that uh the abutter was has been unresponsive or for whatever reason over the course of the past however long they've been building uh they've not been able to work out

paved area and essentially an extension of this parking lot into the wetland you can see the edge of wet here um on the prior plan that you approved for the five units these five units under construction here these three are occupied these two are seeking occupancy um there was a call out that said encroachment shall be removed uh that was in 2023 so and the uh for those that were not there uh alternates the the complicating factor here is that there is no access to that part of the applicant's property uh through their own property they have to uh go over the abutters property in order to remediate that uh the abutter was has been unresponsive or for whatever reason over the course of the past however long they've been building uh they've not been able to work out a situation now I for my own comments I I think I I'm on record in the last meeting being okay issuing the CO I think um you know access to housing and you know is you know kind of is more important than dealing with a very difficult situation primarily because there's one more house that they're going to build and it has um it'll have the same stipulation on that um but I will let the other four members speak for themselves I think I was shot down pretty I was shot down pretty good so that's that's my take on it but I think there were a lot of a lot of opinions on this one Mr.

Saber so uh Jacob again what does it say the encroachment needs to be resolved prior to what was that the 2023 plan I think says encroachment shall uh shall be removed prior right so I stick with that I mean it has to be resolved before we can we can before I can vote positively for it so one way or another that has to be fixed.

I'm not saying it's your fault I don't know whose fault that is but there's an encroachment that needs that just needs to be fixed um and I think one of the discussion points that we had uh Mr.

Lafontaine if you could just refresh my memory or make sure it's the correct language that we were also open to reestablishing part of the wetland in another area to there was some discussion on that my understanding I don't want to speak for the applicant I guess um and I guess I should preface this by this is all relative to that 2023 approval right um because they'll have to come back for a public hearing on the on the uh sixth unit but um I did meet with the applicant and the abutter uh responsible for the encroachment and that was an option discussed uh my understanding is it might be more likely just to have the encroachment removed because it adds a lot of complexity uh to replicate the wetland off site technically you know uh well not off site but off site of the uh person who's responsible for violating the wetland okay um so just some feedback you know uh would be helpful here from Ms.

Pelletier I look at it two different ways yes in 2023 there was there was a fact that that encroachment should have been taken care of although today those five units are uh built and the six built the sixth building is being halted by this board until that encroachment is done anyways uh even though it had to come up so uh even though the encroachment hasn't been completed I still feel I I kind of feel that there is a hot ship that's being created here uh uh money is money has to keep flowing I mean it took money to build those two last two units and those last two units have to create the revenue for this application to to continue I do not want to see the encroachment uh come to a dead end I want to see it follow through and and approved yeah although but I do not see I do want to do don't want to create uh uh a hot ship with those last two units being being uh rented out uh everybody needs revenue to complete the their the everybody build house builds houses and they have to keep them going they have to sell them in order to keep building and this is a situation here where this is coming into play in this land that's why I I I kind of see the hot ship and I kind of like will give them my blessing and on those last two units.

Thank you Mr.

Pelletier Mr.

Harvey yeah so as was reviewed before the board at the last meeting um the applicant agreed three almost three years ago to address this hardship in order to get the five units that were uh approved at the time and and has had just short of three years to do that.

So an additional piece of income property for them to generate to benefit themselves without fulfilling the conditions of the initial approval.

So I agree that there's a hardship to the applicant uh that he has two buildings that are ready to be occupied and most likely tenants ready to uh uh occupy them, but that is not the fault of the town or of this board.

It's solely falls on the applicant.

And uh during Mr.

Meisner's presentation, he said going to court could take six months, and he's right, but they would have had five six-month intervals to address this issue and still have a few extra months left over.

So I am a hundred percent opposed to giving them any uh leeway on this, they have to live in the uh situation they created.

Thank you, Mr.

Harvey.

Uh Ms.

Carlson.

Um I was not here at the last meeting, but I did watch the meeting.

Um I have read the minutes, and I am definitely opposed to um granting the certificate of occupancy without this being corrected.

Um it was a condition back in 2023, it's been what two, three years now.

Uh there's been substantial time, and I agreed that it's a self-imposed hardship.

Um I would not be in favor of of granting the certificate of occupancy.

This needs to be fixed.

Mr.

Hellinick.

Uh Mr.

Lafontaine, just let me uh uh understand what I think you've said.

Did you since the last board meeting, did you actually meet with both the abutter and the and the applicant?

Yeah, and and they were together with you and discussed this issue.

Yes, it was the first time that we've met uh with and we also know with the code enforcement officer.

Um, and we need to discuss, you know, a couple of different options to move forward and to address it.

Um yes, yeah.

Okay, so you so you did meet was from the last board meeting to today's board meeting, was there any material change in information?

Uh no, not that I've received.

Um, you know, we we had that meeting.

I haven't received any subsequent information uh to this point.

Um but we did have a meeting and um I think they had a couple different plans that you can kind of conceptual plans that their engineer uh the applicant's engineer had drafted.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um what was the opposition of the abutter?

The opposition of the abutter, I think part of it was just an educational uh item uh to the applicant's credit.

I think he had the surveyor go out and identify the limits of the encroachment onto the abutter's property.

And I think that was from what I understand a surprise to the uh to the abutter who had encroached on the applicant's property.

Um that was kind of their their first step, I think, and then also like I said, we met and we talked about a couple of different things.

One, you know, just removing the encroachment and restoring the wetland, or two in some kind of replication on the parcel, but that uh like I said, seems a little bit more complex.

Uh um I guess I wouldn't recommend that the board issue uh you know COs for both of the outstanding units, but I I think in this instance it's not unusual where we would kind of grant a phased occupancy um where we would say, all right, you you know, you have some outstanding items, but they have to be done prior to final occupancy.

Um and we could do that here.

Uh I know that you know I kind of hear some different uh opinions from the board.

I I wouldn't recommend that we say you can occupy both units because uh I don't necessarily I I see this really per the 2023 approval and not necessarily tied to a future development.

Um I guess that's what I would say.

Just so that's uh um so that's an interesting point to uh for consideration and you know try to be as direct as you possibly can in this matter.

Uh so essentially saying if you if we grant a CO for the fourth one, you still have the fifth one that does not have a CO.

So technically that psych, you know, that plan is still open, and we have not you know issued a complete, you know, yeah completed it.

So it's it's a it's a little bit in between or it's somewhere in the middle, I guess.

And I did I think suggest that at our you know previously that's what you should together.

Um so just um that they've already had a phased approval because they've got three units approved and occupied out of five.

So they've already been given approval prior to completing this uh long-standing obligation that has yet to be addressed.

Right.

Mr.

Saber, do you agree with that?

100%.

That's what I've said of the second meeting.

Mr.

Pelletier.

I agree that the encroachment situation does have to be resolved.

Okay, I'm not backing down on that, and I'm not and I'm saying that because of this situation, the sixth building six building that they want to apply the people here should not be taken place until everything is resolved.

All right.

Mr.

Helen?

No occupancy permanents here.

In fact, Mr.

Mr.

Lafontaine's assertion that the abutter is surprised that he's encroached upon this land is in opposition to some testimony that we heard on the the day of the last meeting with the other abutter across from the the wetlands, he's claiming you spoke to that gentleman in 2008 or 2010.

So there's something there's something that isn't adding up for for me here, and I'm not sure why this is the board's the board's problem.

So I think it's more so the extent.

Can you just confirm or yeah, I think it was more so the extent of the encroachment.

I think that the abutter probably acknowledged that there was an encroachment, but I think from what I understand, it was a surprise to them to acknowledge the extent when the property boundaries were uh identified.

Okay, thanks.

But it does seem like there's a consensus, I think, at this time.

I just like the Mr.

Gene, did you have a question if the building permits were all approved at the same time, or if they were like the the site plan was approved and then the permits were were given at different times?

I I'm just having not being as educated on the situation.

Was it all done?

Is it was it approved and then phased, or were they just you know four months ago approved and then now can't occupy?

Uh no, so it was a phased construction.

So they've uh they got approval in 23.

Um Mr.

Chance would know when the first ones were under construction, but they're you know they were under construction.

Some of them have been occupied for some time now.

They had the two ones that are a little bit further uh to the east.

Um and I think they just you know they kind of picked away at them the two to the east are now under construction.

Um the applicant was looking for one uh occupancy.

I was just curious if if they were approved all at the same time and the build the permits were approved at the same time and it was a stipulation of the first one that this get resolved before and it just kept going in order to get so the site plan is actually the kind of the stipulation, so we always tell applicants to view the site plan as a contract between the town and and them.

Uh you know, so that site plan would capture the stipulation, it does capture the stipulation that the encroachment would be removed.

And uh, you know, the acknowledgement would be that that would be prior to occupancy, so you know, a hard line approach, which we traditionally haven't done would be that you can't occupy any until this is addressed.

But uh we in the past our practice has been you can occupy if you solve outstanding work, you know, for the most part as long as you address it prior to final occupants.

Thank you.

Um Jacob, would it be uh uh Mr.

Lafontaine would it be appropriate to have the applicant speak in this time or the only thing the only concern I have is just that they have um they still have an open application?

Uh come you know, uh to the uh March 12th meeting so that they could return even if they don't have everything addressed, but they could return to receive guidance on a specific item uh that's allowed under your ordinance, and we've done that occasionally with applicants who wanted direction on an item.

I just don't want to have a rapport outside of a public hearing.

Um so I I think it would be appropriate to have the applicant speak as long as it's only about the um the two houses that are waiting for certificate of occupancy with no mention of it tying to the open application.

Right.

Um we just need to make sure that there's that that clear line in the sand because it obviously if we're talking about the open application, it would need to be publicly noticed.

The whole nine.

So as long as it's only I in my opinion, as long as it's only pertaining to the application about the two houses that are waiting for a certificate box that it would be appropriate.

I think Mr.

Lafontaine, what's your advice?

I just worry a little bit about having you know dialogue outside of the public hearing.

Uh we did notice it for this meeting, but um it wasn't on the agenda, obviously.

And then um, you know, I I think the route would be to notice it for the twelfth.

I I think I hear concurrence from or you know, the major majority of the vote.

I uh yeah, I I would just say, you know, and also to the applicant themselves.

I you know, I I think the the board at this point is consistent with what we heard at the last planning board meeting.

Um, you know, despite uh my impassioned conversation.

I I think the board is has made a decision on this.

Um the the concern if you speak, sir.

I you know I I think the the board at this point is consistent with what we heard at the last planning board meeting um you know despite uh my impassioned conversation I I think the board is has made a decision on this um I so the the concern if you speak sir uh the the the problem is that you have not problem but uh the the issue is that you have an open application before the board anything that is discussed about that needs to be in a public hearing uh and uh that portion of it was not properly noticed yeah the c the concern would be that you know uh if I'm an interest in the butter and there's a dialogue between the board and and you or the applicant that that uh interested in butter uh did not have an opportunity to participate in the process so that's why I think the conservative thing to do would be that we we can not continue it but we notify it for the May 12th meeting in that at that time you'd have the opportunity to speak and then the abutter or any other member of the public would have an opportunity obviously the applicant would have an opportunity to speak as well.

And we're very interested in hearing what you have to say we just don't want to put anything else that you have before this board in jeopardy right and great all right thank you for understanding.

Sure.

And I'm I'm gonna talk about it because I really didn't know.

And uh sir we're gonna ask you to it's just not appropriate this time.

Right.

Thank you though.

Mr.

Lafontaine what else do you have for us?

Yep under public matters uh we have uh this one's pretty uh pretty minor it's 326 North Broadway uh Walmart I'm just bringing it to you kind of more for informational purposes they want to add an egress door they want to add three but the one's gonna be in the front of the building it's gonna match the paint but I just wanted to make you aware of it because it's technically a change to the exterior facade.

So you probably wouldn't even know it unless I mentioned it.

I don't know why this keeps scrolling um but it's in this area here.

Um the other item I wanted to bring to you was for 380 Main Street uh this is for 55 age restricted residential units and um the board in our ordinance requires that six of those be at an affordable rate.

Our ordinance allows a reduction in the impact fee uh either 50 or 60 percent based off of the uh affordable rate uh affordable area median income that they're uh sold at in this instance it's 60 percent so I wanted to bring a r the request to you uh to ask that uh if you're comfortable with reducing the impact fee for the six affordable units at 380 to 384 Main Street to 60 percent of the uh impact fee um would the question wouldn't that have been I think the didn't we do that at the time so there's so you did uh I don't know if you remember but I think this this site has probably been before the board more than at least in the last five years any uh other site initially they came in it was going to be a daycare with a age restricted right uh and then it should inverted from uh and office in the front and they converted to all age restricted you did act uh at one point on the phase one which is what they're looking to occupy but as a matter of housekeeping because now they have 55 units you never actually acted on the 55 units you acted on the 15 units that are originally appro uh uh approved so we did or did not you you did on the 15 units but you did not on the 55 units if that makes sense.

But we did approve the 55 units or we did not you have a you have approved 55 units but you do not uh approve the impact fee reduction for the 55 units.

Does that make sense I don't know how that could be but no I I understand but so they came in for the 15 units daycare and then uh mixed use building in the front with a couple of units up above and you approved the reduction at that time.

For those 15 units.

Yes.

And then they came in and they said actually we don't want to do a daycare in the middle of our age restricted development.

Right.

We want to do another age restricted development in the middle and uh then it was 55 units they that applicant sold the property very soon after approval and it wasn't until now that the current property owner came in to pay impact fees and I looked at it and I said well the board acted on the 15 units you probably should have them act on all 55 units because I imagine my assumption is that you're okay with it because you were okay with the prior approval but as a matter of housekeeping this would allow him yeah it's okay.

I'm okay with it.

Yeah sounds good.

Okay.

It was uh just kind of placehold.

I don't even know if they had placeholders.

I think they just elected not to show it.

So we you approved the plan subject to approval of any issuance of a sign permit, that the sign permit would be reviewed by the board uh prior to issuance.

Uh I went out to go visit the site because they're looking to occupy a couple of the units, and I noticed that they've got signage up and we haven't issued a sign permit yet.

And it's a job.

So um I wanted to bring this to you.

They have since submitted sign permits, they're conforming in su in terms of of uh size, but I mean I guess I would tell you our they don't do a great job of complying with our design guidelines, uh particularly the restaurant equipment, which um you know your design guidelines say that you really should only um uh advertise the most essential components and uh you know, here they've got their their phone number and it's kind of more of like a generic uh restaurant equipment.

So um would you like the board the plan staff to issue the sign permit, or do you want me to work with the applicant to make revisions to these items?

I would work with the app I would encourage you strongly encourage you to work with the applicant.

It will it would be, but I mean they also took it I would yeah, my that would be my recommendation.

Yeah, my position is they remove them and then they apply with for each sign and have it approved before they install anything on the building.

Okay, that would be my recommendation too.

So well said, Mr.

Harvey.

Yeah.

I mean, from my perspective, we kind of cut them a break by not forcing them to show them on the approved plan and then to uh but anyway, I I get the consensus and uh I'll be sure to communicate that to them.

And I think that's it.

We're uh we're up against the clock with some zoning amendments.

I'll have those uh hopefully drafted for HB 631 next uh meeting.

Uh we have a couple others that we've talked about as well.

Uh Creighton, uh Mr.

Brewbaker is here, and I think he wants to give a promo for the website.

I was hoping we'd hear from you, Mr.

Bruebaker.

Hello.

Uh my name is Karen Brubaker.

I work in community development uh for the town.

Uh we are having we're partnering with the Merrimack Valley Savings Bank uh on Wednesday, May 27th uh at 5 30 p.m.

for an ADU seminar.

So where um the town and the bank are uh kind of putting together a a panel for uh to talk about financing tools uh that the bank offers as well as uh some title uh things related to ADUs and uh and then Jacob and uh deputy fire chief will be here as well to talk about permitting um and what what Salem's regulations are for Salem residents who are interested in building ADUs uh and we're gonna record that and then put it on the website uh for people interested in building those.

So where is that?

Uh it'll be here at town hall in the nightly room.

Thank you.

Um please at the main page.

And Creighton, I believe that it is for or that type of financing is for ADUs, but also for just construction projects um at a home.

So it it doesn't necessarily only apply to an ADU.

Um it could be an addition, it could be a garage, it could be you know whatever uh you know, large projects you may need, uh, but I believe it also applies to that.

Yeah, I think they could talk about that as well.

Yep.

Great, and what was that date and time again?

Uh May 27th at 5 30.

It's a Wednesday.

I actually attended a seminar last week on ADUs it was very informative.

It was put on by a company that that a construction company that that puts them uh that installs them, constructs them.

And one of the things that came up, I was curious as to how the town deals with it, but uh they pro uh when you're on public utilities, they uh this company prefers to connect to the main homes um sewer and water versus doing a separate run from the street because of the costs involved to the ADU.

How does the town of Salem tackle that?

Um allow separate utilities uh typically.

I mean we're we're facing a lot of novel uh or not really novel anymore, but new problems, I guess, because not problems, new challenges challenges.

Um because historically we haven't allowed uh detach ADU, so there are some items that have come up, uh for instance, you know, do you need a separate service?

Because there are some instances where you might have frontage on one road and the houses on the other.

Um, but to date and traditionally it wouldn't be allowed a separate, you know, uh you'd have to have your same stub, your same uh water service would have to come out, same sewer service, and then you'd have to tee off from from that service.

Um but we're gonna you know there's items that have come up from a planning perspective is you know, second drives, you know.

Do we want uh you know, should and that's probably something that some communities have addressed, but there are things that we didn't really anticipate until you adopt an ordinance and then you have people come in with applications and uh that would be one thing that we that we've uh reviewed as well.

And a way to work with that, um not necessarily a work around, but you could um just do a separate submeter, uh which would be on the responsibility of the homeowner to do that separate metering.

It wouldn't wouldn't go through the town.

The town would still send their one bill, um, but it would be on the homeowner to to separately.

They were gonna use it as an income to build the generator to build uh the resident, rather.

The other thing that I learned from the uh seminar was you know that uh if you're on if you're on private septic and you're doing that, uh then you have to you have to do a uh a new uh new septic plan for the property, but you aren't the homeowner isn't necessarily required to uh uh modify or change the septic system.

But that would the new plan would be what would be enforced when they did in the future need to replace it or or right size it.

So I think a lot, and there's so many houses in Salem that are on private septic a lot of people feel that they that that's a big uh inhibitor to uh them being able to add an ADU, but in reality they're not as in the existing owner, not forced to uh expand the septic system because they're adding another bedroom over the ADU to the property, but they are required to submit a plan as to how that would look if they did it.

Uh and then ultimately if they failed or whatever, then that would be the the guidelines I would have to follow if they were to change the system.

So that was interesting to to know as well.

So yeah, a lot of people I think because there's been so much uh promotion of the uh the change at the state level.

I think a lot of people have come in and kind of think, hey, I can do it, uh you know, by right, and um the limiting factor you're right is often septic uh capacity, and then also the building setbacks a lot of time, you know, a lot of people want to.

You can't put a road barn in a contemporary neighborhood.

I mean it has to look like the house, right?

That would be the other thing that you'd have an issue with.

So we are seeing a lot of interest, and I think the building department is tracking, I think that data in terms of how many ADU permits have been issued.

Uh as as far as from uh design standpoint, I don't believe that you can require that the ADU look like the main structure.

Um you could you could have a a red barn next to a green house if you wanted to.

Um, you know, would a would a homeowner probably want to do that?

Likely not, but uh there's nothing in our design standards that says that they would uh be required to make it match.

Yeah, our ordinance re uh uh encourages it, but we can't require the state law.

But then you have HOAs and other things too that can.

Yeah, yeah.

But um actually we had one that came in and he said the ADU is not gonna match my house, but ultimately my house will match my ADU.

So he said that you know that's what he wants to do to his he wants to reside his house at some point.

So okay.

Um so but there's we encourage it, but we cannot require, and we disclose that at the counter.

You're gonna push for it, but you can't force it.

Yeah.

What else you have, Mr.

Crystal Afontaine?

Mr.

Rubaker, anything else?

Uh Mr.

Brubaker shares that the open space master plan should be ready for the next meeting, the May 12th meeting.

Great.

Excellent.

Uh well, I hope you guys Ms.

Carlson.

Um go ahead, just before we adjourn.

I have one other point.

I was gonna wrap it up.

Oh, okay.

Because I have to.

Uh, how are we looking on the zoning update RFP?

Yeah.

Uh it's not posted right now.

Um, but we do have it drafted, so I'll try to get that posted for you.

Do we have a timeline?

Um, yeah, what is it?

It's almost May, so by June, I think would be a reasonable, and I'd like to do it before then, but uh it's uh I know that I uh I think the ZBA chair called me a Krefuncle or something like that.

I don't know, I've never heard the word before.

But I know that I owe you uh the RFP, and I also know that I owe them signage uh yard signs.

And uh they're both on uh the top of my list.

Okay, good question.

That that's all I have.

Good question.

Uh well uh thank you for supporting me as uh I sit in the chair's seat.

Uh I hope you enjoyed the ADU conversation.

I don't think that would have happened with Mr.

Pioli here present.

Uh one last shout out.

Uh if you have an opportunity, uh listen to what's up Salem podcast, our very own Bianca Carlson was on talking about her efforts on public transportation in Salem.

Our very own Bianca Carlson was on talking about her efforts on public transportation in Salem.

And uh it's very uh very good podcast.

I encourage everyone to listen.

Uh with that being said, I will entertain a motion.

I move that we adjourn.

Second.

All those in favor?

All right.

It's unanimous.

Thank you.

Thank you.