A meeting of the Planning Board was held on September 24, 2013 at the Salem Town Hall, 33 Geremonty Drive, Salem, NH.

Transcription

1 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September, MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF September, 0 A meeting of the Planning Board was held on September, 0 at the Salem Town Hall, Geremonty Drive, Salem, NH. PRESENT: Robert Campbell, Chairman; Ed DeClercq, Vice-Chairman; Phyllis O'Grady, Secretary; Jim Keller, Selectman's Rep; Ronald Belanger; Linda Harvey; Paul Pelletier; and Ross Moldoff, Planning Director. The meeting was called to order at :00 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Campbell introduced the board members. Commercial Landscaping Awards Mr. Moldoff explained that every year we thank the businesses that win awards from the Garden Club for commercial landscaping. We've been doing this for the past years. This year we drove around town and chose sites for awards. Roseanne Brown, President of Salem Garden Club, is here with Linda Lemay. She announced the following winners of the commercial landscaping awards: Avatar Properties, Dunkin Donuts, Eastpointe Plaza, Equity Industrial Partners, Jaygee's Ice Cream, and Tuscan Market. Mr. Moldoff showed pictures of each site as their names were called. There were no withdrawals from the agenda. REVIEW OF MINUTES.) September, 0 Regular Meeting Mr. Pelletier made a motion, seconded by Mr. Belanger to approve the minutes of September, 0 as printed. VOTE ON MOTION: 0 (Mrs. Harvey and Mr. Keller abstained.) Chairman Campbell went over the agenda. OLD BUSINESS.) - KEEWAYDIN DRIVE SITE PLAN Public Hearing for change-of-use (medical office and surgery center) at - Keewaydin Drive, Map, Lots and. Continued from //. Abutters: There were no abutters present. Mr. Moldoff read the following staff comments: Town of Salem, NH Page

2 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September, He discussed previous hearings and revisions from the previous plan. The outside engineering review was approved. Traffic was an issue that we talked about at the last meeting. We talked about circulation at the last meeting, and we asked the applicant to clarify. They're using a provision in the parking regulations that says the minimum parking aisle width for 0 degree parking spaces should be feet, except for the expansion of existing parking lots, where foot width is already provided. You may want to talk about that. We talked about the parallel parking spaces up front. You asked for input from our traffic consultant. He has a memo from Steve Pernaw, who said the size of the parking stalls is appropriate, parallel spaces can only be accessed from one direction. Mr. Moldoff read Mr. Pernaw's comments regarding the parallel parking spaces. In short, he says the parallel parking spaces are usable but they won't be convenient. We can talk about that. We may want to discuss how the loading dock will be utilized. The applicant did a traffic study. There will be about,00 trips a day. Mr. Pernaw gave a memo in response to that traffic study. He asked for a couple no truck signs to be added to the plan. There is an impact fee. It's the difference between an industrial building and a medical office building, $,0 paid prior to occupancy. The lot coverage will have to be verified with an as-built site plan prior to occupancy. The ZBA granted a variance for the front pavement to be feet to the front property line where 0 feet is required. There will be a public safety impact fee. He has an OK from Public Works, Safety Officer, and the Fire Department. He has a recommendation for conditional approval from the Engineering Department. They want a detail on the tree wells added to the plan and a minor note to the existing conditions plan. Recommendation The issues are the parking lot layout and the aisle widths. If you're satisfied, he can give conditions to act on the plan tonight. Mark Gross, with MHF Design Consultants, is representing Keewaydin Properties LLC. He talked about the parking. Mr. Moldoff indicated the total number of parking spaces on each side of the building. In your site plan regulations you have a specification that % of the spaces need to be within 00 feet of the entrance. In this case we have parking on all sides of the building and there will be two main entrances. One will be on the northerly corner, and one on the opposite corner. In the back there is other parking, which will be primarily utilized by the employees. That number of spaces is a little more than the number of employees that will be occupying the space. We do have or access points in the back for employees. He thinks it's a pretty good distribution of parking. None of the spaces exceed 00 feet from any of the entrances. It's better than what we had in a similar facility on Stiles Road. Regarding the feet, he mentioned the existing parking on the northerly side. This site was built in the 0's. We're talking about a redevelopment site. We need to take advantage of what we have to work with. The feet has worked since the 0's. This is an expansion, we're expanding the parking. By using the feet, it allows us to add some additional parking. These types of facilities have a different parking ratio, so we need to maintain as many of these parking spaces as possible. Additionally, we provided a foot wide access aisle in front of the building, as well as on the side and to the rear. The Fire Department is satisfied with the access aisles around the entire property. In terms of the parallel parking spaces, Mr. Pernaw was satisfied with taking out the retaining wall. We will grade that area out and put tree wells in, and not impact the parallel parking spaces. Regarding the issue of this being a busy parking lot, he mentioned the post office site, where you have or sites that access a driveway. You have the post office, Weathervane, the pharmacy, and Citizens Bank, all accessing a center drive with parallel parking spaces. This Town of Salem, NH Page

3 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September, is just one use and it's not as intense as retail, so he thinks those parallel parking spaces will work fine. They're critical in the parking numbers that we need for this site. Mr. Pelletier said it doesn't concern him that there is parallel parking out front. But what does concern him is, which direction the cars will be parallel parking. He agrees with a one way pass through, and make it so the driver's door is toward the driveway. To have a two way in front of there, people will be parallel parking in both directions and there will be chaos. Mr. Gross mentioned the situation at the post office with three retail uses using that area, and there has never been a problem there. Chairman Campbell explained his experience parking there. He thinks these will create more clutter because they are in a driveway that's a high density use. Mr. Belanger goes to the post office every day. He see cars on both sides and he never sees a problem there. Mr. Keller said these spaces will probably be self regulating. He mentioned the GPI memo from September th. He mentioned response regarding sight lines and vegetation. Are we cutting down additional vegetation? Mr. Gross thinks Mr. Pernaw's response to that was, that the board may want to have additional trees cut down. But looking towards the south, he's not sure if there's an issue with sight distance in that location. Mr. Moldoff then read the comments from Mr. Pernaw and the applicant's traffic consultant, where they said, to further enhance available sight line, vegetation should be cut back on the north and south lines of each of the site driveways. So their traffic consultant is recommending that and if the board so desires, it should be indicated on the plan. Mr. Moldoff thinks it should be indicated on the plan. Mr. Keller asked, we want vegetation cut? Mr. Moldoff said yes. Mr. Keller mentioned page of the memo, where it talks about volume to capacity ratios. He mentioned the Exit reconstruction, and 0 build scenario, and read where it says that in 0 we'll have all this traffic and the timing will be adjusted accordingly. Who will be doing the adjusting? Heather Monticup with GPI, said the State is putting in that project, so they'll be doing the signal timing tweaking. We didn't look at 0 conditions, we looked at 0 future conditions. We coordinated with Steve Pernaw on what to evaluate and we used information from the Osomor site. This put a good conservative estimate on future traffic volume conditions. Based on their 0 build numbers, the intersection is at level of service C, and is borderline D. We increase delay at that intersection overall by. seconds. There are minor impacts, but those signal timing changes will be done when the State comes in and implements the traffic signal. Mr. Keller mentioned the notation on the applicant's study mentions an observation period. How long is the observation period, and who will implement the timings? Ms. Monticup said the signal contractor that works on the State project will implement the signal timings and they will be out there for hours looking at traffic making sure it works, and if they get calls, they'll tweak it. It's only seconds of delay. There is no timing plan to help change that. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Moldoff, isn't there something that says, we're not allowed to approve anything that increases delay? Mr. Moldoff said you have traffic management regulations in your site plan. You can waive it, it talks about traffic impact assessments. He read what the regulations say. Mr. Keller thought there was specific language we used with respect to delay. Mr. Moldoff read from the regulations. Town of Salem, NH Page

4 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September, Ms. Monticup said we evaluated 0 conditions with double turn lanes onto Keewaydin. Mr. Keller doesn't want to approve something that violates our own regulations. Ms. Monticup said each lane movement doesn't drop a level of service, they're all the same. It's just the average of the whole intersection, the small increase that each movement has on the overall, drops it to a level of service D. Mr. Keller asked, is there a DBA assessment? Mr. Moldoff said that will be evaluated at the building permit level. Mr. Belanger said they did a study on existing things, and projecting out, and there will be a two second delay. We see projects with too much parking. He wants them to stay here and build. Ms. Monticup said we're projecting out traffic volumes to 0, so it includes developments that were approved but not built yet. It's a. second delay. Ms. O'Grady agrees that the parallel parking is OK. She is worried about foot spaces. For bigger vehicles, they will take up two spaces. Mr. Gross said most of these spaces have aisles that are larger than. It's a limited area and it's spaces that are further away. It's redevelopment. Ms. O'Grady likes that you moved the parking closer to the building. Chairman Campbell asked for public input. There was none. Mr. Belanger made a motion to approve with the stipulations to be read by Mr. Moldoff. Mrs. Harvey mentioned the elevation drawings. The elevation labeled north is really east. That's a correction you may want to make for the final set. Mr. Gross will make sure those are changed. SECOND by Mr. Pelletier. Mr. Moldoff read the following conditions:.) Prior to the building permit, pay for the outside inspections per the direction of the Engineering Department..) Prior to occupancy, pay the road and the public safety impact fees..) Prior to occupancy, construct all the improvements for the plan..) Prior to occupancy, provide a certified as-built plan..) Clear the vegetation to enhance the driveway sight distance..) All representations made by the applicant and all notes on the plan are incorporated as part of the approval. Mr. Gross asked, regarding the impact fees, he wants to make sure they include the exclusion of the prior uses in terms of how it was calculated. Mr. Moldoff said they do. Chairman Campbell asked about removal of vegetation. Is the vegetation to be removed identified? Mr. Moldoff said we can get it on the plan. It's what was recommended in the applicant's traffic study. Mr. Gross gave a picture to the board. Ms. Monticup explained it on the plan. We can put a sight line on the plan and show the area that's blocking it to be cleared. We meet all minimum sight distance requirements. This will enhance available sight lines. Town of Salem, NH Page

5 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September, Chairman Campbell said there was discussion about the big trees and those won't be touched. Mr. Gross said we meet the minimum sight distance requirements, and we'd like to save the trees. Mr. Moldoff said this is satisfactory to him. Chairman Campbell asked about the condition from Engineering. Mr. Moldoff explained that it's minor labeling on the plan. VOTE ON MOTION: - 0 NEW BUSINESS.) MAZRAANI SITE PLAN Public Hearing for revised site plan (use of garage bays for public inspections and repairs) at North Broadway, Map, Lot. Ms. O'Grady made a motion, seconded by Mr. Belanger to accept the Mazraani site plan application as complete. VOTE ON MOTION: - 0 Abutters: There were no abutters present. David Jordan, engineer/land surveyor, with MHF Design Consultants, is here on behalf of George Mazraani. The property is located at North Broadway, and recently changed ownership. It's a used car dealership. The proposal is to allow public use of the garage bays that exist within that building. This site first received approval from the Planning Board in 00 as a used car dealership. There were garage bays on the back of the building. At the time that the original site plan was approved, the stipulation was that the garage bays be ancillary to the used car dealership. Today there's a different car dealership, and the bays are not being used, but they would like to use them. But limiting it to a used car dealership isn't cost effective. They'd like to open up the use of the garage bays for public inspections and repairs. It's a change to a condition from the original site plan. There are parking spaces in the lower level of the parking lot. Originally those were for display spaces for used car sales, but they're not effective for that. Those spaces will be used for processing of vehicles being repaired, inspected, etc. So we're here to ask to allow public use of garage bays, and there will be no change to the parking or the site. Mr. Moldoff read the following staff comments: He visited the site and didn't see any issues. Received an OK from the Safety Officer and the Fire Department. Engineering sent a memo. There is a floor drain holding tank and they said it has to be registered with DES. That's been done. Also there is a stormceptor device in the back and they asked that it be inspected and cleaned, if necessary, and the applicant agreed to do that. Recommendation if you have no issues, conditional approval is recommended, and he can give conditions. Mr. Pelletier was very skeptical at first, but he found it neat in the back with curbing, and there is a nice chain link fence that keeps water from going into the wetland. He likes the plan and has no concerns. Mrs. Harvey asked, will the parking in back be striped? Town of Salem, NH Page

6 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September, Mr. Jordan said it already is. What you're looking at on the plan is an as built. It shows what is existing there today. The spaces in back are for bulk vehicle display. The plans are just to park the vehicles down there that are going in for service. They'll park them in an orderly manner. Mr. Belanger is sure the applicant will park the cars in a way that there are no problems. It's a beautiful building and it's maintained in excellent condition. He'd like to see them succeed and this will help them to employ more people. Ms. O'Grady's initial concern was water going into the wetland, but you've told us that is not an issue. This owner wants to add inspections, and she doesn't think there are any other inspection sites nearby. This could be advantageous to the public. As long as the cars don't leak oil. Striping the parking isn't an issue for her. She doesn't see an issue with this. Mr. Keller asked, is there any additional signage required? Mr. Jordan was told that the only signage will be in the windows of the building. There is no freestanding sign. It will stay exactly the way it is. Mr. DeClercq asked, are there or garage bays? Mr. Moldoff said there are. Mr. Jordan said they're asking for all existing bays to be used. Ms. O'Grady suggested on the signage, using a sandwich board sign. If it's in the window, she won't see it. Mr. Jordan said we need to conform to the zoning requirements. Chairman Campbell asked Mr. Moldoff, if this were coming in as a new plan, would you have made a determination that it complies with zoning? Mr. Moldoff said yes. The parking requirements were set out when it was a car dealership, and we knew the bays were there. He believes it does comply with all the regulations in it's proposed use. Chairman Campbell asked for public input. There was none. Mr. Belanger made a motion, seconded by Ms. O'Grady to grant conditional approval of the Mazraani site plan with the conditions from Mr. Moldoff. Mr. Moldoff read the following conditions:.) Inspect and if needed, clean the stormceptor unit prior to occupancy..) All the representations by the applicant and their agents and all the notes on the plan are incorporated as part of this approval. Chairman Campbell asked, this doesn't contain any retail stuff? Mr. Jordan said you can't go in and buy stuff. Mr. Moldoff said retail would have to come back to the Planning Board. Mr. Belanger said, like any other place that sells vehicles, people may buy something for their car, like windshield wipers. It's not a retail location, but it's ancillary to the use. There is nothing wrong with that, it helps the business to succeed. VOTE ON MOTION: - 0.) MEADOWS SUBDIVISION PLAN Request to waive 0' wooded buffer requirement for portion of lot at Cross Street, Map, Lot. Mr. Keller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Belanger to accept the Meadows subdivision application as complete. Town of Salem, NH Page

7 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September, VOTE ON MOTION: - 0 Abutters: Kozowyk was present. David Jordan, MHF Design Consultants, is here on behalf of the property owner and the applicant Meadows Development. This is a acre lot on Cross Street. It was part of a lot subdivision approved in 0. Two of the lots were built on. The applicant is preparing to build a house on this property. Tonight we're here to discuss the wooded buffer requirement. This is located in the Rural District and in the subdivision regulations there's a requirement that a 0- foot wide wooded buffer be maintained where it currently exists. We have a couple issues. On the other two lots, this wasn't an issue because there wasn't an existing wooded buffer. In the subdivision regulations, it states that the wooded buffer shall be maintained with the exception of necessary crossings for a roadway or driveway to gain access to the lot. Typically, the house is setback a sufficient distance to maintain the buffer. The issue here is, there are wetlands, floodplain, and sight distance concerns that dictate clearing the wooded buffer. We are unable to push the house any further back than what's shown on the plot plan. The house is set about 0 feet back from the right-of-way. We can't go back any further because right behind the house is a wetland system and there are wetland setbacks and a desire to have a backyard. In addition, we have a flood zone, and there are requirements that the lowest level of the building be a foot above the 0 year flood elevation. Also, there is a requirement to provide a 00 foot sight distance in both directions of the driveway. We have located the driveway at the most optimal place along Cross Street. What is shown on the plan works best, but it necessitates clearing of trees in the wooded buffer area. Also, we need to clear more than just the footprint of the house, and the trees need to be some distance away from the house. We're trying to minimize that. He then read the provision in the subdivision regulations saying that the board may allow a combination of berms and new plantings to create the same affect as a wooded buffer strip. So we're showing a mulch bed with assorted vegetation to be planted to help mitigate the impact of the trees lost for construction. The applicant has identified about trees that will be cut down and he agreed to replace trees in this area as mitigation. We're here for a waiver request regarding the wooded buffer requirement. We feel we meet the spirit and intent of the wooded buffer with the replication and planting of trees to mitigate those that are lost. This lot does have about 0 feet of frontage, and we're talking about clearing approximately 00 feet. The other 0 feet will be left untouched in it's natural state. Mr. Moldoff read the following staff comments: He showed pictures of the site. The applicant said they would replace about a dozen trees. That can be a condition. A significant amount of frontage will still be preserved in it's natural state. He thinks we're still getting a good deal to get trees replanted in front. Recommendation he recommends the board grant approval with the following two conditions plant trees to replace those removed prior to occupancy, they should be minimum feet tall if they're evergreen, or inch caliper if they're deciduous; and all the representations are incorporated as part of approval. Ms. O'Grady said, if you can't push it back anymore because of the wetland, and you are altering the 0 foot buffer, then the house doesn't belong there. She fought hard to get a wooded buffer to be kept into rural areas to keep the feel of what is there. She is not happy about this and she thinks you have enough other houses. Mr. Moldoff said there was a commercial business and a dilapidated house. They were looking for more lots at one point and everyone agreed to this. There is a significant amount of land that's Town of Salem, NH Page

8 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September, open and undeveloped. They didn't impact the wetlands like they initially wanted to, they kept the houses up front. He understands what she's saying and he agrees to an extent, and he tried to keep the buffer intact where we can. Along this section of Cross Street, there is not a lot of natural wooded buffer. The majority of this lot frontage will stay undeveloped. It seems reasonable. Mr. Jordan said we're looking at what was a acre parcel and we got house lots. We looked at other development scenarios, and he thinks this is what the Rural District intent was, to have large lots, open land and minimize the development of the lots. The fact that the house is close to Cross Street means we're disturbing less of the lot. He understands the value of the wooded buffer, but we need to look at the big picture in terms of what we got. We've shown other areas in back where there is buildable land but we decided to keep it simple with three lots, and do something that is in the spirit of the zoning ordinance. Under the Salem zoning ordinance in the Rural District, the front setback is 0 feet. The subdivision regulations say we also need a 0 foot wooded buffer if it exists, and on this lot, it exists, so we're working with it the best we can. Mrs. Harvey agrees with Ms. O'Grady, however, this board allowed this to go through in 0. The owner now has the right to develop the lot. Putting a house in this location is better than going into the wetlands. She completely agrees with this concept. Also, where the additional trees are shown to be planted, they could end up being problematic. It would be better if it's on the other side of the house, instead of in the front. There is a tendency by the owners to want to have a front yard. By putting trees and mulch beds there, they tend to go away. Where are the utility poles in this area, are they on this side of the road or the other side? Mr. Jordan thinks they go back and forth. Mrs. Harvey suggested, if you plant trees, they need to be further away from the utility poles or of a maximum height so they don't interfere. Plant the trees but don't put them in front. Leave space for a front yard. Other than that, she is completely in agreement with the house in this location. She also noticed that the elevation shown is only a foot higher than the floodplain elevation for a 0 year storm. She suggested you build for a 00 year storm. Mr. DeClercq thinks clearing 00 feet of frontage is a good idea for safety. There have been a lot of problems there. It's an improvement. Mr. Belanger said that's the only area on that street that has trees, it's very dangerous. Chairman Campbell asked for public input. Mike Kozowyk, Cross Street, is in favor of clearing the trees. It's a horrible line of sight at that turn, and the more trees cleared the better, to improve the safety of that turn. Mr. DeClercq made a motion, seconded by Mr. Belanger to grant conditional approval of the Meadows subdivision plan with the conditions as stipulated by Mr. Moldoff. Chairman Campbell asked, when we approved this, what was shown on the approved subdivision plan? Mr. Moldoff said there was a 0-foot buffer line shown and there was a note saying no clearing except for driveways. Chairman Campbell asked, there was a driveway shown? Mr. Moldoff said yes. They are allowed to clear for that and we knew they'd have to clear more for sight distance. Chairman Campbell asked about our process and when someone comes in with a subdivision plan with the houses a certain distance from the road. We had a plan we approved. Mr. Moldoff explained that the intent was always to put the houses up front. They were just Town of Salem, NH Page

9 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September, showing that those were potential building areas also, but the intent was always to put the house up front. Chairman Campbell asked, was the board aware of that? Mr. Moldoff said yes. Mr. Jordan said he has the approved plan, it shows the house where we have it shown. VOTE ON MOTION: 0 (Ms. O'Grady opposed.).) KEY COLLISION SITE PLAN Public Hearing for revised site plan (septic system) at - Hampshire Road, Map, Lots and. Mr. Moldoff said the plan is ready for your acceptance. The proposal from the applicant was initially to remove the sewer line that was shown because there was a problem with the connection to the sewer line in Methuen, and replace it with a septic system. The applicant did further research since the application was submitted and since the abutters notices went out. And now they want to talk about another option. They think they can do sewer but that's not exactly what the submitted plan shows, nor was it on the notice to abutters, which he read. Do you consider this to be a major change? Abutters were notified that the applicant was coming in here. Chairman Campbell said the abutters were notified of a site plan change to put in septic versus previously approved plans for a sewer. He doesn't know if we can determine if that's significant until we hear the presentation. If needed, we can continue it and send out abutters notices. Mr. Keller asked, what does the application say? Mr. Moldoff said it shows a septic system, a change to the site plan, replacing the sewer line that was going to Methuen with a septic system. There was a discussion of how to proceed, and if the board should hear it as a conceptual. Chairman Campbell asked, has the town staff had an opportunity to review the plan? Mr. Moldoff replied, only in a general way, a final plan has not been submitted, we're still in the talking stages. Chairman Campbell asked, is it your recommendation, that it's not ready for our consideration? Mr. Moldoff explained that the applicant wanted to come in. It seems like you don't need to accept an application for a revision to the plan that shows a septic system if that's not what they're going to do. They can withdraw that and ask to talk to you about what they want to do, and you can decide if that will require a public hearing or not. Karl Dubay with Dubay Group, said our company has major site plans up and down the Route corridor, and this town staff is very helpful. Related to the application for this site plan, to change to septic, there is merit to what Mr. Moldoff is saying, and maybe you don't want to accept the application. The application was previously approved with a condition to submit approval from the City of Methuen for the sewer line connection. We did want to go with septic originally and the board and Mr. Moldoff and another owner really wants to go with sewer. So we decided to use that same design. There is a big issue with GLSD on that connection. It wasn't the town's fault. It had to do with GLSD and the City of Methuen, it had nothing to do with Mr. Moldoff. It had to do with legal work. When we discovered that, he had to meet with GLSD. So then we got a sign off on septic. But our client would like to do sewer to Broadway in a different direction. There is no change to the site plan. Mr. Brown has helped us figure out a way to get this to work. We can make a sewer connection, it's just going up the street in the other direction. Town of Salem, NH Page

10 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September, Chairman Campbell explained, if we vote not to take up the septic system plan, and then we take this up as a conceptual review, then we can decide whether or not we need to see it as a whole site plan. Mr. Dubay said it would be a big investment on sewer and we'd like to get started right away. Ms. O'Grady made a motion to not accept the plan. Mr. Belanger mentioned that if the applicant withdraws his application for septic, we already approved the sewerage. And Engineering has recommended that they go up there. We approved the sewerage already. Chairman Campbell explained that the motion is to not take up the plan as presented because it is not ready. VOTE ON MOTION: - 0 Chairman Campbell said we'll take this up as a conceptual discussion which doesn't require abutter notification. Mr. Moldoff said the applicant wants to change the plan for sewer. We don't have a plan in front of us tonight. They want to change the direction of sewer. Rather than going into the Methuen line to the west of the property, they want to go east to Route. Our engineering has initially determined initially that this is feasible. There is a conceptual plan. The applicant is willing to do that. The only question is, will that require a public hearing as a change to the approved site plan or can staff handle it? It will go by some properties and they'll have to tie into the sewer line. They're not aware of that at this point. Mr. Dubay then gave plans to the board. Mr. Belanger said they have a certain period of time to tie in, and he thinks the abutters would be happy. Mr. Dubay said the board has a reduction of the plan. We've been working with Mr. Brown. At first we thought it couldn't be done. But our client recognizes the value of sewer, and they are willing to put that investment in on Hampshire Road. We're bringing up water and we'd like to bring up gas, so we're also talking to the gas company. So there is a lot of value that Key Auto is bringing. They're ready to do it, but they really need to get in the ground on the site. One item of conditional approval was to get approval from the City of Methuen and we suggest that's not applicable anymore. Also, they could make a legal promissory to provide this improvement to the town, get sewer in and get other utilities up, and get Hampshire Road re-done but they have to get into the site now to beat the frost. If the original approval could be administratively confirmed with a few tweaks, then that would be in his client's best interest. So he asked to render item not applicable, which is regarding City of Methuen approval, and then a slight change to the sewer/water extension condition, somehow tie it to something else so we can finish this over the next several days. Chairman Campbell sees no significant difference from the point of view of the site plan. The issue is with the Board of Selectmen, about putting the line down Hampshire Road. Mr. Keller said the Board of Selectmen will have to take this matter up and concur that this is what we want to do. We would take the Planning Board's recommendation, but we need to get this on the Board of Selectmen agenda as soon as possible. Ms. O'Grady believes it's not something we have to discuss, she think it's a better idea. But you have the abutters who will be affected, and legally they have to be notified that sewerage will be going past their properties. Town of Salem, NH Page

11 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September, Mr. Dubay said they are already tied in. CVS and Pep Boys are already tied in. Regarding the site for sale next to ours, sewer adds value to that site. That one site is for sale. Ms. O'Grady said it's the one site that legally has to be notified. She can't just say it's OK, she thinks it's a good idea, but she wants to cover Planning Board procedure. She suggested a letter be sent to the owner of that property. Chairman Campbell asked, do you know of any residences along the proposed route of the sewer line? Mr. Dubay said yes, there is a duplex next to us on the property we were just talking about. It's legal non-conforming. It's for sale for development. Sewer would make it better for everyone. Chairman Campbell asked, is it occupied? Mr. Dubay believes it is. Chairman Campbell asked, since the sewer in the street is not under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board, is there any legal aspect to give the Planning Board jurisdiction in that matter? Mr. Moldoff explained that typically when an applicant is coming in, we would ask them to show us and design the sewer. In terms of a change to things, typically the board doesn't care too much of all the details of sewer, it's all handled at staff level. He's not sure if the Board of Selectmen get involved in those decisions. Chairman Campbell said they'll get involved in digging up the road and the connections. His question is whether the Planning Board has any issue with respect to this being a significant change that requires a change to the site plan for the work being done on the site. Mr. Belanger said, when we notify abutters for sewerage, if we had said at that meeting to go up Route, it would have been a done deal. He doesn't see a reason to delay it. We made a decision on sewerage going to Methuen and there were no abutters here and they were notified. Does any part of that road belong to Methuen? Chairman Campbell said the map shows that none of that sewer is in Methuen. Mr. DeClercq believes it's a minor change on which way the sewerage runs. His problem is, when you proposed to tie into Methuen, the abutter probably had no concerns because it wasn't going to go by their house. But now it's being proposed to go by their house, and he'd like to hear from the abutter, with maybe a letter, saying they agree to pay a DBA or they oppose a DBA. He'd like to see that before he approves this. That abutter should have a say in it. Mr. Pelletier asked, is there any proposal to pave Hampshire Road? Mr. Moldoff said it's planned for 0. Mr. Pelletier asked, are there connections in the sewer pipe at each abutter so the road doesn't get dug up? Mr. Moldoff said those will have to be provided. Mr. Keller suggested if the Board of Selectmen has to hear this anyway, he recommended that the applicant prepare plans for staff and include when the road will be done and whatever underground work will be done. Then he suggested we schedule that for the Board of Selectmen meeting on October th. There is a Planning Board meeting the next night, so he suggested that the applicant try to be on both of those agendas. That way everyone will be notified, and it gives us time to line everything up so we're not dealing with other problems. Mr. Dubay asked Mr. Moldoff to help us get on those agendas. Regarding Mr. Pelletier's questions, we are providing stubs. The applicant is ready to go, it's very crucial. We'll get the abutters, and if we can be on both agendas, that would be appreciated. Chairman Campbell said that Mr. Moldoff will arrange to have you on the Planning Board agenda on October th. Town of Salem, NH Page

12 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September, Mr. Keller asked Mr. Moldoff to talk to Mr. Hickey to get this applicant on the October th Board of Selectmen agenda..) EIP SITE PLAN Request for conditional use permit for directional signs at Northeastern Boulevard, Map, Lot 0. Ms. O'Grady made a motion, seconded by Mr. Keller to accept the EIP site plan application as complete. VOTE ON MOTION: - 0 Abutters: There were no abutters present. Richard Batten, Batten Brothers signs, is representing Equity Industrial Partners, the owners of Northeastern Boulevard. We are requesting permission to install two directional signs that are freestanding, that are foot by foot. They will be externally illuminated, and made from aluminum with raised letters and individual removable panels. The primary function is to direct people around the site. It's a large campus. These signs would not be visible from anywhere outside of the premises, and they are not advertising, they are just to direct traffic. The site is so large that you can arrive at the site and still be a half mile from the building. The design is similar to other signs on the property. It's a corporate standard that they would like to continue. They are expensive signs and are nicely designed, they compliment the area and the building. The letters are a little under inches, which are adequate to read from a car. He then read through the criteria for the conditional use permit..) The signs comply with the purposes of the sign regulation noted in Section :.. We feel that the signs as proposed are consistent with the spirit of the zoning ordinance because they will effectively provide information in an orderly aesthetically pleasing way. They will in fact help to create an attractive environment by their design which is congruent with other signs in the park. They will promote business and industry by combining several signs into one and aiding people who are trying to locate accessible parking, visitor parking and specific businesses. They will not have any adverse impact on tourism. The design of the signs projects a refined image suitable for a corporate headquarters, while still effectively communicating with the public. The proposed signs have individual panels and raised graphics which will give the signs depth and detail..) This application is unique in that the size of the site at Northeastern Boulevard necessitates having internal directional signs to direct people to a particular tenant or parking area. Without these signs a customer could arrive at the correct address and wander about looking for accessible parking or the correct building entrance. These could be several hundred yards away and not in any way visible from their current location..) This site is suitable for the proposed signs because the size and nature of the site requires signs to direct people to their destination. The size of the site also allows them to be installed without being visible from anyone not on the premises. Only those people at Northeastern Boulevard will see the directionals..) Since neighboring properties are not within viewing distance of the signs then they will not be adversely affected in any way by them..) Traffic and pedestrian safety will be enhanced by the installation of the signs because they will quickly and efficiently provide information to drivers entering the facility. They will inform them where they need to go and thus allow them to focus on operating their motor vehicle. This will decrease traffic and increase pedestrian safety..) The aesthetic character of the site, which is an executive office park, would not be adversely affected, and in fact would be enhanced by the signs. The design of the signs is Town of Salem, NH Page

13 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September, contemporary and projects a refined image suitable for a corporate headquarters while still effectively communicating with the public..) The signs will be consistent with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance in that they will effectively provide information in an orderly and safe manner. The design is neither hazardous nor distracting, but will promote an environment which is conducive to business and industry. Mr. Moldoff recommends that you grant the conditional use permit. The signs are necessary and won't be visible to the general public. Chairman Campbell asked for public input. There was none. Mrs. Harvey asked about option and option, is that actually sign number one and sign number two? Mr. Batten said there are two separate signs. Option and are on the initial park identification sign which is an existing sign. There are two options, one is externally illuminated and the other is internally, and the customer requested externally illuminated. So there are two design options, they are similar, but the graphics are different. Mr. DeClercq made a motion to grant the conditional use permit. Mr. DeClercq said these signs on a campus that large are required. SECOND by Mr. Keller. Ms. O'Grady asked which sign you'll use, and where it will be located. Mr. Moldoff showed pictures of the site. Mr. Batten said the first sign is prior to the intersection. He explained the location of the signs. VOTE ON MOTION: - 0 PUBLIC MATTERS Mr. Moldoff said that Mr. Pernaw recommends that you adopt a standard of getting a minimum of a foot right-of-way expansion on both sides of North Broadway when plans come in. Mr. Moldoff said the board had asked about the Salem Farmers Market. He received a letter from them. They have expanded to Wednesdays, and will be at Tuscan Market on Wednesdays from :0 to :0 now through October th. Mrs. Harvey said that's not a Planning Board thing. This is not a site plan change. It's on State owned property. Chairman Campbell said we're just being notified. Mrs. Harvey explained the contract for the use of that property, and the agreement on how that area will be used. It's supposed to be coordinated through the Recreation Department. Mr. Belanger said it's a business, the same as grocery stores. There are a lot of places that pay property tax that sell that stuff. If a business will go on the site, we look at that. This is a business that's being set up. It affects the other grocery stores that sell those items. Mr. Keller asked, do they have to get a special permit to allow that use to occur at that location? Town of Salem, NH Page

14 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September, Mr. Moldoff said they didn't request a permit, they just started operating there. It's up to the Planning Board on whether it requires site plan approval. It's a commercial area not approved for that. You approved it when it went to Lake Street Garden. And also Northeast Rehab Hospital was reviewed by the board. It's up to the board. It will happen for about weeks, if you want to see it, he will tell them they have to come in. Mr. Keller said it's a matter of practice, that if they want to go in a parking lot, the owner has to get a permit. Mr. Moldoff said we have special event permits, but they didn't apply for that. Mr. Keller said it seems to him that minimally, they require that permit. He also mentioned the sign violations, so he would tend to think that we wouldn't issue a permit if there are sign violations. Mr. Moldoff said those were addressed. Ms. O'Grady asked, when they were at Hedgehog Park, how was that handled? Mr. Moldoff said that was town land and it was handled through the Recreation Department. Ms. O'Grady said, if this is State property, they need permission from the State. Mr. Moldoff said he can check on that. Mrs. Harvey explained that the town has a written agreement with the State that the town has management authority over the whole rail corridor, which includes the part behind Tuscan Kitchen. The fountain and gazebo are on State property, but the town has a management agreement with the State for that, so it's under the purview of the town. Mr. Puff is the town liaison for the whole rail corridor. The Town Manager should be familiar with the agreement. No further State permission is required, however, anything that happens on that property has to be in agreement with the contract between Mr. Faro and the town on how that area will be managed. Mr. Faro has rights on what he's allowed to have since he paid for that whole development. In this situation, she's not sure how that fits in with the agreement that Mr. Faro has with the town as far as needing additional permission. The Recreation Department is a part of that agreement process. The town also has a right to use it. Mr. Keller will ask the Town Manager. Ms. O'Grady asked, if we denied the rehab, which is private property, from having it on their site, how could we let Tuscan Market have theirs? That's a conflict. She would like an opinion. Mr. Keller said the property upon which the farmers market is seeking to operate on, the property near Tuscan Market/Kitchen, is town managed property. We have an agreement with the State to manage it. Technically it's the town and Mr. Faro's property. So they need to come to the town and the Board of Selectmen to get approval for use on that parcel. He will follow up on that. It's not the purview of the Planning Board, it's the purview of the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Belanger asked, could that open up the whole railtrail to having people that want to sell things? He explained that this could open the door for others who want to sell things. Mr. DeClercq thinks that by the time this is settled, it will be October th. We should follow up with Mr. Keller's suggestion and next year we will be all set. Mr. Moldoff said we will find out quickly if they have the necessary approvals and if not, we will tell them to stop. Chairman Campbell said the Planning Board has no jurisdiction over town property or the use thereof. Mr. Belanger asked, if there is a town piece of property, and the town tells a business you can do business on that property, he thinks they should come to the Planning Board because of issues like traffic, etc. There are things that every business has to pay to be in business. Chairman Campbell said precedent has been established. He mentioned that the Planning Board doesn't see plans for vendors who sell items at the high school on Fourth of July. This has less Town of Salem, NH Page

15 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September, 0 impact than sales on Fourth of July. He thinks we should let the town and the Board of Selectmen handle it. Mr. DeClercq made a motion, seconded by Mr. Keller to adjourn. VOTE ON MOTION: - 0 The meeting adjourned at : p.m. For further information, kindly refer to the videotape dated //, located in the Planning Office. Minutes by: Susan Strugnell, Planning Board Recording Secretary Approved: Planning Board Date: October, 0 Town of Salem, NH Page