Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

Welcome to the July 14th meeting of the Salem, New Hampshire Municipal Planning Board.

Before we get into today's business or introduce our members, if you would please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I Pledge Allegiance of America.

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

My name is Sean Lewis.

I will serve as your acting chair for this meeting.

Introducing the members to my far right.

Oh my god, Jeremy, I'm gonna screw up your name.

Gibboth.

That's what I thought.

Jeremy Gibbo.

Good evening, Salem.

Jim Harvey.

Good evening, Salem.

Bianca Carlson.

Evening, Salem.

To my far left, Jeff Hatch.

Good evening, Salem.

Chuck Sabah.

Good evening, Salem.

And Secretary Damon Norcross.

Good evening.

For those of you who have read ahead and have our agenda in front of you, we have five zoning amendments for which we will hold a very brief public hearing before we continue this until the July 28th meeting.

And for those of you who are deeply interested in seeing the entire meeting live and participating in a brief workshop at the end of the meeting, we will discuss these amendments further.

So without objection, I will now open the public hearing on amendments one through five for the revised permitted use table to consolidate educational uses, revised permitted use table to consolidate religious uses, allow personal service uses in the business office districts, allow mixed use development in commercial districts, and establish proximity between kennels and cigar bars to residential district amendments.

If anybody would like to come and provide input to the board, we welcome it.

Chris Soharlem, 18 Kanti Drive.

Um good evening, uh uh member of the board.

Thank you for giving the public opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance.

I want to speak specifically on amendment number five concerning uh cigar bars and kennels.

This item first appeared uh in the agenda August 2025.

At that time, the title was restrict kennels and cigar bars slash night clubs near residential districts.

That item was later removed from the agenda, and when it comes back, any reference of night clubs was no longer there.

Um so that narrower version is what's in place since then until now.

Because that language appeared to have been removed without any apparent public discussion, would appreciate some clarification about how and why that change was made.

As you recall, uh, in previous meetings about um the contentious proposed cigar bar, um a lot of the issues was not about the cigars use itself, but more but also about late-night entertainments, music, noise, traffic, and impact on nearby residential neighborhoods.

So I respectfully ask the planning board and also staff to uh revise amendment five and put the nightclub component back in so that it would ref better reflect the concerns that the community have and also the intent that uh of this amendment in the first place that has come up repeatedly in prior meetings.

Um I think I I watched some of the um previous meetings, and there's also um during um the the um at the end of the meetings there's that conversation about how nightclub is not currently defined in the zoning ordinance.

Um this is the right time since this is the time uh we are adding um definitions on cigar bar, mixed use development.

So it's this seems to be the right time to add a clear definition of nightclubs as well.

I'm sure staff can uh recommend the appropriate language, but if helpful, I'm happy to share some of the um there's eight communities around New England that already has uh the term night club defined, so that can also be uh a starting point.

But again, thank you again for the opportunity to comment.

Um I hope the final amendment, particularly this number five, reflects the full public record, close potential loopholes for any special interests, and can serve the broader public interests as intended.

I really appreciate uh hearing us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate it.

Mr.

Hatch.

Hatch Mr.

Chair if we don't mind just because I'll forget by the time we get to the workshop do you have any idea why that was taken off did we just was it a legal matter was it just dropped off because we deserve the someone thought it deserved that its own definition and its own no I mean we you would probably recall is what we were the board was trying to accomplish was you had a couple cigar bars that kind came in and there were ancillary uh impacts that are associated with that that uh in two instances there were directly a butt in residential properties so that's what kind of what we were trying to address.

I think what Mr.

Sue Harlem was referring to was um in the in the summary uh we had nightclubs slash sorry cigar bars slash nightclubs and he is correct that was initially proposed in a slate of amendments last year but I think the board wanted to further refine it so the distinction between this one and that was that it says at that operate after 10 p.m.

So you could be a cigar lounge you could be a nightclub I guess uh and you could operate before 10 p.m.

The model of these uses were that they would open at like 9 p.m to 1 a.m and they'd have these big peak in factors everyone would leave and come at the same time if the board's inclined to uh kind of have that also include nightclubs that would capture uh a broader uh category of uses um depending on how we define it you know for instance something that comes to mind would be like a you know Loretta's last call might have come you know might have been defined under uh nightclub use and in that instance they would have required a variance uh so you could do that but I guess I would just use that as kind of a case study because you have residential abutters on Pleasant Street in that instance um it really depends on how we define it but if the board is inclined to do that we could add it'd be very easy to add a nightclub definition and then the uh amendment would just have to be modified to say uh cigar bars uh kennels and nightclubs cannot be within 750 square feet 700 linear feet Mr.

Saban yeah I do recall this and I recall asking the question nightclub for example in this state would have to serve food correct you can't just have a bar or a lounge that's not serving food.

It depends on how we define it I guess if we were to rely on the state went through that whole piece of it which I think kind of like skimmed the intent of the New Hampshire law.

I mean that's what I believe um because you could never have just a bar in New Hampshire without serving food.

And who's serving some of them serve food at 10 o'clock at night if it opens at 10 or at nine and you know and chips is not food as far as I'm concerned it's a snack.

But I I do recall going through that there was some a couple other the state RSA prohibits cigar bars as defined by you know 178 colon 20 to serve food you're correct it and um I think what we were seeing is you were seeing really what kind of appeared to be a nightclub I guess with table service and um or bottle service that kind of thing uh live music and the concern I think was that really those hours of operation I think were the concerns that I recall was that you know you have everybody who comes you know at nine o'clock and then they leave Al at one o'clock and I think particularly the butters on Seed Street had commented that at like 1 a.m 1 30 they were having uh patrons that were leaving and they were detouring on Seed Street some I think allegedly were urinating on lawns that kind of thing and there was a occasionally police presence that you know was disruptive to the residential abutters.

So those were kind of the ancillary concerns that we had if if the board wants us to add nightclubs I can uh draft some language and and uh propose that yeah let's go ahead and draft that language for consideration do any of the board members have comments or questions yes my only comment is is uh the um the proximity to residential was a big factor in what how it was drafted and the other the other issue would be hours of operation when we're restricting hours operation to 10 p.m no nightclub's gonna be able to operate period right that's when they start their business so the the question would be if we draft it that way are we gonna be in uh a lot of uh variance creating a bigger problem by having to create variances for every restaurant that could be argued as a nightclub because it has a bar and closes at 1130 or 12 or whatever in order to add it to this particular uh category where I think time and time and distance to residential is going to eliminate any nightclub from being an impact in these areas so yeah just my thoughts part of I think what we ran into was that it was at one point defined as uh I think some of the nightclubs uh have definitions that uh institutions that provide dancing and music you know what I mean so that's kind of broad and it would maybe catch uh a larger contingent than maybe what we initially discussed but if the board thinks that you know that language should be in there we we could uh we could add it thank you everyone

So it's my thoughts.

Part of I think what we ran into was that it was at one point defined as uh I think some of the nightclubs uh have definitions that uh institutions that provide dancing and music, you know what I mean?

So that's kind of broad and it would maybe catch uh a larger contingent than maybe what we initially discussed.

But if the board thinks that you know that language should be in there, we we could uh we could add it.

Thank you, everyone.

Uh does anyone else have any public comment to contribute on any of the five zoning amendments at this time?

All right, seeing no one come to the microphone.

I'm going to continue the discussion in the public hearing on these amendments to the July 28th meeting, and just a reminder to everybody.

Whether you're tuning in from home or you want to stay here live for the whole thing, we will be having a workshop on these matters at the end of the meeting.

We will now move on to a review of minutes.

We have one set of minutes.

Mr.

Norcross.

Mr.

Chair, I move to accept the May 26 20 May 26, 2026, minutes of the planning board as written.

Second.

We have a motion for Mr.

Norcross and a second from Ms.

Carlson.

Opening up to discussion.

Any questions or amendments to the minutes from May 26th?

Seeing none, we will call the vote.

All those in favor of approving.

That would be four.

Mr.

Sabin, Mr.

Norcross, Ms.

Carlson, and Mr.

Harvey.

All those opposed, all those abstaining.

Mr.

Hatch, myself, and Mr.

Kibot.

So thank you, everyone.

Uh oh, I don't want you to have oh, I'm sorry, I do.

June 9th and June 23rd.

So go ahead, Dan.

Mr.

Chair, I move to accept the June 9th, 2026 minutes of the planning board as written.

Second.

We have a motion from uh Mr.

Norcross second from Miss Carlson on the June 9th regular meeting minutes.

Any questions, amendments?

Seeing none, all those in favor of approval.

I have five.

All those opposed, all those abstaining.

Me, Mr.

Hatch, thank you.

The minutes are adopted.

Mr.

Norcross.

We got a motion and a second, Mr.

Norcross and Ms.

Carlson once again.

Thank you.

Kicking it to the board.

Any comments, questions, or amendments to the minutes?

Seeing none, all those in favor of approval.

That's four.

All those opposed, all those abstaining.

And the minutes are adopted.

4352 and 43.

So moving on to old business, our first and only order of old business.

PR sports hooks at LLC site plan.

This is a public hearing for 25,000 one hundred square feet.

At 179 Main Street.

Okay.

Mr.

Chairman, uh read the abutters first, if that's okay.

The abutters are as follows.

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

They are Gudek, Saleme Family Trust, East Windfield Realty, Saud, Hallahan, Penna, Stevens, Rebello Bigio, 193 Main Street Realty Trust.

193 Main Street Realty Trust is here, Town of Salem, and that is all.

Before we continue, Jacob, the Selemey Realty Trust, what is that track back to?

Uh they're the abutter at one uh nine 197, which is the townhouse development.

And do you have an address for them beyond the one that you've just noted?

Uh Saleme is 171 Main Street.

Uh would be the address of the trustee Robert Salemi.

Okay.

Thank you.

Just wanted to.

I believe.

Okay.

I appreciate that.

And related to some Soleimes, and I just wanted to make sure.

So with that, take it.

Uh so Mr.

Chair, this uh application was last before you in March of this year, and since that time they've spent uh considerable considerable amount of time with the zoning board of adjustment.

They've gone to a few meetings with them.

Uh most of it was relative, well, not most uh concerns there were uh specifically relative to the sound that would be generated by the outdoor courts.

Um so I guess what I'll do is I'll summarize uh kind of where we where they ended up.

The zoning board had heard the application on a couple occasions.

They previously had granted a variance for the indoor courts.

That was back in February of this year, and then they returned and were granted an apparience this past meeting last Tuesday.

But prior to that, they were turned on a couple occasions, specifically for the outdoor courts, and the uh applicant was directed by the zoning board to have a third party independent sound review produced.

The applicant produced their own and they produced a mitigation plan.

Uh in the zone in board exercised their authority to have a third party independent uh entity selected by the town.

In this instance, the town selected uh PSN, which is pickleball sound mitigation LLC.

Uh they're a national firm, and they've assessed uh similar applications across the country.

And essentially what they did is they produced uh four different scenarios.

So the first scenario is essentially if the applicant constructed the pickleball courts and didn't provide any mitigation and they use conventional equipment.

So in that instance, uh you can see that you know, without any sound mitigation on these outdoor courts, the consultant determined that it would be significant significantly above the maximum target value of 55 decibels for residential properties in the reports 30 some odd pages, but in the report, they use that 55 decibel target.

Uh the basis for that is your uh the town's noise ordinance, which is a little clunky, it probably doesn't directly apply to a recreational use like this.

It's really more so for equipment or vehicles.

Um regardless, they use that as kind of the best reference point, and um what they did is they used it to be the targeted volume for these courts for the noise generation.

So no sound mitigation, obviously in conventional equipment shows that there would be uh problems.

There's uh scenario B, which provides uh a 10 foot sound barrier to the west and to the south.

So you can see that on this image here, so they have it to the south, and then it wraps the court on the west side, and that's at 10 feet.

Uh I believe the applicant was originally proposing a six foot barrier.

And what this shows here is that at uh at 10 feet, it still show uh it still exceeds the maximum target value for the southern uh residential properties along Main Street and also a portion of the uh proposed townhouses to the west.

They have scenario uh this is scenario B2.

So what essentially what it does is it just shows two different sound generation points.

So this is S6, my eyes aren't that great, but S6 would generate from this uh southeast court, and then they also have it shown from uh S3, which is the northeast court uh shown there in the corner, and both of those aren't acceptable with the 10-foot barrier.

Uh this is scenario D, which shows uh quiet the use of quiet paddles, and this is ultimately what the applicant is proposing to move forward with.

So it shows that with the implementation of quiet paddles that decibels are within acceptable limits for the abutment parcels.

So you do still have it at 55 to the south, uh, and then the townhouses are below the 55 decibel threshold.

Um, one thing I would caution, and that's in uh PSM's report, is um they show that scenario D is uh is possible because they're a private club and they can enforce a policy, but they also note that this is a difficult but possible option, and for it to be effective, USA pickleball approved quiet paddles need to be used exclusively and will depend on consistent operational administration and play acceptance.

So it was very important, and we talked with the applicant, it was very important that if they were going to use this scenario that they have a policy in place that enforces it, and that we're not in a position at the town level to go out and address sound complaints or uh inspect paddles.

That's the last thing uh we probably would like to do with our uh code enforcement resources that are relatively limited.

Um and then just before I move on, I also skipped I think scenario C, or maybe I omitted it from this uh slide, uh, but it is in the packet, and I'm sure the applicant will speak to it and I can show it after.

But essentially it had a proposal for I believe they were 15 feet tall uh sound barriers or 12 feet tall, and that would have been an effective mitigation technique.

So, in lieu of the quiet sound paddles, I guess I'll take the opportunity to pull it up so that everybody can see it.

In lieu of the quiet sound paddles, they could use that installation of the sound barrier, and it would effectively mitigate the sound on the residential abutters.

But again, the applicant in this instance has chosen not to do that because PSM has indicated that they have an opportunity to use a the fourth option, which would be the implementation of the quiet paddles.

So that goes back, that was our sound ordinance that was just shown.

So scenario A we talked about, we talked about scenario B.

And the one that I omitted is scenario C, sorry, which shows that the barriers would be at 12 feet high to the west here, and then also to the south, and that that would get the sound levels under an acceptable limit to the abutment parcels with that implementation.

They'd also have to have a 10-foot clear reflecting barrier in between the courts as well.

So again, this would be mitigation with sound techniques beyond the quiet paddles, and then that fourth one is what they are proposing, which is implementation of the quiet paddles.

So this is their policy.

They came up with a policy.

Some of this reflects the discussion that they had with you back in March, and uh some of it has been added since that time.

Their court hours are still the same, I believe, as they proposed in March, with the exception of the zoning board's request for Sunday hours to start after 10 a.m.

So they'd be 8 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

Monday through Saturday, and then they would start later in the day on Sunday.

Uh they talked about how that's going to occur, so they're gonna check in at the front desk, and they also are gonna have the paddles available for free, uh, presumably for their members.

Uh so that's that fourth bullet point.

So the you know one of the other things that PSM noted is that it's not always that uh players prefer to use a quiet paddle, so many of them might not own it.

So if they come here and they are informed that they have to use it, they very well may not own uh USA pickleball quiet paddle, and this would allow them uh to be provided one.

And they do also just reinforce the fact that this would be the exclusive equipment on this on this court.

So again, um that scenario D is potentially a difficult option, but because they're a private club, the consultant felt that they could uh implement it.

PSM also noted that a protocol will be needed to ensure adherence to the policy, and um that was reinforced by the zoning board last week.

The zoning board approved the plan uh with four conditions, which were to one adhere to this uh policy uh to exclusively use quiet paddles, and then the third one was the added hours of operation and the uh availability for free of the paddles, and then their fourth one was that the uh sound generated won't exceed 55 decibels to reinforce uh the comments that were provided in the report that was submitted by PSM.

Okay.

So that gets you up to a speed on the on the noise, which was really the factor that did you know, kind of delay the process in the zoning board because they waited for this uh report to be completed, and the applicant ultimately to be comfortable with the report uh that was proposed by PSM.

Um aside from that, I would just quickly uh outline a couple of the other items that aren't related to the to the sound.

Uh they also from uh the previous meeting uh did they did relocate this court.

So one thing that we'd want to do is we just want to have PSM's report revised.

It appears that it would be uh still within the acceptable level based off of the uh the generation that's provided here, but we'd still want to verify that.

Um there are a couple other things they show this wetland, this isolated wetland here.

We would just want a note on there saying that it's not uh greater than half an acre in size.

We're kind of aware of that.

I think it was delineated uh in associated shape with a button parcel, and I think that's where they took it from because it's now shown on the plan, but that note should be uh should be uh provided.

Um they provided the outdoor court policy we talked about.

They also added landscaping, so I've called that out here.

They've added some landscaping in the front.

Uh and they've also further defined the entryway.

We got preliminary comments from Steve Purnow.

Uh I think based off of the board's feedback in March, they for forwent or uh they decided to forgo the third-party traffic review.

But we did have kind of preliminary baseline comments from Steve Purna, one of which was to further define this entrance, and they have done that with these planted islands here and here.

And the board also asked them previously, and it was a request from staff that landscaping be added along the front of the property.

Uh there was some discussion on whether or not they would have to uh cut back the pavement and add a landscape bed.

They do have uh a pretty generous travel aisle in the front, it's about almost 40 feet in the front, so they'd have the ability to do that, but the applicant was reluctant to do that because they had recently uh paved, but they are gonna cut the areas at the entryway, and it was something that the board discussed.

So this is that uh existing median.

So I just asked the board to weigh in on the direction you'd like to give to the applicant there.

Uh and I've also this was the same slide that we provided to you in March.

It talks about some of the um uh recommendations from your master plan that you adopted last year, which has to preserve and expand tree line along roadway, encourage activation of main street frontage through the landscape, uh, promote investment in historic property and preservation.

They're certainly doing that.

This is a building that was constructed in 1900, served a variety of uses.

Um, so I think it's excellent that they're repurposing it, and they do meet that certainly.

But the other items I would just ask you to consider would be the uh landscaping in particular.

Uh a couple of the other things I talked about uh in the review form was um it appears that uh the expansion of the northwest corner of the court will be uh in to an isolated well, and so we just want to show that uh that this is non-jurisdictional.

I think they got the distance anyway, but we should note that.

And then they previously said that um they weren't going to disturb the existing tree line, so we just would want to ask the applicant to clarify whether or not that's gonna occur here.

Uh all the courts are supposed to be on uh disturbed areas.

Uh aside from that, signage hasn't been shown, so we would uh potentially if the board were comfortable with the approval, you could condition that as part of the approval.

Uh previously we just discussed whether or not a connection to main street was needed, a pedestrian connection.

Uh that's not shown here, would probably have to be in this area to connect to the sidewalk.

Um let's see uh the impact fee is the other thing I'd like to discuss.

And I talked uh for good length today with the property owner and got a good idea of the historic uses building that's been around since 1900.

You can imagine has been a variety of things.

But essentially uh in discussion with the applicant and I did talk with some of the staff members who've been here for a little bit longer to kind of uh get their uh recollection as well.

But it sounds like the majority of the space has been previously occupied either by a retail use or um in uh one instance by a karate studio.

So I think it was uh bigelow, there was Salem discount, uh there's a furniture store in there.

So the reason why that's important is because the impact fee ordinance and the RSA allows you to credit their previous uses for their proposed use.

So without that credit, it was going to be a pretty significant number and they're entitled to a credit for their historic uses.

But I guess what I ultimately what I would tell you is that this area here they were able to document was occupied by uh retail uses.

This area here uh, according to the property owner was occupied by a karate studio, and then the area where the juice bar uh was historically the office space for uh Paul Garabinian, Gary Bede and Sons, and that would be the area where an impact fee would apply to.

They would get credit for the rest of the site, and that area is only 1,358 square feet.

So when you take that 1,358 square feet and you apply it to our retail rate and to our health fitness club rate, and you credit them the office rate, it gets pretty modest impact fees.

One of 27,000 uh 27.16 cents for public safety, and then a traffic impact fee of 230.86 cents.

Uh 27.16 cents.

The difference is two cents.

Uh so I get to do that calculation, but so 27.16 cents and then 230 dollars and eighty-six cents for the uh conversion of office to health slash fitness club for traffic.

And that was public safety and road, respectively.

Yeah, public safety and road respectively.

And and then the item that the board uh I would request that you weigh in on uh would be the outdoor courts.

So the outdoor courts, and I'm sure the applicant will speak more to this.

Uh my recollection is that they're gonna be used on a seasonal basis.

Their hours are relatively limited, but you you have historic not historically, you have in the past applied an impact fee uh to a multi-purpose field.

When Dick's House of Sport came in, there was an impact fee applied to the multi-purpose field, uh and it ended up being a relatively large number, I if I recall.

Uh they ultimately paid that impact fee.

Um so out of respect for you know past practice, uh I wanted to ensure that the board weighed in and reviewed the impact fee.

If you were to apply an impact fee on the outdoor courts, they're 13,005 square feet.

The uh amount for the public safety would be 7,308 dollars, and the amount for the traffic would be $36,720.

Um so again, I'm sure the applicant will speak to uh how those courts will be utilized, but I wanted to bring that to your attention um because obviously it uh it's a lot different than $27 and uh $230.

And before we before we allow you to speak, which I'm sure you're dying to do.

We're dying to hear you.

Um the historical credit for the um for the interior of the building.

This is something we are mandated, or this is something that we are allowed.

Uh it is in your ordinance and it's also in the RSA, so it I can read it for you, I'd have to pull it up.

But it essentially says that you know, any use, and and we've done this throughout, you know, for the casino, for instance.

The casino historically had been a retail use since 1989.

They did have an impact fee.

They did that based off a trip generation, which also ended up being a pretty large figure.

But um, but we would have to still you'd still have to credit their historic use.

I just wanted to ask that and clarify that before we got into a discussion, and then 20 minutes later found out it really didn't matter.

So I'd also rely on some of the you know if the board members have historical knowledge about the use of the property.

I mean I I did talk with Jim Brown uh and I also obviously talked with the property owner.

I would tell you that the property file itself is not as comprehensive as as I'd like.

I think the most recent floor plan is like 1982.

So um, you know, but uh but we tried hard to kind of make sure that it was applied appropriately in this time in this instance.

Appreciate that.

Does anybody have any questions for Jacob?

Bianca.

I have a quick point of clarification.

So the the two hundred and thirty eighty-six and the twenty-seven sixteen, those are the impact fees for the indoor use?

Essentially it would just be for the juice bar area.

Okay.

Because everything else has been uh either a similar or in uh equally intensive use.

So then you were saying for the outdoor use, what were those impact fees?

Yep, those were seven thousand three hundred and eight dollars.

Seven thousand?

So yeah, seven thousand three hundred and eight.

Uh-huh.

And then thirty-six thousand seven hundred and twenty dollars for traffic.

Um those those are the two calculations there.

All right.

Uh Mr.

Chair, before sorry, I know it's been long-winded.

The only other items I would just note is that um obviously they'll have as bills that are required.

Uh we just note that the board should consider outdoor courts potential impact on residential budgets, which I'm sure you will.

They've added the hours of operation of the plan.

They have since added a photometric plan, uh, which was one of the comments that was previously related.

Uh we asked the the board could ask for a fence along Main Street.

Um it's kind of interesting.

A lot of times we're not looking for chain link because we want to screen uh whatever is behind the fence in this instance, maybe a pickleball uh court isn't uh offensive to the traveling public, and maybe it's fine for it to uh you know not be an opaque fence, but that's something I'd like you guys to weigh in on.

Okay.

Um we already talked about PSM sound uh study and the implementation of the quiet paddles, um talked about the protocol.

So those are those are the primary items.

I had a couple items about landscaping, which we've raised, pedestrian connection, and then the fence.

So that's the summary.

I have conditions if and when you would like them, uh if you'd like to act on the plan.

All right, let's do conditions at the end.

Any other questions for Jacob?

Jeff.

So what he's saying is after two or three months of going back and forth with the ZBA, after them paying for their own study, after then paying for the town's independent study or uh overview.

The ZBA granted the variants with the stipulation that they had to use the quiet panels, which is what they were proposing in the beginning, anyway.

Uh yes, they were actually proposing additional sound mitigation in the beginning.

They were actually proposing additional sound mitigation in the beginning.

They were gonna have a six-foot sound barrier in addition to the quiet paddles.

Yeah.

But the ZBA is not mandating that.

Did they?

The ZBA did not.

The applicant, after receiving PSM study, uh removed the six-foot sound barrier.

Uh uh under the basis that PSM has shown that it's not necessary if quiet paddles are implemented appropriately.

And then you're right, yes.

Uh the according to PSM, they've stated that quiet paddles, uh, if they're exclusively used, will be effective uh sound mitigation.

We used a lot of money.

Okay.

Uh Chuck, we uh just just for the record.

Last question, we do have to let this man speak in.

Okay.

Go ahead.

You can oh hold up.

Okay.

Sir, name a record for name and address for the record and catch us up.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So for the record, Doug McGuire with the Dubai Group uh engineering firm working on the project at 179 or 179 Main Street, representing the applicant PR Sports Hooks at LLC.

And I will be honest, uh Jacob did take a little bit of the wind out of my sails of my presentation for tonight.

It was a very good summary, a lot of detail, uh, and and that's essentially what I was going to try to catch the board up on.

It was those main items of dealing with the ZBA, uh working through some of their concerns associated with the outdoor courts, ending last week in a unanimous positive decision.

Uh approving the courts based on a lot of the information that Jacob went through the detail of the PSM study.

If there's questions specific to that, I can get into it, but I don't need to repeat everything he just brought you up to speed on.

My takeaway from our last meeting that we had, we talked through a lot of items.

I think it was a productive meeting.

We talked through parking calcs, talked through the uses, um, talked a little bit about the CUP associated with the parking.

Um, and I thought that that was the board was fairly comfortable at the time, but we can obviously touch on those items again if necessary.

Uh the takeaway that I got is obviously take care of the outdoor courts and get those taken care of, and also do something about the landscaping in the front, which as Jacob noted, we did try to make some improvements to that, working with the area that we had, but cutting those islands out.

The big thing about that is creating the wayfinding of those two entrances.

It really you're gonna actually we're actually going to cut the shape of the islands out of the existing pavement and then use those as planting beds and put some trees in there and some bushes, so not only will that kind of hit the streetscape that that the board was trying to get to if they could, but it'll also improve the safety of really pinpointing the entrances to the property in a better way than it is today.

Uh and then the last item was you had asked us to talk about or you know, add the lighting to the plan, the existing lighting that was on the plan.

I was able to get the photometrics associated with that lighting that was installed from the property owner, and we submitted that.

Jacob mentioned that, and so the lighting uh as we're presenting it will meet their your requirements and from a foot candle standpoint, so that seems to be addressed, but I guess with that I'll turn it back to the board, and I'm happy to go into detail, but really want to know what what focuses the board has, any questions that you have, and I can go from there.

All right, thank you very much.

We'll open it up to questions from the public first.

Any member of the public like to speak on the plan, name and address for the record.

Yes, good evening, board members.

My name is Chris Swiniarski.

I'm an attorney from Divine Millimet in Manchester.

Our address is 11 Amherst Street, I guess.

Before you continue, can we pause for a moment?

Our council.

Divine Millimet?

Yes.

Uh no.

Representing the town of Salem, no?

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

Just wanted to double check.

Oh, it's like five firms, and I get them all jumbled up, so thank you.

Please continue.

Thank you.

Um, I'm here representing 193, uh, which abuts the subject property to the east.

Um Jacob, is it possible to pull up the plan just so I could point it out?

Of course.

Or could you point it out for me?

Yeah, yeah.

Uh so directly to the east, that's this portion here.

Probably easier when you see the overview parcel comes over this way here.

Yeah, so the property's a little bit unique in that it has a sort of a leg that goes to Main Street and then a large this is the yellow building.

The second one over.

Is it yellow?

What what color is it?

I don't know if it appears.

Beige.

Sure.

Okay.

Color is not my strong suit, but okay.

I think I know what we're talking about.

Yep.

So and the whole point of me even bringing that up is there's a parcel behind the house in the residential zone, slated for residential development according to the terms of the ordinance.

That's all.

At the onset, I want to be clear though, you know, we're not categorically opposed to the project.

Um, but there are some real concerns, some that Jacob already discussed.

Um, and and those concerns generally do have to be addressed in the planning board process.

This is the the right place to do it.

This is the board that has the jurisdiction to do it.

Um and we think those concerns generally fall into four categories, and I'll go through those pretty quickly because I don't want to take too much of your time.

Um first and foremost is the fact that this use is not actually allowed, and the variance granted for it remains subject to rehearing and appeal.

So that's that's not a final variance.

This is not actually an authorized use yet.

Um I don't know if my client intends to appeal that or not.

We have not yet seen the written decision that the board is required to put out, so hard to make that decision.

But in my experience with planning boards, including the one that I sit on in Bedford in New Hampshire, we we generally would wait until the appeal period runs.

Um but that's not saying you have to.

Technically, yes, you can move forward.

But I point that out is that it's a threshold step that actually has to happen before this can move farther.

Um second, of course, is sound, and that that is the major issue.

Um there's there's no denying that pickleball creates noise.

In fact, USA Pickleball, which is the officially recognized governing body, they they have an entire section of resources dealing with sound mitigation.

Umigation for pickleball has also become an industry.

ZBA ordered a report from a place called uh PSM, pickleball sound medic uh mitigation.

So this is a real concern, and it's something that has to be addressed.

Um that particular study should have probably been an independent review rather than a study done by um an industry favoring consultant.

Uh so you know, we we think there should actually be time for abutters like my clients or others to actually get their own peer review of that.

Um they didn't have any meaningful notice of that, as I understand.

I wasn't involved in the ZBA hearing, but as I understand, the discussion was that the concerned residents would be provided with um the identity of the reviewer so that they can comment on it or decide if maybe they should need to get their own unbiased independent review.

Uh I think they had about three days' notice, which is not enough time to do these uh sorts of reviews.

So that hasn't happened.

And I think that's pretty important.

I mean, if we're if we're actually looking for the truth, um more independent review can only be better.

Um putting all those things aside though, and Jacob touched upon this, both of the sound studies submitted rely completely on the use of these USA pickleball certified quiet paddles or silent paddles, whatever they are.

Um I think that's an incredibly naive promise to make.

Um it's unrealistic to expect that would be the case.

I asked uh half a dozen avid pickleball players in New Hampshire if these paddles are used.

They all said no.

They're very unpopular.

If you think about this, paddle ball, uh sorry, pickleball, uh your only piece of equipment is the paddle and your clothing and and shoes.

So to expect avid players to give up their paddle, you know, these cost three to five hundred dollars, and to use a rental paddle offered by the club, it's highly unlikely.

That's like going to a golf course, and uh they tell you no, you're not using your clubs, you got to use these rental clubs, or you know, figure skater goes to the rink.

No, you can't use your skates, you've got to use rental skates.

It's really naive and unrealistic to think that that is ever going to happen.

And as I think Jacob touched upon, the the town has no way to enforce this, and and probably not any manpower to.

I mean, I I don't think it's realistic to think a code enforcement official is going to go and check paddles at any given time.

That would be kind of ridiculous.

If it becomes really sort of in an issue where, okay, a promise is made to satisfy the concern, but the but the promise really isn't genuine because there is no way to make it happen.

Plain and simple.

And some of those seemed much more viable.

Obviously, the issue there is those cost some money.

I don't think it's exorbitant money, but but there's some expense.

Whereas printing up a sheet of paper and saying we're only gonna uh allow people to use these quiet paddles that nobody likes and nobody uses, that doesn't cost any money.

So I I think it should be sort of evident that this is sort of the inexpensive, easy way out that's not likely to achieve the results for the surrounding community.

Um that would be my take on it.

Obviously, the board is free to sort of come up with your own take, but those are the facts, they're not controverted.

The conclusion is what it is.

Um aside from sound, light pollution is significant.

Um, I know the applicants provided a photometric plan, and that's nice.

Uh we submitted, and I just have a copy to make it easy, uh, real pictures taken from my client's property.

Uh, these are in the record, too, uh, of lights that are already installed.

Sir, if you want to just pause the talking just because we can't hear you.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, and just to vamp a little until you get back to the microphone.

What I'm seeing, if I'm if I'm correct here, what I'm seeing is the far edge of this tree line here for your client's property.

This is this is the tree line through which the lights are now coming in this photograph.

Is that accurate?

Where the blue line is, yes.

Okay.

So as you can see from this, um this is significant for property that's going to be developed with single-family homes.

Um in almost every planning board situation that I've been in where there is this much bleed over of commercial light from a commercial use in a residential zone, mitigation has to happen.

I mean, this is this is not small.

This is very, very significant.

Now, this is not the end of it.

Um, what the photometric plan does not capture is what happens from cars in the parking lot.

If you look at the parking layout, there are several parking spaces right here.

There are going to be headlights shining right into that residential property.

Now that's something that can be mitigated easily.

A fence.

A fence does it.

And a fence is not an expensive or exorbitant uh solution.

It's a very reasonable one given that we're talking about uh a pretty intense commercial use uh in a residential zone.

This this part is residential.

Uh next is parking.

So according to the applicant's plan, I I read that um conditional use permit is sought to provide 87 spaces where the ordinance would call for, I believe, 265.

Is that correct, Jacob?

Uh yes, I believe so.

So you know that I I leave that up to the board.

I mean, you have a conditional use permit criteria in your ordinance.

You have to make written findings of fact on all of those criteria to grant that.

That's a tall order.

Um, I don't know if you'll pull that off or not.

But my concern is that what that indicates is is that this is an intense use.

You know, it's expected that this would generate the kind of traffic that requires 265 parking spaces.

There should be a traffic study if that's what's going on here.

Um we're talking about main street right next to a school in a school zone.

I I would honestly be shocked if there isn't a traffic study in a project like this.

And I understand trying to cut costs.

I I represent many developers too, and you you know you want to be cost efficient, but here a traffic study really is warranted.

I understand there's been uh some type of preliminary review of some sort, but this requires more than that.

Um the use, as you can imagine, pickleball is different than a lot of other uses.

You I'm sure you've all seen traffic studies where we have peak times of day, you know.

Think of residential peak times nine to five, give or take, people going to work, people coming home.

That's not what this is.

This is people coming to play for maybe an hour or two, constant rotation of traffic all the time.

So traffic is something that really needs to be considered if we're if we're going to do this in an appropriate manner.

Um so again, it you know, I I wanted to say we're we're not categorically opposed to this project.

Uh but I I think we really have to undertake it with some courtesy to the fact that it's surrounded by residential properties.

Um and and some very responsible review of the ordinance provisions and your site plan regulations.

And we're hoping that the board will give that thoughtful review to the ordinance and the site plan regulations.

And with that, I'm certainly happy to answer any questions you may have about my comments, and I thank you for the time and the opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board before we kick back to Doug?

Bianca, then Jeff.

Um, Jeff and then me.

Yeah, it was pointing to Jeff.

But I do have questions.

Listen, I was gonna let you go first.

Jeff and Bianca.

Okay, a lot of the a lot of this discussion regarding the noise was all was generated by the property to the West that's got a plan that's already submitted and been approved for residential.

Does your client have a plan that has been submitted?

Has it been gone through any hearings at all?

Has it been approved at all?

No, it's uh it's allowed by right because it's a residential zone, but they do not have an active subdivision plan submitted.

Okay, so what you're asking us is to consider something that may never happen.

Um, what I'm asking is really to consider what the use that the ordinance calls for it to be, the the planned use, because that that is what the town wants it to be.

That's what the residents voted on when they zoned it that way.

Um the fact that they don't have a plan right now doesn't this billing or this project is not gonna stop them your client from developing his property at the residential.

He can still do that.

Absolutely, but it but it impacts it by shining light into residential homes and their yards.

So it's an impact that I'm gonna be honest.

I'm just I think you're reaching here, but that's okay.

Well, and you know, every everyone's entitled to to their opinion of the facts.

I mean, we have a picture showing the light shining into what will be the yards.

I mean, I I'm not arguing that.

I mean, if you're right, there's gonna be light shining through the trees.

There's headlights driving up and down Main Street all day into the into that property that's owned by your client.

Uh well.

I so I guess I would clarify that that's my entire point.

Well, I understand what you're saying, although I I think there's a distinction because driving up and down Main Street, okay, a home is designed with a front.

You don't generally relax facing out the front window, and those lights are not shining at your house.

They're going by your house.

This, if you look at the parking, every car that has to park in those parking rows is gonna pull in shining lights right into these residential lots.

So it I understand your point, but it is a little bit different.

Okay.

Um I had the same question as Mr.

Hatch.

Um for what it's worth on on the last comment.

I live on a corner lot, so I have street lights, uh car lights shining into my house at all directions, all times of the day.

It I I don't I don't necessarily think that we should be dictating.

I think if you wanted to talk about light pollution in general, certainly, but asking us to consider light pollution on a currently undeveloped lot for the potential of future of the future potential of uh development.

It it doesn't really seem like it's something that we should be doing right now.

That's odd.

I mean, it's called the planning board.

It it is planning for the future.

That's exactly what planning boards do.

Sure, yeah, we we can certainly plan for the future, which is what we've been doing with the master plan, and we have a um the zoning update that will be underway at some point in the near future.

lot for the potential of future of the future potential of uh development it it it doesn't really seem like it's something that we should be doing right now that's all I mean it's called the planning board it it is yes planning for the future that's exactly what planning boards do sure yeah we we can certainly plan for the future which is what we've been doing with the master plan and we have a um the zoning update that will be underway at some point in the near future but we can't like so we have the photometric plan that was submitted correct so the photometric plan is in place which shows what the light pollution would be throughout the property and we can determine you know if there's any sort of light pollution onto onto another property within reason and I I don't see anything within the photometric plan that shows that we would need to be restricting any sort of light and if you want to talk about you know potentially turning down the lights or turning off certain lights at certain hours of the day like I think that would be reasonable but to say that this property can't be developed into a pickleball court because of the fact that there's lights in the building.

Well I didn't say that I said the the light should be mitigated.

Like I said we're not opposed to this it's these lights are existing.

Well well I think they are though I don't know when those came to be and if that was from an approved site plan.

Swanarski when did is the photo taken rather it was taken in March.

So subsequent to the photo because you submitted that Mr Perrin submitted it to the zoning board I believe the applicant did adjust the uh light in and then they did produce this photometric subsequent to the this was the uh May 1st 2025.

Yeah but the photometric plan shows that bleed over I just wanted to show that the photometric plan shows uh bleed over at acceptable limits our ordinance requires it to be no greater than one foot candle when measured at any point vertically above the boundary of any residential property and I wanted to show you what it looks like you know rather but I don't I don't know the applicant would be better able to address it but my what they because I saw the photo as well back in March and I said hey and actually drove by the site because it to me it looked alarming when it was submitted at the zoning board meeting and my understanding and the applicant will be able to speak better but my understanding that the lighting was adjusted since that meeting and that uh this isn't reflective of the site condition as it is today.

Okay.

But I could be mistaken.

Okay well I I'm sure the applicant will comment on that because I think it's important to figure out what the story is there.

Yeah but it but it was a consideration that was brought up I believe at uh the planning board the zoning board and it was taken serious uh to the point where obviously we wanted a photometric to review it for compliance and the photometric that was submitted does show acceptable illumination.

Okay.

Um any other questions or comments from the Bianca.

Jacob can you run through really quick um again what the previous uses were on the site.

Yeah so primarily it was residential uh sorry retail um if you want to wait a second Mr.

Gary Bedian submitted a pretty comprehensive list um with outlining some of the prior uses here so uh prior businesses were Roland's discount store Merrimax sales wholesale and retail paper supply distributors PS stationary supply store carnival equipment storage home furniture windham tool and discount store the salvation army home furniture store buzz Durkins Karate School Bigelow which was a retail furniture showroom um so those are the item uh the uses that were previously uh occupied based off the communication with the uh property owner okay and so with the previous uses being retail um I just want to make sure that that we all understand here that even if there were a traffic study it would be based off of the last use of the property and not as current conditions today right because it it would be based off of whatever the current allowed uses are and what the pe what the previous use was.

So uh well the uses are abandoned right now I don't think it enjoys any uh it's prior nonconforming status it's been vacant for quite some time but I imagine that it it would be reasonable to base it off of a retail type use considering the history of the project it is not legally how it works.

Yeah it is for purposes of the impact fee but I I do think that it would probably be the use generated we give them some credit right whether or not that credit is for an industrial use or uh retail use.

But it wouldn't it wouldn't be fair to say that a traffic study would be starting from zero.

It wouldn't be fair to uh assess it as a vacant site I guess I I would say because they would have some entitlement would they have the ability to occupy it as a retail use probably not but I think they've continued the industrial uses that they've had there for quite some time.

So at the at the least you'd credit the industrial use.

Sure.

But this site, regardless of of what it uses, whether it's industrial or whether it's retail, would likely not it in my opinion, I can't imagine that those uses would be less impactful than I'm sorry.

What I'm trying to say is that I can't imagine that the pickleball is really producing that much more traffic than what the previous uses are.

And that that's just my speculation.

And I I am personally not at all concerned about the traffic coming in and out of the site.

Okay.

Like you said, that that is a form of speculation, and that is exactly why traffic studies are done.

It is, yeah.

But there is also quite um a number of studies that were uh discussed ad nauseum at the zoning board level.

And I understand that that projects generally of a large scale would dictate if we are ordering a uh traffic impact uh any sort of like traffic study.

I don't think that this is one of them.

Any other questions from the board?

Well, I have a question for in general.

Okay.

Okay.

So the property that's proposed here now, the development of the property.

How much of the property still remains leasable?

That's question that I'd like to know.

And I asked this question the last time they were up here.

Chuck, let me stop you for a second.

Which property are you referencing?

I'm talking about the the uh facility itself, the building.

All right, but that's gonna be a question for Doug.

I understand that.

All right, so we'll that's why I said I'll wait.

Okay, let's put sorry.

We'll put a pin in that just for a second.

Any other questions for Chris?

Oh, if anyone else has more questions for me, I had one follow-up from our discussion.

If you'd like uh so the uh both both of the sound assessments did state that there must be a protocol or procedure in place to ensure that these silent paddles are used.

Um what is the one that the town has to do that?

Because those are the studies being relied upon.

We we asked the applicant to produce a policy that they would enforce because there would be responsible for enforcement.

So the reliance is on the one page on the outdoor court use policy.

So the town's not looking to enforce it, it's self-enforcement by the applicant.

That would be the scenario here that the applicant would be relied on to enforce it, and of course, um it came up at the zoning board.

You know, obviously we have interested abutters that we assume that if uh it's not being enforced, then the town would be in ball, and there was some speculation of what enforcement would look like, whether it would be you know, traditional court proceedings with you know multiple violation notices, whether we would revoke the site plan uh was another consideration I was given.

Um does sound like incredibly intense enforcement actions when there are different alternatives in place, but I guess my my point for the record would be that it it seems like an unreasonable conclusion to take the single largest most voiced concern and say that the mitigation answer is to leave it up to the applicant to self-govern itself.

I'm not sure that I mean beyond maybe our code enforcement uh going full time and maybe you know, police in the court is a very important thing.

I understand that that's my point exactly.

Yeah, I agree with you 100%.

That's that's why it's not a a realistic or practical solution.

Yeah, the zoning board relied on PSM, and PSM was uh selected because they are you know, this is what they do, pickleball sound mitigation.

Um and they do represent they represent municipalities, they also represent uh clients or applicants, you know, before municipal boards, homeowner associations.

So um they were selected and it was discussed at uh previous zoning board meetings.

I think they went in April and the agenda was continued uh specifically for the sound study uh in May, continued again, and I think at that main meeting, the chair at the time uh referred to some PSM reports, and that was kind of what we use as a launch impact to say, all right.

Well, you know, and uh in those reports, uh I think they came to some different conclusions, right?

It's not like it's quiet pickle ball uh pickle ball paddles solve everything, I guess.

No, no, it's quite the opposite, right?

I mean, as you said, it was there were several choices.

That was the least expensive one, and but that's the one that cannot practically be done or enforced, whereas the other ones require constructing some item to actually actively mitigate it.

So I mean this is just my point.

I would say that's the same thing.

Well, according to our consultant, the that can be done, they acknowledge that it would be difficult and that you have individual player preferences.

But I mean, if the consultant said uh they could do this, but it's unenforceable, right?

Then I guess we would say, all right, we'll do the 12-foot barriers because that makes my job easier.

I go out and I say, all right, well, you've got uh the equipment in place and I'll see you later.

But the consultant said that if they implement uh sound uh policy and procedure and they enforce it, that they could be successful in mitigating the sound.

So that was the option the applicant proposed in the zoning board accepted.

I'm sorry to interrupt just before we get further into the back and forth.

Uh I do want to make room for other public comment.

I do want to get Doug back up in here because we've taken the wind out of his sails several times this evening.

Are there any other members of the public who'd like to speak?

Sir Name and address for the record.

Uh my name is Steven Tarquinio.

I'm actually living in Methuan Mass, and I'm gonna be very quick with this and just lay the facts on you.

And yes, that is the memo that I had sent to Jacob that many of you grinned at when you read for I don't take any offense to that.

I've been living um hell for the last two years, my neighbors and I dealing with the Methuan issue where they installed pickleball courts, and I credit this planning board.

Methuan didn't do this.

They intentionally hid it from us, and then when the noise is started, as soon as the courts opened, they've tried everything they can to fix the sound and they failed every step of the way to the point where I now have legal representation from a group that dealt with an issue as Belmont Mass.

Here are the facts I want to lay down.

Um as the gentleman mentioned about um the analysis that's not an independent study.

The person actually is a certified USA pickleball referee.

He's a certified uh USA pickleball ambassador to grow the sport.

Kittery Maine actually conducted a true sound analysis using um an acoustics company.

I'll provide the information to Jacob.

Their finding in Kittery was pickleball courts should not be installed within 500 feet of a residential property, even with mitigation, because mitigation cannot be perfect.

Even the analysis, so these aren't really sound studies that you were provided, they're opinions.

Every opinion says results may vary because you cannot actually know what's going to happen until you have it.

American Planning Association put out guidance last November, and I provided that link to Jacob saying you should not have pickleball courts within 350 feet of residential um property lines.

Even after 350 feet, you should then have mitigation in place like quiet paddles up to 800 um feet.

Alpharetta, Georgia last month updated their town ordinance to make sure no pickleball courts were installed within 250 feet setback of property lines.

Mitigation is not perfect.

Sound is very difficult to deal with because it is very hard to predict what's going to happen.

You have a solid brick building, acoustics are going to bounce off of that.

Um of the opinions that was provided by um this company by Aries, one of their mitigations was don't worry, you have trees in between the property and the houses.

PSM LLC and their Manchester by the C study said you can't count on trees, bushes actually being sound berries.

So these companies aren't even consistent with what they're doing because they're not true, real independent sound acoustic companies that know this stuff inside and out.

I'm also going to provide uh Jacob a letter from city counselors to the mayor of Methuen recommending they shut down the courts because of the sound being an issue, which the mayor has ignored and the solicitor has ignored.

I'm also going to give him the uh Department of Health email within Methuen that talked about them investigating it, saying this is a real issue.

So I don't want to take any further time because I really want um more of the residents to talk.

I'm just telling you for someone who's been living this nightmare for two years, battling a city, that this stuff is not straightforward.

These companies, these in that these acoustics companies, they'll give you the answer that you're looking for, not the answer that actually this public deserves.

So I'm gonna leave this material with Jacob.

I don't want to take any further time.

Uh and thank you very much for allowing me to speak.

Thank you, sir.

I appreciate it.

Any other members of the public who would like to speak name and address for the record, sir.

My name is Ken Butterworth, and I would be at a sublessee at 179 Main Street.

There would be a 3,000 square foot uh area that we would be leasing.

And uh we would have an interest in making sure that the uh the decibels were abided by if I could pause you for one second.

You are leasing or you intend to lease.

We intend to.

Okay.

What's the use?

So whereas there's a one-page uh description of what the rules would be as someone who would be there, we would have an interest so that it would be uh fulfilled by members of uh of a use that would if it was contrary to our use, we would be letting people know.

As someone who would be there, we would have an interest so that it would be uh fulfilled by members of a use that would if it was contrary to our use, we would be letting people know.

So it's not a it's not something where it wouldn't be enforced, it would be enforced because people who would be there would have an interest in enforcing it.

Uh just uh we had a question here from the board.

The purpose of your of your lease, the purpose of your business.

Uh the uh is one section at uh three thousand square feet.

Yes, that would be a uh soccer training facility, and it would be used by one or two people at a time because it'd be people getting lessons.

It's it's small enough for people to get intensive lessons.

It's not big enough for anything more than you know, three or four people, depending on the the size of the people.

And so uh and it wouldn't have an intensive use of traffic because there's only going to be the people might be uh 10, 15 years old and not be able to drive themselves.

Uh so it would only be two or three parking spaces being used at a time for that three thousand feet, but that we believe that we wouldn't lease there if we thought it was going to be uh detrimental to our use.

And so we don't think it's gonna be detrimental to our use.

And if the 55 decibels were being exceeded, then the town would know and the landlord would know.

So I think it is it is policing, so I I think you should be comfortable that the uh one-page uh description would be fulfilled.

All right.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak before I get Doug back up here?

Oh uh there were some ladies that rose before you, sir.

We'll get you up there.

Hello, ma'am.

Name and address for the record.

And your name.

And I'm very concerned about the lighting.

I'm sorry, ma'am.

Your name and address for the record.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure.

Name please.

Name and address.

Oh, my name is Cheryl Morrell, and I live at 191.

Thank you, Miss Morell.

Please continue.

And I'm not considered an abutter because I actually abut 193.

Okay.

But I'm very close.

And the noise is going to be very disturbing, I think, but I don't know.

But the lighting I know will be um the Garibinians already have several lights up that shine directly into my house and into the apartment um where Beumonty's hairdresser is.

And additional lights is going to be horrendous.

I know it may not affect the buildings that might be out back someday, but you have very close residential there right now.

The mortgage company was bought and is again residential.

There's a family living there, and that's right next to Garabinian's barn, and then there's Beumonty's, and then there's my house.

And all of those are not one is considered an abutter, and that's the one that's direct the mortgage company.

But the other two but 193.

So nobody took that into consideration, but they're right, they're gonna be right in the middle of it of all the activity, the lighting, and the sound.

And I don't like to complain, but I've been there since 1987.

I'm old now.

I I think it's gonna be my last residence, and I'd like to be able to live there like I do now.

But I don't know if that's going to be the case if we have something like pickable.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

And I know you wanted to speak, sir, just the uh the woman behind you.

Were you going to speak or were you just getting up to allow her?

Oh no, I don't have all right, sir.

It's all you now.

I just want to um Perry and 193 Main.

I just want to bring up one more thing.

Um behind um from Centerville Street, which is across from the Woodbury, there's a drainage ditch that cuts through the apartment buildings.

Uh I think that's 205, and it also cuts through my property, and then it goes back in behind the Garibedian building.

Uh the only other thing I'd like you guys to look at is to see if the drainage that they're putting behind there is going to impact the drainage all along the lines there.

Because if it backs up there, it's gonna back up onto my property and uh back up into the apartments and and therefore.

So I just want to make you aware that there is a big drainage uh ditch that cuts through there from my thing Centerville that comes down from the streets and there.

So if you guys could take that into consideration that's to make sure that none of us are going to be affected with more water ratios that we have now.

We will, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other members of the public who'd like to speak?

It's always fun when I get made acting chair, and we have a very active application.

Remind me to thank Joe when he comes back from his business trip.

Doug, welcome back to the podium.

I just want to time check here.

It's 8 15.

We do have other applications that we do want to get to.

Doug, the things at the top of my list, obviously, you've heard what everyone's had to say, but if we could talk about um if we or at least if we could hit upon uh reasons why we didn't have uh uh proper traffic study, and Jacob, if you want to chime in on that at any point, that's fine.

How what uh what mechanisms are proposed beyond just the one-sheeter for the enforcement of silent paddles, uh the possibility of fencing along the property owned by the abutter at 193, uh, and the possibility of discussing any compromising on any potential exterior building light pollution, and I will before I let you speak.

Anybody else want to add to my list of fun things to discuss?

Drainage.

I still well we can add drainage and then Chuck had something as well.

Chuck.

Yeah, the fact that the this building is a two-story building, correct?

Jacob?

Well, uh there's a portion of it that's two stories, and then the uh remainder is high bay, I believe.

Okay, so the entirety of the property is of that building is not gonna um these six indoor courts are not taking up that whole building.

Uh they're taking up uh 20,700 square feet of the interior of the building with some space to the rear that looks like it there's still leaseable space though in the building.

Um they have unit C or Suite C, which is 5400 square feet.

Correct.

Um, and then I don't know, it does look like there's some maybe space that's not programmed back here, but it looks like it's associated with that 20,700 square feet.

I'm sure Mr.

McGuire would be able to speak better too.

So my point is that there's potential of other tenants going into the building, which is going to take up even more parking.

Okay.

That's correct.

And as people are playing, and I believe are there gonna be tournaments happening and things of that nature.

That's a possibility.

Yeah.

Okay, yeah, we went through this before.

That's gonna be bring additional parking into the parking lot, right?

And people who are waiting for the courts for the next appointment are gonna be going into the parking lot.

We don't have enough parking there to begin with to even deal with this.

I mean, 48 spaces alone just for the players, okay, is a lot of spaces.

Now, double that with people who are waiting, and you're out of space already.

So I don't understand how this can even work without being a nightmare.

I just don't get it.

Forget about the sound, forget about everything else.

I'm thinking about the functionality of the property and the number of parking spaces based on how many people are gonna be in there at one time, which is 48 people, okay, at one time, probably another half of them waiting, if not another 48 every hour.

Okay, so I don't understand how we expect this to work.

I think it's important to note that obviously I don't it's not realistic that all 48 people of a hundred percent capacity would be arriving on their own in their own vehicle.

We use that as a conservative estimate just to max build out the courts.

We also have six seasonal courts outside as well as six.

So you can't make those assumptions.

You have to take the assumption that they are going to be coming, that all 48 people are gonna come in one in in in their own car.

Right to say anything other than that is loaded.

Because we do have 87 spaces on site.

Correct.

So we have a lot of spaces for you to to assume even what you said could potentially still be accommodated.

So 48 48 people all arriving individually, and another half getting ready to play, all arriving individually, and we still have enough space.

So I I think we have plenty of space on the throw into that tournaments, people who want to go and just watch them.

We had this conversation before.

Yes, okay.

And I'm happy to go through that.

And you could not answer it because you don't know.

We don't know how many people are gonna be there waiting, how early they're gonna come.

There just is not enough parking for this to happen.

That's my personal opinion.

Okay, thank you.

So, Doug.

So traffic enforcement, where do you want to start?

Well, let's start with.

I dropped off that exhibit to show because obviously sound was very important.

It was very important to the zoning board.

It was important to us.

We tried to put our best foot forward with mitigation suggestions studies.

We had a third party study.

So it was important.

I I wanted to show the exhibit because the uh the last of butter that came up and voiced a lot of the concerns about sound and other related items.

I think it's important to note that they're over 500 feet away from the property.

And excuse me, not from the property, but from the actual courts.

And so from a sound standpoint, they were not one of concern area.

There's much closer abutters that we're looking to mitigate.

Sure, one second, Jacob.

Could you throw the separation exhibit up on the screen?

Uh we I don't believe I have it.

You haven't submitted digitally, right?

The only reason I we have an older one, Jacob, it's just I use this one to slide it down to show this a butter.

So it was updated.

It's just slightly updated, but we do have one, I'm sure that could get us most of the way there.

I just wanted to point a clarification.

So you had said 500 feet from that property.

I want to make sure that what you what you mean is 506 feet from the court to the existing structure that's correct on that property, not the property line.

That is correct.

Thank you for clarifying.

Um but the reason we're bringing that up is because when the PSM study assessed potential people that could be impacted by this, that property wasn't considered because the closer properties, closer to the property, were assessed.

And the decibel level unmitigated, if we weren't using any type of specialty paddles, was well below thresholds at the first house, and but and then dropped significantly when implementing the paddles.

I want to talk a little bit about the paddles because it is it is an item that I think should be addressed, and I can give you a little bit more background there.

First of all, using the paddles is a great mitigating source because it attacks the source from where the sound starts.

You're not buffering, you're not blocking, you're actually reducing the sound at the source, and that's why it's such a powerful mitigating item because these USAP quiet certified paddles reduce the sound by 50%.

Significant, significant reduction.

Now, USAP is USA pickleball, and they're the governing body of all pickleball nationally.

So they, if you go on their website, they have a ton of research and work done into the sport of pickleball.

And one of the pieces that they do is individual testing of equipment.

So they test all paddles, and if you want this USAP certified quiet paddle certification, the manufacturer has to test it, or you know, has to supply it, it has to be tested, and if it is meeting their standards, i.e.

the reduction in sound, then they provide that as a certification.

These paddles are also tournament certified by USAP.

Many of them, if not all of them, at this point.

It's been an evolving piece.

When USAP was doing review, the paddles initially that were quiet paddles may have lost some functionality in the sport.

Maybe they didn't have the spin off the ball in the same way, but the it has been evolving over time.

And all of these paddles listed on their website that are on the USAP Quiet certified are also tournament certified, which means that they meet the standards.

So to say that they're a paddle that no one would want to use is really not accurate.

They are in many ways being adopted more so because of the technology, you're able to put more spin on the ball and aggressive play and do certain things that you might not be able to do with a standard paddle.

So it's not a bad paddle.

And it's something that can certainly and has been uh you can go on the reviews of these paddles right on their website, and they're like, I can't believe I didn't use this sooner, it's an excellent paddle, I like it better than my standard paddle.

You know, there's a lot of stuff that I looked into that said that.

That being said, we're very comfortable, or the applicant is very comfortable making this policy of requiring the outdoor paddles because all of their all of their uh courts are not all outside, it's this is not an all or nothing situation.

If someone's you know convinced that their gameplay is going to be reduced and they cannot you know use any other type of a paddle, they're welcome to play indoors with their own paddle, whatever paddle they choose.

If they want to enjoy the outside, they're going to be required to use a quiet paddle.

Now, with all the background that this has had, obviously the business wants to ensure that this policy is adhered to.

The policy that we put forward is basic, straightforward, but very easy to implement.

You have to check in for your time before you can utilize the outdoor court.

You're required to use a USAP certified paddle from the company free of charge.

If you're like, well, I spent an extra amount on this paddle and it's UAP certified, then that's fine.

But what we said is that it has to be listed on the USAP website, and that list is always updated and evolving on new paddles that get accepted and meet the criteria, and so if it's not on there, they're gonna have to use one provided or or play inside.

So it's it's a policy that can be regulated, they're gonna have a list that's printed out, it can go right to it.

It also makes it easy that US that USAP stamps these paddles and allows them to be certified with a USAP quiet emblem.

So it it's fairly easy to verify this, and it's just gonna be part of the policy.

Anyone using the outdoor courts is going to become very familiar with this.

This would be you know a member club, but also if people aren't familiar, they're gonna become very familiar the first time they come in and say, Oh, well, I only have this paddle, I'm sorry, you have to use one of these.

That's why they're agreeing to have on stock all the quiet paddles to fully have all the courts outside being used at full capacity, and they'll have that stock on site.

And so we did add that notation of the quiet paddles to our site plan, so it is codified in the site plan uh regulation.

Um not that I think this is necessary, but there is an enforcement arm associated with that.

It's no different than if you, as a planning board, which I'm sure you're familiar with, if there was an outdoor area that you said, hey, you heard your site plan, you cannot have outdoor vehicles being stored like construction vehicles or something that was a part of the site plan.

Somebody drives by and there's outdoor vehicles being stored there, it's a violation of their site plan, and enforcement action can be done by the town.

So it's really no different than that.

There's a big difference in the sound, not only in decibel level, but also tone, and that's why these are so successful, these USAP quiet certified paddles, because they reduce the tone frequency of the hit of the impact.

And if you've read anything about pick a ball, I've read more than I want to at this point.

So have we and and the tone, the frequency of the sound is a big factor as to the concern about pickleball and close proximity.

So the fact that you're using a paddle that lowers that tone and also lowers the decibel level, it's it's a great solution to utilize, and that's why we're proposing it.

So we feel that it can be implemented, we have a procedure for how it can be implemented, and that's what we're proposing to do, and we think it we do think it's reasonable.

Um that was that piece.

Can we move on to traffic?

Obviously.

So traffic.

Well, before we before we uh we let you loose, I promise we will.

Obviously, Chuck had his comments.

We're talking about whether or not all the space in the primary building is leased, and if it's not, what the potential future impact on other tenants may or may not be, and then why we don't have a traffic study.

Just because I love hearing from Mr.

Pernoff why we don't have a traffic study and what you are relying on.

And I apologize if you talked about this in March.

I was not here, I'm coming in fresh.

No, that that's that's fine, and we can certainly touch on that.

I mean, I think parking and traffic are related, but they are two separate pieces.

So, as far as the traffic study, what we felt, and this was discussed at the last meeting to some degree, is that a traffic study for an existing property that is existing non-conforming that has a large building on it with a substantial amount of parking, of which we're working completely within the existing confines of and can justify that the parking meets those demands.

I'm happy to go through that as well.

That uh a traffic study, a trip generation, would not really yield any useful information.

And what I mean by that is when you perform a traffic study, you're usually trying to see if mitigating options are necessary or required.

In this case, you have an existing main street that has no available right-of-way to modify geometry in front of the doorway.

You have no ability to add really any type of improvement.

So what I find, and I guess I'm desensitized to this because I do it all the time, but a traffic study, if you were to do this, it would say, okay, there's this many trips, this was a commercial use previously, there was that many trips, the number would be something, and we would say there's nothing we would do.

We wouldn't change anything.

There's because, and it's not to be blunt about it, but there's really no improvements that you can do from a geometry standpoint at the doorways, and that's why we focus more on our entrances and improving those entrances by creating the islands and having those defined, that is increasing the safety of our own site.

We also are proposing striping, there's no striping right now at the entrances, stop bars, uh two-way lines to allow people to understand where they should be queuing up and provide wayfinding.

So we're also adding that.

So you have the as Jacob mentioned, I think at the beginning of the presentation, these entrances are wider than they need to be.

We're not proposing to close those down.

It provides a little bit more, I guess, elbow room for maneuvers, but the wideness of them does leave it to be a little bit of a sea of pavement, which is why we added the um the islands to it.

And and I have to say, just for anybody that wasn't here last time, the islands was never on a discussion item.

So that was a direct item that we came up with to try to address some of the traffic-related concerns that may have been generated by this use.

And I think someone mentioned Jacob, maybe you mentioned it, but you said, you know, these kind of open out there, you know, the entrances are a bit open, they're wide, uh, there's no striping.

So we kind of took that as a proactive approach to say, let's clean that up, let's tighten that up.

It'll be a large improvement.

Besides just aesthetics, it'll actually be a functional improvement at the doorway.

So, long story short, that's why a traffic study wasn't proposed.

We did talk about it last time, and there appeared to be board consensus that a traffic study was not necessary at that time, and that was as I said, before we had done the improvements at the doorways, which I think further bolsters that argument.

So I guess that's what I'd say about traffic.

Just pause for a moment.

Any questions from the board?

Jeff.

I'm gonna go back to the sound if you don't mind.

Uh that's the next stop.

So let's do it.

Okay, so walk me through uh and maybe this is really not the unit, it could be even for Jake up.

The options that were provided for the sound.

Yeah, option D with with the paddle with the the uh quiet paddle.

Paddles, the quiet paddles.

We haven't discussed anything about the option with this 12 or 15-foot branch or whatever.

Yeah, what is exactly that option and how does that come into effect?

Because here's my thinking behind this is option D is what is the plan for mitigation.

However, if this option is a better way to mitigate, then we probably should opt for the best possible option instead of option D, if that makes sense.

That does.

So I think what I would like to say, if I could just put my two cents in, is the option that you're referring to, it was a progressive option of continuing to add more and more barrier work to get the levels to essentially the same as what the quiet paddles are achieving.

And it is a very costly, I would say cost prohibitive solution, well beyond anything we had ever initially proposed.

And to describe what it is, just to remind you, because I this is kind of the option that Jacob didn't touch on as much.

Maybe it's because it kind of was the cost prohibitive item.

You're talking about 15-foot high fencing along three-quarters of the system of the whole outternal external boundary.

Then, and this is all with sound dampening absorbing material on the 15-foot high fence the whole way, all the way out.

Can I stop you right there?

Sure.

Just clarify, you said the external boundary.

You're talking about the property line, the external outside courts of the courts.

Then on top of that, that still wasn't enough because of the bouncing of the sound and how it impacts with the building, that they then had to put a clear plastic barrier or another sound fence, whichever your choice, but you'd feel like you were in uh a dark cave.

That's why I think they said to use the the clear, large, I think 10 foot high in the middle of the courts.

So you're that level of mitigation is just not realistic.

Now, if there weren't other options, they would have to either decide to implement that or not implement the outdoor courts.

But when you can attack the sound at the source and reduce the problem problem significantly, this is all assuming that they're using standard standard wood paddles outside.

So it you know, if you can utilize these quiet paddles, which the industry is moving towards because has been an issue, it has been a sound issue of concern all over the country.

That's why they're moving towards that.

But they found a solution that works, and it's been certified to work based on their own independent testing, and then a company that we personally didn't want to hire because we had our own mitigation, and the board said we really want a third-party Jacob chose this group, or with you know, in conjunction with the chair, you know, with the with the board.

Um and they and I I'll admit they did a very detailed study, probably because they have dealt with all the hot button issues associated with pickleball.

They have a model very specific, they know how to model the ambient background, they know how to model the angle and approach and where the highest sound profile will be based on the orientation of the court, based on all this other data that they have.

So it was a pretty impressive report, to be honest, and for them to come to the conclusion that I mean we figured the quiet paddles would be the highest benefit by just reducing that sound at the source, but we didn't have the modeling sound modeling data to back that up.

And so when you put that in and they provide that, it it's showing that this is not gonna be a concern.

And so and and I guess the only negative, as Jacob mentioned, was the implementation, but as I said, it it's it's really not that far-fetched at all to implement this process, and it's in the business's interest to do so.

They have a compliance item that they have to meet, and they're already agreeing to have them on site available.

If you don't want to use it, you're welcome to play inside.

You might have to wait because there's not a court available.

Okay, well, that's that's what they're willing to do.

And you will notice a difference in tone if people are using quiet paddles, and all of a sudden somebody comes out with their wood one, it would be a noticeable change.

So it's going to be a policed item.

These are private, they're not open unless there's staff there on site.

They're not open as long as the indoor courts are because we're not playing at night.

And so, you know, I and I understand this board is just seeing a lot of this information for the first time now, but we've been seeing it for several months, uh, back and forth and going back and forth.

And I think it says something that we obtained a unanimous approval from the zoning board when their direct concern was only related to the sound, because that's really where their responsibilities ended as far as allowing a use as far as some of the other related concerns about this project.

That really is more of a planning board item.

And so they focus very heavily on that, and that's what they concluded.

So we we feel comfortable with it.

And you know, I'm happy to talk now about parking if you'd like me to get into the parking.

Well, Mr.

Saba and Mr.

Norcross both have questions.

Check if it's all right.

I'm gonna let Damon go first.

He hasn't had a chance to chime in for a while.

Yeah, I just like to try to move this uh forward a little bit here.

Um first I just want to to the abutters uh joined us this evening and gave their opinions.

I or their comments, I really appreciate it.

Ms.

Morel, I think the um the information that we're looking at in the report that we received uh really shows no sound impact um on your property uh even with no mitigation, uh even if there was some variance it you know, if you know the the wind blowing and things, um, but if we look at the the things that the documents provided, even with no mitigation, it doesn't make it to your home.

Um so kind of maybe hopefully maybe put put you at ease uh there.

Um terms of uh Mr.

Swarnarski uh a couple of things, uh 193.

I just to go through a couple of these things.

Um on the sound pollution side, uh it's very very much noted.

I think one of the things we have to take in consideration that this there are you know 13 to 16,000 cars that drive by this property every single day, and the ambient noise is roughly at a 53 to 55 decibel level to begin with.

We're not talking about a very quiet residential neighborhood that is tucked away in a little corner that we don't hear things, so I think you know, keeping keeping that in mind.

Um I'm very um mindful of you know the pickleball noise.

I think we have some experience of pickle, we do have pickleball courts on town owned land, uh, and we have heard uh feedback on that.

Um, one thing I would say about the noise is in your letter that you sent to us, um you cite you you do a good job of citing pickleheads, and you say you quote that most aren't worth your money, meaning the quiet paddles, they're flimsy or trade off too much power, but I was surprised to find a few that are great quality, and you in your quotation mark there, but that quote actually goes farther, it comma competitive in performance and super quiet.

Um, so I just you know thought that was of note.

I um the omission there was was interesting.

In terms of the light pollution, I think that should absolutely get cleaned up.

I just want for uh the record and for others here.

Uh there are no lights being installed on the outdoor pickle courts.

I think that the lights that are on the side of the building actually provide, in my opinion, zero, you know, other than maybe a walkway there, just some illumination.

I wouldn't, you know, encourage us to maybe you know take a look at that.

Um, but the picture that you showed is in my opinion, would be considered unacceptable uh and really unnecessary, frankly.

Um traffic the one and traffic and parking, uh believe me, if he if this gentleman had 100% utilization all the time, every second of the day, I'll be the first guy to invest in the business.

I you know, we we oftentimes run into these situations.

Uh I hear you loud and clear um with regard, Mr.

Sabel with regards to the concerns about parking.

I don't have a concern about parking.

One consideration uh that I would throw out there is uh the flow of traffic through the property.

I am uh was moved by the the idea of light uh hitting the residential home as you know, parking, nobody's gonna be parking facing uh uh one uh 193 Main Street.

All the parking is either facing the street or it's facing the um the building.

Um and I think the I want to compliment the uh applicant for uh taking the our original comments uh to heart and adding you know some foliage, you know, some some cover to mitigate some of the light that may go across the street, which we've not heard from any abutters there, um, is potentially doing a one you know, entry-only and exit only lane.

And what this came up in another application also on Main Street uh regarding uh a daycare facility uh and protecting a left turn dedicate dedicated left turn lane was pretty important in that case.

So if you were to enter in the entrance that was moved that was closest to 193, um, and you only exited out of the other um side of the other curb cut and you maintained a left-hand turn.

I think that may provide a lot of help, uh, particularly with speak to that just quickly uh just because I I I see where you're going with that, and uh, and there is benefit to that.

One thing I would say about this site, and I think we could maybe accomplish some of the same goals here, because I I do think that there's benefit to having two points of access and egress, they're spaced far enough apart, and for people looking to, if they're coming from the right and they want to come in on that that right hand, you know, the first entrance, versus and someone else is coming in from the left, you now don't have a conflict.

So you are getting benefit from having the two access points.

Most of the parking on this property is in the front of the building and the left side or the western side, which is the side away from the direct closest to butters.

Now, the uh like about a quarter to a third of the building is that additional warehouse use on that right hand side.

Now, that tenant is going to have rights to some level of exclusive space, and so I think that we could implement a policy that people essentially customers of the pickleball facility or any of the associated pieces of that use, the the court, um, the indoor court or the juice bar would not utilize that eastern access point.

There's no need for them to, and so there could be something done with signage that essentially said like parking area for tenant C only on that right-hand side.

And if Jake, if you could just scroll down just a little bit, I can just point or do you have a Joey?

Do we can we get that wireless mic that we were talking about, please?

I can pull the point and run back to it.

Well, I mean, listen, we have the technology, we may as well use it.

Okay, so keep going, Jacob, if you could come on down.

So, I mean, obviously, a lot of parking in the front, a lot of parking on the left.

The main entrance to the pickleball facility is here.

So, you know, we put our ADA spaces in this area here adjacent to the doorway.

But all from essentially the proposed dumpster enclosure over is gonna be for the other tenant.

And so if we could put some signage or put something here to encourage everyone to not utilize this access, because they really there's really no need.

You have great circulation, you have more well more travel area that you need for backing up maneuvers or anything in this area to be able to just come in and come out this way and utilize one of these access points.

So if that made the board more comfortable that we limited the traffic flow to not utilize this, we still obviously want to keep it open for fire safety and other purposes like that, but it could be that this area and this access is limited to this specific tenant, and we could do that with signage or some type of additional measures to help with that because I think I think it's gonna happen naturally, just based on where the orientation of the parking is, but we could add that if that helped at all.

Just toss some things out.

Um is now eight.

One very quick question, Bianca.

Jacob, uh do we have um many or any noise complaints from the residents surrounding Michelle Park?

Uh we've received one noise complaint from uh residential butter.

Uh I think it's the direct residential abutter to Michelle Memorial.

How long ago was that?

And is it like around the case?

After the courts were installed, and then maybe a little bit after that too.

Yeah, but it hasn't been recent.

I don't know that they are satisfied at this point or have just adjusted or what, but they did complain um shortly after the call courts were in stored, installed.

Okay.

All right.

Just to finish up here.

All right.

Chuck, you're you're the end gate.

I promise you will not be the line.

Okay.

So kudos on the fact that the paddles and you're gonna have people out there to to make sure that they're using the right paddles.

That's outstanding.

My feeling is you should put up a wall also to mitigate it even further.

Okay, because I think it's gonna be a problem.

The parking thing is, and and by the way, the the addition of the meager amount of plantings on the front, even though our new master plan kind of mandates having nice greenage and plantings.

We've got a couple shrubs, mostly in front of the outdoor ones, but but that's it because parking is taking up a significant amount.

You get 35 spaces in the front of the building that could have been plantings of some kind.

So I still think that the the the traffic is gonna be a nightmare coming in and out.

A typical game, how long is it?

Depends on how the level of play and typical is there an average.

Average.

I don't know if I can you know well, but they do it in tennis all the time.

So if it's a two-hour window, okay, then you have that two-hour window.

A car is gonna be constantly coming out of the parking lot into the parking lot, out of the parking lot, because everyone doesn't leave at the same time, everyone doesn't go in at the same time.

So there is gonna be added traffic, slowing down of traffic in an area of town and on 97, which already takes too long to get in here.

So I mean I think you know what the indoor ones that's fine.

I'm totally opposed to the out exterior ones, and it may not be feasible to do this project without that.

I don't know.

I would say that is the case.

Uh there's a the models that are run, it the outdoor courts are an essential piece.

That's why we took the time going through the ZBA process to clarify that.

Um you know, we had always assumed to have some level of outdoor courts, we just hadn't had them engineered in our first round to the zoning board of adjustment.

And then when it was like, okay, well, they didn't maybe fully understand the scope or scale of that, we ended up going back to clarify.

But it uh it is an essential piece, and you know, we've done a lot of studies, not by us, that say that this is not going to be a problem, and we just cannot justify the other alternative.

I think that's why they ran these options to kind of show the mitigation potential.

But putting 10 feet of plastic and 15 feet walls everywhere is just not realistic for this.

So we have a question from Ms.

Carlson.

I have a question, and then we're then we're done.

We gotta move on this thing, and I'll have a comment after that.

So Bianca.

Um I just wanted to provide one last piece of feedback before you uh go back to the drawing board until the next the next time, I imagine.

Um but so the plantings along the front.

Um I made the comment at the last time that you were here.

Um the parking lot was paved at risk, I imagine, because there was no uh anticipated use, right?

The the whole building was fixed up, um, the parking lot was paved at risk of the owner.

Correct.

Uh at the risk of the property owner.

And now that there's a use that is proposed here, um, it would make sense for this to for the um the planting bed along the sidewalk um on main street to align with the master plan and uh just uh just to clarify the master plan doesn't mandate anything, it it suggests um but it's a strong suggestion.

So I I think it it is important to improve the streetscape on along that section of Main Street because that is what the master plan calls for.

It would go a long way with me if that if that could be saw cut back a bit to allow for some more uh plantings there.

That I mean we I just want you to know that we did when to me adding those two islands and actually getting a street tree in each of those where you if you cut that area back, you might not be able to get street trees based on how much you cut back.

I thought that was a good compromise.

I was going off of, and I'm sure you recall this.

You know, we were looking for direction from the board.

I said, so are you looking for me?

And you know, the chair basically said, I don't think anybody's asking you to saw cut all the brand new pavement you just put in.

Not all of it, no.

So well, any of it across the front.

I mean, I was basically asking now, and you may have a different opinion than the chair, uh, but that was the direction that we were given.

So that's why we came in with this.

Yeah, for for what it's worth, I do have a different opinion.

But um in any case, I I think that the the point of of improving the streetscape is to improve the walking experience along Main Street.

Um, and it does also help to sort of buffer uh the view of vehicles as you're driving or walking along Main Street.

So I do definitely appreciate the the two trees in the bushes um and the plantings along the roadway that you had incorporated.

Um, but I think it it would go a long way with me if that was saw cut a little bit further back to allow for some more plantings and bushes and things of that nature.

Um that is all I have, I promise.

Okay.

It's a question for you, Mr.

McGuire, a question for Jacob, and then a thank you to the audience, which I'll get into in a second.

My question to you, sir, is if we were to go with your plan, we go with the quiet paddles.

Are you still open to the original six-foot sound dampening wall?

I I would say you know, I would just I would say no.

Uh, and I and but and I I'll explain why.

Okay.

The six-foot height based on the PSM study documented that it was essentially no benefit to be at that height.

Okay, and for that reason, it would just be an added resource that's not gonna provide benefit.

Okay, and so that's the only reason.

That would be are you open to the 12 if it comes to that?

They they cannot justify the 12 foot cost.

They've run all the numbers on this.

This has gone much further than they expected.

Um the engineering side, I think it's gone much further than they expected in the study.

So that they're they're comfortable with that.

The zoning board was comfortable with that.

That's really our position.

Okay.

You don't know this, but we have a lot of beef with our zoning board.

Oh my lord, I thought I put an end to this.

You didn't because I still don't uh I I just want to be I want to get Jake up on the record to state that because Jacob is the guy who the town council and the town manager is gonna go after when we get the complaint.

So we want Jacob to go ahead and state whether the applicant is correct when he says that the paddles will achieve the same sound as that 12-foot fence with all this padding and the glass and all this other stuff.

Uh so uh according to PSM, uh, and there's a couple of things.

Mr.

McGuire said that the sound barrier at six feet uh wouldn't uh accomplish acceptable levels, which I would agree with because he they've done a scenario with a 10-foot barrier.

Uh they didn't uh entertain the six foot, but even at 10 feet, which is displayed here, shows that the uh decibels would be exceeded uh at the town house development adjacent to it.

And then the question of about uh quiet paddles versus the 12-foot barrier, according to our the third-party consultant, the third-party consultant shows that you know, so here are the decibels listed 52, 51, 48, 52, 54 at the most impacted uh dwellings.

So those are the decibels with the 12-foot barrier.

And uh similar when you use a different source reference, uh, when you go to S6, it does uh get to 55 even at the nearest residential abutter to the south.

When you implement the quiet paddles, and again it is difficult, admittedly, from PSM, you now accomplish lower uh noise generation at the townhouses, and you uh achieve the 55 decibels at that southernmost um residential to the south.

One thing I will note, and maybe Mr.

McGuire can speak to is early on in the project, they had a different configuration of the uh courts.

And when the site plan was sent to the consultant, the consultant studied this configuration.

Their current configuration shows a court located here.

My assumption is that that would still well, I don't want to assume, but uh you know, we could have that if the board were to be comfortable as a condition to have that reviewed by PSM with a different configuration, but maybe Mr.

McGuire can speak to uh when and why the the change occurred if the chair would like difference.

Please well, I I all I can say is I I know that we had the reconfiguration when PSM was involved.

So I don't know.

I mean, they might have had a different iteration um early on, or if they're maybe just the wrong iteration was sent.

I mean, because we've had a lot of iterations, so that's uh not faulting anyone for that.

But the our proposal of having them like that was really just the fact that the existing gravel area on the property was in that area, it fit to put the courts in that.

It's a more I guess compact and convenient layout to have them in that manner.

So that's why we went that approach.

Um obviously it would have I don't think it would have it if it would just benefit to not have that one court straggling around that sound could go to the back or around to the east, so that would help uh in some regards, but I I don't I don't see it being an issue based on the sound sources that they had, they were really focusing on that.

I think it was the angle of play, they were using those courts for a reason.

So it seems appropriate.

All right, thank you.

The time is now nine o'clock, so we got to move on this thing one way or the other.

Jacob, my actual the one question I wanted for you was the 65-day limit.

It says it's okay in our cheat sheet.

Is that accurate?

Uh no, it would be exceeded at this point, and you would need to request an extension.

I would think so.

Uh, because you accepted it March 24th, yeah.

That's what I thought.

All right.

So at this time, I just want to say thank you to everybody.

I know that this has gone way longer than anyone anticipated, including me.

For some reason, pickleball is kind of a hot topic.

At least we didn't have a riot like there was in Portsmouth, you know, five, six years ago.

So that's nice.

So I just want to say thank you to everybody for your patience, and part of the reason why we took so long with this is that obviously a lot of people have a lot of uh opinions on it.

So I hope everybody felt that at the very least they were heard.

So at this time, I would entertain a motion.

And what I would oh that's great.

That's a great point.

That's how out of shape I am.

Jacob, if you want to hit me with conditions, and then we can add some if we need to.

Uh recommended conditions of approval would be as follows.

It would be prior to building permit one, submit staff approvals.

Uh and we did receive comments from engineer and division today, those would have to be addressed.

I had a couple of smaller items uh in terms of the swing gate and the wetland that was added, that would also be included.

And then under two, it would be pay for outside inspections per direction of engineering division if deemed required.

And then prior to occupancy, uh, this would be one for the board to discuss pay road impact fee of uh this is either two hundred and thirty dollars and eighty-six cents, or if you feel that the uh expansion or the addition of the outdoor courts warrants additional impact fees, that impact fee would be thirty-six thousand nine hundred and fifty dollars and eighty-six cents.

Uh, and then the public safety impact fee similarly would be twenty-seven dollars and sixteen cents or seven thousand three hundred thirty-five dollars and sixteen cents.

Um, and I could provide uh the rationale from our um ordinance if the board would like.

Uh after could I just ask one question on that?

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I this is I think important because it's a big number, and this is the kind of the first we heard of it was this afternoon.

So the area where the outdoor courts are is an area of existing disturbed gravel that was utilized on the property for storage or retail type purpose of when other some of these other various uses had been done.

I don't know if that plays a factor into that because I mean essentially we're priding ourselves on working a hundred percent within the confines of the existing disturbance, meaning the pavement, the building, and that gravel area, everything was utilized as a reuse of the property.

So I I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some fee, but as a it being a brand new piece, it it seemed high.

That's that's my only question.

Yeah, what ended up happening is like I initially calculated it uh on the retail and membership club, and I only credited them for the industrial use, and then at that point it was like a you know 100,000 dollars, which is kind of crazy, and then uh recalled that there were previous uses such as retail there.

So that gets their use and the building down to you know hardly what 250 dollars.

And then um the the provision from the ordinance.

I'm just trying to find it, but essentially you would assess them on the potential for increased traffic demand.

Um, and I can cite that when I find it, but um for the standards for methodology.

In the case of new development created by conversion or modification of an existing use, the impact fee shall be based upon the net increase in the impact fee calculated for the new use as compared to the impact fee that was or would have been assessed for the previous use.

So that's how it gets their uh demand system building, you know, a relatively low amount, and then it would be the question of whether or not you think that the uh six outdoor courts are gonna generate an impact on traffic and public safety.

Uh the board made a similar consideration for Dix House of Sport, and in that instance you did assess an impact fee for the multi-purpose field.

Right.

All right.

I appreciate that.

I mean, I'm sorry, Mr.

Hatch, you have a thought.

Yeah.

Umce the courts are this fee.

Is this fee prorated for the months that are not used because I believe didn't we do that for six months?

We we did it for uh you're right.

We did it for the conservatory, which I think is now maybe called the veranda at Tuscan, and they were gonna be in use uh on a temporary basis, so it's just below six months.

In that instance, they paid half of the impact fee.

Um, they were gonna occupy it half of the year.

So we could theoretically authorize the full sum here and leave ourselves space for some sort of follow-up from the applicant, you know, committing to eight months out of the year, four months of non-use or something similar.

There's precedent for that, yeah.

You could do that.

I'm open to that, unless there's any objection for the board.

I think that's what we really should do.

Uh I mean to me we we've charged Dick's splitting goods, we've charged uh the Tuscan village, but we can't prorate it.

We know they're not going to be playing out there in the winter time.

So five to six months, this should be prorated.

Yeah, but and they should get the credit for the historical use of the uh payments of the building.

So yeah.

I would agree with what Mr.

Hatch has laid out.

Mr.

McGuire, your applicant would be amenable to committing to certain months of the year being non-playable, which I assume is.

Yeah, I mean, I think it's probably used a little less than uh four, it's probably like closer to a six and six and six or half, or at least a five and uh, you know, I five and six I'd be happy with six.

Yeah, I mean one that seems reasonable to me.

Okay.

I mean, you know, six months one day, we see somebody out there.

We get to arrest them.

That's the deal.

It all depends on the ring of bus, you know.

Could get more or less.

I'd be happy with six.

All right.

So then if we could amend that particular condition, Jacob, to reflect the this discussion.

Yeah, um if I may.

Yes.

Is that us saying that they are not permitted to use the courts for more than six months out of the year?

And if so, what months are those?

I wouldn't stretch it that because it's gonna be weather dependent.

So if they get a lucky day, is it really gonna kill us?

No.

It's not like it's a building where we they had a building with bigger functions like the other one.

I mean, you know, I'd I just think that's too much to you know, just take take the six months, be happy with it.

Sure.

And uh also worth noting that if the impact fees are not used uh for impacts as a result of the project within six years that they are returned to the applicant.

Yeah, so it is it is possible that those funds would be returned to the applicant in six years, though that is a long time from now.

And I fully recognize that.

But that's technically always a risk, yeah.

Right.

And it's gonna um so then if we could amend number three to a six and six structure.

Yeah, so I I can try to do that math now, or uh I'll read the other conditions.

We don't have to put you on the spot for math.

We can probably just use a calculator later and then okay.

So we'll say uh prorated uh for six-month period for the outdoor courts, something to that effect.

Yeah, and um I'll uh provide that calculation.

You are supposed to assess them at time of uh site plan approval, so uh I probably will try to do the calculation unless Mr.

Norcross can do it quicker than me.

Because they late.

Um four provide certified as built site plan.

Five, construct all site improvements in accordance with the approved plan.

Um six would be relative to that northwest court, just to state that the applicant shall demonstrate that the sound does not exceed 65 decibels when reconfigured.

Seven, planning board shall approve signage prior to issuance of signed permit.

They haven't submitted a sign, but when they do submit a uh sign, we'll bring it back to you under public matters.

This is for planning board discussion.

It would be number eight, landscaping along front parking aisle, pedestrian connection to main street, an opaque fence to the south of the courtslash parallel to the main street shall be added.

I didn't hear a whole lot of advocacy for the uh latter two, but I did hear some for the first item, the landscaping along the front parking aisle.

Um nine, no conditional use permit for reduced parking on plan.

Ten USA pickleball quiet certified paddles shall be used exclusively on outdoor courts.

Um this is consistent with the zoning board decision, noise generated by outdoor courts shall not exceed 55 decibels at any dwelling.

Twelve applicant shall operate outdoor courts in accordance with outdoor court use policy.

Um and then 13 uh applicant must operate business so that parking lot capacity is not exceeded.

Uh in this instance, I didn't have a post-occupancy monitoring study, but I'd I guess pitch that to you for your consideration of uh if that's something you'd like.

That would be uh the 14th if you did.

And then 15th, all representations made by applicant or agents and all notes on the plan are incorporated as part of the approval.

Yeah, for number 14, I would like to see a six-month six to uh so we would do six to nine months post-occupancy uh traffic studies shall be submitted, or uh parking count shall be submitted and addressed if needed.

And not to muddy things more, but if you're gonna do that, I would probably recommend that we establish an escrow account before they occupy so that we can ensure the studies done.

Sounds good.

Uh Mr.

La Fontaine, just a question.

Um hours of operation.

Um I know the um the applicant represented in front of the zoning board, a different operating hour than what is on the piece of paper that was in our packet.

Uh primarily the 10 o'clock a.m.

start time on Sundays.

Oh, there it is.

It is there.

Yeah, they they did uh they had an earlier draft of this policy, and then we've since amended it since they went to the ZBA.

All right.

And to be clear, this is going to be part of approval, right?

Yes, this and any other representation the applicant has made is incorporated as part of the approval.

All right.

That's a pretty broad statement.

Nice to know it's in there.

There was a little bit of space to talk about landscaping.

I know that we've talked about landscaping across the front, which I'm wholly in favor of.

Any opportunity, I mean it's not personal.

Any opportunity to add vegetation back, especially along Main Street, especially for something like the old car bar, which is just pure black top at this point, uh, would be appreciated.

I don't know if anybody else wants to chime in on that or any of the other planning board discussion items.

True.

Damon.

Yeah, um, I I think anything short of you know, cutting into the I mean anything that doesn't include cutting into the pavement black top, I'm in favor of.

So you want it done.

I mean, I would like some done, but I I think it's uh you know, to be to have to require them to cut into that brand new pavement.

Um, you know, it is an existing historical structure with existing.

I'm just I guess you know, I I think it's a unique property.

I'm okay with it.

Anybody else?

Jeremy Jim, you guys haven't said any.

I was gonna say, I guess I'll chime in.

I agree with Bianca's statements earlier.

I think a little bit of vegetation there wouldn't hurt.

I mean, we're talking about a foot and a half.

You're already cutting into the concrete, take another foot and a half, make it three feet, put some vegetation in there.

That would be my recommendation.

Hope peas the board.

Uh Jim, anything?

Um I thought would be another option uh to increase vegetation would be adding planters that could be just placed at uh along the board of the sidewalk with the parking spaces, and that way you're not destroying the parking surface.

Yeah, and they could be moved in and out based on uh need.

So Mr.

McGuire, any objections to anything?

Seems like a reasonable suggestion.

Fair enough.

And beyond I'm gonna be the negative nelly here, but I imagine because of the fact that that is within such close proximity of the main road and snow accumulation over the course of the winter that those planters would end up getting wrecked or pushed into the parking lot very easily.

Um that's the only reason why I don't think that that is a viable option in my opinion.

Um, but I I if I from what I had scaled on my own time, I think that distance from of the um existing vegetation area is maybe four-ish feet in depth.

Um, maybe bringing it to about eight feet would would go a long way to allow for um you know some some visual interest there, whether it be bushes or plantings or or whatnot.

Um that would be that would be my personal preference.

There, I mean, there would I I understand what you guys are looking to get to.

I I think the the concern that we had is that you have all the pavement done.

There is no irrigation in that strip at this point, so to have this lush uh you know expanse across the front, it's gonna be very difficult to accomplish.

Um we we specifically chose some bushes that were drought tolerant that could provide greenery and pop, but not you know, have a huge need for uh sustained irrigation.

The the trees that we picked, same idea.

Uh our landscape architect suggested those to be tolerant.

Um, I mean, I think we we are proposing uh a significant number of bushes in that area from you know, I mean, just just numbering wise, we have 12 um coming across the front.

Um, you know, we have the trees and additional bushes under those trees.

So I mean I I think there is gonna be some visual breakup despite not having the the width, and that was really our goal of creating those two islands, and you know, obviously we have the arborvitae along that side that which is why I didn't really see a need for a fence on that southern portion, just because we are putting a wall of green there intentionally just to screen the courts.

So that that's kind of our our position on it, and that was based on the feedback that we got at the initial meeting that we had, and you know, I understand that opinions can change or but that's kind of where we're at.

All right, so Jacob, for that one, if we could talk, just work with if you could work with staff maximize vegetation.

I don't you love it.

There's a well and away in this.

Yes, I mean I I guess the thing I would say in response is that um I get it's pre-existing uh when they're 100 plus 100 years, 100 plus.

Um what I would say is that from a traffic safety standpoint, it's probably good to have some more separation from Main Street, and then two uh you can install drought tolerant, less and less uh property owners are installing irrigation because we make them install an irrigation well.

Um so I would tell you a lot of the more recent uh developments have been done without the benefit of irrigation.

So there are trees that could be planted.

Um I guess if the board would want to keep the condition and then I'd probably bring it back to you under public matters just to see if it gets to a point where you're comfortable with.

Let's plan on doing that.

Any other issues that we need to raise fence alongside the 1930 extended property.

No, all right.

Well, then at this time I would entertain a motion.

And just for the sake of laying this out, I'd like to see an end.

I'd like to see a motion for approval if that fails, it puts us at a crossroads where we can either affirmatively deny it or ask for a continuance.

So are we clear on the conditions?

Uh I can run through them again if you want, or I could just clarify what I've done.

So I've I've um it sounds like on landscape, and that was number eight.

We're gonna keep landscaping uh along front parking aisle shall be added to the plan to some extent, and I'll bring that back to you.

But I don't hear consensus on pedestrian connection to Main Street or the fence in front of the courts.

So I would strike those.

Uh for the impact fee, I did calculate them.

I've got $3,681 and 16 cents for public safety and $18,590 and 86 cents for traffic.

That'd be uh based off of the six-month prorated amount for the outdoor courts.

And then I would also recommend that on condition number 10, which stated USA pickleball quiet certified paddles shall be used exclusively on outdoor courts.

I'd also add courts shall be used uh outdoor courts shall be used six months per year, or no greater than six months per year to reinforce that uh uh justification for the impact fee.

But everything else would remain the same as red.

Biak has a note.

Uh to clarify, the landscaping would come back to us under public matters.

If the board I don't hear strong consensus, so I'll work with the applicant on I guess what my understanding is, and I would probably bring it back down to public matters just to before I sign the plan.

Why don't we definitively say bring it back into public matters just so we can take a look at it?

And the pedestrian connection to Bain Street, people aren't.

I mean, I think that would be great, but um isn't it it's not a hill to die on isn't just an open it's an open space.

What are you connecting?

Yeah, I don't know what it would be a pedestrian connection to the sidewalk, but uh so you would generally put like this is your walk and aisle, and then uh you'd have a striped crosswalk, striped space here.

They would lose a space, so probably uh maybe not that important at this stage because they'd have to amend their conditional use permit.

Yeah, I'm not it's not a hell I'm willing to die on.

Yeah, agreed.

Just one last bite at the opaque fence, no one cares, yeah.

All right.

No, and there's a conditional use permit to read into the so we've got what are we up to 15 or 16?

Chair I moved the grant initial use permit under section 409701D to allow 90 spaces where 263 spaces are required on section 3097 column 1.4 and further move to grant conditional approval of site plan subject to the 16 conditions as outlined by Mr.

Lafontaine second so we have a motion from Mr.

Norcross we've got a second from Mr.

Hatch and just Mr McGuire just so we have for the record as I so I can stop looking the date of the letter in which you submitted the CEG request sorry never mind damn it might have to get there first with reference to the letter from the applicant dated March 4th 2026.

Thank you kindly now that we've Mr.

Chairman it was modified today is that I I did yeah I mean if that's what you're talking about yeah yes so my and modified 7146 have we seen have we seen the letter uh it was submitted earlier today I think uh um mr mui you just amended the just for the it'd be great if we can just have it thank you just so we have it it's all the same it's just thank you what was the modification thank you thank you well obviously the all the same criteria when we when we met in March there was a lot of discussion about that first piece about how we broke down the pickleball and the sports training area as far as how we calculated it but it what I I talked about it verbally but it wasn't in writing so I just wanted to codify that into the writing to show how we calculated that so that's really the main change is it's right on that first page you can see how we have below is a breakdown of the anticipated parking need and that's what was put on record at the first meeting just didn't have it in that okay and is there any other change to this from the original letter to this letter beyond what you've just outlined there may be some minor grammatical changes but er the the arguments are all the same.

There's no material change okay I appreciate that I just like getting that on the record all right so we have a motion and a second for the approval of this site plan with 16 conditions plus the CUP for parking reduction any further discussion from the board seeing none let's vote all those in favor all right all those posed one I'm gonna abstain just because I feel cheeky tonight so I appreciate that.

So that's uh I'm abstaining and Mr Mr Saba is declining so thank you for your time this is approved thank you sir and again thank you to everybody for your patience I really appreciate it.

The time is now 923 do we need a break no five minutes or are we going to speed run this no they they waited long enough all right so we've moved on to the next phase we are moved on to new business we have three items of new business one for 23 21 key wait and drive LLC a public hearing for change of use uh sing realty LLC site plan public hearing for a 14 unit contractor building and back again bluebird Salem LLC public hearing for self-storage facility so uh if we could get the folks up here for 21 key wedding drive LLC Mr.

Chair I move to accept the plan second I've got a motion and a second to accept the plan all those in favor the plan is accepted Jacob the butters are as follows if you're here please indicate by saying so they are key waiting drive realty New Hampshire DOT and that is all thank you Jacob to the applicant Mr.

Flores nice to see you same uh Mr.

Chair members of the board for the record my uh my name is Dan Flores with SFC engineering uh here representing 21 key wait and drive reality LLC for a change of use um this building uh you can see it going down 93 it has a digital sign currently it's just a foundation that was approved back in 2014 for a 34000 square foot office building that was then uh approved in 2017 where the building was moved a bit it has since sat uh with the foundation and parking and utilities complete the owner is now looking for a change of use to um adult education uh which is post secondary slash university which is an approved use in this zone um there's really no impact to the site the um the change of use to education will have up to um 160 students and 20 staff which will require 100 parking spaces we have 113 parking spaces assigned to that building today so there's no impact in parking um there's no changes requested to the building itself either um there was a correction made to the

So there's no impact in parking.

There's no changes requested to the building itself either.

But otherwise, this this works.

Again, there's no impact to the site, no impact to parking.

And hopefully you'll uh approve this.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Before we do uh questions, Jacob.

Anything to add before we go to the public.

Yeah, I'll try to be brief.

Uh you approved it in 2014, and obviously it's under construction.

There's a foundation steel erected.

Um essentially nothing on the plan changes.

They have that note shown on the plan sheet when they submit.

Uh, if you were approved this, when they submit the applic uh the plan set, it'll be uh the complete set with this page revised.

Uh other than that, again, nothing else really changes.

I had a comment uh just because I guess I can be a pain and ask about pedestrian connections.

And uh right now they have uh sidewalk that terminates uh it extends to the west, but it terminates on the east on the other side.

So I just asked Mr.

Flores if uh it makes sense to expand it so that you can access these parkings uh the parking supply to the east.

Um I would just ask for the board and um Mr.

Flores to weigh in on that.

And otherwise, there are revised impact fees based off of the new use and our current impact fee table.

Um I mean I think they've done a good job.

I had I had concerns about the uh signage, and I talked to Mr.

Flores and Tara earlier, and my recommendation would be that we would have a condition of approval be that prior to issuance of a sign permit that they revise the sign to better comply with the design guidelines and uh that it be reviewed by the planning board right now.

It seems to indicate that it's gonna be uh uh wall-mounted internally illuminated sign, and it sorry, I keep losing it.

And it seems to be kind of like a traditional box sign.

Obviously, uh, this is a high visible site.

We obviously understand why they'd want uh sign there, but I think we would just want to ensure that it is thoughtfully designed and compliant with our design guidelines and our master plan.

Uh aside from that, I have conditions if and when you would like.

All right, before we do conditions, let's go to the public.

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

Seeing no one rise to the board we go.

Any questions from the board in particular about sidewalks or signs?

You got something?

You want me to vamp so you can work out it?

No.

All right.

I mean, I'd like to see it extended.

All right.

Mr.

Flores, if you could respond to Jacob's point about the sidewalk and also about the signage.

Sure.

Um totally fine with the sign.

We're happy to come back as a condition to show you show the uh the sign prior to the permit.

Regarding the sidewalk, this was approved as is for an office building.

This is going to be adult education adult education, not different than office.

I don't see a need for the sidewalk.

Um, the owner certainly does not want additional sidewalk.

This is a it's not a thoroughfare, um, so I don't see the need for it.

And I would ask that we don't require it.

You want to cut open the uh parking lot by like 50 trees or something in there.

Always looking for more trees.

Jeremy, did you have a comment?

Mine's more of a housekeeping public safety impact fee of the 22,000, or is it the 104?

Because you have it noted differently in the condition versus Yeah, you're right.

That they're uh they're inverted, so I put the uh public safety in the road.

Right, you know, so they're just they have to be reversed.

All right.

Any other questions for Mr.

Flores?

Last chance for romance.

Anybody from the public want to speak?

Seeing no one rise, I will ask for the conditions, please.

I recommend the condition conditions of approval would be prior to occupancy.

One pay road impact fee of 104,393 and 50 cents, and pay public safety impact fee of 22,709 dollars.

Two, record cross park and access and access easement.

Three, construct all site improvements in accordance with the approved plan.

That would be uh 2014 plan uh in terms of the landscape and building location dimension setback, site grade, and uh, and provide certified as built plan under other five.

It should also probably refer to the change that they made in 2017 to the building location.

That was March 25th, 2017.

Uh six note conditional use permit for wetland buffers on plan.

Uh one thing I neglected to read was that uh signs shall be approved by plan and board part issuance of sign permit, and then I would defer to the board uh about the the pedestrian connection.

Oh, and did I do all representations?

I might have missed that one.

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

So all representations is eight, correct?

That would be eight, yes.

Seven is the signage, and six.

And honestly, I don't have any strong feelings about the pedestrian access.

Does anybody disagree?

No.

No.

All right.

Well, with that said, we have seven conditions.

We've got a relatively simple plan.

I'll entertain the motion at this time.

So they conditions, right?

A condition, sorry.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, I move to conditionally grant the change of use located uh from office building to post our post-secondary university located at 21 F Wheaton Drive to allow an adult education facility.

So subject to the eight conditions outlined by Mr.

Lafontaine.

Second.

So we have a motion for Mr.

Norcross, second for Mr.

Hatch.

Any questions, commentary from the board at this time?

No.

All right.

All those in favor.

That's unanimous.

Thank you, Mr.

Wall.

Thank you.

All right, moving on.

Contestant number three for the evening.

Same realty.

LLC site plan.

This is a public hearing period, 22,736 square foot, 14 unit contractor building with conditional use permit for reduced wetland setback and buffer at nine manor parkway.

How's it going?

Good evening, Nicole Duquette, McClare Engineering Company, uh here representing uh the Sing family.

Mr.

Chair, I moved to accept the plan.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

We uh we were just I'm so friendly and we just ran right by it.

I apologize.

Normally that's my job.

Damon if I if I may before you do, Jacob, is the plan complete?

Uh yes, the plan is complete.

Mr.

Chair, I moved to accept the site.

Second.

I'm just outsourcing everything then.

Gotcha.

All right.

Get a motion.

We have a second.

The plan, it turns out is complete.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor of accepting the plan.

That's unanimous.

Hi, how are you?

All right.

We'll just go back to the beginning.

Yeah, we'll start again.

No worries.

It's getting late.

One second.

Oh lord, the abutters.

We're gonna get there.

Um Jeff is gonna read the abutters, Jake, at this time.

It's okay with me.

Uh uh, three and the butters are as follows.

If you're here, please in the K by saying, so there are three industrial way, NMK 99 LLC, Sebastian, SCFRRC funding for GPD Opto Electronics Corp, Town of Salem, 10 Manor Parkway Condo Association, uh CINREALTE, and that is all.

So NMK 99 and GPI.

Okay, that's it.

Thank you, Jacob.

You wouldn't know this, but there's a cheat sheet right here that Damon's trying to slip me, and I'm just not looking at it.

So please we can do it now.

Okay.

Go ahead.

We sure?

Okay.

Yes.

All right.

Nicole Duquette McClare Engineering Company.

Uh here with me is uh the Singh family, both Durga and Rocky.

Um this property.

Uh Jacob, if we could go to the color.

Actually, we'll start on the existing.

You on the presentation plan.

I can I think it's easier.

It's late.

We'll go quickly.

Um, so the existing site.

I'm just having him pull up the proposed site, but we'll just go over the existing site quickly.

Uh it's in the commercial industrial uh subdistrict B.

Uh it is in the back, and I'm gonna grab this because I um I like going up here and pointing.

So, all right.

So we have Bailey Road residential is up here.

It's about 20 feet higher than this site.

Uh, and then we have um 11 mana parkway here, seven here, seven actually the existing conditions.

It used to have a little overflow parking lot here.

There's relics of it.

It's um some of it is bar, some of the pavement is actually buried.

We found it when we did test bits out there.

So there is existing pavement out here that was part of seven Manor Parkway at one point.

Um so this isn't a fully uh undeveloped property.

The other things that we have on the site, we have a wetland um back here.

So there's an easement for the drainage basin, so all of the wet all the drainage from from that site goes to the back of our site.

Uh the other thing is we have a 20-foot drainage easement that runs along the back of the property from the Bailey Road residential area, and then it comes down the side of the property.

So we have that encumbrance on the plan too.

Um as far as the proposed, oh, and then we have one more usement just to make it fun.

Uh, we have a New England telephone, old New England telephone easement in the front as well.

Um, it's it's a small 10-foot easement, it really doesn't impact anything in the front there.

Uh, we are proposing a 22,736 square foot contractor bay building.

Uh there's 14 units shown on this plan with overhead doors, and then for this each unit will have their own private space dedicated reserve space dedicated for them in front of the overhead doors.

There are similar uh sites to this in Salem that we kind of mimicked for that.

Uh so instead of losing the space in front of that and increasing the you know the development impervious area, we're using that as the space for that tenant as well.

Um we have right now.

I there is an error on this plan.

We show 51, we really should say show 50 because we do have two accessible spaces.

We are required to have 47 spaces per the square footage of the building.

So knocking down one is not going to matter.

Um the uh as far as the grading goes, it's very deceiving on the site.

It looks like a flat site, but it's not.

Uh, this is the on Manor Parkway, it goes low to high.

11 manor parkway is a lot higher than our site.

Uh, you've got some existing trees over here that we're trying to pull the retaining wall away from.

This sits a lot lower than 11 manor parkway.

So this is towards the back, is going to be about a 10 foot high wall.

So that is going to be the big expense on this property.

We also have another retaining wall here.

We had come I had about six years ago.

Uh we had been here before.

I don't know if anybody was on that board at that time.

Uh, with a larger development for this area, we came conceptually before the conservation commission and the planning board, and at that time we were impacting the wetland and doing the two to one mitigation concept for that.

Um, with this concept, we've really tried to reduce it so that we don't have any wetland impacts, but since the wetland flags had been over five years old, we had to go back and flag them.

And this section here is new to the wetland area.

So we had to readjust things.

So this wall is is kind of trying to reduce the amount of impact that that is to the wetland area.

Uh there is some fill in this area because it was previously developed.

It's not it's not a virgin site, so they um it's this area was altered at one point.

As far as utilities go, um, there is a water and sewer stub here.

I know Jim Brown had made a comment to connect to the existing water and sewer.

We can definitely do that.

We do have a drainage system that is in the front of the property that kind of makes a little bit funky.

You know, we have to go around it to get there.

Where this is the low part of the property, we really need to have an infiltration system in the front and rather in the in the back.

So we have um for drainage, we have the deep sump catch basins that everybody's used to with the oil water separator hoods going to the front into a zerces uh underground infiltration system that will have that header row that acts as pre-treatment and settles out the soil uh the settlement uh settles the sediment in the storm water.

So we have the pre-treatment, we have the treatment, we have a water connection, a sewer, um electric all coming into Manor Parkway.

Uh nothing strange about that.

Uh we we are impacting, we are asking for a conditional use permit, and I'm trying to talk really fast for you all because I know it's really late.

So we do have we are asking for a conditional use permit.

We have a 20-foot no disturb setback, and the 40-foot is right here.

So we have uh impacts in both.

So the no disturb is this section in here, and again, this is the new section of wetland that we didn't know about before that is now increased here.

Uh that has now increased here.

Now this wetland, and there is a memo from Luke Hurley that that flagged us for us again.

Um this is really a drainage wetland.

That's the purpose.

So by impacting the buffer again, um impacting that buffer, we're not decreasing the ability for that wetland to do what it's supposed to do.

So it is still maintaining the drainage.

And the fun, I think it's fun because I'm an engineer and I'm weird.

The fun fact about this, the wetland is gonna be higher than the site.

So this has really good soils, that has really bad soils, and it's holding the water up there, and that's why you have the wetland there.

We are actually going to be lower.

So this this wall, this is gonna be lower than the wetland.

So we're making sure we're berming it up so that water is still staying in the wetland and we're not pulling it out of that so that it remains that hydraulic status of the wetland.

Um as you can see, we did not add landscaping on this side.

One, because of the wall, we don't want it to interfere with the wall, and two, because there are already trees along the 11-minute parkway.

So we felt like that is already planted there, and we wanted to make sure that we went around the site where it is lacking.

Um the other thing that we're doing is we're doing a new England seed mix on the slope here.

Um there is a big kind of mound here that we're cutting into, and then there's going to be a steep slope going down into you know lower and higher.

So there's gonna be this uh steep slope here that we're going to uh plant new England seed mix and just let it grow.

So it's not gonna be a mow area, so we'll maintain that buffer, that natural you know, pollinators and uh all good stuff with the wetlands there.

So that's what we're proposing there.

Let me just go through my notes and make sure it's gotten so we have the conditional use permit for the 20-foot, the conditional use permit for the 40, and we have a waiver uh for the drainage because we are mitigating on the 10 uh the two, the 50, and 100.

What we're not mitigating for is the 10-year.

Uh we're up by 0.2 CFS, and that is just for this area in here.

And the reason why is because we're increasing the slope in that area.

Um, just to try to balance off the site as we can.

This will be a little steeper, which makes the time of concentration, go a little bit less, and that's where your increases is there.

It's it's over a landscape area, it's not because of the impervious that's on the site.

And it's not going to in a butter, it will go into the municipal drainage system on our parkway in the 10-year storm, not the higher storms.

That being said, if you have any questions, uh the Sing family is here and myself, we'd be happy to answer them.

Thank you.

Okay, first things first we'll bug Jacob and then we'll talk to the talk to the public.

Uh thanks, Mr.

Chair.

So um, as Ms.

Duquette stated, it's a 14-unit contractor bay.

Uh they are requesting that conditional use permit for the wetland impact, and that was approved or uh recommended for approval by the conservation commission at their July 8th meeting.

Um which we to be clear, it's one CUP covering both and conservations okay across the board.

Yes, conservation is okay with the disturbance to the 20-foot natural buffer, uh, which is uh 1,173 square feet of impact with a 115 square foot retaining wall, 270 square eight square feet of pavement in curbing.

They were okay with with the proposal as proposed with the disturbance to the both the buffer and the uh setback for pavement.

Um they did not have any recommended conditions of approval.

Um in terms of drainage and utilities, uh they are uh currently uh under review by RCCD, so third party review will come back.

Jim Brown did have some comments, our senior engineer, and you did have uh somewhat significant uh in terms of the design of the site, so we would just ask that obviously in between this meeting and when the applicant returns that they would address uh address those meetings.

He stated uh Manor Parkway was reconstructed in 2021, it's under moratorium until 27.

So that's not as consequential, but it was more so related to the uh water line location and uh existing water and sewer stubs need to be used, which Miss Duquette already acknowledged.

Proposed driveway location needs to be adjusted to eliminate relocation of the existing hydrant.

Uh, and then the existing conditions plan indicates there's an electric manhole in the existing paved area.

So probably that third one is probably the more consequential one uh for the planning board to consider because it would uh compel them to relocate the drive.

Um in terms of the building, uh they have submitted elevations.

Um we talked, we had some comments.

Oh, I'm looking at the presenter view.

Uh let me uh pull this one up.

We had some comments on the elevations.

Uh it is a contractor bay, it's uh probably corrugated steel, uh corrugated metal, I think.

Um but anyway, uh you we've seen some very attractive ones, I think.

If you uh think about the ones we approved on trolley lane, uh there's three pretty good examples there.

And we just asked the applicant to uh maybe review it.

There's not much you can do to probably enhance these sides because they're they're bay doors, but we have seen that done at uh uh actually all three trolley lane uh would be good precedent examples for for this building.

And um of course I don't have the photos, but you've seen them because I've showed them to you in the past, and um anyway.

So I'd uh uh recommend that some L uh uh some modifications be made.

Uh the square footage calculation, we asked that it'd be updated to reflect whether mezzanines are included because that will impact their uh traffic uh uh generation, their their parking supply requirement, and then also their impact fee.

So the applicant should confirm whether or not those will be proposed on other projects.

We've seen them proposed as a conservative measure, and then when they come in, if they choose not to construct it, they don't uh need the impact fees, they would obviously have to park the site uh accordingly, though.

In terms of circulation, we note that the fire truck turn in plan will be reviewed by the fire department.

In terms of parking configuration, um, you know, generally we wouldn't we would uh advise against having uh designated parking spaces in front of your load and bay doors, so maybe the applicant can speak to that.

Um but generally you would have a uh hatched area so that they could access the loading bay unobstructed.

Um but generally it's not advisable.

Uh at least to count towards your parking supply.

A lot of times they get striped after the fact, but uh they still have sufficient parking otherwise.

Um uh outside review in terms of traffic.

I would just ask the board to weigh in on that uh whether or not you think that this warrants a traffic review, whether it be for circulation or for trip generation.

We haven't done that on the uh trolley lane ones, for example.

Uh in terms of zoning, they are proposing the 47 parking spaces.

They're required they're sorry, required to have 47 parking spaces.

They're gonna provide 51 and maybe 50 now, 50.

Um, and then uh lighting and signage.

Uh they just they have some comments about that.

We would probably when the board moves to act on the plan, incorporate that they either submit the sign to be reviewed or that um it be done prior to installation or issuance of the sign permit.

Uh we've got some uh excerpts from our master plan, which I won't read to you, but you have them and the designed guidelines just encouraging higher quality design.

They will need to pay impact fees for public safety and traffic.

Uh outside reviews are pendant, excess snow storage is noted to be removed off site.

They are requesting those waivers uh or that waiver uh as Ms.

Duquette noted.

Recommendation tonight is continuance waiting for staff and third party approvals and outstanding items to be addressed.

Okay, thank you, Jake.

Before we go to the board, any members of the public like to speak on this place?

No, it's over to no one rise.

I'll leave it to the board.

Any questions or comments on this plan?

Mr.

Northross.

Are you are you contemplating uh an 18-wheeler to be able to traverse the no?

Um it's designed for some uh vehicle similar to a WB50, a box truck.

Like a street truck that's 26 feet, correct?

Okay.

And we if we can get the St.

Lincoln fire truck around that.

We made sure that any other questions.

I have a couple, but I don't want to chime in before the right side of the table's been awfully quiet this week.

Not to go home before midnight.

Not to vulnerable.

All right.

Fair enough.

I can ask a question to go for it.

Uh we're gonna be storing any range of materials on the site in the parking lot areas or anything like that.

There's no room to store any outdoor storage on this, uh, and we would have had to put it on the land.

Okay.

Um Jacob, if it's easy, can you throw up like a Google Earth shot of what we're looking at?

Because as you said, there's it's not a virgin site.

There looks like the an ancient pad or part of a pad that was there.

So I just want to make sure I understand relative to that pad versus what we're looking at here on the drawings.

That's is that the what you termed the broken bituminous material that was going to fall within the 20-foot buffer.

So yeah, they you can see part of it, it does expand a little bit more because actually we've got wetland um plants that are growing on top of the pavement.

Yeah.

Right now, uh we dug down and we found additional pavement.

So in that area, we augered a little bit there.

So there is it, it's not just this, it's it does go a little bit north on this page.

Um, but that area is the closest area to the wetland, and it's about the similar distance as what we're proposing.

Okay.

The reason I ask is because you're this is this is just like an odd place.

Like we've got Bailey Road right there, and your next door neighbor, which I believe is GPD opto electronics.

They came in a couple of times.

The folks on Bailey Road had some comments, especially like late use hours, things of that nature, right?

Smell of gas, 2 a.m.

deliveries, that kind of thing.

So I'm gonna ask you about deliveries and hours or proposed hours, as much as you can speak to that for a multi-contractor building, but also how close are you getting to whatever that is, 18 or 20 Bailey Road, as we see it now.

So I think our let me just make sure our site plan shows it.

Yeah, I mean I'm assuming all setbacks are met.

I just want to try and get a sense of.

I'm just trying to figure out what page to show you that shows it really well.

Um you could go to the overall site plan.

Oh, okay.

So if you go to the overall site plan, yeah, that one right there.

You can actually see, and you can't see it on the screen, but on your plan, you can actually see the um pavement line on your plan.

So we've got a good hundred plus.

Yeah, so we're not getting we're not getting any closer because the the we're actually closer with the existing pavement edge to that new section of wetland um than we are with the proposed development.

Okay.

So we're making it less non-conforming.

Um, but there's still going to be a whole lot more buffer than our next door neighbor did has to that residential development because have you know a good portion of the site is unusable for us.

Yeah, I don't have the same concerns of your site that I do of your next door neighbor, but um the only other question I have is going to be proposed hours of operation.

How are you approaching that?

So they are per tenant.

Yeah.

So it's most likely going to be your electricians, your plumbers, and I I'm I would hate to put an hour on them.

I mean, they're not a great big noise maker.

It's not like you have tractor trailer trucks breaking in here or anything like that.

Um it's you it's really low-key uses, not heavy-duty uses.

Okay.

Yeah, and that's that is my sense.

I mean, we mentioned three trolley lane, which is I mean, also a good example.

I assume that's one of the places or one of the projects that you were looking at or that you were mimicking this.

I don't think so, but I'm I have it written down because I want to take a look at it.

All right, from a design guideline standpoint, we really like it.

It's also very public, it's along the highway, it's a budding sum residential, I believe as well.

So that's a good use case for what we're trying to do here.

Uh I'll leave it at that.

Anyone from the board have any follow-up questions or any concerns?

Um, on that really quick on the uh trolley lane.

Jacob, is that which is that the one that we had some site compliance issues relating to the design?

There are three buildings on Trolley Lane that are uh recently constructed in the last 10 years, and I I would say all of them included in that one in terms of the architecture uh comply well with the design guidelines.

It's 15, 21 in 25, I think, and uh 25 is the Morton building, which is probably what I prefer, but the other ones look equally or just about as nice.

Sure.

I I just wanted to make sure that when we're talking about the design guidelines that if she were to take a ride out there that if there were any items that were not compliant with what we had approved, that she wasn't using that as a point of reference.

Right, that's a good point, yeah.

Um the other issue, or not the issue, uh just a question and to Jacob's point.

Is this a Morton building or is this something different?

And say that again.

A Morton building.

It's a steel building.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

I'm pretty well satisfied with everyone everything I'm seeing here.

Um can you speak to some of Mr.

Lafontaine's uh issues with regard to the parking being striped in front of your loading dock, which I assume you will not need, so that does that drop us to 49 and mezzanine footage is part of your calculations.

So is that not determined?

Um let me since we're gonna continue this anyways.

Um the mezzanine question I think I'm gonna wait on to address.

Um they were doing it as potentially adding, not they didn't know if the tenant would need it.

So it was it was an idea to to have it approved if they need it.

So let me look into that a little bit more.

Okay, we'll take the money.

I'm just exactly.

Um, so there's that.

As far as parking, I mean, I did permit another one of these in Hampstead, and they have parking in front of their loading docks, and it works well.

I mean, you they're gonna park in it, they're not driving garages, they're just for them to unload and load their equipment, and usually into the truck that is parked right in front of there.

Um, so it's not it's not like a loading bay that um you need to have it clear for.

Okay.

All right, if there are any other comments or questions at this time.

Uh Jeff.

I guess the only concern that we might need to talk about later would be deliveries, if there are any.

I mean, your deliveries are probably gonna be Amazon, UPS, yeah.

Well, I'm sure I you know, I don't know if plumbers go and get their own stock for every truck, or they get one big mass thing, delivery from some other truck.

I have no idea.

It's just one of those things you might want to consider at a later date.

It's just hangover from at least for me.

I don't want to speak for Jeff, but like it's just hangover from the place next door, but that's a more industrial use.

It's like a single industrial use.

All right.

Well, with all that in mind, thank you very much.

Sorry about the misfires at the beginning.

I will um Mr.

Chair, I move to continue.

Mr.

Chair, before you any direction on the traffic uh review, do you want this reviewed by Parnell at all?

I mean, personally, I don't think we need it reviewed, but I'm happy to be overruled on mass.

To go around in circles, yeah.

On an industrial road, yeah.

I think it's fine.

There's a lot of traffic.

All right.

So no traffic review necessary, I don't think.

We've got a motion from Damon.

Second from I'm gonna give it to Bianca.

Don't just try to sneak in there at the end.

She said it first.

We have a motion, we have a second.

I assume there's no discussion.

Seeing none.

All those in favor of continuance, it's unanimous.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Jacob, it's 9 57, which means we get to do our last one.

We haven't seen Bluebird in a while.

Two thirties technically.

1030 is the cutoff.

I know.

We're doing way better than I thought.

Bianca.

Mr.

Chair, I will be recusing myself from this application.

That is correct.

You gave me a heads up about that.

Bianca's cheating is going home early.

I'm not going.

Let the record reflect.

Thank you.

Jason.

All right.

So Jacob, before we do this, and I'm gonna try and do it correctly this time.

Uh we've got Bluebird's new business.

Uh it is new business.

They were approved by the board in 2022, 23.

Uh, but that plan is uh since expired.

You granted an extension uh a recent uh 2024, but as of 25, the extension expired, and they've now reconfigured the site in terms of the building layout and the um adding to traditional storage units.

All right.

Well uh this is our final piece of new business.

This is Blue Bird Salem LLC site plan, a public hearing for self-storage facility containing one 1557,000 square foot storage building and two 4,050 square foot seamless for a traditional storage buildings with conditional use permit for reduced parking.

Jacob, is the plan complete?

Yes, the plan's complete.

Excellent.

Ms.

Chair move the plan.

Second, thank you, Jim.

So we got a motion from Damon a second from Jim.

Uh any discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor.

Except the plan is complete.

So thank you.

Uh Jacob abutters.

Uh the abutters are as follows.

If you're here, please make it by saying so uh hook laboratories, three industrial way, LLC, CB Goodnow and Associates Inc.

Lemons Direct LLC, NPM, Realty Trust, Salem Athletic Club.

And that is all.

Thank you.

All right.

Nice to see you.

Nice to see you.

My name is Bridget Sousa with Peach Nordstrom Associates representing the applicant Bluebird.

So as Jacob mentioned, we got a planning board approval on December 13th of 2022 for a facility that was an L-shaped building that had a footprint of approximately 65,500 square feet, three stories per total of 196,500 square feet.

Because of cost of building, timing, Bluebird having other projects, the permit lapsed.

We did do two extensions, but Bluebird revisited this project, really wants to put something on this site and came up with the redesign of a box building with a footprint of 51,819 square feet for a total of uh 155,457, with uh two additional outbuildings each totaling uh 4,050 square feet.

Um so you have a total of 163,500 roughly.

Um so the project uh proposes 24 parking spaces and four uh loading spaces, um obviously all of our landscaping uh utilities, lighting, um, and stormwater management systems.

Uh we tried to keep everything as similar as possible to the former project.

So we still uh have a wet pond designed, and we also have an underground infiltration system.

Um the Jacob View to go to the grading and drainage sheet.

Uh so the underground infiltration system sits in the parking area near the the pavement area, excuse me, near the traditional uh areas, and then the wet pond is at the bottom.

So the site it drops 60 feet from the top corner down through the frontage along 93.

So the building um the building obviously on the old design, we had a second layer uh with a loading area up there, but it was just not feasible.

Um this project, we do have a rotating wall uh close to the cul-de-sac just because of that grade change.

Uh finished floor elevation sits roughly around 254 for all three buildings, requiring us to have roughly uh 20-foot wall there.

Um that we've provided a bunch of landscaping to kind of ease that look, um, especially along the frontage of 93.

Uh we are also requesting uh conditional use permit for a reduced uh parking count uh due to just not needing those parking spaces.

Uh the former perm uh permit we had one approved.

Uh 40 spaces was required.

We were approved for 30 on this project, 36 spaces are required in requesting uh to only have 24.

Um we didn't want to add any unnecessary impermanence area as well as you know the cost that comes along with building that.

Um blue bird has uh looked at their existing facilities uh all through New Hampshire, and at any given time on a busy Saturday or Sunday, board show their busiest days.

You know, you have seven or eight cars at most in a parking lot, um, only two employees, max, so it's just not needed to have those additional parking spaces.

Um Jacob, if you could go to the landscaping plan.

Uh so like I said, we provided some landscaping along 93.

We know it's an important um for you guys.

Uh last time we were here, there was concerns from the abutter um about the clearing.

In this area, these are all birch trees in here, right?

So as soon as you start to take some of those down, you run into issues with them falling over.

It's very common with birch trees.

So we're just proposing to clear that whole area and throw in some arboritis and pine trees as well.

Evergreens fast growing provides a really good screening.

And that was something that the abutter at the last permitting was okay with.

So we're gonna have a monument sign in here, plant that up with some flowering.

We had submitted that to uh Jacob, I think last week.

Um showing snow storage areas as required.

Um I think that's I think that covers just about everything.

Do you guys have any questions?

Well, before we do that, we're gonna go to Jacob for any follow-up from the uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So uh you already asked this, but this and Bridget already clarified, but they've come in uh a couple times to extend it, they're coming in for this new configuration, uh hence why they're here.

In terms of the changes, they're reducing the square footage of that storage building, adding the two one-story traditional storage buildings.

Uh no flood that are uh got that there are wetlands on site with no impact, uh, no floodplain on site.

Uh did a good job going over the drainage.

We are uh pending RCCD third party uh review, so that is out right now.

It was received for the prior project, but uh is now being reviewed for the revisions.

They're on town water and town sewer.

I've got that they might need uh a sewer extension permit, and their AOT, which had previously been received for the former project, will need to be amended.

Uh Bridget already alluded to this, but there's a 50 uh foot grade difference, so erosion control is gonna be a major concern during construction.

We're wanting to suit that uh you know they control it.

They're proposing erosion control blankets.

Um the other thing we note is that the applicant can't disturb the manor parkway uh uh roadway until 2027 because of the five-year moratorium.

They've got a note that uh states that on the plan.

Uh when they came before you the last time, a lot of the discussion was on the architecture, and obviously, this was the this was the previous building that villain has changed uh kind of back to this.

Uh what the staff at the time would advocate for was that they utilize uh similar uh uh design as they had in Londonderry and talking with the applicant, the Londonderry building, I guess, is that only prototype, and and all their other built-ins have been constructed with this uh motif with the gray and the blue uh masonry.

But there are some aspects that have been changed that I guess I would ask for the board uh uh to weigh in on and and presumably support.

And uh one of those is that the fact that they they did eliminate, they had these uh kind of blacked out false windows in certain areas uh that add you know at least some element of transparency.

These these uh windows that they're currently proposing do the same or is similar uh or try to achieve a similar uh effect, but um you know they had those kind of intermittently uh throughout the back of the building as well, facing 93.

We've talked a lot about uh 93, the view shed on 93, whether it be on uh key waiting or trolley lane, um, and we certainly want to be sensitive to uh to it in this instance.

Uh the other thing that they revised, so this was their original elevation that was proposed in 2022, and then uh they modified it to comply with that Londonderry uh motif and material and now they're proposing similar uh to their original design but without some of those features like the uh the blacked-out windows and the pie lasters are a little bit uh not as uh there's not as much change in material as we had previously seen.

The the secondary thing you see here too is that this was the original landscape, and that was proposed, and then uh this is what was provided after.

Obviously, some of that's done because the scale is probably a little bit different, but uh that's to say that they enhance that they paid specific attention to that.

So I would uh ask that at a minimum uh you know they put the same kind of quantity uh of plantins as were proposed under the 22 plan uh and potentially enhance it if need be.

But uh when you look uh and it's a little hard to tell, but you know, when you look at the site, um they're essentially going to clear uh from the cell tower just south of the uh Brookdale bridge that goes over uh from a cell tower down to um the Salem Athletic Club, I believe is what's here.

Right now there's a lot of existing vegetation, and and obviously I understand that, but we probably want to be uh considerate of how that view shed is going to change because you know when you travel along 93 right now, uh much of Manor Parkway is obscured, six industrial way is uh pretty uh well set back as well.

And when uh you know the site is is uh the site work begins, it'll really open up that space.

So I think we just want to be cognizant of um of what that will look like.

So you can kind of see that here right now the site is entirely vegetated, and uh essentially all of this vegetation is going to be removed.

So when you drop the guy there, you can you know get a sense.

I think they even had I don't know if they still have the you have the you have the witness uh marker or uh it's still there.

And is that essentially going to be where the building's gonna be located?

Um the the furthest point.

It would that was located at the corner of the old building.

Okay.

Um but it should be pretty similar.

So you can see like the all you know, the majority of this vegetation.

This was the corner of the uh previously proposed building, but all of this vegetation all the way to uh the uh property line with Salem Athletic World uh is gonna be removed.

So it'll really open things up there.

So all that to say uh you know, be important that we pay uh attention to that uh that uh view shed.

Uh windows, I I noted windows uh could be added, particularly on the north side of the elevation face an I-93 to comply with the design guidelines and master plan consideration should be given to retain and masonry block on pile lassers to break up facade.

So their current one is a little bit more monolithic in terms of there is some uh variation in the colors, but I think previously they had variation in materials as well.

So that might be something the board could weigh in on uh or would be something the board could weigh on win on.

Um truck turning plan has been received.

This is gonna go out for a third-party traffic review.

They've already established the escrow count.

It was previously reviewed under the 22 approval, so we wanted to have that reviewed again for this application.

Um noted, and I think uh in talking with Bridget, they're gonna correct it is that the height of the building uh was shown at 35 and a half stories, which would exceed our height limit and require variance, so I anticipate that that will be corrected on a future revision.

Um parking calculations, they will need a conditional use permit uh which uh was already touched on.

Uh I touched on the master plan.

I just wrote the uh recommendation along the business park, which is Pelham Road, I-93 to commercial drive states to maintain high quality development, including build and design landscaping and signage, preserve visual buffers along roadway and I-93, and uh noted landscaping, particularly along I-93 should be enhanced.

Their previous plan uh proposed 445 uh different plantins.

A lot of that were uh uh ornamentals and and uh annuals, but this current plan proposes 237 plantins, and probably the more consequential item is the reduction in trees.

Previously 64 trees, they're currently proposing 49 trees.

So I I think it'd be good.

I know that the building itself is reducing in footprint, but I think the same level of sensitivity uh exists, and it'd be good to have uh the landscape plan be consistent uh with the prior plan.

Uh they've got canopy lights, they have signage shown, two wall signs, uh one on the manor parkway and one on the I93 sign.

I saw in this uh submission here there's a monument sign or uh free standing sign, and uh that'll have to be located on the plan, of course.

I think my understanding was it was on the manor parkway side.

Um design guidelines.

I would just note that those also say maintain high quality development, including building design.

Landscaping and signage, impact fees will be due for both public safety and traffic, outside inspections are required.

They've got their uh hours of operation recommendation tonight would be continuation as we're waiting for third-party reviews, staff approvals, and outstanding items to be addressed.

Thank you.

Mr.

Lockwind, I appreciate that.

Before we go to the board, would any member of the public like to speak on this plan?

It's all operators tonight.

All right.

The board we go.

Just uh one comment.

This is uh at least the second plan tonight that spoke about arboritis as far as plantings go.

And if I'm not mistaken, the conservation committee uh views those as an an invasive and non-natural species to the area and have alternatives that they recommend when people are uh doing such plans.

Yeah, I I think in certain instances the the discussion we've had with the conservation or I've had it with the conservation commission, I guess, is that um in certain instances we have different from my perspective, we have different intents, right?

Uh uh commercial property in the industrial park adjacent to I-93.

You know, the goal there might be more the aesthetics and preserving the view shed along 93 uh versus uh you know eastern red cedar over an arborvitae.

Uh but maybe it could be intermix.

I get that's just the staff opinion is if it was environmentally sensitive, uh absolutely I think it warrants uh you know high bush blueberry and whatever other good uh you know uh vegetation we want to add.

I'm not being sarcastic, but uh um but in this instance I think that's replayed uh I think that it's getting clipped adjacent to I-93.

It it it probably warrants uh you know the aesthetic would probably for my perspective outweigh uh you know a native species that might not do as well.

If I may too.

Um I I definitely misspoke.

So if you look at the landscaping plan, the only arborvides proposed are are actually the dumpster screening.

Um we are proposing junipers and blue spruces for those evergreen trees uh along that buffer.

Yeah, but so this is can if I just if I can make a comment.

This is really for staff.

This isn't so much about your plan.

Is there an opportunity to talk more about deciduous trees interplanted with evergreen?

Because I know that like the evergreen, especially when we're talking like commercial areas for screening makes a lot of sense.

But you know, I have a pretty big problem here.

If we look at the document that was handed out to us, this you know, view shed.

You know, we're wiping out a massive number of trees.

We're wiping out a lot of vegetation, which I don't necessarily think we need to, which is going to lead me to a question about signage.

And any opportunity we have to replace any vegetation that's cut down, even in a screening or ornamental position, any chance we get for shade trees is something I'd like us to at least take more of a look at.

I say with maybe 45 minutes left of my chairman power.

All right.

Um sorry guys.

I didn't tell you.

There's public matters, otherwise Mark Gross would be in the back of the room.

Uh and that leads me to a question about signs.

So I'm seeing signs on two faces of the building, plus you have a monument sign.

Yep.

And so Jacob, are we good on signage without some kind of a permit?

You you previously allowed uh 93 to be considered a secondary frontage.

There's some discussion on it, but uh for instance trolley lane, there's a small sliver of a parcel uh that runs behind those parts uh the behind those properties.

Yeah, if it wasn't the case, then you know, based off a press past precedent, the board probably would allow uh it'd probably be allowed by right for them to have two signage, one on trolley lane, one on I-93.

Here they have frontage on on both.

So two wall signs, and you can have a free standing sign in conjunction with uh your wall sign as well.

Okay, thank you for the reminder.

And then the other question I had.

Uh we talked a little bit about this, but you know, in terms of the white birch trees, I think I'm I'm channeling my inner Paul Pellateer.

Anytime a white birch tree in this town gets cut down, Paul insists that it gets replaced.

Is it possible?

But this is this would be down in front.

Uh screening not the not arborvitae, I think it blue spruce or junior junipers that we were just talking about here.

Is it possible to include white birch as an interplanted species in this or not so much?

Yeah.

We could take a look at that definitely.

I appreciate that.

It saves Paul the trouble of asking the question later.

Uh any other comments from the board, Mr.

Hatch.

Uh I just wanted to make sure because I that the traffic flow and the traffic patent hasn't changed.

Oh, so we're utilizing the same uh driveway location.

Uh didn't change that at all.

Um before uh the drive came up around the back of the building, and we had provided enough room for a fire truck to turn around up there and then come back down on this one.

The fire truck uh specs can make it around those traditional use buildings.

So uh flow throughout that uh area can still work.

Okay.

So fires signed off on this two.

Uh fire believe I think we got comments from them on the previous approval or proposal, but we haven't on this application.

None on this one, yeah.

Right.

Still pandemic.

I'm sorry, Bridget, just to follow up.

Can you you're saying that a fire truck hits the cul-de-sac, comes up and can go around the outside of those two pre stamps?

If you actually look at um sheet 10, we include the fire truck turning plan on our plan set.

So it can make that turn uh around.

And that's the ladder truck.

Okay, and last time we had them coming up to the what is the one.

Yeah, it was a it was a dead end, right?

So uh the roadway, the driveway continued up.

It's like some three-point turn up there, they had the new update.

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, it came up here.

Yeah, then it had to pull forward.

So we left enough space for them to do a three-point turn and come back down.

Yeah, there was some talk with like gravel or partial gravel.

Yeah, yeah, we had to do a cutout into the slope with gravel for them to be able to back up into it and then turn around.

Got it.

Okay, great.

Cool.

Mr.

Norcross.

I just want to reiterate.

I you know, keeping as much vegetation there would I would uh look very favorably on any of the existing trees that you're able to keep and maintain that.

It it appears to me based on the drawings that you passed out that essentially clear cutting that and then just planning all new.

Is that the plan?

Yeah, just because of the uh gray difference in this site, um, they're gonna have to disturb uh large amount of area to get this building constructed.

Uh and I would just say the the the more plantings the better.

We have competing requirements here.

You are building this great facility that you want to be seen on 93, and I'm in favor of hiding it as much as possible.

Uh it is the uh it this is the entryway to all of New Hampshire, uh at least the good parts.

And uh, you know, it is the entrance to Salem.

It's you're just gonna see it.

Um I am very much in favor of having them see trees and not industrial buildings.

Either that or a different gray big mass.

Yeah.

Yeah, I just want to second what Mr.

Norcross said because it based on what your just because I like hugging trees, but also because based on the drawings that you've submitted here, it doesn't look like there's a whole hell of a lot of signage.

So whatever we can do to maximize saving vegetation along 93, I would highly encourage making you know making accommodations, of course, for signage on 93, which I recognize that you need uh any other questions or comments?

No.

Seeing none uh the recommendation is for continuance.

I would agree with that.

I will entertain a motion as such.

Mr.

Chair, I move to continue.

Second.

Well, we have a motion from Mr.

Norcross, a second from Mr.

Hatch.

Any discussion for the board?

See none.

All those in favor.

That's unanimous.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your time.

It's a great plan.

All right, Jacob.

We're on to public matters, and I know that we have said at the beginning we were going to talk about amendments.

Before we get into public matters or anything else, is it worth pushing the workshop on the amendments to the 28th?

Yeah.

Uh yeah, probably wouldn't uh entertain it.

I think the only thing maybe after we review the public matters items is just maybe some feedback on the night club because we were gonna notice the 28th as a public hearing.

Uh which we could do, and if we if we don't need to, I mean, I mean, if you we're not able to, that's okay too.

But um, you know, if we get feedback specifically on the night club and you're okay with everything else, then uh that would probably be fine uh from my perspective.

Fair enough.

How many public matters do we have?

Uh just uh three, and of course the public matters file didn't transfer over.

So just need to wait one second and I can get this to convert.

Here we go.

Should we do that?

Sorry.

I don't know how that one everything else transferred over except for this file.

It's almost there.

But I tried to transfer it over earlier, and it must not have.

I guess well, I'd like to defer to the people who are here, but uh while this loads, uh BJ's wants to revise their uh propane enclosure before it was gonna be a vinyl fence, and now they're proposing uh a uh block wall and it'll match the building.

My only comment was that um they also put the same cope in as the building.

Um the same cope, like the same uh cornice on on the top of the uh enclosure just so that it complements the building and uh I can show you photos after, but I think now that this is loaded, I'll pause on that and we'll go to closure's out front.

The enclosures out front.

But um since the applicant is here for the Rockenham Grand Casino and they waited all this time, I'll uh pause on the BJ uh public matter and go to Rockenham Grand Casino.

So the first uh item is gonna be the uh signage that we'll talk about.

So they are gonna rebrand to Rockenham Grand Casino.

I think obviously previously it was approved as live, and then when they last came in, you saw it as Salem Casino, I think it's just a generic placeholder, and they've opted to uh you know pay uh uh homage to the uh rock the racetrack, of course, and it's gonna be the Rockenham Grand Casino.

Uh they got a conditional use permit from the board.

You granted a conditional use permit, and it was primarily based off of the allowance, the historical uh accumulative signage, and uh what they were proposing was consistent with that historical cumulative signage.

What they would like to do, and at the staff level I'd be supportive of is they essentially want to reallocate some of their primary wall signage to the entry signs, which are more pedestrian scale at the uh entrance ways.

So uh I think it'd be a benefit for the community because you get uh you know a reduced size primary sign, and this sign is relatively modest at 14.5 square feet.

Uh the and again the cumulative sign total is no greater than what you previously approved.

So uh this sign stays at a hundred square feet.

This sign um the entry sign increases uh modestly, and then the primary sign um I guess in this instance I think increases, but the other sign offsets that I think it's this sign here that offsets it.

So this was previously 224.5 square feet.

It'll now be 174.5, and then this sign again will modestly actually that signing uh decreases as well.

Um but the cumulative signage ends up not being any greater than what was previously approved.

That seems fine.

Okay.

So you mean you're not triggered by the so you or anything?

I'm not triggered, I just all right.

We'll talk about that in the parking lot.

All right.

Yeah, it seemed like a fair trade.

I mean the you know it.

I know that one sign does increase slightly, but um, you know, I think the reallocation makes sense.

Uh the other thing that we're really excited to talk about is uh you had a condition of uh if you remember the facade needed to be broken up uh and in consult consultation with our design uh consultant, we talked about adding a static mural display to the side facing um uh pleasant street, uh Route 38.

And what they've opted to do, I think at the time it was just a placeholder, kind of an abstract art piece, and what they're proposing to do is they're again paying uh honor to the previous racetrack and and this instance their namesake, and they've got various images, historic historical images from the racetrack, and then behind that are uh blue roses, so the blue complies with their uh or is consistent with their color motif, and then the roses I think are Churchill Down uh, you know, one of their logos is the rose, so it kind of ties in the parent company Churchill Downs to this site.

Um this was required to be reviewed by the plan and board priority issuance of a sign permit.

And it was also uh deed restricted that it be artwork, not advertising.

And where is this specifically?

It's on the uh facade that faces uh Pleasant Street.

I think I'm street okay, yeah.

So I believe it's shown here, it's not shown here, that's the detail.

But if I go to the elevation, I can show you architecture.

So it would be this facade, so this is essentially standing.

Uh I guess kind of outside the food court.

Yeah.

And this is what they'd shown as a placeholder, which was pretty consistent with what was uh shown for the approval.

And then this is what they're showing uh now for this application.

Cool.

That's how that sounds great.

Is there gonna be any lighting on it?

Um lighting on it?

I don't think so.

That's this is their spec sheet, and I don't know if uh there will exterior lit.

So it'll be an exterior lit uh sign.

Um then they have uh a couple other minor things they uh which I was okay with, they changed the and uh uh be interested to hear what the board says, but I don't think it's a huge deal.

They changed the material up here.

Uh it's actually I think a higher quality material.

So you can see uh that here, and then they also changed the color palette slightly just based off of product availability, uh both of which are pretty minor.

It's essentially the same palette.

Uh so this kind of shows the iterations of what was uh proposed under public matters and now what's kind of uh uh proposed now that uh the design's been more uh further finalized.

J.

I'm not a designer.

Will you go back one more though?

I do have a comment.

Yep.

The uh move movement of the uh the logo over just one of those signs.

This I mean one of the windows.

Like to shift it back here.

Yeah.

I mean this the sign, uh, we could talk with the applicant and see if they're amenable to it.

The sign does help break up that plank facade, which was what the mural is accomplishing as well.

So I just think it's more prominent too.

It is yeah, I think this portion of the building projects out.

Can we step up and yeah, Ryan is uh uh here from if that chair is okay with it.

I'm listening I appreciate that you always defer to me after the fact, but you know I'm powerless.

Name and address for the record.

Sure.

Uh Ryan Jordan, uh senior vice president of real estate development for Churchill Downs based in Louisville, Kentucky.

Um so the question on the sign on the north facade, it was previously shown on an emergency exit stairwell.

It's a lit sign and we can't penetrate the exterior of that stairwell.

It's a new stairwell because of the change of use.

So we had to locate it or move it one bay to the west, so it's on uh the exterior of the building now.

Our preference was for bombs previously shown.

Fair enough.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh they did submit some uh renderings too, some elevations.

So I for one will just say I appreciate you guys embracing the history of the rock.

Thank you.

I think that's about it.

They they made also some minor changes to the site plan, but nothing I think is all that consequential.

They had a parking or speed table under the uh pedestrian bridge to the south, uh which caused issues with clearance, and they've uh banded the speed table and added a uh speed bump outside of the uh pedestrian bridge to accomplish the necessary clearance.

Um but those are the items that you had that memo included in your packet um that outlined the change material, the signage, the artwork, uh landscaping.

One thing that uh wasn't shown was uh landscape set for the area immediately around the building, and they've added that to the to the plan.

Um and then I talked about the changes to the civil set or items.

What are you projecting for an opening date?

Is that been expanded?

No, we're we're still targeting the middle of 2027.

Um a lot's gonna be determined based on how this winter goes.

Um driven by right now, the roof and the side is off where the event center gets built on the second floor.

So that construction when that goes back and what this winter is like when that's happening will dictate the the date.

So that's open right now.

It's open.

So uh we're trying to construct it back as quickly as possible, so we're targeting middle 2027 right now.

All right.

Anything else, Jacob?

That is it for this application, yeah.

That's great.

That all sounds fine.

Thank you.

We'll probably take going back to the um item I brought up for BJ's.

So uh they didn't submit a site plan with this application, but essentially if you're looking at the new building, it would be immediately in the foreground.

Uh actually you can kind of see it, I think.

I think it's this area here.

Um it's just the dimension doesn't quite show as well.

So it was previously, I believe a vinyl fence that wrapped the propane enclosure.

It'll now be um a uh uh uh block wall, and I think in this area they had to have it uh open for access.

So this will be facing the building, but the exterior elevations that face uh Broadway uh and the interior of the plaza will all be uh designed to match the um the exterior of the building, and then also I asked them to add the copin or the cornice so that um right now I think it was proposed as white, and I just asked them to have it be black to match the building, but I assume you're okay with that.

So I know when they came in front of us, I was totally opposed to having that up front, and I still never got a good answer as to why it couldn't have been out back.

Yeah, they they at the meeting they kind of just stated that that's you know the location that they needed it for their operational.

It was the site, if I recall correctly, it was the site circulation in the internal programming of of the store because they have the registers out in front of the store that the one of I know as as a BJ's customer that one of the issues is like if you're going to the propane area, if you're going to the tire center, you have to go around the back, and if you know you're getting your tires done, you have to either sit and wait in the waiting area that's in the back of the building, or go walk all the way to the front to get whatever you need and bring your massive boxes of things that you're getting at BJ's.

Which is why the tire center is in the front of this one.

Right.

So they put the tire center and the propane station out in the front for convenience for internal circulation parts.

I voted against the thing, but I got outloaded.

Terrible.

Yeah.

I don't think there's any revisiting.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So did I.

Jim and I were the lone ranges.

No, I don't think so.

Yeah.

Well, it seems like at this point they're just asking for uh changing the barrier.

Yeah, nothing we can do.

Okay.

All right, so it looks good.

It's upgrade.

It sounds like we are all varying degrees of okay.

Okay.

Good to reluctantly.

And I imagine fire department's fine with that.

Probably that maybe comments from fire, if I remember correctly.

Okay.

Fire has any conflicting comments.

I can't wait till someone's going to be able to do that.

Yes.

I'm sorry, what was that?

Just knock it back for public comments on the 28th if they have to issue if any kind.

Okay.

This is our last one.

Yeah, the final one.

Uh and Sarl's doing a really good job.

I didn't realize this was till October, so I probably skipped it, but I just more for informational purposes.

They're gonna do a 5K run and walk at the Field of Dreams October 31st, 2026, 8 a.m.

to 12 p.m.

So uh it's very similar to the I think it was miles for mom's, I think.

So pretty much the same idea.

Good for that.

Um because uh they're gonna apply for a temporary event permit and I sign off on those, I bring those to you just to I guess make you aware and then see if you have any concerns.

I don't know if anybody observed anything with the last 5k they did.

Sign away.

All right.

And that is uh that is it.

Um the only other thing before we break is I would just ask, you know, for some feedback if you if you would like me to add uh definition for nightclub and then also add that to the um ordinance.

Some members of the board seem to be scheming with their eyes, but I think the nightclub definition is good.

I think it's a good one night club was I'm gonna play devil's advocate here because almost the entire Route 28 abutential.

Residential.

So I to me I I you know I wouldn't include the nightclubs in this.

I I just wouldn't do it.

It it it would take out SEVMAR, the one that's that would be classified as a nightclub now as it sits.

And I I just what are we gonna do?

Just it is a nightclub.

I was like, what are we opening it?

Yes.

What are we imagining as the key component of the nightclub definition that's any place that's open to serve liquid can stay open until whatever the state allows anyway, which is one or two and one.

Yeah, but like part twenty eight.

I'm not dancing at part twenty eight.

Route twenty-eight was there a long time before these residential.

Um so I think that uh I I completely understand uh what the resident um who had made the comment.

I totally understand what he's saying and and why he was mentioning it.

Um but I think that with the time restrictions in the distance restriction that we have within the ordinance is written, or well, as drafted, um sort of checks that box because it wouldn't I mean what nightclub uh I don't know how many of you guys go to nightclubs, but um I imagine that you're not going to one at nine o'clock at night and leaving at ten.

So I I I don't know what it would what nightclub would operate um and have to close by ten.

So I think that it sort of removes the possibility of a nightclub being there unless they want to go and seek a variance.

All I know is when I was going to a nightclub, we would get there at 11 and leave at three.

Yeah, you know, and we don't want a nightclub.

So the next thing you know, someone's gonna call the 990 nightclub.

Exactly.

Or uh in the well, I think I would be in favor of tabling that and dealing with that separately.

Okay.

But if we do that, how does that affect the thing?

We had a whole thing about that a second ago.

What's that?

Uh well if you table it you could you could table that one.

Or I guess one thing I could do is we could move forward with it.

Uh we've talked about it for uh it does go back to a year, and part of it was I'm looking at uh Mr.

Sue Harlan, I believe is how you press him, provided uh some of the examples that he he uh found, and a lot of it go went back to it being kind of broadly defined.

So in our definition, we had similar language that said an entertainment facility for dancing concerts or other live performances, uh performance unusually consisting of bar or lounge.

So to me, I think when this originated, it was kind of a narrow issue that we said uh these uses that come in under the RSA that allows the cigar bar are kind of unique in that you know they have these, you know, real not odd, but you know, ten p.m.

to one p.m.

and there are all these of uh impacts that are associated with it, that's kind of limit those uses.

Uh these are kind of more defined that you know, Loretta's last call, you're right.

I mean, if you provide entertainment, I mean, is somebody uh with a open mic or somebody does karaoke once a week, uh or you know, are we telling them they can't do that?

And and I think it was more so that we had observed some concerns from uh use and wanted to kind of narrowly address it as well.

Really what generated this was the cigar lounge, the proposed cigar lot right that was gonna have like four or five hundred people.

Right.

Yeah, live entertainment.

What you do is you restrict don't restrict the use, maybe you were take a look at restricting the size.

Well, could we not just before we completely abandon use?

Could we not talk about restricting the use?

Perhaps redefining it with live entertainment as one of uh as the primary purpose, right?

Because the cigar like if we look at if we look at Puff, right?

If we look at the cigar lounge, you know, they would argue we're cigar lounge, like at state law.

But realistically, if you look at their Instagram, they are absolutely 100% a nightclub.

I mean, they're shooting dollar bills off in the years.

Like so, like, is there a way for us to write a definition in which live entertainment, music, dancing, etc.

is like the primary purpose or goal of that particular establishment, and then on the other end to like, you know, you know, somebody has an open mic situation, right?

Can we not address that on a case-by-case basis under public matters like we do for like for food trucks, for example.

Somebody wants to come in for I think it I think it'd be kind of vague or or broad, right?

And then to say, well, uh they can have an open mic once a night and provide live entertainment, and then that's the extent of it.

So I I think that um another way that to sort of look at that is um and I don't know the the RSA in specifically, but I I know that the whole the whole conversation come up about the um cigar bar over at the Coca-Cola building about um the amount of sales of liquor versus cigars, right?

And that being the determining factor of well, are you selling more cigars?

Are you selling more liquor, right?

But if we're saying that the primary the primary purpose of the business would be entertainment, you there's no sort of monetary value you can put on on the entertainment.

The entertainment may be the driving factor, but you it would be really hard to prove that people are going there for the entertainment because that wouldn't be reflected in their sales.

Is that does that make sense?

Well, unless you have a cover charge or something or you suppose which is a slippery thing.

I think it's a slippery slip.

I think just in the interest of thinking about you know, just it just because we move forward with the cigar bar doesn't mean that we can't come back and address it the week later if we wanted to.

Yeah, I think if you need to define and and restrict nightclubs, which um you know we're just getting overwhelmed with the applications for those right now, but we can do that.

We also have an upcoming uh zoning update that will be happening in the in the near future, so potentially that could be addressed uh under that scope.

I just don't think I'll get to language tonight that will be.

I like the idea of moving forward with it as proposed, and then like you said, it doesn't preclude you from going back and you know adding uh uh nightclub or other uses, but at least this way it's on the books.

It's it's a concern that was brought up and that you know we're now a year out and we haven't uh uh incorporated any part of our uh into our ordinance, and we should probably do so.

It's not that we don't agree with the re or that I don't agree with the resident's comment.

I just we gotta move forward on this and then we can we can address it.

Okay, it's gonna muddy the water.

That's all you can do.

Okay.

We should ban food alcohol.

Motion we agree people is a good thing to there.

You go.

People are banned, it's official now.

There is a motion in the second on the table from Mr.

Hervey and Miss Carlson.

Any discussions seeing none, all those in favor, it's unanimous.

Good night, everyone.

Good morning.