I would like to call the May 26th, 2026 meeting of the Planning Board to order.

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

Liberty and Justice Raw.

My name is Joe Fioli serving as chairman tonight.

To my right and Jim Harvey.

Good evening, Salem.

Erica Carlson.

Good evening, Salem.

To my left town council rep Paul Pelletier.

Good evening.

And Damon Norcross.

Good evening.

And from the planning department, we have Jacob Lafontaine and Craig Brewbaker.

And the agenda for tonight is as follows.

We have two items of new business, Clark Subdivision Plans Preliminary Hearing for two lot subdivision eight Atkinson Road.

And 57 Salem Street LLC subdivision plan.

That's a preliminary preliminary hearing for a two-lot residential subdivision at three Bernice Ave.

Any withdrawals tonight?

Mr.

Chair, the first item of new business for Clark Subdivision is requested to be continued to your June 9th.

Okay, thank you.

Um we'll have you'll have to wait until uh it's the the if the applicant speaks.

We're going just through the agenda right now.

Um were we?

Oh, we have one minute, one item of uh minutes tonight from the May 12th meeting.

Mr.

Chair, I approve uh moved or we approve the minutes.

Second.

Gonna motion a second to accept uh meet uh approve the meeting of the May 12th meeting minutes.

Any discussion?

All in favor.

That's unanimous five zero.

We have a five member board tonight.

Um first item of new business.

Um that's I guess the second item on the agenda since the first is with uh withdrawn.

So 57 Salem Street LLC subdivision print plan that's a preliminary hearing for a two-lot residential subdivision at three Bernice Ave.

Is the plan complete?

Yes, the plan is complete.

Ms.

Chair, I move to accept the plan as complete.

Second.

All those in favor, it's unanimous abutters, please.

The abutters are as follows.

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

Cipriano, Tarasi, 57 Salem Street, LLC, Sam Bataro, Kuroco, Roderick, Peters, Whitcomb, and that is all.

Uh thank you.

Go to the applicant for the plan.

Mr.

Chair, if I may.

Oh, sorry.

Point of order.

Thank you.

If you guys would like to move your chairs up so you can hear better.

Okay.

If you can't hear us, feel free to move good, you know, right up there.

And I just wanted are you here to hear this petition uh this okay.

I want to make sure you weren't here for Clark.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Ambassador.

Please, applicant.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and Board members.

My name is Kurt Meiser.

I'm with Meisner Brem Corporation.

I'm here this evening to represent 57 Salem Street LLC in a two-lot subdivision uh that's located at number three Bernese Avenue, which is uh on the uh corner of Bernice and Dunbar Terrace.

Um back in uh March of this year.

We went to the zoning board and we requested a variance to uh create these lots with undersized frontage and uh undersized lots.

That variance was granted with some stipulations that show on the plan.

Uh the plan as it stands now, has an existing dwelling at number three uh burney's and that is shown on the plan.

Uh that is serviced by municipal water and municipal sewer.

Uh the proposed new lot would be at the corner of Dunbar and Bernice, and that would also be serviced by municipal water and sewer with access on to Bernice Ave.

Um there's no wetlands on the site, there's no flood plan on the site.

Uh the buildings as proposed meet the building setbacks.

Uh so there's really no other no other real issues.

We are extending the sewer up uh Bernice Ave.

And uh I met with Mr.

Brown in the engineering department.

He was satisfied with uh the trenching detail and the and the location of where uh we were going to go with the sewer.

So uh with that being said, I think all things are pretty well wrapped up on this.

And if you have any questions, I'll happy to help you.

Thank you.

Go to the planning department for staff comments.

Uh I don't have a lot tat to Mr.

Meiser's presentation.

Uh there's an existing parcel that's now 0.49 acres, and there'll be a new one at 0.25 acres.

They received sorry, uh, it's 0.25 and 0.24.

The existing lot itself is 0.49.

So two uh quarter acre parcels, and they're both on town water town sewer.

They did receive a variance for the undersized lots.

Uh that was earlier this year, March 3rd, 2026.

Those minutes were included in your packet.

Uh that was approved with a stipulation about sewer, water, roof infiltration, and uh to submit a demand benefit assessment.

As Mr.

Meiser stated, those items have been added to the plan.

We haven't received uh senior engineer Jim Brown's final sign-off, but we could incorporate that as part of the approval.

Uh, if your concerns are satisfied tonight, recommendation would be to move to here in one hearing and grant conditional approval subject to conditions.

I can provide anyone you'd like.

You can give us those conditions.

Recommended conditions would be uh prior to recording plan one submit staff approvals, 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.

Uh thank you.

Umbers of the public like to speak on the plan.

Go to the board.

Any comments from the board.

I would I would just like to read.

Are there any comments?

Okay.

Um I have none.

Great.

Well, if the taint a motion then, Mr.

Chair, I moved to here in one hearing, grant additional approval for a two-lot subdivision at three Bernie Sav map 90, lot 1450, subject to the three three conditions as outlined by Mr.

Lafontaine.

Okay.

Motion and second to uh hear the uh 57 Salem Street LC Barut subdivision plan in one hearing and grant conditional approval with the three conditions.

Uh any discussion on that.

All is in favor.

Okay, easy enough.

Thank you.

Alrighty, thank you very much.

Uh I have a handful of public matter items.

Uh excellent.

Although it would have been nice to get out in seven minutes.

Um the first item is some modifications made to uh the Tuscan North Jewel buildings.

This is building 1030.

So if you'll recall uh the northern, there's two north jeweled buildings.

The one on the uh northern portion, closer to where building 4000 is gonna go, is going to be uh Cafe Nero with another retail tenant, and then the building to the south, closer to the central piazza where the fountains located, was to be a um two-story building with um two tenants.

That plan has changed.

So this was the approved elevation here.

Uh showed kind of a monolithic building with some cladding on the side, and uh they did a good job here with transparency and fenestration.

Uh this is what they're proposing now, so it'll be a smaller building.

Uh, they're not sure if it'll be a single occupant or two occupants, but uh obviously it's a uh smaller building, and then uh it's not as monolithic, obviously, as what was proposed, which is probably I think in my subjective opinion, uh a benefit.

They are still contain uh keeping some of the um material that was in the approved elevation, particularly here in this middle portion, it makes it maybe look a little bit uh random now, but um you know the other items I think are uh other ends of the building are are pretty attractive.

One thing that they don't comply with is our uh site plan regulations that state that you need to break up the facade uh 60 percent of the of the facade uh and they have a blank expanse here.

So recommendation would be that we would ask them to, or we'd have them put either a uh uh glazed window here or an actual window here.

We've done it uh both ways.

I think Shake Shack has some windows that were uh apply to vinyl application so that they're true windows, but they don't view the back of Shake Shack's kitchen.

Uh and we would ask I would imagine the same thing here to keep uh them in compliant with our design guidelines.

This is the other elevations here.

Uh so again, I think it's definitely an improvement to the this is the north facing facade which face the interior courtyard.

Uh it was kind of back of house with the single tenant, and this is what they're proposing now.

So I think uh in terms of the northern section, definitely in an improvement.

The uh question is just this area here.

Um again, so it's to add symmetry so that you have two windows on either side.

Um and then the other recommendation would be that we weigh uh we'd have our design consultant weigh in as well because they reviewed the original elevations.

They provided some preliminary comments that were relative to what I just shared uh in terms of you know the lack of uh compliance with the site plan regulations.

So I wanted to bring to the board, see if you guys were okay with the modifications subject to um them adding some uh adding a a window on the northern end of the building, and then uh our third-party design consultant comments.

Is the footprint the same?

Footprint is uh the same, yes.

Yep.

So they did get a foundation permit.

We issue the foundation foundations in, and then they came in uh for a permit to go vertical, and they had actually a different set of elevations than these, but they were it still showed a single story building, uh not consistent with what you approved.

So um we had them come back to to you for further review.

Okay.

This is the Cafe Nero building.

It's not it's the I think they proposed it as like a jewelry or watch uh uh store and it's changed.

I guess now they don't really have a tenant locked in.

They potentially could have two tenants, it might change where they only have a single tenant, but I think they would move forward with these elevations.

Gotcha.

I don't have any issues at all to follow your your recommendations with the uh facade modifications.

Yeah.

Okay.

You think it needs outside design consultant review?

I know they did the other one.

They weighed in, uh they sent an email, so it might not really need much more than that.

They they commented on you know the the non-compliance with our design right our site plan regulations and design guidelines.

And uh they also commented on the random, but you know somewhat randomness now that it's not that one monolithic building, that there's kind of a mix of materials.

Uh maybe it'll look okay when it's when it's built out, but those were the comments that they had.

Okay.

Good.

Good on that.

Yep.

Okay.

Um this is uh request from the Salem Housing Authority.

So they've requested that you grant another uh site plan uh extension for their project at 44 Millville Street.

You've done this, I think, on a couple of occasions now.

Uh most recently in February of 2025, I believe.

Uh plan was originally approved in June of 2022.

So again, similar to their previous request, they were not successful in securing uh low-income housing tax credit grant through the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority.

However, they were successful in securing three million in congressionally directed spending.

So I think now they have probably more funds than they did in the past, but they still don't have enough funds to go forward with the project at this time.

They take up the impact fees, have they changed since uh 2022?

Um it's a good question.

Uh they have changed since 2022.

The traffic impact fee is increased.

They're subject to reduced impact fees because it's uh low-income housing, but uh it's probably uh it's probably a good point to raise.

I mean, you could assess the impact fees as amended uh if you'd like.

Does it do do we have to do the impact fees since it's sale of housing?

Um I think that we have assessed I have to check on the approval.

Let me see if the approval letters would have been included in your packet.

Let's see.

Um I do think that we'd still assess impact fees.

Yeah, we did.

We had impact fees of two thousand five hundred and fifty-one dollars per unit if senior and five thousand five thousand six hundred and seventy seventeen dollars unit per unit if not senior.

Those are now I think five thousand eight hundred and eighty-four dollars.

Uh so it's gone up what's that two hundred and change.

Um okay, just extending the site plan as it is since it's sales housing authority and they're just trying to they're trying to get grants to make the project work.

So the impact fee ordinance costs impact fees.

The impact fees are assessed at time of planning board approval.

So I think that'd be a reasonable.

You know, I think either way is probably okay to uh we have some projects that were approved a while ago that have still been subject because if you look at the the way the RSA and the ordinance is written, it's at time of site plan approval or if uh planning board approval is not required, it's at time of building permit.

So go ahead.

Sorry, uh just out of curiosity.

Do they own the land in question or something?

They do own the land.

I'm pretty confident.

Yep.

Um do we have any sort of uh like vesting requirements?

Like if they if they get the project approved that they're they're they're vested for a certain amount of time before they would get an increase in impact fees.

We we have vested impact fees in the past, and I guess it'd be a reasonable way to approach this would be to vest them.

I mean, we have uh subdivision that was approved in the early 2000s or late 90s, and the practice of the planning division has always been to apply the impact fees at time of approval, even though those houses are probably worth more than some others.

But um, and I think the justification for that is the RSA and that in the our ordinance, our ordinance also uh states that the impact fees are assessed at time of approval, planning board approval.

So that would vest their, I think impact fees.

Yeah, I I've I believe that there's a uh state RSA that would dictate either a five or seven-year vesting period.

Um I'm not super clear on I I recall reading up on the RSA, I don't remember the specific language, but it was something to do about the vesting and the impact fees at either five or two.

77 is the subdivision requirements, and I think it's if you uh because we dealt with that on Nugget Hill, whether or not that application was vested or not, and and I think that's what the RSA refers to.

The uh site plan regulations are uh year, so you'd have to similar to you know what they're doing here, you'd have to come in on an annual basis to renew.

But if you begin a subdivision, I think you have five you have to start construction within a certain period of time.

Yeah, some sort of substantial work has to be done, whether it's a building permit pulled or construction beginning or something to that effect.

For subdivision regulations, yeah.

Or subdivisions rather.

It it may be worth a reading up on it just to understand what the what the RSA states about about it with increase in the impact fees.

Um that's all I have to do.

I'd rather not increase the impact fees on the Salem Housing Authority's.

No, no, I I I agree, and that's kind of where I'm going with that is that if the site plan approval was in 2022, and if they're vested.

If we have to vest them for five or for seven years, they may, but depending on what the RSA says, we they may be locked in regardless.

Yeah, it makes sense.

Through the through the impact fee in the R.

So I think there's two things.

There's there's a subdivision, which you can vest your subdivision approval, and you have five to seven years, I think, to construct the the street if what if what I remember correctly.

Oh and then the impact fee ordinance and the RSA specifically say at time of planning board approval.

I think other communities have pushed on that, and you know, but we haven't.

We've we've allowed a project once it's approved by this board.

Yeah, for instance, we updated the impact fees in 23.

Yeah.

Projects that have come in subsequent to 23, we still assess the 2022 uh impact fees.

Sure.

And that is in the uh ordinance in the RSA.

Okay.

You want to make a motion to make a motion to extend the site plan?

Yeah, and if you need to make it um it appears the last one expired on 425 26.

Yeah, but the the approval um was granted June 28th, 2022.

So I think that I guess my logic would be that if you approved an extension on April 25th, they kind of came in prematurely.

I don't think they're uh extension because you granted a one-year extension.

I don't think would expire until uh June of this year.

I think 28th.

Yeah.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Chair, I move to grant an extension of the 44 Millville Street site plan for 12 months until June 28th, 2027.

Second.

Uh in favor.

Well that's unanimous uh to uh extend the Salem Housing Authority site plan approval for one year.

Uh the next request included in your packet uh where I might have actually just sent it to you via email.

Uh it was for Canaby Lake Park, it's the Visa Family Spinning Coaster Ride.

And uh they're looking for site plan exemption.

Uh in their memo, they note that this is similar to what the board granted in May of 2023 for the Nebula Z ride, and they've provided a pretty thorough package.

It's got um, you know, obviously this narrative request in the exemption.

They have a traffic impact fee evaluation memo that they've submitted.

They've also done a uh a noise uh review, and then uh they've provided um some renderings.

So this is kind of their their sketch rendering here.

This is from the manufacturer's uh book.

So obviously it'll be kind of the same idea here as these ones, but it'll be themed as this red fox run.

And then in terms of the location of the park, it's in the interior of the of the park.

It is subject to shoreland approval because it's within 250 feet of the high water mark.

They are going to remove some impervious area for the state's requirement.

They're gonna remove this area area uh around.

I think those are the swings that are located there, and then they're also gonna remove this area of impervious that goes down to the to the lake itself.

So yeah, you can see that this is the area Da Vinci's Dream is going to be removed, and then again the pathway down, and this is the area of the ride, it's uh right to the directionally.

I think I guess that'd be to the south of over the rainbow ride.

They noted in their packet that it was uh uh a ride, a junior ride up until the late 80s, it's been vacant, and they were looking to replace it now.

Um so wanted to bring it to you.

I I did meet with the applicant uh and their uh agent SFC, and I talked with the uh previous planning director, my predecessor, and we've done this uh in the past.

There's not really uh been all overly scientific about it.

You know, we I talked to uh them, you know, uh untamed went, but uh Nebula Z didn't.

Um there they were giving me a couple other examples where they didn't go in.

I think the skater didn't go, so um the I think this is fine.

This does not need to come in for site plan approval.

So it's in the park.

There's already all these uh rides and machines and around it, it's not gonna add any noise and it's not gonna add any traffic.

Okay.

Yeah.

Definitely no traffic, yeah.

Which was the way it was handled.

Uh yeah, well, I mean, the traffic is the traffic, right?

The park fills up.

It's been there since 1902, I think.

They now know what they were getting into when they moved into those houses.

So the park was already there.

So I don't know.

And it's already in the middle, it's all it's all the water too in the in the middle of all the other rides.

So it's definitely not gonna add any noise.

No height issues.

Right.

And uh one thing I've mentioned too is they in their traffic memo, they noted that post-COVID they haven't had to utilize off-site parking once.

So prior to COVID, they uh now they have gone all the way or sorry, fully online.

So they're able to anticipate uh, you know, the uh patrons that they're gonna service in a day and kind of cut off tickets, and they've utilized that uh on peak days.

Previously, I think they used to have to uh utilize a shuttle system that went down northeastern boulevard, I think, and they haven't had to do that once since 2020 or maybe 2019, I guess that 2019 season would have been the last time they had to utilize it.

Okay, so they are kind of cognizant of the traffic concerns and they've they've made uh efforts to improve it.

So very good.

All right.

Um the this is a request from uh I think ABA Centers of America.

They're asking to have a one-day event at Camp Wywood.

So this is 59 Liberty Street, and it would be June 27th, 2026, and they'd look to have vendors, DJs, live entertainment, face painting, um approximately 250 attendees throughout the day, 9 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

for setup, 11 a.m.

to 4 p.m.

for the event itself.

You've approved similar uh assemblies at at this camp in the past.

I think there's been uh music festivals like a one-day music festival event and some other activities that have occurred there.

So wanted to bring it to you and see if you had any concerns.

All the parkings in there.

Yeah, they've identified uh main parking field as A, and then they've also got an overflow parking field as B.

Um that you know, we we could take a look and just make sure that that can accommodate the demand that they're looking at.

I don't know if they've had to utilize space beyond that area in the past where they've got their interactive experience.

They probably have some area closer to the water if need be, but um, it is a good question.

I can I can look at I don't have any issues.

I think good.

I would imagine it's a flow and not everybody's gonna be there from start to finish anyway.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, it's way off the beat in bath over there.

Um right, easy.

Uh this one's just an FII uh Field of Dreams, they're gonna have a singer-songwriter series, and I guess this is more for promotional purposes.

It'll be May 30th through August 29th.

Um, and they're gonna have it every uh not every Saturday, uh every few Saturdays, I think.

So just an FYI.

We I discuss it with the chair, and we view it as consistent with their uh existing uh entertainment that they provide there for their concerts, I believe, and their family uh movie nights.

Is this a thing that um if the field of dreams has different artists that are that are coming that they have to bring it before us?

They have to submit a temporary event permit now, or the town has been more uh adamant that they submit the temporary event permit so that we have the ability to review it and uh comment.

So again, this one is pretty consistent with how they've previously acted and talking with the chair is probably something that doesn't warrant coming to the board, but we wanted to bring it to you just so that you were aware of it, and then you know, we have brought some of their other events, they had that 5k recently.

We brought that to you.

I think one of the things that triggered it, and I'm not entirely sure, but I you know, they had a large well, a larger draw.

I think a ticketed event last year, cycled percussion, I think came, and I think that was something uh I don't want to misspeak.

I don't think they submitted a an event permit for us to review it in advance.

I think it was kind of an after the fact discussion.

So I think that's in part, you know, what we want to try to do is just make sure that you know who the occupants there are aware of the process that the town's aware of the pr uh process.

Okay.

All right, I think those are all of our public matter items, and uh I wanted to dig in.

Oh, sorry.

Did was there something for Tuscan Rec Park?

Um, there was, thank you, Mr.

Norcross.

I don't think I included it in my slide, but it was included either in I think it was in your package.

Oh, it was an email.

Um what they'd like to do is um uh when the Tuscan rec park was approved, they had an area um that I guess we've been referring to as the wedge where uh you get closer to the floodplain and it is a triangular shape.

They had an area that was shown as uh what they call a log play, so it had a series of logs that you could jump from one to the other.

Uh when we met on site last week with the um uh construction team, the uh team that's gonna construct the playground, they noted that the area needs to have a six foot fall zone.

And uh so it's in this area here.

So what you approved was a series of stuff uh stumps is what they call their log play in this area where that uh pin was just dropped.

So because of the six foot fall zone, uh there's a paved pathway here uh and it narrows out here.

So I think it limited it to about uh three stumps.

So their their creative solution was to remove the stumps and go forward with boulders.

The boulders can only have a 12-inch relief, so it can only be a foot above ground.

Uh and if it were greater than that, it would also be subject to the fall zone.

But the idea is that those boulders will provide the same uh you know level of engagement or the same kind of activity that they anticipated with the stumps, and then they're gonna put sand around uh kind of the entirety of that wedge to accommodate for the fall zone, even though there's not the six foot required because it's no greater than a foot uh above trade.

But wanted to bring that to you.

They are out there, I think as of today, trying to work to complete the rec park.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thanks, Mr.

Norcrest.

You're welcome.

Um so now the fun part is zoning amendments.

Um there are a handful I wanted to we wanted to bring to you uh to discuss.

The first is um we've had a couple of daycares that have come in either before you or have inquired about locations where their use would be permitted.

And I looked at or we looked at our table, and it's kind of redundant in some areas.

I think a lot of this goes back to the um the state RSA and how the state defines different uses.

I think for the town's purpose, we probably don't care as much as the state does about you know, group daycare versus daycare facility.

They are tied to student counts, but I think that you know, we haven't really applied that that way.

I don't think we have daycare facilities in most of these districts that would probably fall under the daycare facility provision.

Uh, you know, certainly some on uh Main Street in the business office district, definitely in the limited community shop and village district.

Uh the board just approved an application in the CIC district.

Um so the idea was to try to consolidate these.

I looked at a couple other communities, they don't have quite as many.

We could probably consolidate this even further.

I I kind of was a little bit conservative because uh you know, we've got public and parochial schools, and those are allowed in our residential districts with the exception of the recreational district.

Um so initially I was gonna consolidate secondary, post-secondary, and public all under one, but I guess you know, maybe a consideration would be that a post-secondary university would have a different impact.

I don't know that they would want to set up in our residential districts, but maybe it's it is appropriate to have them in the uh town center and commercial industrial uh B and C district.

I highlighted A because they're allowed in A.

A is really um just pretty much the immediate depot area.

Uh and I don't know if we could leave that in there.

I guess if a applicant came up with a mixed use development and wanted to have a university tenant, uh obviously it wouldn't be like a whole campus, but if they wanted to have you know some off site uh satellite location or something like that, that might be appropriate.

But I highlighted it to ask the question.

I say leave it.

All right.

Uh family daycare, I cleaned this up.

It you know, I figure we keep it because it just reinforces that you can have those home daycares, which I really think the state uh requires.

We had it listed as a permitted use in the limited community shopping village district.

There's not really any residential limited community shopping village district is the 97 shops, and then uh Erma Road and 11.

There's not maybe one residence in that area, so I guess if the Erma Road, I think that's the armor's property.

If they wanted to convert it, this would allow it, but I mean otherwise I didn't really see it to be applicable.

So I just I removed it there.

Okay.

Um daycare facilities, I consolidated child care, nursery, and group daycare center under one.

So pretty much all of these were uh listed as a permitted use, and there's probably some nuance there from the state, but I think for our purposes, maybe not as important.

Uh and the other thing I highlighted was CIB.

Um right now daycare, sorry, not daycare facilities, child care nursery and nursery schools are permitted in the CIB district, but not the CIC district.

So I just wanted to raise the question.

CIC would be the area south of Main Street down uh to the state line, and then CIB is really to the north of that, north of Main Street, and then also um Styles Road, Key Waiden, um Northeastern, those are CIB.

So it's it's allowed in CIC or CIP?

It's allowed in CIB.

So it wouldn't be allowed south of Main Street on 28.

Okay.

Uh you allowed, well, not you allowed the ZBA granted a variance to allow the one at 174 Main Street, that's CIC.

Um, you know, I I think the CIA, it's probably prudent not to have it as a permitted use in that immediate depot area, but maybe it's reasonable to allow it in the rest of CIB.

Um I think Froggies as was a daycare at one point, they must have been there by variance, but you know, if another applicant wanted to open on South Broadway, I mean I don't know how the board feels about it.

I think you should just update it for CIC and CIB.

Okay, so I'll remove that CIB in parentheses and it'll be open.

Um and then the special exception for other private schools, uh I guess maybe consideration to to eliminate it.

We'd have to amend this portion of the ordinance.

It was adopted in 95, but it allows these uses by these uses by special exception, including private schools and hospitals.

Um they have to go to the ZBA for a special exception, and then they have to come to the board.

We don't do as much by special exception as we did in the 90s, but um, you know, one thought is I would maybe have difficulty making a distinction between a private and a parochial school.

I mean, I understand what the diff differences are, but I don't know if we'd really make a distinction if somebody's you know non-denominational uh if their impacts are essentially the same, you know.

So to me, it's almost like you know, maybe it's public, private, and parochial schools or public and private schools and parochial fall under that.

I mean, uh, but I just wanted to bring it to your attention.

So I'm good to consolidate those.

Okay.

All right.

Yeah, the idea is to make it a little easier for the applicant and for uh staff to try to apply this.

You know, it's tricky when I think daycare facilities before were only permitted uh by right in the limited community shopping village district, which was a pretty small area in town.

Uh this one we talked about in the past, it's to allow service uses in the business office districts.

Uh I think there's talk about this in our master plan, and there's actually service uses, uh business office would be primarily around Main Street, um, like from exit two, kind of over towards the historic town center.

Uh it ends a bit before that, but I could pull it up.

But uh, you know, if you want to have a hair salon there or uh tattoo studio or uh uh nail salon, or you know, I mean those are the kind of uses that would be permitted under this.

A lot of them already exist and it would kind of clean that up.

You have some that I think were permitted not that long ago.

Spreight 10 studio spray tan, yeah.

So makes sense to me.

Um this one we keep talking about, and I just um I guess I wanted to bring it back again.

Uh the cigar bars and so the idea would be to adopt a definition of what a cigar bar is and it would just point back to the RSA.

It's not a nightclub.

Uh right.

Yeah, well, so I guess what I wanted to do is make a if you wanted to do a nightclub, you you could.

I I guess the idea is that we've heard certain impacts specifically of the cigar bar licenses.

I think one thing we talked about, which I neglected to do in this is that you maybe thought that it would be okay to allow cigar bars but prohibit the hours, is that correct?

Did somebody oh yeah cause they are thinking that was Jim's idea, right?

Yeah.

Because they're a little unique, you know, like uh I think of a if somebody wanted to open um you know a bar that or a restaurant that had a a bar and provided you know live entertainment, um that maybe would be okay, you know, close to a residential unit.

These are 11 p.m.

to 1 a.m.

and it's uh really what you view as a good way to close that loophole is just have it to 11 a.m.

Okay in the definition.

All right.

All right, so no cigar bar maybe located within 700 feet from any residential that is uh that operates between the hours of you know 10 and midnight or something, or 10 and 1 a.m.

or something like that.

Okay.

I don't think you want 1 a.m.

Uh well would say that you can't operate between those hours.

So I guess you could have a cigar bar that opens that it would be open until 10 p.m.

or nine p.m.

Then closes and opens at one on one a.m.

Well unless the state change I don't think they can be you can't serve alcohol after 1 a.m.

unless the municipality uh adopts uh an amendment or whatever.

Uh I think Berlin's like before midnight, so we don't have the issue.

Isn't that the thought?

Yeah.

Okay.

So just leave it broadly.

So you think that eleven thirty p.m.

is okay?

What do we see?

What did you say?

10.

Yeah, I'm just thinking I mean though the applications that we've had, some of them have been uh 11 a.m.

eleven p.m.

to like 1 a.m.

or or 10 30 to uh 1 a.m.

And what happens is they have these big peak in factors because everyone goes when they open.

And everyone's goes when they leave.

And we've had a couple instances where they've been direct of butters to residential uh properties.

So I mean that that was kind of the idea was that you know we would have a proximity uh prohibition from residential units be uh uses similar to the kennels, which we didn't really talk about, but um you know I think the idea is that there's some expectation when you move next to a commercial property that you'll have some impacts associated with it.

But these uh seem to be unique in terms of the intensity that they that that they have.

I think I talked to you about the one of the dog uh daycares and the drop off was like say 5 30 or 6 in the morning and the guy uh I felt very bad for him, but he would call me at like six in the morning and you could hear incessant barking and the site plan had a note on it saying that it uh sound would be uh addressed with a tent of staff or something like that.

And I call him and he has staff shortage and can't address it.

You know, it's it's one of those things where maybe one thing to live next to a uh car rental facility or something like that, but if that car rental turns into a dog daycare or cigar bar, I think there's maybe different impacts that are associated with those uses.

I don't know, cap it at eleven.

Okay.

Uh I don't know, this is a holdover.

I don't think we need to this was uh discussion we had about whether or not we want to increase the area of um ADUs, and I think the board at the time we discussed it was pretty adamant that you didn't want to do that.

Uh most of the communities in our size allow for the 950, which is required by the state RSA.

Some uh some are less than that.

I think Milford just approved a an amendment for an 1100 square feet ADU.

The reason why I initially brought this to you is because of some of the variances that had been granted over the last five years or so.

It doesn't matter what the cap you put on the zoning board, it's gonna grant the variance.

And I think that's kind of a lot of things.

So keep it low to have a little bit of a deterrence.

Okay.

I mean in sync with the state, nine fifty.

I mean, some of those are as big if not bigger than my house.

Yeah, yeah, they're they're ridiculous.

Uh yeah.

The Samuset Drive, I think was interest.

I mean, they they were just shy of the requirement uh for a duplex, so they might they probably could have went for that instead of the city.

He's got like a whole compound and a massive lot.

Like that one, I guess I I think that's a good thing.

But some of the others you're right.

But yeah.

For no reason.

Okay.

This is another uh another hot button one but uh one of the town counselors and there's been some other discussion uh about data centers so we just wanted to kind of check your pulse and see what your thoughts were this is what uh the town of Canterbury I don't know if this actually got approved but this is our proposed zoning amendment and essentially what they were just trying to do was adopt a definition of data center and then they were prohibited in all zones.

So I don't know I mean the the concerns that communities have had with data centers is that you know they use a lot of public utilities.

Good thing we don't have any usable land in town for a data center.

That was kind of what I understood uh someone did tell me that there was we have they did we have a date we approved the data center right over um industrial uh right next to um Pelham Street or uh Main Street or Main Street in policy main street and what's in there we approved the data center in the uh we have a um yeah um what over northeastern yeah northeast of the northeastern we we approved the data center in there that for for the addition that they came in recently right so you're talking about yeah yeah was one of those a data center yeah uh can you just make it that they have to provide their own power generating system if they're gonna add a data center and that makes it pretty easy so that has been some of the discussion for I because I think I think they can generate I think Governor Ayod maybe signed a legislation and I'm speaking on a turn I'd have to do some research but I think that there's legislation where they could generate their own power so they could be off grid.

I don't think we need a definition for that we're not building no giant data center in this town there's no land for it.

Unless something's redeveloped though yeah I guess we do what what's going to be redeveloped to put a data center.

I don't know a lot of money to be made you never know yeah yeah it was preempted because uh there was legislation at the state level and I think at one point it was to permit and regulate there was another state law I think that was to prohibit you know to allow it as a buy right use there's one in Nottingham I think that's before their planning board right now that's drawn a lot of attention there's one in Lowell uh that I've also seen in the news that they're they're directly next to you some residential abutters um and then somebody mentioned to me that Bedford has one but I obviously I'm sure the scale is not you know the same as these other ones that experience but my initial thought was that well we're not gonna see these and I don't think we're gonna see you know I talked about Nottingham is like 40 acres or something right yeah I think so yeah we're gonna see that here right yeah and then uh you know like in vir in Virginia I guess that that's really like kind of the epicenter of data centers and uh those are like 300 acres uh you know data you know so we're not obviously going to see something to that scale just wanted to bring it to your attention because it's been talked about by a couple uh members of the community um this is the uh uh recommendation I guess this is kind of a pretty rough idea I I wanted to kind of get your preliminary thoughts and then come to you with a more fully fleshed idea for um this wasn't this was HB 631 so um HB 631 requires municipalities to allow uh multifamily uh in a mixed use building and that was adopted by the state legislature last year and it's gonna become effective july of uh July 1 of this year so um that's allowing it if there's commercial on the ground floor correct you there you're the municipality is under no obligation to allow just uh multifamily it you you can uh require that it being a mixed use building and I think at this point I think that's probably the right way to go um what I tried to do is I tried to refer to some of the work that we've already done uh for instance the mixed use structure uh that definition is uh almost verbatim of the language in our master plan that talks about you know what percentage of the ground floor should be dedicated to commercial uses and what percentage of the street fronted should be dedicated to those street activating uses um so you know the idea would be that we would we would still get the the form of development uh the pattern of development that we anticipated under the master plan uh and then in terms of the purpose of this uh our purpose statement here a lot of this harkens back to actually it still says the depot I have to clean some of that up but uh a lot of this is actually most of it's verbatim from the the depot which is kind of uh an ordinance where we anticipated having this more uh form-based code you know the the idea where you'd have more of a mixed use development pattern to try to kind of allow the the type uh of use that we we anticipated under the master plan so it it touches on the things that the depot does you know to uh allow for more compact development to have it be more pedestrian oriented oriented to uh limit and discouraged highway oriented development so you know somebody wanted to come in with a proposal like this on 28 we would you know want them to not just have uh you know multifamily there but that kind of meet the spirit and intent of the master plan that you just adopted

So it it touches on the things that the depot does, you know, to uh allow for more compact development to have it be more pedestrian oriented oriented to uh limit and discouraged highway oriented development.

So, you know, somebody wanted to come in with a proposal like this on 28, we would you know want them to not just have uh you know multifamily there, but to kind of meet the spirit and intent of the master plan that you just adopted.

Did you say this comes right out of the master plan?

Uh the definition for mixed use structure does.

Okay, nice.

The purpose statement, and uh I still have references to the depot in there.

The purpose statement has uh is really from the just the depot uh overlay district.

Okay, so we would apply that kind of more broadly for these commercial uses.

Um it would be permitted um in conjunction with the conditional use permit.

We talked to our colleagues in dairy, and this is their approach that they took.

So this ties back to the concerns about you know the public infrastructure and whether or not we have enough, particularly water in this instance to accommodate uh you know more growth.

You know, I think we would want to be cognizant of that.

Uh I think Salem is a community that has acknowledged that you know, we there's a desire for more residential development, there's a div desire for mixed use development, but there are also uh some resource needs, particularly if you're gonna be able to do that.

I don't have any desire for any more development.

Okay.

You're a NIMBY, aren't you?

Yeah, yeah, sale is full.

Yeah.

Um so uh in terms of the density, some of it's very modest.

The business office district, again, this is our along Main Street.

I do they already allow mixed use buildings with office and residential.

So I just carried over the two units per acre.

Um I don't necessarily I think we could probably even made an argument that the business office district's not subject to the RSA.

Uh but my thought was that if somebody wanted to do an office and uh or service use and then residential above, they're allowed to do that today.

You would carry over the two units per acre because I don't think we want to convert street to you know large five-story uh uh multifamily.

I think we kind of want that uh you know, gentle density or that in between where you'd have service on the first floor apartments above, which we do see uh along Main Street.

The limited community shopping village district.

Uh this is a number I I carried over.

I mean, maybe 12 units per acre is too high, but uh there aren't a lot of parcels.

It might be helpful if I pull the zone and map up if you but it's really the 97 shops, which is about a 10-acre parcel, and then um the Armour Road and 11 intersection.

So you know, 12 units per acre.

Uh I guess that would actually get you quite a few on uh on um 97 shops, but uh let me just pull that so maybe it should be lower than that.

I don't know.

For four units, uh they haven't been heard by you yet, but they are looking to convert some of their office space to to four units there.

So it's just this parcel, and then um and how big is that lot?

That's 10 acres?

10 acres.

A lot of it's wet.

Um it's uh this area here is their leech field, there's a school playground, and then I think this area here is wet in their uh detention pond.

And that's in commercial.

No, that's limited community shopping.

Yeah, limited community shopping is a very good and twenty units there, right?

So a hundred uh so that's why I just uh did the uh math too, and I think that 12 is probably high there.

So right now they're proposing four.

Um and then the other thing that we didn't talk about is uh height.

Um you know, the height would probably we'd want to probably consider that too.

I think business office, you know, again, we probably want to keep it to what exists currently, and then um the uh commercial districts maybe where you know the master plan did anticipate allowing some greater height there.

So this is the other area.

So limited community shop and village is probably one of our smallest districts.

Um so Armour Road is this is where the new uh roundabout rotary is gonna go.

Um so there is some development potential.

Again, there's some wet though.

You did approve a site plan for a commercial building here.

Uh there's uh where Moose Ice Cream is here.

Um this is a residential property.

So how big is that residential property?

Um it is six acres.

And this might be town-owned.

No, that's uh privately owned too.

And that is uh 4.2.

So I mean we could definitely walk it back.

Twelve units per acre is our highest density that we currently allow, and that's in the grant uh the garden apartment district.

So I mean, we very well could do you know much less than that.

I mean, the uh you know, it could it could in these areas it could go back to two per acre.

That would still give you what is that twenty uh units on 97 shops.

Uh and then over here, you're still so do we need to vote on this?

No, the the idea was to kind of have a workshop, and then I would try to fully flesh it out with some of the feedback at our June 9th meeting.

Yeah, and then the hope would be on June 23rd to have our public hearing so that it can get forwarded to the town council for July.

I think it looks good as is.

Okay.

And I think for the the density, I would definitely want to um take some time and look through like what potential uh pieces of land would be impacted.

Like what are the what's the most likely lots within these districts to be redeveloped and if they were what would the density look like in any of these specific districts?

Yeah.

Um yeah, I I think I think limited community shopping village district just based off of the discussion we had tonight doesn't belong at 12.

Uh although they are on uh some thuan town water over there, but uh um but yeah, it seems like it needs to be a lower number.

Uh even at two, it's you know, 20 units at 97 shops is uh you know pretty large amount.

Yeah.

Um I don't think they probably have the septic uh the lot load and to accommodate that.

Um and then the same thing with the Armour Road 11, you know, maybe it's the two acre uh but I mean that's that is pretty that is is pretty dense with commercial uses now.

So I mean if you think about it in the sense of like if that site were to be redeveloped from commercial and then wipe out the commercial and it becomes residential and it becomes what a hundred and twenty units.

What is the true like if we're comparing yeah, what is the true impact there?

Yeah, that's a good point.

Especially because we're obviously, you know, the state uh undertaken the uh and with the town's uh involvement, obviously, the uh intersection improvement there.

So we don't want to have that.

But I mean we and we do run the risk of them converting the building from keeping the ground floor and just building up and putting 120 units upstairs.

I think I've seen other communities too.

I mean, the way that the state law and and we can see legal counsel on this too.

The way the state law is written, it's kind of a little nebulous about commercial.

But it's very clear that you don't have to apply it to your industrial districts, which I think in this instance I haven't done.

I don't think we necessarily we don't have a lot of uh vacant or available industrial land.

So I don't know if we'd want to convert that over to uh uh you know to multifamily residential.

We still get a lot of calls about people looking for uh places to to have manufacturing uses or industrial uses, and that was kind of the thought of to leave it out of that area.

Uh the other question would be do we need to open it up to the business office district?

Do we need to open it up to the uh limited community shop and village district?

Business office maybe not as big of a deal because we've had that in our existing ordinance for quite some time.

Um you know, the limited community shopping village maybe you know is something that we wouldn't need to do.

And then um, you know, this is this is the business office one, and that so the yellow areas is business office one, this is business office two, and then uh the pink shade is business, uh sorry, commercial industrial B, and then the darker shade is commercial industrial C.

So I mean I guess the idea would be that you know the majority of the uh higher density or residential development would be along you know the 28 corridor, and then maybe exit two.

And again, this would be by conditional use permit, and we would try to have some guard reels rails on there.

You know, this is your conditional use permit criteria that you often see, but this language here, so our current uh criteria normally says the site is suitable for the proposed modification.

Uh this language here is from the RSA, I believe, that just talks about you know what that means that the site has availability of appropriate utilities.

So again, the big thing for salem right now is going to be for the water uh demand.

Um so that would be something that they would we would have to review.

Um so this is how it's written right now, but we can try to fine-tune the density, maybe take a look at the uh height and then come back to you for another go at it next meeting, and then hopefully you can iron it out for the 23rd.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Good work.

Okay.

One question unrelated but the rail trail and Tuscom's obligations with that is there any update on timeline.

Yeah Mr Brubaker key if you're comfortable want to give an update you've been working with the Yeah so uh the town got a grant several years ago and we're working with Tuskin on the design uh now and uh they're um if all goes according to the current schedule they should be constructing hopefully later in 2027 wrapping up with in 2028 for their for their share of that but they're in design right now and the town's working with them what stretch is that it's the from Main Street to Rockingham Park Boulevard the basically the entire frontage of Duscan.

Okay.

And is there an extension of uh a road or something that might impact that that was proposed crossroad or anything coming through from there's a lot of discussion about the uh cool yeah so the we when the when the North Village um master plan was approved there was a connection Brunello Road that went just north of where market baskets located and came out across from the Coke plant and then would kind of connect over to church uh church Av and um that has been shown on all the plans for the North Village and the uh North Village Master Plan.

Uh my understanding is that in discussion with the town uh you know that the town has worked with the applicant and it may not uh be constructed at this time why you cabled it why lazy there is uh there's five underneath the rail trail that'll cost over two million dollars to uh pull out and dig out and they get deeper sounds like it's laziness um well it was my it was my recollection that you know Tuscan was balking about what they should do when because I thought that was a factor is this gonna come through and will that mess up all the work we do and all that yeah Brunello Road won't be part of the the scope of this project is currently proposed.

Okay.

So it'll move forward without that road coming through.

Right.

That was you recollecting is correct in the past Mr Grosso's been here and he stated that the I think the board has asked you know why hasn't the rail trail been constructed yet and that was uh typically one of the responses that they would give is that they were looking to get uh clarification on the crossing for Brunella Road.

Um and right now the plan is 18 months from now that it would be completed end of 2027.

Uh yeah the or 28.

Right.

So end of 27 for the start of construction.

Oh in the scope of the project as currently proposed does not have Pernello Road crossing.

It does include a pedestrian crossing to the central village which has been shown on all the master plans for South and Central Village but um it's my understanding does not include Prinola Road.

I find it very hard to believe that it would take 18 months to design of a rail trail over there.

That is already there.

You you can build full buildings in in a quicker amount of time a fully developed and built buildings quicker than that.

Yeah we so we from the planner board's perspective I think you've done a good job of tying certain items uh to approvals we ha never tied the rail trail to an approval because it was kind of like this big unknown so I I think it'd be reasonable at this point you know the other thing is a pedestrian bridge which we've talked about in the past that's not tied to any approvals but Central Village is now going to be substantially built out so those are a couple things that we could kind of we could consider.

I thought we did tie the rail trail to something because that was part of the park it was definitely rec park but I thought that rec park and the rail trail were kind of no the there was at least discussion about that.

I don't know if yeah the last master plan you approved subject to uh uh rec park and the Mews being constructed prior to final occupancy at building 1300 um which is interesting I guess I I'm not sure I think they're looking for final occupancy for the residential units for 1300 and they may seek a bond or an escrow account just so that you're aware they're constructing it right now but the sequencing might not line up whereas rec park is going to be complete before they would go to occupy.

So I guess I just put that on your radar because I wouldn't be surprised if they look for final uh residential CO before your next meeting so that was gonna happen a year ago.

Yeah the Muse they finished uh last year I think but the real thing yeah yeah but rec park is uh uh I I met with them last week and they're doing some work there but we'll need a final as built so I guess I just put that on your your radar as well.

Yeah, yeah, but Rec Park is uh uh I met with them last week and they're doing some work there, but we'll need a final as built.

So I guess I just put that on your radar as well.

So uh when they come in for future plans, those are things we can be cognizant of and I would I would reference our last discussion regarding meeting obligations prior to getting COs.

Sure, not speaking for anyone on the board, but um lay down the hammer.

I I tend to agree.

I tell them don't bother coming unless they've met an obligation.

That would be my message.

So yeah.

The the interesting thing is that they do have future occupancies.

I'm sure they wouldn't want to hold uh Whole Foods for instance for another tenant there.

So uh I see the project somewhat unique in that, you know, that normally you issue one CO and then But e even at that one are they planning on having Rec Park constructed by uh they're constructing it right now, I think.

So within the next couple weeks, I think.

Um so Whole Foods, based on our discussion when they came in for the sign, they were planning for mid-ish question mark July.

So I mean, I don't know it shouldn't be a problem.

It shouldn't really be a problem if we tie the final CO of that building to Rec Park.

Yeah, right.

Because I mean we already issued them CO for part of that building in Rec Park's not done, so it would be the final CO for that building, which would be Whole Foods, and I imagine that they would be much more incentivized.

Well, they'll they'll have future COs too because they'll have uh other tenants, but obviously Whole Foods and the Epicurean are their their you know anchor tenants, yeah.

Um I can I can tell you might have to be the residential then.

What do we just do?

We did the whole all of building 1300.

What's that for the for the um to rec park?

Um rec park was tied to um I think it might say prior to final occupancy.

Oh but I think what the applicant had represented was the residential, primarily because I didn't want to tie it because I think Whole Foods probably would have freaked out if uh they tied Whole Foods occupancy to it.

So I remember the applicant frequently saying the residential unit, but either way, I mean I I you know I think it's under construction, and I think there's opportunity to you know have future you know bites at the Apple.

I guess I do share Mr.

Norcross's kind of concern that I think I think the biggest concern is that we were saying that Rec Park was our uh uh this the residential was our last bite at the Apple as far as Rec Park is concerned.

That's the last thing we really had to tie it to, right?

That was kind of our last our last chance to get Rec Park done.

They still have to come in for building 4,000, which is probably gonna change, and they have to come in for West Village.

So I think what it was was that the applicant in the past had always said, let's see how rec park evolves, and we gave it probably about a year, and then it had kind of a maybe a subpar structure on it, and then at that time I think when they came in, we said let's you know program.

No, uh rec well, rec park was uh they granted I think they have an easement over it and they granted an easement at the Dolben approval and they kind of dedicated it, but at that time they didn't really have it programmed, and I think in the future they put the kind of more residential grade structure, and then when they came in for the uh master plan update for building 1300, the board said, you know, let's talk about recreation, let's figure out how we can program it.

They said the Muse and Rec Park is gonna be what they can hang their hat on for this phase.

Um the area for overlook park, uh, which is on the west side.

Yeah.

All right.

Um tomorrow night in this room, uh Mr.

Brubaker and I will be here to discuss ADUs.

We're gonna have an ADU seminar.

Uh chief building uh official Mike Gallipo will be here.

So we'll uh Jillian Witowski from Assessing, and we're uh the idea is that we'll give an overview of the process, kind of like an information session, Merrimack Savings Bank that assists with ADU financing.

We'll also be here to talk about the finance and aspect of it.

So uh 5 30 p.m.

tonight uh tomorrow night uh in in this room.

Uh we'd welcome anybody to attend so we can uh have an ADU discussion.

Nice.

Um anything else?

Oh, and you can go to Salem NH.gov forward slash forward slash ADU and you can learn more.

Uh nothing further.

Very good.

If if I may super quick in the in the packet, Jacob, you had a power plan for Field of Dreams.

Was that related to the um concert series?

Oh was there something that probably ended up getting included, yeah.

But that was the concert series package, yeah.

Just want to make sure there was nothing else at Field of Dreams.

Nope.

That's all I have.

Very good.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor, plenty of meeting closed.