I'd like to call the June 9th, 2026 meeting of the Planning Board of Order.

Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

My name is Damon Norcross, and it is my pleasure to serve as chair this evening.

The members of the planning board sitting this evening are to my right, Jeremy Gilbo.

Hello.

Jim Harvey.

Good evening, Salem.

Bianca Carlson.

Good evening, Salem.

And to my left, the town council representative, Mr.

Paul Pelletier.

Good evening.

Bob Gibs.

And Victor Hellenic.

Good evening, Salem.

Great.

Also with us tonight are the support staff, Mr.

Jacob Lafontaine, our planning director.

Creighton Brewbaker, the community development program manager.

And from Channel 22, we have our producer, Brendan Knight.

Tonight's agenda, we have two items of new business.

The Clark Subdivision Plan.

It's a preliminary hearing for two lot subdivision at 8 Atkinson Road, Map 29, lot 6445.

And second on the agenda is Funhouse Plaza, House of Athletes Site Plan.

Public hearing for an 18,000 square foot fitness studio with conditional use permit for reduced parking at 291 South Broadway, map 128 lot 711.

Mr.

Lafontaine, are there any withdrawals?

Mr.

Chair, the first item of new business, Clark Subdivision Plan has re uh has been withdrawn.

Great, thank you.

The minutes, we have one group of minutes, but we're we're a little light this evening on normal numbers.

We are going to table uh the minutes from May 26, 2026.

So we will go to new business.

Um athletes site plan.

Um Mr.

Lafontaine, is the plan complete?

Yes, the plan's complete.

Um Mr.

Chair, I move to accept the Fun House Plaza LLC site plan is complete.

There's a motion and a second to accept the site plan as complete.

All in favor.

It's unanimous.

All right, I'll turn it over to the applicant.

Uh Mr.

Chair.

Oh, reading of abutters my apologies.

That's a rookie mistake.

Uh Mr.

Lafontaine, the butters, please.

Thank you.

Uh the abutters are as follows.

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

They are Home Depot USA, Inc.

MD C D properties, Route 28, South Broadway, LLC, Town of Salem, State of New Hampshire DOT, and that is all.

Thank you.

We'll turn it over to the applicant.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board for the record.

My name is David Jordan, engineer and land surveyor with Greenman Peterson.

And here tonight representing Funhouse Plaza LLC.

Also with me here this evening is Adam Abbas, the property manager, uh, and Brendan uh Mendugo, the owner and operator of House of Athletes.

Um we're here tonight for a change of use for the uh multi-tenant plaza at 291 South Broadway.

Um specifically, there is a uh an 18,000 square foot second floor retail space uh that House of Athletes uh wishes to occupy uh for a uh athletic performance facility.

Um, let me tell the board there's a little bit of history with this project uh this property as you may imagine again being a multi-tenant building.

Um there have been appearances before this board uh in the past, and I guess the most notable ones I wanted to mention in 2013.

Um the approval was given for that second floor 18,000 square foot retail space.

Um so that was uh done through uh uh change of use approved by this board in 2013.

Umsequent to that, that retail space was occupied by Zizo's dollar, um a retail tenant.

Um at some time uh fairly recently uh that facility uh no longer uh operated out of there.

There was another retail tenant lined up to move in there, a convenience and vape shop uh that would be operating under the retail approval that was already in place.

Um while that uh uh change in Tennessee tenancy uh was started uh for a number of reasons uh that was uh abandoned and at that point uh funhouse LLC, Funhouse Plaza LLC and House of Athletes entered into a discussion and now House of Athletes uh wishes to occupy that space.

So it's the change of use is one part of the uh request this evening.

Um just speaking a little bit about House of Athletes, I'll give you a brief overview.

Um I believe you have in your packets the uh information that was submitted by House of Athletes.

Um again, they're a fitness and athletic performance facility.

Uh they're different than a typical gym, as you would uh as you would envision, you know, like a planet fitness where people come in when they want to use the exercise equipment, uh walk-in-walk-out policy.

House of athletes, um, their focus is on scheduled classes and uh personalized training.

Um they don't have open gym hours.

Uh they are catering to a different uh clientele, but they still fall within that uh whatever the performance athletic facility type uh criteria umbrella.

Um they do operate seven days a week.

Uh we provided hours of operation as well as anticipated number of uh participants at classes.

Class sizes are normally in about the uh 25 uh people for adult programs, 15 to 20 for youth programs.

Uh they focus on a lot of youth type uh training programs, um personalized training.

Obviously, that's uh a one-on-one or slightly larger ratio.

Um in terms of uh classes, they are scheduled and staggered throughout the day.

Um the reason that this uh one this tenant uh was selected by the uh owner to occupy this space is because it does fit well with the other tenants that are there in terms of the other uses.

Uh the parking demand, which is the of course the other part of this request this evening, um they're expected to uh need no more than 50 parking spaces.

In fact, it's probably uh more in the order of about 30 to 40 parking spaces.

Uh right now they operate a facility in Methuen.

That facility does have an open gymnasium, which this facility will not.

In Methuan, they have a parking lot with about 30 parking spaces, and it it works for that different program they have down there, meaning it's it's not as specialized.

It was proposed at this location, and even with that uh uh different format, they are able to accommodate all of the uh participants without causing issues in the uh in their Methuan location.

Um I'll even point out that in the lease that House of Athletes is going to enter into with the owner.

Uh the owner has capped the number of spaces that they are allowed to use to 50 parking spaces.

Um and House of Athletes has agreed to that because they uh they know that they will be able to operate within that uh within that restriction.

Um part of the submittal when we spoke with Jacob and we worked with the uh the owner of this property.

Um while it was not a requirement under your site plan regulations, our office did prepare a trip generation memo in the event that that often comes up as we have these discussions like this with with this board.

Um we did that again to try to uh head off any questions in terms of uh anticipated attendance and parking and trip generation.

Um I know you do have that in your packet.

Uh we prepared a trip generation memo uh at the uh middle of May.

And let me just go to it here.

And so again, we've taken we took a look at the uh proposed at the trips that would be generated by a retail tenant, which is currently allowed in that second floor space, compared that with the trip generation anticipated for house of athletes using uh standard ITE chip trip generation rates.

And if you look at the memo that we've prepared, just without going too deep into the details, you'll see that on a weekday daily basis there would be actually a reduction, an anticipated reduction of about almost 50% in terms of 50% less trips are generated by house of athletes than a retail tenant that could reoccupy that space today.

Weekday PM peak hour, that's about a 33% reduction in trips.

Again, House of Athletes compared to what a retail tenant would generate in terms of trips.

Obviously, there's fluctuations in there from looking low, seems to be about 12 available spaces, but quite often there was more than 200 spaces still available.

So clearly the existing parking uh facility is underutilized again with an anticipated parking need for house of athletes of about 30 to 40.

This facility can easily accommodate that.

Um again uh they're capped per their lease to generate a parking requirement of no more than 50 parking spaces.

Um when we submitted this information to Jacob, he and we then worked with him to provide this to Steve Perna to have a peer-reviewed.

Uh again, even though this wasn't a requirement, we were trying to prepare a complete package for you for this evening.

Um kind of backfired on us though, because we were hoping to have Steve's uh uh review in hand tonight.

Uh we don't.

It sounds like there was a little bit of a mix-up with him receiving the information and having time to review it.

Um the reason we were trying to uh move things along as quickly as possible was one to have every all the information that we possibly could for you this evening, uh, but the owner also has a lease agreement that he's trying to get House of Athletes in place and up and running as is as soon as possible.

Um I'm sure I mean Jacob will uh go into that in more detail, I'm sure, with his uh report.

So as I mentioned, we will need a conditional use permit for parking.

Um there are 236 parking spaces out there currently.

Uh when you run the parking calculations using only your Salem zoning ordinance, um it suggests that you need 400 and 409 parking spaces for all of the uses combined.

Clearly, well, that's what zoning requires based on the parking touch from last year.

The facility the facility is generating a much lower demand than that.

So if you'll if you like, Mr.

Chairman, it'd be I can run through the criteria of the conditional use permit.

We can reference the letter.

Okay, I'll just reference the letter.

So I uh I guess with that, uh the last thing I'll say, and again, I'm not sure if you have this uh in your packet, but I do believe it's in the file.

Uh the owner did get a letter of support from endless hibachi and sushi, uh one of their first floor tenant spaces.

Uh they fully support the change of use to allow for house of athletes to occupy the space above my ref restaurant.

I believe the cotendency is beneficial to both them and endless hibachi and sushi.

Um so I know that was kind of a lot of information to throw at you.

Um, as I mentioned, uh Brendan from House of Athletes is here.

If you have any questions on his operation, uh the property manager is here, and I'm happy to answer any questions this board has.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Jordan.

Mr.

Lafontaine comments?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So uh Mr.

Jordan did a good job summarizing the history, so I won't go too in depth there.

The uh site has obviously evolved over time, and uh they've come in for a variety of conditional use permits over time as uses have changed, and this is uh another one of those instances.

One thing that I did do, and I spoke a little bit with Mr.

Abbas uh in advance of the meeting is we do our general kind of audit of the site uh when the site is before you.

Um so I discussed this with uh Mr.

Abbas.

I stated that when looking at the uh historical images, it does appear that there were some landscape and that uh either was you know dead or disease uh and was removed over time.

So I think these are uh kind of the three treaties that I noticed that are uh missing currently.

Mr.

Abbas stated that he's uh amendable, and I don't want to speak for him, but it sounds like he's amendable to working with staff to uh address um the landscape and on site.

Uh it also this kind of illustrates the changes that have occurred over time.

So in 2011, you can see that you know the area above was mostly storage, and it's uh again kind of developed over time here.

So what they're currently proposing.

Another item that I've talked to Mr.

Abbas about was the temporary signage.

This isn't uh him, this is some of his tenants, and I just noticed it's probably one of the more excessive uh sites in terms of temporary signage, so we would just want to work with the applicant.

Um they are allowed uh temporary signage, but I think in this instance there's maybe you know, like eight or so wave runners and a couple other uh signage.

But again, something that we can work with with the applicant on.

Uh the other item that we talked about was pedestrian circulation.

So they've done a really good job when Chili's came in.

Chile's has a sidewalk network in the front, and then it kind of goes over here.

The plan almost kind of indicates uh that there should be an extension here.

So I just talked uh to the applicant about that to see uh it this is shown on the current plan as proposed, but I don't think the striping is quite like that.

So if they have the ability and the area, it probably would be beneficial.

It still doesn't get you quite there, but it gets you a little bit closer because the assumption would be that there's some synergy between the uses and the building here where the use is proposed and and maybe chilies as well.

Maybe you're go to the fitness studio for a uh class with your kid and then maybe go to Chili's after that kind of thing.

So that's the area here.

So just wanted to uh note that they do have some stop signage that's not shown on the plan.

We just want that uh I think it's uh it's a good um traffic common mechanism, especially because of the potential for pedestrian traffic there, and they actually already have it, so we're just asking them to show that on the plan.

You can see that stop bar here and a couple stop signs that just didn't get carried over on the on the plan.

Aside from that, they are installing some ADA spaces.

They're gonna uh add two ADA spaces to make the site compliant with uh the Americans with a disabilities act, uh which obviously is a great benefit, and they're gonna also add um upright signage for those ADA spaces, which is also a requirement uh by uh of the ADA Act and in our site plan regulations.

So we appreciate the applicant uh addressing that item.

Um aside from that, the I think the big thing for tonight um is really the the outside review.

So as Mr.

Jordan indicated, um he did uh to his credit, he did send the um trip generation memo in response to Steve Pernau's preliminary comments to uh Steve Purnout uh on May 26 the afternoon.

So that was approximately two, well, what not approximately it was two weeks from this afternoon.

Um but I there was either uh Steve either didn't receive it or he was looking for a memo from uh town staff uh and overlooked that it was coming from the applicant.

So one of those two items.

I spoke with Mr.

Purnow earlier today.

Purnow earlier today he obviously wasn't able to get the uh response in the review complete prior to this meeting so that puts us kind of in a tricky position you know you'll uh you'll see that in your uh staff recommendation it was continuance because we were waiting for third party traffic and staff approvals and those outstanding items to be addressed um we are still waiting for third party review obviously um in talking with Mr.

Perr now he wasn't able to submit it tonight their their calculations obviously look favorable uh you know that uh but I would tell you that it's you know I'm not a traffic engineer and and that's why the board uh uses a third party consultant so that the third party consultant can uh you know uh verify the data that's submitted but um I guess that's kind of where we're at I I would just read from your uh rules or procedure they state that the board generally will not approve a plan unless approvals from staff and outside consultants are received at least one week in a uh prior to the meeting um so you know we were at the meeting tonight we haven't received uh comments we did receive some preliminary comments which again to the applicant's credit they addressed there were some questions about discrepancies with the available parking supply there was also some questions about the buffer between uses and the applicant in a response did note that there are 15 minute buffers between all classes this is standard operating policy and has been our structure at the Methuan location for six years the buffer ensures the previous class is fully cleared athletes exited equipment reset before the next group arrives so I think that's exactly what kind of the traffic consultant was trying to get at he was trying to get a sense for how this site was going to function.

In a lot of instances we rely on offset hours you know we would we would say all right this use is going to make sense even though it's a high traffic generator it's gonna work for the property because it operates off peak from some of the other uses that's not necessarily the case here but um you know the applicant has provided some information of you know why they believe it's gonna work um but I guess all this is to say that you know I would I would uh encourage the board to consider what you've heard um and then you know again uh difficult position for staff because again our our uh rules of procedure state that you know uh his review our third party review is supposed to be finalized one week in advance um I see maybe a couple paths forward but I guess I'd be kind of interested to hear what the board's feedback is and uh if you have any questions of me I'm happy to to answer those but again the biggest thing I there's a couple more minor I think site plan aspects that we've generally reviewed which I've highlighted be uh appreciative to hear some of your feedback on those items but then more so the the traffic comments that are still outstanding.

Great thank you Mr.

Lafontaine thank you Mr.

Chair are there any members of the public or butters that would like to speak on the application.

Young man would you like to speak it's a good look around we'll we'll give you a pass.

Thank you for being here.

Well before we go to the board I just if if I may we have a couple of alternates I just want to clarify a couple of things.

Normally require them to submit this to would the normal process be that they would come to us we would likely have questions about it.

It would then be sent to um outside consultant that's more or less correct.

So we always tell applicants to anticipate two meetings because this first meeting would kind of be like a you know they'd receive your feedback potentially if there were members of the public they would receive feedback from the public and then also receive some of the staff comments to the applicant's credit in this instance because I did have that discussion with them early on and I said there are two paths you could uh not seek the traffic review and you could hear the feedback from the board on the 9th and if they require at that time then you initiate the review.

To the applicant's credit they did the conservative thing and they said we are gonna uh pursue the third party review in the hopes that um we can you know be a little bit more expeditious and that the review could be complete in advance of the meeting.

Of course there's some risk involved uh you know I I will say that the applicant did get it on the 26th you know in terms of industry standard I don't I don't know I guess I could ask Mr.

Purnau I think really the big thing is that he just like I said either either the email was blocked or he just uh overlooked an email from you know uh uh email account that wasn't town staff so kind of going back to it yes the path could have been that the applicant came in tonight and asked you if you felt it was warranted to do a third party review or if you were comfortable with the traffic we've done that on prior applications and to their credit they didn't take that approach tonight.

We've done that on prior applications, and to their credit, they didn't take that approach tonight.

Thank you.

I'll open it up to uh questions to the board.

Ms.

Carlson.

Um as it as it relates to the parking and traffic, um I I'm going I'm going to be honest.

It had the applicant come in tonight and not come in with the traffic study, I don't think I would have suggested it.

I I personally don't have any concerns with that parking lot.

Um I don't think that it's overparked.

I any time that I've gone to any businesses in that plaza or in Chile's, I've never had an issue with parking.

I don't think there's a major influx in traffic over there.

I personally wouldn't be concerned about it, so I probably wouldn't have recommended a traffic study in general.

Um, but it does sort of put us in a difficult position because now that it's been submitted to the third party consultant and we don't have the feedback, um it it very well could come back from from Steve, and um he could say that everything in the traffic study is wrong, right?

Or that he doesn't agree with it, which I don't think is going to happen, but if he says that and we approve the plan, then it puts the board in a in a difficult position.

Um so I guess I don't I would like to hear from the rest of the board uh before I sort of make a um determination on that.

The only other comment that I have um is a request to add the hours of operation to the site plan.

Um typically that's something that's listed on there, and it I noticed that it wasn't.

Um, but that's a pretty simple addition to make.

Yeah, we can certainly do that.

Umce we conclude this process, as you know, we have to put the can any conditions of approval you place on the plan tonight, go in the plan.

There's also some history here, as I mentioned.

Uh a lot of those conditions continue to carry forward.

So we actually have a number of notes uh relative to prior approvals that need to go in the plan, and we'll also include the hours of operation.

Um if I could just Mr.

Chairman.

So going back to the the parking uh parking memo we prepared, uh that's why I said earlier, kind of backfired on us because one, I don't want to stand here and presume that you would have said you know, we're not concerned about traffic.

Um you certainly have and have had and have that right.

Um but again, we were you know trying trying to move the process along as quickly as possible.

What I will say though, well, again, a couple things.

Um I'm not a traffic engineer either, and I didn't prepare the memo.

Uh traffic engineers prepared the memo.

Um, and they've worked with Steve Pernaugh for 20 or more years.

Um so they're pretty much on the same page.

Not to say that Steve wouldn't or won't have any comments, but generally um if there were something, it's going to be we believe fairly minor, especially where there's such a uh we're we're not close on parking numbers here.

We're we're lots and lots of available parking.

So even if things tweak a little bit, it's not gonna flip this thing upside down.

Um obviously other board members uh need to weigh in.

And I guess with that, I'll just kind of wait and see what else is is discussed and then offer comment if appropriate.

Thank you, Mr.

Jordan.

Uh Mr.

Pelleter.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh this puts me in a very upsetting uh attitude because of the fact of how a staff uh doesn't uh uh apply a proper properly in time.

Uh you said Mr.

Uh Jacob that in May 26th that this re uh third party application by Steve Pernot was was uh uh presented.

Uh and within a week, two weeks time, that should have been enough time for them to to present his findings on on this.

Yeah, the other staff members, I keep bringing this up over and over and over again.

Engineering pending, fire pending, police pending.

Why?

They should be all done before the applicant comes to this to this bullet to this meeting.

They should be done and complete, especially engineering is upstairs.

Now, we have uh trip generation done by GPI.

I mean, and we have another trip generation here done by Greenman uh uh Peterson uh in full detail.

We have hours of operation by the applicant and uh in his trip generations as well, uh conflicting with other businesses uh in this plaza.

There is no reason to hear Mr.

P uh Mr.

Purnell's third party in my in my understanding in my feeling.

Uh if there's anything dramatically wrong with the third party uh uh analysis, then something then it could be done dealt with staff.

It could be dealt with through Jacob.

Uh it's just this is not the fault of the applicant.

If this if nothing if isn't ready, this applicant shouldn't be even be here tonight.

They should have been told a long time ago, we'll get we got we need more information, don't come.

This costs a lot of money, and I'm not sure you wouldn't when you when you you hire a company like this when you're hiring Greenman uh Peterson, this isn't keep.

And for an applicant to say, well, and for this board to say uh, well, let's continue until we hear further from Mr.

Pernov.

That delays that delays money that delays the applicant from rent from a leasing, that puts an applicant in a position where uh where they have they have to they have just have to wait a little longer for a decision that should have been done a long time ago.

It should have been done weeks ago.

And uh, and this is what gets me this would get me frustrated.

And these issues don't get don't get done ahead of time.

Uh just recently this applicant was granted uh uh uh condition on uh a new restaurant that's in this plaza.

Uh there wasn't anything wrong with the parking back then, and that's adding more people to a restaurant, and the parking analysis came in a lot uh just as good much as it always is.

I myself experienced the Greek restaurant last weekend, and uh like this castle says I could have parked anywhere in there.

There was not nothing.

The only good thing about it is that through the the new restaurant is the ads, the addition of the sidewalks and the addition of the uh outdoor uh dining space of the new restaurant.

Most of these kids, if they're kids coming out of this gym, they're not going over to Chili's.

They're gonna go over to the ice cream stand, probably.

The sidewalk is clearly brand new and rebuilt uh right directly to the ice cream stand.

You don't have to go out on the street, you don't have to go out in the parking lot at all.

And uh if they want to do, all right, if they want to do some landscaping to to juice the place up a bit, more to them.

You know, I'm I'm for that, but um I'm strictly against holding this applicant up any longer than necessary.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Pedlatiri.

Just want to correct for the record that um I I believe you're speaking of a different plaza with regards to the Greek restaurant and the uh ice cream shop.

Oh, I'm sorry, yes, yeah.

That's okay.

I just want to just make sure we're talking about the right place here.

Yeah.

Uh your I'm sorry, yeah.

But your point is uh is taken uh Ms.

Lafontaine, would you just like to address the couple of the comments made by I guess just in defense of Mr.

Purnell?

I think it wasn't necessarily that anybody dropped the ball.

I think it's probably more of a procedural aspect that either you know Mr.

Purnow didn't receive the email because it was sent directly from the applicant, or uh that he was looking for an email from town staff, but the applicant had sent it directly to him.

So it wasn't so much that it wasn't sent to him in a timely manner, it was that it was sent directly to the applicant.

And um the other thing is that you know I don't I don't know what a reasonable industry industry standard is, maybe two weeks is a reasonable industry industry standard.

Um but your rules of procedure also say that it should be received one week in advance.

So you know that there's probably a path forward.

I mean, I don't know, I haven't heard from the the other board members, and maybe Mr.

Harvey wants to speak first.

I if yeah, I just had a question.

Is it is it uh feasible for us to put a condition on the cup that just says favorable review of the uh analysis by Mr.

Brown.

That's just a condition of the approval.

So as long as it doesn't hold them up any further, if he reviews it in two days and he's fine, then everything moves forward as planned.

If he has an issue with it, then it may cause a delay for them, but that way it may prevent them from spending more time and money.

Yeah, yeah, that was kind of where I was headed.

So it's unusual, I would tell you that we don't often do it, but you know, if the board is at a level of comfort where you feel that base off of uh Mr.

Bollinger that you know who is a traffic engineer with GPI, but based off of his memo, if you feel confident that you think it could work, you know, you could stipulate that uh in addition to submitting staff approvals that they would also submit third-party consultant approvals.

So Mr.

Purno could still have an opportunity to review it.

You know, it could kind of pass the test for his uh, you know, uh his standard of review, and then the applicant um you know could receive conditional approval subject to that.

The alternative obviously would be continuance, but it you know, it sounds I don't know, I don't want to speak for the board.

Well, I guess we'll hear from the other board members, but I in that instance I would recommend that you continue to uh date certain, which would be the 23rd, rather than continue it to a future meeting because uh they won't be able to meet your your rules of procedure, but the that would be if the board's not comfortable with the material that's been submitted.

So, Mr.

Chair, I would I'd be in favor of just adding it as a condition so we could do an approval today.

Thank you.

Mr.

Kim, I'm sorry about the lack of uh uh the the different plaster not a problem, Mr.

Pelletier.

Um so um I I I think the one question I have I the 2019 um discussion for the planning board uh of which Mr.

Pelletier and Mr.

Gibbs were a part of, I think there were some concerns regarding uh queuing uh of cars and how that behaves there.

I don't think you know that's really not we don't see a lot of cueing, I don't think, because there's not a lot of people that you know are being released at the same time.

I think the nature of this application is a little bit different.

You know, if we do have 25 vehicles exiting at the same time, we there may be additional queuing.

And I was just curious if you had any comments about that.

You know, because I I do think you know, they just to reinforce that I I do think this is is slightly different from anything else that is in there, um, where there could be a lot of cars leaving at the exact same time.

Uh and uh Mr.

Gibbs actually I think you might have noted on the last time, or is Mr.

Belair um, you know, a couple of those reverse spaces, those spaces that are there right in front of Chili's that you know you have to reverse back out of into uh the queuing lanes, and does that become more of an issue?

If you could just take a moment and speak to that, please.

Yeah, so you're talking about the queuing coming back out onto South Broadway at the at the uh signalized intersection there.

And and you're right, I do recall that discussion from 2019.

Um in 2019, that's when five guys uh went into the plaza.

Um, and again, they were you know anticipated to generate a certain amount of additional traffic associated with their operation.

Um I mean I can confirm with the property manager, but you know, to my knowledge that has not been an issue to date, as you talk about, you know, there is a period of time when a class will get out and another and then 15 minutes later another class starts.

Um so there will be a period, you know, spread out over a number of minutes where the people that are leaving the first class will be coming back out to their cars and going out to South Broadway.

Um but again that doesn't necessarily happen instantaneously.

All 25 people get in the car at the exact same time and go.

And the benefit is of course is a signalized intersection there, um, so that contains you know the uh anything on site.

There are those nine spaces uh that back into that exit aisle.

Um I'm gonna say that those are probably the some of the least utilized spaces out there because they're too far away from the multi-tenant building, and anybody going to Chile is going to park where they don't have to cross the driveway to get to Chili's.

Um again, you know, to my knowledge, um, we've never seen any issues out there.

We understand the question, um, and again, I just think the way this facility operates, this plaza operates, um, we don't anticipate future problems with this new tenant.

Okay.

Great, thank you.

Anyone else from the board?

Mr.

Hamilton.

Um it's interesting the nine spaces come up in the sense that it's almost like they need to be faced inward towards like the five guys side.

And that brings me to the point that Mr.

Lafontaine brought up about a crosswalk where that stop sign is.

Um, I'm not sure if that's part of your traffic analysis.

Um Mr.

Lafontaine mentioned that that's uh that's a spot right there, having visited this these facilities that I would certainly have appreciated a crosswalk right there.

And if that could be added, that would be a great as as to the parking here that we're discussing.

I have no issue about it, other than perhaps those nine spaces could be flipped flipped around and faced inward, but I don't even think that's that's an issue.

It's that crosswalk right there where the where the stop sign is.

If I may respond to that, it's Mr.

Jordan.

I was just it was just explained to me that those nine spaces, Chile is actually uses those for their employees.

So they put their employees there so that the customers can have the spaces at you know next to the restaurant.

So again, those are going to be low turnover spaces at that point.

Right.

Adding a crosswalk, that's easy.

It's Jacob is making a recommendation.

There's a stop sign there as he pointed out.

Yeah, adding some striping there is an easy addition.

So that'd be fantastic.

Thank you, Mr.

Joy.

And I did note that on the 2019 application they talked about, they represented that the Chile Chili's employees were parking there.

Um I'm just looking.

I'm just kind of making sh this might be a different view.

But the plan has head-to-head parking, and maybe this is not the right spot.

Mr.

Lafontaine, um let me pull up the current plan.

So as you're coming out.

That picture that you had of the stop sign, where is that on the map?

Um it is oops, sorry, I shouldn't have reduced it.

It is at the uh entryway, so as you're coming in here, there's a stop sign here, and then a stop sign here.

Okay.

All right.

So I it's a good question, Mr.

Helenet, but I think there's already parking spaces there.

Oh, there are.

Yeah, it's uh the nine.

I'm just saying that we'd logically want to be reversed.

This is this is accurate the way it is.

Yeah, but I also understand the Chile's use model, so anyone else have any comments?

Mr.

Gibbs, do you have anything for us?

Uh since my name was used earlier, yes.

Uh, those pockets bots that you're talking about that I questioned before, that's that's really good that the Chili's uses them as uh employee parking.

Um I I believe the parking lot is busy and congested, and I think having people come and go with with the way the gyms patrons will find their own way of parking.

They may not be close, but they're young enough that they could walk.

That's the whole idea of the gym.

So I don't have a problem.

And as far as naming Mr.

Perna, I I don't think so.

This this seems to be very accurate, or uh very encompassing.

So I I would be okay with not having the third party.

Thank you.

I might as well just chime in.

Uh I agree that with the third party.

I don't believe it's necessary, just knowing that lot very well.

And I like the that the owner and the tenant are on the same page with the parking spaces and understanding you know what the limits are in that aspect.

I would like to see that crosswalk situation cleaned up a little bit as well because you know, if these are young kids, they're probably gonna run over to Chili's at some point.

Okay, but not the expensive.

No, longer walk, yeah.

Logger walk.

They're on shirt diet.

Yeah, I was too back in the day.

Um for myself, I I would tend to agree.

I uh no real interest in holding it up.

I I still have a concern about queuing.

I think this is a little bit different, but um I you know, no reason necessarily to hold it up.

Mr.

Lafontaine, I think this is uh turning out to be a little different than anticipated.

Do you have conditions for us?

Do you need a little time for conditions?

No, I I do have some prepared, and then I think there'll probably be discussion on some of them.

Um, because I've heard some different things from the board members, but I've got prior to building permit, that would be submit staff and third-party traffic consultant approvals prior to occupancy to construct all site improvements in accordance with the approved plan.

So that would be mostly the striping in this instance and the landscaping.

Um this again would be one for discussion, but it kind of goes back to the 2019 approval where the board required it's kind of a nebulous one, but it says requires some post-occupancy traffic monitoring study for six months or a year after occupancy determine if the traffic signal timing needs to be changed.

And that's not really something that we talked about, but that was something they talked about in 2019, and maybe something that Steve Pernau would again uh weigh in on in this instance.

But so I've established escrow account for post-occupancy monitoring report with scope to be determined by third-party traffic consultant.

And again, that'd be for discussion.

Four, re-establish any dead disease, dying, or missing landscaping.

And you know, at the staff level, the board is comfortable.

I'd be happy to work with the applicant on that.

Uh five, provide certified as-built site plan.

Again, mostly the striping uh in this instance, and then uh under other submit post-occupancy monitoring report, six to nine months post-occupancy and determine if the traffic signal timing needs to be changed.

And then seven classes shall be by appointment only, and there shall be no open gym.

Any proposed use that increases traffic generation beyond the estimates in the traffic study require further approval from the planning board.

Nine, note conditional use permit for reduced parking and hours of operation on plan.

Not that they have CUP for hours, but just note those both.

10 applicant must operate business so that parking lot capacity is not exceeded.

And then under 11, all representations made by applicant or agents and all notes on the plan are incorporated as part of the approval.

And I guess I I guess I'll just add one more comment because I talked about uh how it's novel to typically typically require Steve Purnow's review uh subsequent to approval, but the board actually did it in 2019 for this same site and it said prior to building permit submit approval from Steve Purnow for trip generation report.

So I just would share that with you.

Thank you, Mr.

Lafontaine.

The eleven conditions total.

I have 11 conditions, yes.

Right, thank you.

Um Mr.

Jordan, did you have a comment?

Yeah, um specific to Steve Purnow's review.

So as I've already alluded to, we kind of regret that we even did this parking memo in the first place.

Um I'm not sure we would have ended up here had we not come in with it in the first place.

Um I don't know.

Obviously, there's a suggestion to have a condition of approval um to have it peer reviewed and address any comments that may come out of it.

I don't know if there's another option to just somehow withdraw this altogether.

Um but again I do know that this board has the the right to ask for any information that you feel you need for to make a decision.

Um but uh again in terms of the parking, we're you know, in our opinion, clearly there is uh plenty of available parking out there for this business.

Um it will be regulated by the business itself as well as the property manager.

Um I mean, as this board is quite aware well aware, um you know, multi-tenant uh facilities like this.

Uh the owners, it's in their best interest to make sure that everybody has ability to park for their customers and not over tax the use of a site because it if you end up in that situation, they have unhappy tenants, unhappy customers.

Um again, this is why this tenant was felt to be a really good fit at this location because it's only going to use a portion of the unused parking that's currently available.

Um, we appreciate the board willing to you know act in this application tonight.

Um and if we if we have to go through the Steve Hornow review, then so be it.

Uh we prefer not to have to delay for that, but uh we'll we'll defer to the board.

Thank you, Mr.

Jordan.

Any comments on that?

Carlson.

Can I just clarify?

You made a comment of withdrawal.

Can you can you go back to that again?

I mean when I said withdrawal, I just meant of the memo itself.

Okay.

Okay.

I was very confused why you wouldn't want to pull the whole laptop.

No, no, we're gonna we're not pulling that.

No, withdraw the memo.

Well, I think I think obviously you're entitled to do so, but I don't think we still want the memo to be part of the record, I'd imagine, but uh you're saying withdraw the the escrow.

Uh yeah.

Yeah.

I would I don't know, I guess up to the board, but I think you'd still want it to be part of the public record because they've made representations in the memo that uh you know support why the site is adequate for the use.

Anyone else?

Um I I just want to say that we got to this place because it was paved by good intentions.

Mr.

Jordan, I appreciate that you did what you did.

And I think uh it says a lot about you personally, uh, that the uh staff were okay with you sending it directly to Mr.

Purnow, which is not typically the case.

And I think uh because it was a little bit different, I think it just kind of got missed.

And I don't think there's any blame here.

Um I think personally I would be uh I I kind of like the condition the way it it it is, um, so we can you know have it reviewed, you know, God forbid there's there is a concern by Mr.

Purnow.

Um I also think you may be exiting here with with uh with something that you hadn't that um Mr.

Lafontaine maybe didn't think we a place that we might not end up at.

So um I think it's I'm I'm hopeful this is a win-win.

Any other comments?

Uh no.

Great.

So I'm ready to make a motion.

Great.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Kiman.

At this time, I will make a motion to approve Funhouse Pizza LLC located at 291 South Broadway for change of use of an 18th thousand square foot retail space to a fitness center on the second floor, along with all the eleven conditions stipulated by Mr.

We have a motion on the table.

Just to clarify that was just for the change of use enough of the CP or did I hear something existing.

I guess I was doing it for everything.

Okay.

Yeah, really.

Change of use and the cup.

And the conditional use for conditional use for the case.

Let's just let's clean this up for the record.

Would you mind withdrawing your second?

Yes, I'll withdraw my second.

All right.

Mr.

Chairman, we would could I ask one thing.

I there's a condition I think I missed that the property owner just brought to my attention.

Was there what was the condition regarding the use?

Uh you're talking about classes, classes.

Classes shall be by appointment only, and there should be an open gym.

Wasn't that uh representative?

Adam Abis uh property manager.

So with that condition, because the site plan is requiring 120 cars.

We we all know that obviously just to give you a little history.

I was approached by other gyms.

I can go on record and say at the zoo, uh crunch.

Um it's those would create a parking problem in my mind.

So I went with a specific niche that fit the needs of the lot, very conservative.

Um we had formerly Zizos where we would have paint parties with 80 people at once during and still customers still flying in there shopping during you know Christmas season, the holiday season.

So we went with a conservative switch, though the I wish there was a specific zoning niche for that specific gym, but it asks for 120 cars.

So if we're getting it, it does become a deed issue if we are saying, well, you can have the zoning for a fitness student.

He's in a long-term lease, by the way.

I'm not concerned.

But to put a restriction, I do think it's a little excessive.

No, you know, no disrespect.

I I really respect you.

Um, you know that, Jacob.

No, of course not.

Um, but I I think that doing that does create a little bit of a uh uh uh a monkey wrench issue, uh issue, excuse my language, like to have a hundred and twenty on a plan, but yet say, well, you're limited to not open gym.

He's not having open gym, but he has classes, so he will have a few trainers that come up with a private client, and he's he's in control of how he manages those trainers.

So when we start to get into restrictive languages like that, it does create a little bit of a concern given that we changed our whole parking calc to say we're we're allowed 120 cars.

No, is this business ever gonna do 120?

No, I wouldn't, I don't I wouldn't want that there.

That's why I went with this use of very picky with the use.

I can put market basket up there.

I know they wouldn't go because it's second floor, but we could with the zoning for retail, we are allowed to put market basket upstairs without coming to the zoning board.

So I feel like this was a very low use, it's low impact, it's a lot of turf up there, not gonna create a nuisance.

It was I call it Goldilocks.

So, you know, I'm just asking to to maybe trust the the owners because we we you know we have ran the shopping center, so you know parking doesn't exceed demand since 1995 without one single issue.

So I mean, we we don't want that problem, so we just don't want it in writing because it does create a little bit of an issue.

Like if we go and I don't know, we have to show national tenants our site plan while they they I don't know, and what if there's a switch one day and I have to put a different gym?

I hope not.

I think he's gonna be very successful, but you know, now I'm limited to what if this one needs a little bit of open gym or something like that.

We're gonna be talking about 10-20 years from now, hopefully.

But if if that even occurs, which I don't think it will.

So I'm just hoping that maybe that specific condition you can reconsider.

And also the one about per now, I'll be honest, I do agree.

I wish I never I when it was um presented to me, Jacob, you know, it was presented as optional.

You can do the perno study.

So we really love to come in with a lot of due diligence.

And I really want to impress the board and come in and say, look, we did our homework A to Z.

Uh homework uh perno was kind of presented as like it's optional.

So with that being said, we chose to do it, but then it wasn't done on time.

Because now it's a condition that he has to review it.

And I have to release an existing party up there tomorrow.

So it does create a little bit of a without getting into the specifics of what's going on up there, a very hardship legal bind for me that I have with the existing person up there.

Because I I can't release him until this is secure.

So I actually believe it or not, so I might as well say it, filing in court for the existing tenant up there.

Because they never opened, and it's okay, it's on record, they're not paying rent.

So you know, I I'm in a really really sensitive place right now with the timetable, and if this whole thing is subject to Per now's review, leaving this door, it it's gonna it's gonna create a nightmare behind the scenes.

Mr.

Abbas, you you're also subject to fire.

You're subject to the the other.

Oh, building permitted subject to multiple reviews.

Yeah.

I how is how would this one be different from the other reviews that are still pending?

Um well, because that's a that's a building permit, so that's just like the that's the norm.

Everybody got to get a building permit.

I I you know that's a good question.

I think the per now review, I was hoping that this was such a conservative switch that we wouldn't even have to have that.

But it you know like I said, we're going from one use that creates more parking to one that creates less.

Because a paint party with 80 people and shoppers in a store.

I had about a hundred spaces used for for that retail retailer upstairs at one time.

And he's if anyone goes to the gym knows Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday are the peak times.

Take a ride any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday down there.

It's gonna be that's when he does the larger classes from my understanding.

It's gonna be you know, wide open for him.

And then as Friday comes along, he tones it down a little, and that's when it gets a little busier with the restaurant.

So this is when I say a perfect fit, you know, we we both know that he only has 30 spaces in the thuan, and he's making it work with open gym.

So this is we're talking about 50 spaces just to give him a little buffer.

I think he's gonna only need 25, 30, and we didn't even mention the drop-off.

He's gonna do a lot of kids' classes for the community and the kids of this town, and these these kids are getting dropped off, and then the parents are going wherever, coming back, picking them up.

So sometimes there's only gonna be like Mr.

S classes.

Mr.

Abbas, are we increasing the trip generation by that by doing that?

No, we're not no, because it's it's that's only it's not gonna be every single person drops off their kid.

You know, if you have ever, you know, anyone anyone's ever dropped off kids to practice, it's some stay, half of them stay, some of them leave.

Like it's it's not really gonna be a major impact.

And the classes are not large enough where there's just you know, tons of traffic rolling in there.

From from my understanding.

Thank you, Mr.

Abbas.

Yeah.

Um thank you.

By the way, thank you.

Say that for one second.

What what is the specific, Mr.

Lafontaine?

Do you understand the specific ask regarding parking?

Uh I think I guess I'd say two things.

One would be that um I guess I wouldn't recommend for going Mr.

Pernal's review if it was because of expedients.

We have third-party reviewers that uh maybe aren't uh all that responsive or expedient, and Mr.

Pernal is not one of them.

Uh I think it was just the fact that the uh information, you know, was lost or miscommunicated, what have you.

But uh I talked to him earlier this morning, he has the information, and I don't see that uh being, you know, a deterrent for the approval.

I think you could get that pretty speedy uh to the applicant.

And then the other thing is I I I want I'd like personally, I'd like to be cognizant of the applicant's concern, but you also have a condition that says all representations made by applicant or agents and all notes on the plan are incorporated as part of the approval.

And to me, I kind of put that in just to reinforce the applicant's rationale for why this use is gonna work.

And I'm you know, I'm referring to the House of Athletes business overview, and uh it states that it's a fitness athletic specializing in scheduled supervised classes and programs.

We are not an open membership gym.

Um so I don't know.

I mean, to me, uh that kind of puts us in a position where uh you know that it almost would have been in effect anyway if it wasn't for the con if I did if the condition wasn't stated, they'd all already be subject to it because it's a representation that the applicant made.

And I guess now uh they would say that um they wanted to be open and and I think Mr.

Abbas, you you kind you kind of demonstrated it right to some extent.

Abbas you you kind you kind of demonstrated it right to some extent you said well we were approached by certain entities and we didn't want to go with I would not make that speech I and this is where the trust should be there we we're not uh we have this property you know since 95 in the family here and you know it it I've been managing it management since 2004 myself yeah and you know to do something that would create a problem for that lot would be a nightmare for us.

Sure.

We we we we are very selective with who before coming to the planning board we are only bringing someone that we have screened and said this is not going to be any problem for our tenants existing tenants for parking and so forth.

So it's just putting that in writing giving 120 cars and then saying well you it's appointment only if something had to be switched in the future I just don't wish to to come before the board and I would hope that there's trust given the history with how we've managed this place since 95.

That's all it is a little unique situation we've been here for forever and you know we have the condition that parking is not to exceed demand so you already cover it there.

I just feel like it's a little it it creates a little bit of a deed issue for us if we are discussing things with a lender or something you know I can get into all that but I just I'm just hoping that I mean 11 conditions is a lot we've we've been through the board before never had 11 so I'm I'm okay with talking about landscaping I I want it to look great there so that's that's great.

Crosswalk I mean I'm actually line striping the lot next week if we can get on this now I'll add it to the the package there you know and no no problem you know but that one maybe we just asking to for the board to consider and to possibly remove that's all Ms.

Travis thank you very much appreciate it.

Mr.

Lafunting just for the benefit of some of our alternates that are uh uh relatively new can you just clearly state in layman's terms the 120 spaces where it sits what we're asking you know what we're presenting yeah so if I pull up the plan um which is a little hard so the applicant here has got um you know the requirement and and again this goes back to our uh parking requirements but the applicant is required to have a total of 408 spaces the spaces that they have available on site are the 234 so they they've got it's 236 my apologies with the uh elimination of the ADA you stuff 236 I think it's 236 with all the ADA okay so 236 um spaces and then in terms of the 120 spaces that they've designated are those the spaces that are specifically associated with Funhouse Plaza excluding Chili's and Mr.

Abbas if you're gonna speak do you mind just going to the mine thank you my question um appreciate it Jacob what was that question?

The specific 120 spaces are the spaces that are associated with Funhouse Plaza excluding the chilies is that what you're saying I mean it's one parcel um but yeah that the 120 we don't need the 100 or you're you're just referring to our parking demand you're saying that our parking demand is 120 yeah we because we we actually already have that condition from a prior uh approval so it's stamped on the plan I wanted Mr.

Jordan here to bring in he showed up with this thing sorry with with like no notes and I'm like put everything on it so the planning board can see all these conditions hundred I don't even know how many are on there that already lock us into we would be in default if we we ever exceeded demand so it's already covered that you know and so sort of not now get in and say well you can only do appointment only it's getting into the management of a business and that's all I'm saying and I don't wish to to have conditions that manage our businesses because we are managing them so that doesn't occur anyway.

But we just don't want it wish it to be Mr.

Lafontaine the the board could hypothetically forgo the condition that expressly states it but but I still think that it's a representation made by the applicant.

So I mean I I think if uh one of the other entities that Mr.

Abbas you know say Mr.

Abbas doesn't own it in 10 years and the property owner in that instance says I want to have one of the entities that Mr.

Abbas stated that's not by appointment only that has open gym that might have impacts that are not consistent with what's shown here I mean unless the board feels otherwise but I but I feel like you're relying on the representations that were made and one of those representations is that they're not an open membership gym and they uh have scheduled supervised classes and programs.

Well, one I didn't have uh conditions prepared uh prior to the meeting because recommendation was continuous, and two, I uh to me it kind of is already incorporated as part of the approval because it was representation made uh representation that presumably the board relied on, but um you know that I guess that would be my input to me.

I kind of thought it was like a just reinforce which we routinely do.

If somebody comes in and says this is it's gonna work because my hours are uh 4 p.m.

to 8 p.m.

and the rest of the tenants operate between nine and five.

You know, the board would say, All right, we want it to be shown on the plan that the hours of operation are 4 p.m.

to 8 p.m.

for this use.

And I kind of saw it as akin to that.

I guess I I'm not trying to restrict their operation, they're required to have 120 spaces, and I guess what they're doing is they're presenting the conditional use permit to the board to say this is why we don't need 120 spaces.

This is why the site with 236 spaces is gonna work Ms.

Travis.

Yeah, I have a question.

So also is part of the request for this.

Um we are wondering if you would consider that in the future if it went back to retail use, we would not need the the need to go to the planning board.

It is obviously a lesser demand for parking.

And we actually already know historically it works because we've had the retailer up there.

I I Mr.

Abbott, I I think staff recommendated recommendation would be that it would come back before the planning board for a change of use.

Even if it goes down with the demand if it goes back to retail.

Mr.

Lafontaine, could you speak to that?

Yeah, there's potential uh and there's probably precedent for uh some things coming under public matters.

One thing that I think uh the planning level we like to do is review our site plan exemption criteria, because right now I think it's only like a thousand square feet of one use to a less intensive use.

Uh so um it's possible that they wouldn't, you know, under that criteria um a strict interpretation would be that they are converting 18,000 square feet from one use to a less intensive use, so they may need to come back to the board, but I there's probably precedent where uh an applicant is coming in for uh one use that is presumed to be less intensive or demonstrated to be less intensive, and uh that has been done under public matters in the past.

So I guess I haven't really thought much of it, but that's kind of my you know, off the cuff response would be um one, the site plan exemptions might complicate it a little bit if you did a strict interpretation, but two, there is precedent where uses have been converted.

Okay.

So did you get the answer you're looking for, Mr.

Abbott?

I don't think you got the answer that you're looking for.

I mean it sounds like maybe for my understanding it's public matters.

It very well could be.

I think there's precedent for public matters, but I also think the board at some point should review our site plan exemption criteria because I do enjoy coming here, Jay.

Yeah, I enjoy you being here.

Yeah.

I'm glad we all know.

With the exception of the pain that it causes, yeah.

I regret that part.

Well, well, thank thank you.

Yeah, so we have a little lecture time tonight, unfortunately, so this has gone probably a little longer than the application should, which is very okay, and I think we've learned a lot.

So where uh here's the question here's the million dollar question on the 120 spaces.

Do we think the representation?

I guess I'm looking at you, Mr.

Lafontaine.

Do we believe the representation that they've presented covers that?

Or should we maintain the 120 spaces on the plan?

Well, that would be the conditional use permit.

That would be what the board would determine for the conditional use permit, whether you not whether or not you feel they need the required 120 spaces, or whether or not you feel you can vary the requirement to allow for a reduced amount of parking.

So uh, you know, the applicant has stated that we don't need 120 spaces because that would require them to have a total of 40 uh 8.6 spaces, right?

So uh that's what the applicants presented you in the conditional use permit.

The 120 goes again back to the calculation, our parking requirements require one space per 150 square feet uh and one per employee.

So they're saying they have eight employees, they have 120, uh sorry, 120 spaces to uh demand based off of 18,000 square feet.

So um I think that's maybe part of the confusion.

I think uh you know, Mr.

Abbas said, well, you know, we we are gonna be approved for 120 spaces.

That's not necessarily the case.

They're really being approved for a total of 300, sorry, 236 spaces on site.

And you know, the assumption is that based off the information the applicant provided that and potentially third-party review that that'll work and that the applicant obviously it's in their interest to manage the property.

Okay, but I don't know if that helps or not.

Uh that that helps.

I I because at the end of the day, our conditional use permit is for 236 spaces that we're allowing where 409 are required.

Yep, exactly.

Um did you have something else to muddy the waters?

I I do not want to muddy the waters.

Okay.

Um did we have an update to any of the conditions based on that?

Uh it would I guess be for the board's consideration whether you're not you'd have the eleven with the classes shall be appointment only and there should be no open gym or 10.

Um but again, I mean I I think the applicants may the representation that it's by scheduled appointments or scheduled classes and that there won't be open gym.

Uh so I I think it's still enforced under your all representations made by applicant or agents and all notes on the planner planners in are incorporated as part of the approval.

I guess unless the applicant indicates now that the that there is open gym, but I think that probably muddies things more than anything uh at this point.

Um so just for clear on the representations for the record, uh Mr.

Jordan, can you confirm that there is no open gym as part of this application?

I can confirm that, yes.

Great, thank you.

Um Mr.

Pelletier, would you please withdraw your motion, original motion?

Yes, I will withdraw my motion.

And then I'm gonna recognize Ms.

Carlson to make a motion.

That's okay.

Good.

Um I I just before before I do, um, and I apologize if this is muddy in the waters.

I seriously apologize.

Um, but so one of the conditions was to establish the escrow for the post-occupancy traffic study.

And then I believe the other one there was something else about the traffic study in general.

Could you read those?

Yeah, was it one or two conditions?

Yep.

So establish escrow account for post-occupancy monitoring report with scope to be determined by third-party traffic consultant.

And then uh that was condition three, and then submit post-occupancy monitoring report six to month six to nine months post-occupancy.

What's happened in a lot of instances is when we have a post-occupancy monitoring report, it doesn't occur because it's like a feel-good thing.

This would have uh escrow account established, and then we would just draw down that to um review it.

And that would be really whatever, you know, in consultation with our third-party consultant, what he feels is warranted.

At one point in time, there was uh discussion about the uh traffic signal time, and I don't know, he hasn't submitted anything, but you know, that might be the thing that they'd want to look at.

So I'm gonna go back to the comment that I made initially about the traffic study in general, and then I understand the applicant has submitted it in good faith.

Um, but that generally speaking, if there was no talk about the traffic study in the application was submitted without that, that I personally am speaking for myself here, not on behalf of the board.

But I personally would not opt to make the applicant do a traffic study in this instance.

I just don't think that it's warranted.

So it it may be beneficial to adjust those conditions and add like an if applicable or if recommended by the traffic consultant, that way it's not you don't because the way it's written now, it seems to me that regardless of what Steve comes back with, that Steve's going to review it, regardless of what Steve comes back with, that you're gonna have to do a uh post-occupancy traffic study, submit the escrow, submit the report.

And he may come back and say that's not even necessary.

Um so I guess what I'm getting at is I I think that it may it may not be necessary, but we won't know that without Steve's well, yeah.

So it does say with scope to be determined by third-party traffic consultants, so I guess in that hypothetical if Steve comes back and says the scope of the post-occupancy monitoring report is that you know there's not a requirement for one.

I I guess we could kind of fine-tune that uh condition uh so that it's stated as such.

If if the board's inclined to do that, you know.

Does that make sense for establish escrow account?

Open up to comments on the board.

Um essentially what you know, making the um post traffic post-occupancy traffic study uh optional at the recommendation of the traffic consultant.

Yeah, so the established escrow account for post-occupancy monitoring report with scope to be determined by third-party traffic consultant if team necessary, and then submit post-occupancy monitoring report six to nine months post-occupancy if team necessary by traffic consultant, and that would get you, I think, to like where you want to be.

Okay.

Um for the benefit of the recorder.

Uh Mr.

Jordan, please.

Only because Bianca started it, I'm gonna muddy it a little further.

Oh no.

Well, I know I know that this board quite often asks for post-occupancy parking studies.

So I'd almost like to flip it and say, don't have Steve Pernaw review the memo.

Let's do a post-occupancy, because that's real life at that point.

All these hypothetical numbers in the trip generation memo, the truth bears out when the when the facility is in operation.

To me, there's more benefit in saying let's revisit in six or nine months after they've been up and running.

Let's see if how it's actually running.

And then we have real data at that point, as opposed to hypothetically it's gonna generate this.

Uh we're predicting that.

This so that's a suggestion.

So you can do with what you wish.

So just to clarify, what you're proposing is instead of even waiting for Steve Pernot's review, then we just implement the condition stating that the applicant will be responsible for establishing the escrow for the post-occupancy traffic and parking calculations and submit that report.

That's what I'm suggesting, yes.

Mr.

Lafontaine, what does staff have to say about that?

I don't know.

I mean, I understand what Mr.

Jordan said, and I I think that you know, this third-party traffic consultant approval could include that, I guess, if you know, Mr.

Pur now.

I think I'd like to at least hear from Mr.

Purnow before signing the plan just to make sure that we have those items in in a row.

I think the applicant would probably benefit longer term if Purno says that we don't need to do the traffic study.

But I think it's probably something we could at work through with the applicant, traffic consultant and myself, I think.

So I would probably at the staff level probably recommend that we keep it as proposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other comments from the board?

I guess the only comment I would make is the applicant said we're talking about theoreticals.

We approve everything based off of theoretical study.

So that's why we do studies afterwards to see how correct or incorrect the assumptions were.

But everything is approved based off of theoreticals because you haven't built it yet, or you haven't occupied it yet.

So for the the benefit of our poor reporting secretary, uh it might make sense to have Jacob restate the conditions.

Okay.

Um we've got 10 now, and they are prior to building permit, submit staff and third-party traffic consultant approvals.

Prior to occupancy to construct all site improvements in accordance with the approved plan.

Three, establish escrow account for post-occupancy monitor and report with scope to be determined by third-party traffic consultant if team necessary.

Four, establ uh re-establish any dead disease, dying, or missing landscaping.

You want me to really muddy.

I I also during discussion added a note that says and remove any non-permitted temporary signage.

Uh because that'll help us uh from a code enforcement uh uh standpoint.

What's that?

Uh five, provide certified as built site plan.

Under other, I've got six, submit post-occupancy monitoring report six to months, six to nine months post-occupancy, that's kind of redundant, uh if deemed necessary.

Seven, uh any proposed use that increases traffic generation beyond estimates in the traffic study requires further approval from the planning board.

Uh eight, no conditional use permit for reduced parking and hours of operation on plan.

Nine, applicant must operate business so that parking lot capacity is not exceeded.

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

So we have ten conditions.

I'm all set.

We're all set.

Great.

Mr.

Travis.

Just quick.

About the signage, I'm gonna take those off the grass tomorrow and put them back in.

Okay.

We have to put it, it's not embarrassing for the plan, you know.

Uh one second, one second.

J just can you restate what you just said?

You're gonna take them out.

The the the flags that are on the grass right now for mattress firm and what's the other one?

Fantastic SAMS.

If I had more time today, I would have taken them down today.

Um I'll just remove them tomorrow and give them back to the tenant and say, you gotta go get your 14-day permit to do this.

Okay.

You know, to put it on a site plan as a permanent thing, it makes us look a little incompetent.

That's all.

Yeah.

Yeah, I would defer the apologies about the sign.

Yeah, no, I understand Mr.

Abbas.

Yeah, and I did have a discussion, and I will say that uh that is consistent with Mr.

Abbas said to me uh during our discussion.

But um I just recommended it because from a code enforcement perspective, it helps us a little bit if we send a letter and I know in 2019 it came up and uh we've sent letters in the past, but up to the board on that.

Staff uh uh Mr.

Lafontaine of you sent letters to this property in the past, zoning enforcement letters.

Uh I personally don't I don't know if I have probably when I was code enforcement officer, I very well may have.

I know Mr.

Maldov had certainly sent letters, though.

But again, it could be a representation up to the board.

I mean the applicant just I think it's okay to I think it's okay to keep it.

I think it's fine to leave it.

Yeah, we've seen it.

I think the board's okay to keep it.

Okay.

All right.

I think we're ready.

Ms.

Carlson, I will ten conditions.

Yes, ten conditions.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair, I move to conditionally approve the change of use to allow a fitness center where the current use is retail with reference to the letter from the application dated May 21st, 2026.

Additionally, I move to conditionally approve a conditional use permit under section 490-701E to allow 236 spaces where 409 are required with reference to the letter from the applicant dated May 22nd, 2026.

The conditional approvals are subject to the 10 conditions noted by Mr.

Lafontaine.

We have a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion on the motion at hand?

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

All those in favor.

And it is unanimous.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Jordan.

Thank you.

We appreciate the board's indulgence this evening.

Mr.

Fiole enjoyed watching this one from home.

All right.

Uh that concludes uh new business.

Um we'll open it to other matters.

Mr.

Lafontaine.

Uh I've got a couple items.

Mr.

Walsh has waited through uh the other application to um answer any questions if you have, but this is a proposal for 53 Pelham Road.

Uh this is Casella Waste Management.

So you approved this plan uh maybe in 20 uh 23 or so, somewhere around that.

And what the applicant is uh sorry, January uh 25, 2024.

Um but uh the applicant is proposing to essentially phase the project.

So uh this is the the front the back building used to be granite skate, I guess, and the front building I think has been kind of an industrial use, so it's this location here.

That back building has been under construction and kind of underway for a while.

What they're looking to do here is make a couple of modifications, probably the most consequential for the planning board being the uh phased edition.

So they had two 2,000 square foot additions for a total of 4,000 square feet.

So one to the uh directional, I think that's to the south, and then another directional to the north of the building.

And what the applicant is looking to do is to do those under a future phase, and we wanted to bring that to the board because um it was not presented to you as a phase uh project, so that would mean that they wouldn't have those additions done uh when they occupy the building for the uh other space here.

There's a couple other items that I don't think you really probably uh are too concerned about.

They're gonna uh reactivate a floor drain and make some wastewater system modifications.

Uh they're gonna change some of the grade in or proposing it, change from the grade in there.

I imagine you would just rely on uh engineering to review that app uh that item and then again the stormwater management changes.

Um that would be again reviewed by engineer, and so my assumption would be that the board would probably be okay with the phase development.

We just wanted to kind of correct the record.

I think they also altered this stone wall here because it was a little closer to the addition to the north and um to stabilize that area.

They've they've bumped it out a little bit.

Those are probably the most notable aspects, everything else, more or less stasis as uh as approved.

So essentially they're just doing it in building the same thing just in phases.

Yeah, they're not proposing any change of use or anything like that.

They're essentially just saying we want to move forward with the project, but we're not gonna move forward with the component that was proposed for the building additions.

Uh if they do the rest of the work, I guess that would because right now they have a site plan extension.

Uh you've granted them an extension because they didn't begin work yet.

Uh this would essentially kind of vest that approval.

They would move forward with the rest of the work, and then they would come in at a future date for the permit to build the additions, and uh, you know, at that point they would function under this phased approach.

Any concerns from the board?

I don't think I see anything.

Okay.

Thank you.

Staff no, um I would just recommend that you know staff approvals be received, particularly engineering, but that's typically how you uh you act on these matters anyway.

So thanks for uh coming all the way down from from Maine, Mr.

Walsh.

Yeah.

Thank you, Mr.

Walsh.

Have you good night?

Um this one um is for Sadies at 136 Cliff Crossing.

So um during COVID, Sadies use the patio uh for outdoor seating, and then I think they stated that they hadn't done it for a couple of years, and they came in this year for a temporary event.

Normally, if it's continuous on an annual basis, we wouldn't bring it back to you.

But because it hadn't been done since maybe I think they reported 21, maybe 22.

We wanted just to bring it back before the board in case there were any concerns.

They stated the hours of operation for the patio seating would be 11 a.m.

to 9 p.m.

and that the seeding would uh discontinue, the outdoor seating would discontinue uh on September 7th, 2026.

Um this is their plan here.

Um we've kind of handled these differently in different instances.

In some instances, you've said you know the total number of seats uh for the restaurant can't be exceeded, which kind of makes sense to some extent uh when you require conditional use permits based off of uh seating count.

Um and here I don't know that they've really spoken so much to their total number of seats, but um we could review that if the board board is interested to um you know increase seats by 48, subject to um, you know, we have other restaurants that just kind of call it a wash that um some of the indoor seats would go outside, but wanted to bring it to you and see what your thoughts were.

My other question on this one was parking.

You know, are there if if they're adding 48 seats?

I know it's I don't know if they're under or overparked.

Having been back there a couple of times, it seems like it can get a little tight, but um the other question is is is it right off the back towards is it the it's actually gonna be in the front, uh oh the front, I think it looks like that little square of the front.

Okay, all right.

And I I think that's where they had it during COVID.

I mean COVID was a little unique because uh, you know, your well was a lot unique, but uh you couldn't occupy this the spaces inside, so um you know it seemed to work.

I'm on the wrong street.

It seemed to work during uh COVID, but um it's not the cities, I think something go around wrong button.

Yeah, but yeah, so uh it's embarrassing if the planner gets lost, you know.

Uh yeah, so this area here.

So I could review that, you know.

Oh, yeah, yeah, I see what you're doing.

So if the board would like, I can certainly review uh what their total you know, what their CO for seat count is, and we could kind of tie it.

If if they're not uh overparked or if they're not adequately parked, you know, we could ask them to um offset the demand uh with the interior spaces.

Uh I don't think that's what we did in 2020, but again, that was probably because they had reduced capacity in inside the restaurant.

Question Jacob.

So are they currently under a requirement to manage the parking in their facility so that there aren't any issues?

Um you know that that uh site has been there for so long, I think that I'm not sure exactly what their approvals uh entail.

It's either it very well could be you know pre-existing and you know uh um so I guess that would be the the concern, right?

Is that if uh if they don't have enough spaces that are required um to add 40 additional 48 additional I could review that with the applicant.

Just make it a condition that yes, if you want to do this, you have to make sure you manage the parking if you don't take the the use away.

So we'll see the board.

Don't park in the school.

Yeah.

That would be my recommendation.

Yeah, okay, and that'd be fun too.

I mean, this is kind of similar to what we've done with food trucks where it hasn't necessarily been a consistent application, but I'm I'm happy to do that.

Um if the board's inclined.

I think we're okay with that.

Okay.

Thank you.

And the other thing is it's a temporary permit, right?

So if it doesn't work now, it's not like um you know, it's a you know, I think it's a good idea to remove it if it doesn't work.

Um so back to the slides.

Um this one again is uh kind of another item that we've done under public matters that we don't really have a great uh amount of guidance on, but uh EV chargers uh we've done these under public matters, so this is nine Northeastern uh location to the front of the site.

They want uh this is they'll dig a trench and then they'll put some EV charging stations here.

It'll be in this approximate area here, so they'll have uh four spaces.

Uh previously you've done this under public matters, and sometimes we've stipulated that you know they wouldn't be reserved to EV charging uh EV vehicles, electric vehicles, but uh in this instance it's probably not warranted just because they have so much additional park in there.

Um so if the board's okay with this, then you approved EV chargers at um uh northeastern just up the street on the uh left-hand side there.

Uh the number excuse me, maybe it was 12 or something like that or 10.

Right.

I would just uh suggest running it by the fire department, the distance from the building.

Given the uh the news about EV recently, I think it uh it may be wise.

Yeah, they will apply for a building permit and it'll be reviewed by the fire department and planning and uh building, but it's a good point, yeah.

Yes, yes, it should be.

Yeah, they uh they don't go out easy.

Um that's all the public matters I have.

Of course, I have some uh and I and I did provide um uh memo with some suggested changes on our zoning amendments.

So I guess I'll open those up.

Um maybe we'll do the easy ones first.

The easy ones would be our use table.

So we've talked about this a couple of times.

What we're trying to do is take our use table and just kind of clean it up.

There's a lot of redundancy, there's uh things that don't make it particularly easy to apply or to interpret.

Uh one of those is the uh several categories we had for educational institutional uses.

We had to me uh uses that were very similar and um were only permitted in certain districts, even though they seem to be kind of more or less the same use.

So this is the use table as proposed currently.

Uh one thing we would do is we would consolidate public, private, and parochial schools before we had a secondary category called other private schools, and those were allowed rather than by right by special exception in the rural uh recre uh rural residential and garden apartment district, um, and also um the CIA and CI B and C district.

So we kind of eliminated that category, consolidated it all under one category.

Um more or less they're still permitted in the same locations.

Uh the one that they're not located uh permitted right now or proposed here is the CIA district, which is really just the area immediately around the depot.

And um again, public and parochial schools aren't permitted in that district, so seemed reasonable.

Um, you know, I passed through the depot today at you know, in the afternoon, it's it's kind of tough sometimes, so it might not be good to have a large school in that area.

Regardless, we then we got rid of secondary schools, other private schools, child care nursery, nursery school, and then group daycare.

So kind of consolidated those all under um daycare facilities, and then amended the uh areas, the districts that those daycare facilities are permitted to be consistent with the uses that we eliminated.

So uh kind of consolidate everything there.

Uh the other item, uh this was one of the item that Mr.

Brewbaker noticed was that we had a distinct category for churches and then a separate category for religious institutions.

Um we haven't applied that as such.

I mean, we've had some kind of more unique religious institutions come in, and we haven't said, Oh, you're only allowed to be in the town center district, and I don't think we would be able to do that based off of our lupa anyway.

So the recommendation here would be that you that we consolidate it to churches and religious institutions under one category, and that um it be permitted in all the districts that churches are currently permitted in, and that we would add it in town center where religious institutions are permitted as well.

Um so those are some cleanup items on our permitted use table.

Um personal services is the other one, and that is uh proposed to allow those in the business office and the business office two districts, so that would be along Main Street.

Uh that would be uh hair salons, barbershops, um, tattoo parlors, etc.

Uh those would be those uses.

They're already located in those districts.

And then mixed use building.

This is six HB631, which requires us the municipality to allow mixed use development in commercial zoned areas.

So this would allow mixed use buildings and the I shouldn't say manufactured housing park off.

I meant to correct that last time.

So I'll eliminate that, but it would be allowed in business office, business office two, limited community, shop and village, and it would also be allowed in CIA and CIB and C district.

So some of it's already allowed.

So we kind of eliminated that office residential category and then captured it under a mixed use building district.

And all these currently are proposed as conditional use permits.

So the idea would be that similar to because I I uh I met with a group from New Hampshire Business and Economic Affairs earlier.

We toured uh depot in Maine, and you know, I I think again it kind of shows how purposeful zoning can be very effective, right?

I mean, I I think in some regard that's a commercial not some regard, that is a commercially zoned property.

The board permitted uh 74 unit residential use on a parcel that's what two acres.

You did so with uh varying the height requirements, so they have three stories.

Uh I think it was 45 feet, something to that effect.

You also approved a setback of 10 feet on the front and seven on the side, 15 on the other front, you know, and that's kind of the intent with this is that yes, you could still do this type of development, which we already allow under the depot village overlay district, but in exchange the board would would review the proposal and make sure it complies and is consistent with the master plan that everybody just works so hard on uh and it won an award uh as well.

Um so I guess I will um just do a quick review of kind of where we stand, and and I and I say all this with the understanding that it might be a moot point because uh right now uh there is a house bill, HB 1588, 1588, 10 what isn't 1588 the uh I think he I think he I think they tied it into both, I thought.

But but anyway, there's bill.

Yes, there's a house bill on the governor's desk.

And that house bill would kind of upend 631, and it would require um that we just allow them by right, you know, mixed use developments by right.

And the only my understanding is that the only thing that you could require would be to limit the height of the buildings to limit the setbacks, which really I think is the thing that you've been generous with, right?

That it's kind of been a uh a give and take.

So anyway, I I share that information, and um this is kind of uh Miss Carlson talked about this definition.

We are still reviewing it with our town attorney, whether or not we can take the mixed use definition.

This is from our master plan.

This is what we landed on, and uh this was what um in in uh consultation with our economic consultant through the master plan, uh, they suggested, and and Miss Carlson with her industry experience stated that rather than require 100% of the first floor, require at least 33% of that ground floor, and uh dedicate at least 80% of the ground full floor street frontage to street activate and activating uses.

So we've kind of taken that and we've and we've inserted it here that is still being reviewed by our uh town attorney to make sure that it's valid.

Just to just a uh clarify that the concern that I had was putting any sort of um design requirements within a definition.

Um so having the structure be at least 33% of the ground floor, etc.

etc.

Um, I don't know if that necessarily would fall under where if we should put that into a definition per se, or if that should be within the ordinance itself.

I think burying it within the definition may not be seen by applicants in the future.

They may not think to go and check out what the definition of multifamily is because they probably in their minds know what the definition of multifamily is.

Sure.

So I think just in an effort to be as transparent as possible it would make the most sense to put it within the ordinance itself not within the definition but pending legal approval.

Yep, no that's a good point.

And then in terms of the purpose a lot of this again going back to the depot overlay district because we have seen success there.

You know, I think depot in Maine is an example.

The Lapoli property well it didn't go through permanent was approved under this and and I think that was a success uh you know hopefully at some point that site gets redeveloped again uh or somebody else might come in with a similar proposal um the auto zone you know for an auto zone I think it it really kind of meets the spirit and the intent of the depot.

So we we took a lot of the uh existing purpose in our depot overlay district and we applied it to this criteria um we talked a lot about um you know the multifamily residential uses that you know these are permitted the public hearing shall take place so that's a procedural aspect um but the thing I was gonna say we talked a lot about last meeting was the density and the the way it is written right now is similar to what we have um actually not similar it is what we have in the business office subdistrict so that's two two units per acre um I would say that we would hold that line in limited community shopping village I think you might remember I was really I was kind of sh you know shooting for the stars maybe or a little ambitious maybe a big idea guy uh and I said 12 units per acre but then we calculated that and uh you know for the 97 shops that would be like 120 uh units and that probably you know that certainly doesn't make sense they don't have uh they're on septic there they couldn't accommodate that kind of demand but in commercial industrial A and B and C the recommendation would be six units per acre um this is less than what's allowed in the depot overlay district depot overlay district is 12 but the thought here was that you know hey we would still allow uh projects outside of uh our mixed use core which was identified in the master plan as kind of the D and that encompasses the depot so we would still allow multifamily or mixed use development outside of that mixed use core um but let's do it at more of a reserved six units per acre that still gets you to a uh calculation I think if market basket on the corner veterans were to redevelop I think that got to like 90 units if uh Clove Cross and were to develop across the street there uh at 92 Clough Crossing where uh BJs was going in you know that I think was somewhere more like 200 uh 200 units somewhere around there maybe 190 units um so it it still kind of a would allow some pretty uh good density for those larger parcels but also kind of focus our development uh residential development where we envisioned in the master plan which would be the depot so you could still come in under the depot overlay district and you could get 12 units per acre in that area um the height is the same uh as what's permitted in the depot overlay district that's um four stories 60 feet in height um what's interesting is in the depot overlay district you have a lot of design criteria but you also have the ability to waive pretty much any criteria in the ordinance and that's not really in this ordinance right now it is in the depot I still think we want to try to incentivize use of the depot village overlay district just because again I think it's it's been successful.

And then again this this would be the item that might change this week depending on how the uh whether or not the governor signs uh the House bill but um right now it's proposed by conditional use permit and where I think that helps is um you know this criteria here where it talks about you know if the site is suitable for the proposed modification so it talks about the site has available availability of appropriate utilities to serve the intended use including water sewage disposal stormwater disposal I think in Salem you know uh although I said this last meeting and it maybe had a reaction that I didn't think it was gonna but I I through the master plan process I think we've you know the community's identified itself as a community that is open to residential development and um one thing that has also come up is that uh you know we want to ensure that we have adequate water uh as well so we anticipate that phase two of the regional water line will be constructed and then we'll have another 1.1 million gallons per day um but until that's done I guess we wouldn't want to be you know premature and say all right the whole town is open for residential and uh you know uh people are gonna call all the time especially when the water ban goes in effect but um so that's kind of the I the rationale for the conditional use permit and to support that we want to ensure that there's adequate uh utility services um you know the board has kind of done the same approach with um a more recent application that came before you wanted to kind of have that residential development reviewed and assess its impacts and I I envision that the same thing would be done under what's currently proposed here.

to residential development and um one thing that has also come up is that uh you know we want to ensure that we have adequate water uh as well so we anticipate that phase two of the regional water line will be constructed and then we'll have another 1.1 million gallons per day um but until that's done I guess we wouldn't want to be you know premature and say all right the whole town is open for residential and uh you know uh people are gonna call all the time especially when the water ban goes in effect but um so that's kind of the uh the rationale for the conditional use permit and to support that we want to ensure that there's adequate uh utility services um you know the board has kind of done the same approach with um a more recent application that came before you wanted to kind of have that residential development reviewed and assess its impacts and I I envision that the same thing would be done under what's currently proposed here um so I threw a lot at you for for this provision um and then there's one more but I I don't know if you want to if anybody wants any questions or comments.

Any questions on this one?

Um if we could uh pause before we move on so the mixed use developments in commercial districts um if I assume that by our next meeting that yeah um Kelly will likely sign or not sign.

Um and if in fact she does sign I think it may be helpful um at the next meeting to provide a copy of that house bill that sure the the the text in a in a summary of it may be helpful um for us to to consider um because obviously we need to comply with that but yeah we would probably want to put our you know on spin on it while staying compliant I guess I don't really know how else to phrase that sound for you but I think that may be helpful um yeah I think you were gonna I can send that to the board uh tonight or tomorrow uh just so you're you have it on uh on record um right so if that bill gets signed then you know we would probably scrap most of what's here and then we would kind of have to take a harder look at the uh the bill to see what uh you know what we need to do to uh comply my understanding and I could be wrong was that um it would be effective in July so it wouldn't give us a lot of time to be responsive to it but we could very uh well kind of I think we would still be able to meet on the 23rd to review it and then we would publicly notice it for the July 14th meeting once it's posted I think it uh you know at a public hearing it essentially becomes doesn't become effective but you know some it would kind of protect us from somebody who would come in uh you know July 1 with a uh project that doesn't comply with the ordinance and um you know we're trying to scramble to figure out how we can permit that through our uh our current ordinance but I'll you know uh I'll I can check on that as well but um I imagine that if we were in a position where an applicant came forward with a applicate with an application that complied with that house bill but didn't comply with our zoning that we would then have to lean on on the house bill correct well that's why um but so that supersedes so we don't necessarily have to rush to get our it it's certainly good practice to have our town zoning you would align with with the state RSP because otherwise we wouldn't if you don't do it Mr.

Lafontaine they can't push back on anything.

If we if we were to go to town meeting so the communities that have to go to town meeting and this happened with the ADU law uh the ADU law was actually I think it was actually retroactive.

I think the governor signed it and then it was retroactive July 1 and she might have signed a July 10th or whatever.

So that means any municipality that has to bring zone in through town meeting had a period of time between July 1 and March of this year where they had to uh they had to apply an ordinance or apply a state law that superseded the ordinance.

In Salem were able to go to town council and what happens is if we if you publicly notice it which would be the hope that we would you know review the material publicly notice it for the July 14th meeting I think is when we meet essentially that stays the app so somebody couldn't come in and say hey the state tells me I can do this they would say we've publicly noticed this amendment.

The worst case she signs it and we just withdraw the if we don't do anything then we're in the same situation that those other municipalities are which is what we did under um the uh the detached ADU law we probably it was effective say mid-July I don't think it probably was uh approved by the council maybe until August or maybe in September you know so it took us a little bit to kind of react to that here I think we could potentially be a little bit more proactive but it really kind of depends on what the governor does okay.

All right um and aside from that the other item that we've talked about a lot has been cigar bars.

Um so this and this would obviously have to be reviewed by council too, the legal counsel.

Uh right now we're just kind of referring to the RSA because if you go to the RSA, it's kind of uh very wordy.

We could adopt it uh verbatim and put in in our definition table, but right now it just refers to the RSA.

And then the the most significant change that you'll note here is that the language is pretty much the same as what was previously proposed, but we've added that uh no cigar bar which operates between the hours of 10 p.m.

and 7 a.m.

may be located within 750 feet from any residential, you know, so essentially any of our residential districts.

The reason why those hours were selected is because we do have a pretty nebulous noise ordinance uh in our uh uh or in our zoning ordinance, and it models that same uh time frame, 10 p.m.

to 7 a.m.

So I just kind of took that and said, all right, well, you know, previously town meeting and the community felt these were kind of our quiet hours for these uses, and then it would kind of prohibit some of the concerns we've had with those uses that say uh we're gonna be open from uh 11 p.m.

or 10 p.m.

to 1 a.m.

And uh there's those peaking factors and uh the ones that have been proximate to residential abutters have uh frequently complained.

And then the kennels are the um the same language, and I think I gave an example previously where a residential abutter to a kennel would leave me voicemails um at like five in the morning when the dogs uh would get dropped off, and I certainly kind of sympathize with that.

It's maybe one thing if you live next to a retail store, but another thing if uh you've got 20 dogs in your backyard.

Yeah, I think those are good.

Okay.

Happy looking.

All right, so um, you know, depending on I guess what happens with that house bill, uh, these may be ready either for public uh uh public hearing on your June 23rd meeting or July 14th, uh, and we would bring those to the um town council after that July 14th meeting.

Um there are a couple other ones, but I don't think they're um all that pressing right now.

Um thing that's come up and that I I'd like to address is height.

Uh our our uh table, our zoning table says 35 feet or two and a half stories, and it says that in every residential district.

And it's come up a couple times where um somebody may have 35 feet, but they have three stories, or uh and and the application historically has been that you can't fail on either one, you know.

So you couldn't have a three-story building at 35 feet, just like you couldn't have a two and a half story building at 40 feet.

Um so my thought there is that because a lot of people have gotten hung up on the or provision uh to either change that to and or put to put a provision in there that you know they have to meet either one.

Uh one thing I wanted to maybe uh check the board's temperature on, and I don't think it'd be ready for this batch of ordinance uh amendments, but would be you know, are there any districts in the community where three stories might be uh reasonable?

You know, if if somebody comes in and they say, well, I've got 35 feet, therefore I should be able to go to three stories.

Um, you know, I guess we'd want to look at that.

Um one application that came in was uh on shore drive in the recreational district, and that might be one to consider um or at least at least at least to discuss because what happens is a lot of those lots are 5,000 square foot lots.

They get a variance to build a year-round dwelling.

They don't want to you know encroach too far on the side and front and rear setbacks, so they go vertical.

Um, and there's been a couple that uh appear to be three stories.

At one point we didn't have a height restriction in our recreational district.

We only had um it was accidentally omitted.

So there are some three-story uh structures on Shore Drive.

Um I took a drive down um shore drive and around Arlington not too long ago, and I thought there were maybe more.

There, you know, I I don't know.

I I think it'd probably be a little bit different, maybe if you were to apply three stories and the recreational or sorry, the residential district, you know, that might be jarring to some.

Um maybe the rural district.

I guess those are larger lots, but still maybe you'd want to keep that at two and a half stories.

But uh nothing you know, pressing, it's just something that came up within the last couple weeks, and I wanted to kind of put on your radar for that one.

You guys we have this issue of on Main Street, right?

you know I I don't know I I think it'd probably be a little bit different maybe if you were to apply three stories and the recreational or sorry the residential district you know that might be jarring to some um maybe the rural district I guess those are larger lots but still maybe you'd want to keep that at two and a half stories but uh nothing you know pressing it's just an a something that came up within the last couple weeks and I wanted to kind of put on your radar for that one you guys we have this issue of on Main Street right I think um on Main Street the ZBA denied an application so that the applicant came in and stated um hey we've got three stories but it's gonna be at um thirty five feet I will say the abutters in that instance were opposed and the ZBA actually ultimately denied the request for the additional story um so that was one instance that it came up but it was uh there was a separate instance on shore drive in particular and uh it it was took a lot of back and forth and a lot of discussion and uh ultimately they modified the elevation so that it complied with the building code definition of a half story so they have some kind of uh shed roofs and uh dormers that that uh were added and they were able to accomplish the two and a half stories without really losing a lot of uh floor area but that's kind of one of the items is that you know they said well there's other three story buildings on shore drive uh these are small lots so you know maybe it makes sense to go vertical you know I maybe one thing to do would be to reach out to the uh the lake associations and see if they have any thoughts on it great to hear from Apple and no but again it's it's it's something that came up and something that I told in working with the applicant that I would uh ultimately uh bring to the board it's probably premature at this point but I just wanted to kind of put it out there because it's come up a couple times now within the last couple months.

Thank you.

The the biggest question in my mind on that is that like what is a half a story and I'm I'm saying that sort of rhetorically but there's just so much um confusion about what is a half a story and you know the abutters not a not understanding what is a half a story the applicant sometimes not understanding what is a half a story um and it just creates so much confusion in such a gray area that honestly it it should be either two or three stories.

We should pick one in pose the half story or default to that they have to pick whether it's two and a half stories or what'd you say 30, 35 feet I think a straight height would be the easiest thing to do.

I agree.

Yeah and that's not a bad idea.

You know so if they accomplish 35 feet then you know do we I mean ultimately the mass and I guess doesn't change right I mean if it's 30 maybe you could argue a little bit because the floor that uh third finished floor is going to be um uh more mass than if it were a sloped uh or a shed roof but um but yeah I mean I I could see the argument when somebody comes in and says well it's gonna be 35 feet regardless uh what does it matter if it's a half or so maybe one thing I can do too is I could I can bring in some examples just to see because I agree with you uh it the building code isn't particularly clear about I mean it is but it's it it doesn't it's not like an intuitive like oh that's a half story it's kind of a melt mathematical calculation extra need like a code specialist yeah um to clarify it so maybe what I'll do at a future meeting is I can bring some you know three story buildings some two and a half story buildings and kind of see what the temperature is if we're doing that it may also be helpful.

Um I don't believe that we do this currently but identifying like where the where the grade would be to determine the height.

Is it is it the average of the grade is it the highest point is it the lowest point I mean it it there are some there are some developments in some buildings that you could have a major grade change from one side of the building to the other in any direction.

Yeah.

And I mean even my house for example the front of my house looks like it's a single story in the back of my house it's three stories.

It makes no sense.

But it would be helpful to be able to determine where where like what is the starting point for the height for how that's measured.

It is average grade which makes it kind of interesting because you see particularly on the lake you know because you'll have some slope down to the lake and on the back it might look like you know three some some instances four.

Right.

Um and it's still two and a half stories because of the average grade.

So it is uh there's a lot of interpretation there there is a building that came in and there were some questions about height there was one end of the building that is uh well above 30 well not well but it's above 35 feet but you take the average uh height above grade on all four sides and even though one is well above 35 feet the others uh accomplish it the other item is that sometimes the site is is graded right so the grade is raised and uh you know the maston is still probably that what it would be if it was a 45 foot building but because now the average grade has been brought up to the building right you know so there's all sorts of uh intricacies and height and uh and I've had to we've read a lot you know the building department and and the planning department have read a lot the last couple weeks because these items have come up so that's why you know maybe 35 feet from average grade is the answer and uh the consequence or not the consequence but the the result there might be that there might be uh you know buildings that the mass and looks kind of maybe out of place out of scale for some areas of the community.

So that's why you know, maybe 35 feet from average grade is the answer, and uh the consequence or not the consequence, but the uh the result there might be that there might be uh you know, buildings that the NASA looks kind of maybe out of place, out of scale for some areas of the community.

Yeah, um, but that's I think all I have.

Um we have the open space master plan that we're gonna hear at our uh June 23rd meeting, so we'll notice that as a public hearing, and um uh likely eight Atkinson and then also 401 Main Street will be on that agenda.

Um that's what I think we anticipate here and now.

Did you have anything else, Greg?

Oh, yeah.

Yep.

Um we did that maybe a week or a week and a half ago, uh, an ADU seminar that was uh organized by Creighton, um myself, Assessin, um Jillian Watowski, and then um Deputy Chief Gallup all participated as well as some members from Mayor Mac Sabin's bank.

And it was well attended.

We were a little nervous that we were gonna be in an empty room, but uh there were people uh that attended and they asked good questions.

So uh if it was really successful, it's been recorded and it's posted on Salem Community Television.

So if anybody's interested, the idea there was to we're seeing a lot of ADUs.

We've I think uh we've permitted 11 detached ADUs uh since uh January of this year.

Wow, you know, so that again being kind of 11.

Yeah, and I think last year we maybe permitted forget what it do you remember.

It was might be four or something or six.

Uh I thought it was less than that, but you figure that's from when the uh state law was signed in July.

So I mean there's definitely a lot of interest we've been fielding a lot of calls about detached ADUs in particular.

Just clarification.

I had gone to a presentation for a company that that builds these um and it and one of the you know big stipulations is with septic, how does that impact you when you're adding load to the system?

And it was explained during that meeting that you know if someone's going through that process, they have to go and have a new septic design plan made, but they don't have to implement that.

That that becomes the rule of law for when the septic has to be replaced.

But if you're the existing homeowner and you want to add this ADU without modifying the septic, you have the right to do that.

And the plan just carries forward for for failure or or forced replacement at some point, then you have to build to the new spec.

So it has to have space for the new design that would meet the new demand, but it does not have to be built in order for the existing homeowner to build that ADU and occupy it.

And that's my understanding.

I just want to make sure that that's correct, because it's gonna allow a lot more people to do what they want to do because they don't want to tear up a functioning septic just because they're adding another bathroom and a bedroom to to their property.

Um you're right.

So for de well, for detached ADUs, that's what we've done.

We've required a contingency plan to show that in the event of failure that you can accommodate uh the additional uh demand, the lot loading.

And um, but I would say that for the detached units that hasn't been the case.

For the detached units, we do because you know it's not like you can easily tie, you know, you have tie you could tie into that system, but the health officer, what I understand is that he's requiring either you to expand your system or to have a new system if you have the ability to do so, which like a second system.

Yeah, and we've seen both.

We've seen people who've installed the new system, and we've also seen people who've increased their system.

Um but uh for attached ADUs, the practice had been a contingency plan.

Um, but I think for the detached ADUs that's been viewed a little bit different because you know, you have your own line that goes to the system.

So rather than add a separate line.

Um and again, that's the health officer, so I don't want to misspeak, but that's I'm pretty confident that's uh what that would be governed by state law, right?

Well, they do need uh state septic approval, but Salem's also a self-uh inspecting community.

So we a lot of communities don't have a health officer.

Um I think our health officer has the ability to require that a new system being installed for the detached units because unlike the attached ones, you know, if you're at a bedroom to your house, you can also do the same thing, even if you're not doing an ADU, you can demonstrate that you have a uh the lot load in for it.

But I think because if you have a standalone structure, we want to make sure that you're not overloading that system.

That's my understanding.

Oh, and maybe Salem does it differently, but these this company puts them in all over the state, and that's what they say is the common priority.

State's probably okay with it, but we uh we are self-inspecting community, and I can get clarification.

I I would say that in the past, yes, that's been the practice is that it would be a contingency plan.

Um, but uh I don't think that's been the case.

There's been a couple other interesting things that have kind of come up with the detached ADUs.

One is driveways, you know, that that's come up a lot.

Um, historically, we would kind of say, well, it's accessory to your primary, and you wouldn't have another curb cut for your uh accessory unit.

Yeah, um, there are some instances where the accessory unit wants to maybe access off a separate street, um, which is kind of been interesting.

So that's kind of some something that other communities zone in order to speak to.

Ours don't really, our engineering division relies on um you know criteria for the driveway permits to review that, but that's something that's come up uh on a couple instances.

Trying to think of some other items, but it's it's interesting because it's you know, we're we're uh experiencing issues that we didn't necessarily anticipate because it's a new uh it's a novel uh are many of the permits uh uh requesting full basements too.

Um not many, well, some do, and and what gets interesting there is that the RSA states 950 square feet of live in space.

So we've allowed applicants in the past to exempt uh utility rooms, garages, um, unfinished basements, particularly unfinished basements that are common to live in space uh to uh primary unit.

But what's interesting here is that if you have a detached ADU and it's 950 square feet, and then you have a full basement under uh you know, we're in a position where we've have some with notes that you know basement shall not be finished.

Kind of hard to enforce that, but uh but again that's another that's another item that we didn't really anticipate before because if it was attached, we'd say, yeah, you can have a basement, but you know, make sure you have an uh you know can't be exclusive to your AD uh ADU, it has to be common, and uh with the detached ADUs, it's been uh interesting.

Well, that would allow the you know the reason I asked that is that you you probably are mechanicals in the basement and you're gonna get more use of your footprint than if you have to either put it in the attic or or use up space on the 950 square feet for all that stuff.

So yeah, put it in your garage.

Well, a lot of them don't have garages, so yeah.

But all sorts of stuff, and maybe at some point we can come back in with some of those items just to see if there's anything that we need to to clean up, especially now that we're having a lot of experience with it.

You know, we probably get what 15 or so that are either in some phase of permitting.

Jacob, I was still concerned about the detached ADU that's uh that's not it's far away from the house.

And with public utilities, yeah.

That I think you uh stipulated that the public utilities was would have to extend from the existing property to that ADU regardless if it's near the house or at the other end of a five-acre lot.

Yeah, yeah.

My understanding rather than rather than separate utilities.

Yeah, my understanding is that uh you know, municipal services and engineering the water department allow um you know kind of one shot off one curb stop per uh per single family lot.

So you still have to come in on that same line, and then you could tee off of it, but you are right, you might have to go some ways before you can connect to the detached ADU, which again gets kind of back into that uh consideration.

I mean, yeah, I think we always kind of anticipated accessory unit to be kind of like either well, certainly before the law change they were supposed to be attached in Salem, but um we didn't really kind of give much consideration to uh ADU that's I don't know, a hundred you know, feet away or two hundred feet away from a primary um or one instance where we have it bisected by wetland, you know.

So it's you know, so they have available upland, but you know it's yeah.

From what I've seen, most of them are trying into the main house for the public service, so they don't have to do a separate line from the town, is what they try to do, unless the town doesn't permit it.

Yeah, but yeah, it's been interesting.

The recording was interesting, so carried anybody watch it.

Well, I think there's uh we're just proving that you the session was needed because there's a lot of questions.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, no, thank you for the time to that.

Uh just reminder that the ethics uh training has been canceled for the 15th.

Um just got that notice.

So don't show up early to the town meeting.

Um anything else?

Any other announcements?

Nothing further.

All right, motion we adjourn.

Second do we motion and second and to adjourn?

All those in favor?

Motion is unanimous.

Meeting is adjourned.