Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
November 1, 2007
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, November 1, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in Room 312, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Charles Puleo, Walter Power, Tim Kavanaugh, John Moustakis, Pam Lombardini, Nadine Hanscom, Tim Ready, Gene Collins and Christine Sullivan (arrived at 7:50, participated in Chapel Hill LLC Public Hearing). Also present were: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning & Community Development; Amy Lash, Staff Planner; and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes for the October 18, 2007 Planning Board meeting were reviewed. There were no changes. A motion was made by Pam Lombardini to accept the minutes, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved (7-0).
Continued Form A Application For Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval- 43 School Street (Map 26, Lot 286) Lona Belanger- Request to Withdraw
Amy Lash received a letter from Lona Belanger requesting to withdraw her application, Chuck Puleo read the letter to the Board members.
A motion was made by John Moustakis to allow withdrawal, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (7-0).
Old/New Business
o Request by Osborne Hills Realty Trust to modify July 27, 2007 Definitive Subdivision, Cluster Residential Development Special Permit, and Wetlands District Special Permit Decision
A letter from Attorney Brian McGrail was available to the Board members. Gene said that after reading the letter and the information, he thinks they should allow the modifications. Chuck Puleo wanted to know how far the traffic signal is being moved and how does that compare to what they approved in relation to the crosswalk and the park entrance? Lynn Duncan explained that they are trying to work with the property owner at #60 Marlborough Road. The property owner is hoping to move the poles (two of them) away from their property closer to McGrath Park. Ken Petraglia said they could move them 5 ft. closer to McGrath Park. The poles would stay in the same relationship to each other. Before they can do that, they need to get a right of entry from the owner. The Planning Dept. is currently
waiting for developer to submit a professionally engineered design of the foundation so that they can get information to the property owner and can make a decision. Chuck Puleo asked how this would affect the timetable for the project? Lynn said she made the developer aware that this is a critical path before they move forward. Chuck asked how close they are to having the homes ready. Lynn said that 3 homes have been sold, 10 were approved, and they’re asking for 10 more. Chuck asked what the time frame is for completion; Lynn does not have the time frame.
Tim Ready suggested getting concessions for a concrete sidewalk from the developer because the sidewalk to the entrance is concrete for about 200 yards, and then it becomes asphalt. Pam Lombardini felt that it is too much to ask for and that it’s too expensive. Pam also commented that the developer isn’t asking for anything more as far as the light, and Lynn agreed and said that they’re abiding and helping out the property owner. Tim Kavanaugh as well didn’t want to force the issue. Walter felt the Board didn’t have leverage to ask them for this. After hearing comments from Board members, Tim R. withdrew his suggestion for the concession.
A motion was made by Gene Collins to accept the request for the partial waiver of condition 4 and 18A to allow for twenty (20) certificates of occupancy to be issued prior to the installation of the traffic light and turn lane, seconded by John Moustakis and approved (7-0).
o Request by the Salvation Army to release escrow funds for the project at 93-95 North Street
Chuck had a letter from Attorney Joe Correnti that he read to the Board members. It stated that two outstanding issues had been taken care of- as built plans were submitted and the shrubs required to screen the utility cabinet were submitted. Amy said they removed the graffiti from the cabinet and planted 5 shrubs to provide better screening than what they had originally planted. Amy said they were actually only asked to provide three (3) shrubs, so they have done more than what was asked of them. Therefore, they are requesting that the Planning Board vote to release the escrow funds for the project. Amy passed around the as built plans and photos of the shrubbery for members to view.
Walter Power commented that when the electric company sees the bushes near the electrical units outside, they might want to take them down so that they have access. There is supposed to be 10 ft. between shrubbery and the building. Amy will mention this concern to Joe Correnti.
A motion was made by Gene Collins to release the escrow funds for the project at 93-95 North Street, seconded by Pam Lombardini, and approved (7-0).
o Walter mentioned to Lynn that he has noticed that at Hawthorne Crossing condominiums on Highland Avenue (next to Chevy dealer) the gates have been open consistently, and they’re supposed to be closed for safety purposes. Lynn will look into this.
o Chuck Puleo said that he had questioned the screening on the roof that was supposed to be installed on Beverly Cooperative Bank. Amy said that a building permit had been signed before receipt of the plan for screening. Amy talked with Tim Smith and he is aware this plan needs to be submitted to the Planning Dept. and he will work on getting the screening taken care of soon.
o Endorsement of plan for Leggs Hill Road. Amy Lash said the appeal period has passed with no appeals. There were two items were are supposed to be added to the plans prior to endorsement- a reference to the decision, and a note about the requirement for their only to be hammer head driveways.
A motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to endorse the plans for Leggs Hill Road, seconded by John Moustakis and approved (7-0). Members will sign at end of meeting.
Public Hearing Definitive Subdivision and Cluster Residential Development Special Permit – Chapel Hill LLC, Clark Avenue (Map 08, Lots 6, 7, 8) – Attorney Jack Keilty
Attorney Jack Keilty, of 40 Lowell St, Peabody is the representative for Chapel Hill LLC. Mr. Keilty said he is before the board for consideration for 27 lots. He explained that Clark Ave appears on a landcourt plan. The developer is proposing to build Clark Ave & Kimberly Road with the 27 lots. It was discovered during the summer that Jennifer Circle is industrially zoned. They then requested that the City Council rezone the easterly side of Clark Ave to residential, though the Planning Board recommended the rezoning all of the lots, the City Council did not do so.
The changed their plan accordingly and then filed a new application for procedural reasons. Now they are before the Planning Board with a single cluster plan that depicts the number of lots that can be developed in accordance with current zoning. There are significant wetland areas that surround the site. They have gone to the Conservation Commission. They are proposing to develop this land under cluster provisions and are proposing to develop at the peak elevation, not bringing house lots down to a lower grade. They will keep the open space and not impact the wetlands. They are asking for two things: 1-Approval of definitive subdivision plans of 27 lots and a waiver for Kimberly Road. There are two outstanding issues that need to be resolved: 1-improvements to intersection of Clark Avenue &
Clark St. and 2-what is to happen with the sewer system.
Chuck Puleo said that Clark Ave does not look like it’s built out to its full width where it makes the bend. Chris Mello of Eastern land Survey said that on the existing conditions plan (dated Sept. 21, 2007), it shows the actual paved road and the public layout. There is no intention to take anything from anyone occupying the layout. They don’t plan on widening the road. They have proposed to work with the City to correct some water issues at the intersection of Clark Ave and Clark St. If the Board requests widening, they would address it, but they would be dealing with taking the City’s land back from people who have been using it.
Nadine Hanscom asked about the legal lots- if the house lots weren’t over the line, would they have space for widening? It was mentioned that the Fire Dept. has similar issues as to how to get out of the street. Chuck Puleo said he doesn’t think they received an answer regarding sprinklers in the homes. The Fire Dept. is concerned about access. Lynn Duncan said that the City has recognized (separate from the subdivision) there is an issue with the roadway and drainage. The City Engineer is looking into improvements. The City said the Developer should be somewhat involved since they’re adding lots. Walter Power asked where the sewer water goes from the project. Mr. Keilty said off of Clark Ave. Walter asked if they’ve received any complaints about water pressure
on the street. Jack Keilty said no and that it’s more of a sewer issue. Gene Collins asked what the width of the narrow part of Clark Ave is. Chris Mello said its 24’, which is a normal size street.
John Moustakis commented that it doesn’t solve the problem of encroachment. John asked if the streets are staked out, they are not. Chuck Puleo said that prior to the site visit, can there be some stakes put in a few places so that there can be a line of sight for them to see. Chris Mello said that yes that can be done.
(The following excerpts are verbatim per Christine Sullivan’s request)
Chuck Puleo said, “One thing they’re questioning is the remaining lot #21, which in the original proposal was to put the cul de sac in that to try to get access to that property. We are not seeing that on there now, so what happens to that in the future? Jack Keilty said, “I’m not certain what will happen in the future but I do know that the eventual owner, today it’s owned by Barbara Driscoll, it is under agreement with a fellow by the name of George Belleau, but I would suggest to you that there’s a fight to be had. They are not going to purchase this land without access to the industrial land. That’s a fight for another day.”
Jack Keilty said, “We are trying to present to you now a plan that is in accordance with the existing zoning and can assure you that we will be back. My clients are paying too much to leave it unattended and we do not have another access to it. We have city lands, wetlands all around us so it’s not like we can easily come off of Technology Drive. So that’s a fight to be had. Christine Sullivan asked “Is the road adequate for what they’re proposing”? Chuck Puleo said “Further to our point of the condition of Clark Ave., if that it were ever to happen, the road should be adequate, that’s my reasoning.” Jack Keilty replied, “That’s the question before you. Is the road we’re proposing adequate for the residential land that we’re
proposing? The fact that it’s a fight for another day, it’s more a legal issue.” Gene Collins commented , “That’s more speculation than what’s before us”.
Christine Sullivan said, “Thinking as a practical minded person, you’re telling us that this is going to be a cluster development and you are later going to want to get access to industrial development from that location. We’re supposed to make a decision on a road that’s going to lead there?” Jack Keilty replied, “No, not anymore”. Christine Sullivan answered back, “So we’re supposed to pretend that we’re blind and approve a road that we know may not be adequate for industrial development just because you didn’t put it on the plan?” Jack Keilty said, “That’s a choice for you at a later date.” Christine Sullivan replied, “We could then say your road is inadequate, you have to redo your road.” Jack Keilty
answered, “Yes, when I come to you with an industrial plan.”
Christine Sullivan asked, “Why don’t you make sure it’s adequate now for those purposes?” Jack Keilty answered, “I don’t think there’s an answer to that question. I have a strong sense that if I show you a plan with that access there is no requirement that makes the road any wider, any deeper thickness of pavement in that particular zoning district. We are not in the industrial district that Technology Drive is wherein you say it has to be 50 ft wide and there is no zoning ordinance. We have no such provisions in an ordinary industrial zone. So our width and our pavement are adequate. I understand these are political issues, we are not properly zoned. So I am showing you now a plan that shows access to those lots that are residentially zoned, I am showing
you an adequate roadway. I will be back I think, I believe I will be back to develop the extra acres, about 2.3, in some industrial fashion and that’s a fight for another day. There is not a wider or thicker pavement in your zoning ordinance that requires that. You will get site plan review, that’s what the Planning Board will have, site plan review.” Chuck Puleo said, “I don’t know that we’ll have site plan review because if you came up with an industrial plan that is an allowed use”. Jack Keilty said “it would have to be a pretty small building, it’s the square footage of the building triggers site plan review”. Lynn Duncan said, “The plan would have to put in a roadway.” Jack Keilty, “No we’re going to put it on a lot, and it’s a subdivision, you don’t have any lot size in front of you. “ Lynn Duncan said, “You would still
have the same legal issue accessing the industrial way thru a residential road.”
Jack Keilty said, “That’s the fight we’ll have” Lynn Duncan said, “You have the opinion from the Assistant Solicitor Gerry Parisella that case law states that you can not access” Jack Keilty interrupted with “He did not find a case in point by the way”. Lynn stated that “I’m not here to debate the legal merits. I’m just telling you laypersons terms it’s the city’s opinion” Jack said, “It’s a fight to be had on another date” Lynn said, “It’s a legal issue. Site plan review or not but you would not be able to access the industrial plan, yes, It’s a legal issue there are two sides to that coin.” Gene Collins commented, “That’s not the issue before us.” Jack Keilty said, “To Ms. Sullivan, if you’re asking, why don’t we show the access road now? I’m telling you that the City Solicitor’s opinion is I cannot access commercial/industrial land over residentially zoned land. So I have taken it off your plate and I want an approval in accordance with zoning and I am telling you that
I’ll be back another day for that other issue, that fight.”
Christine Sullivan stated, “I would like to request that all the remarks in the last dialogue be in the minutes verbatim, not truncated, but verbatim because I would like this record real clear of what the conversation has been all about (that he’s ready for a fight)”. Jack Keilty replied “We have no objection to that”. Christine Sullivan said, “Because I think that going forward it would be useful to have the whole transcript on that. I don’t know what’s going to happen”. Jack Keilty stated, “My only point in being as direct and as on point, is that there is not a willingness whatsoever for the potential developer to accept a condition that there will be no access to the industrial end, that’s why I’m being as pointed,
perhaps obtrusive.”
Christine said, “I’m just completely confused because if you needed a better road to go to the industrial end for whatever purpose you will use it and we approve a less than better road, you can’t go back and take land from people your selling houses to”. Jack Keilty said, “To regress that issue, we don’t believe that there is a requirement in your zoning ordinance that requires any road wider than what we’re providing for the roads that are already there so we’re willing to say this is what we’ll build because the only place that you have a different requirement is Technology Drive.” Gene Collins said, “I’d like to ask the Chairman to bring us back on point and to get to the item before us.” Chuck Puleo, “I think
it’s a needed discussion, so we might as well get it over with. At least we’ll know where we all stand. I think we should all be clear to his intention and know what we’re able to do with this decision. We now have to deal with what’s before us.”
Walter Power said, “Mr. Keilty now that you’re being perfectly frank with us I’m wondering why you didn’t go ahead and try to appeal the decision of the Council? There are single family houses there.” Mr. Keilty stated, “I’ll be very candid with you, because that’s not an opportunistic appeal. The City Council has almost complete discretion with respect to how they designate zones. Had we appealed it then those neighbors they wouldn’t get the benefit of it. I don’t think at the end of the day we would necessarily gain an approval the court in my opinion would not say that the City Council ought to have rezoned us. So that was money not well spent. I think at the end of the day when we come in for access to our land, that’s money well spent.
Because I think if the Planning Board does not give us that roadway that allows us access to our land it’ll be a taking. That’s my opinion. And I know that’s not necessarily shared by the Planning Dept or the Assistant City Solicitor but it’s my opinion and my clients opinion. So that why I say it’s a fight for another day.” Walter Power, “We had recommended that be allowed.” Jack Keilty said, “Yes you did and I thought that was very wise.”
Chuck Puleo, “Now that we have that issue aired, we all know where we stand. Tim Ready said “I’d like to think of it as less of a fight for another day, I think we need to tone down the rhetoric and the emotion on this a little bit.” Chuck said, “Maybe we can get to this drainage issue and maybe Chris Mello could address the plan that we got in our packet.”
James McDowell of Eastern Land Survey addressed the Board. He said that they broke the site into 4 existing drainage areas and pointed them out on the plan. The plan shows 4 existing drain areas: 1 towards existing construction on Clark Ave., 2 towards the back lot line, 1 towards the wetland area. The first area flows towards the existing system on Clark Ave and goes to a storage facility that has five 48” diameter underground pipes. Chuck Puleo asked where Clark Ave currently drains to right now. Mr. McDowell showed on the plan where it drains. James McDowell remembered a neighbor being concerned about what happens if this drainage system overflows, where does it go? If it filled up and started bubbling up it would tend to run down one side of Clark Avenue (gutter flow). The second
drainage area goes to catch basins that release water to the wetlands. Basins are proposed behind lots 25 & 26. The last area is where Jennifer Circle was. Chuck Puleo asked how big the wetland/resource area is?” Chris Mello has the number and will get it to them. Someone questioned where Technology Way in relation to the streets discussed is located and it was shown on the plan.
Stephen Casazza of Fay, Spofford & Thorndike (FS &T), working for the City representing the Planning Board, said that State regulations require maintenance and asked who will maintain the basins and structures, which will require annual maintenance, cleaning out and a report to be filed. You want to keep this in mind when making your decision. In terms of runoff, you can’t send any more water offsite than comes off the site right now. The biggest concern is who will maintain the storage facility? The plan meets City requirements in terms of not letting more runoff go off the site but he suggests that the Board be careful about who will be taking care of those other than normal maintenance. Chuck Puleo mentioned that the vortex system is the most extensive and asked Steve Casazza if
the number of catch basins is okay and Steve said he’s happy with what they have. Steve Casazza mentioned that they like to see the capacity analysis of the catch basins/grades, it helps to finalize things. There are double grades provided, they would like to see the analysis as a matter of checks & balances. He discussed the letter that FS & T wrote. The centerline on Kimberly Road is not in accordance with Planning Board regulations and the applicant has requested a waiver. Since the last meeting, they were asked to make a recommendation. So they put a school bus template over the plan and found that a school bus and fire truck would cross out of their lane to make the turn on the road. This happens on many secondary roads and they don’t see it as a major safety hazard. Steve recommends that if the other concessions are met that this waiver be granted.
Chuck Puleo said the original comment from the Fire Dept. was that they didn’t have two means of access; this is why they were requiring sprinklers. Since plans have changed a couple of times they would need to review this to make sure it’s satisfactory. James McDowell said whatever the Fire Dept required before still stands, since they really haven’t realigned the road. Also, they have a 90’ cul de sac at the end, which is required for turn-around.
Steve Casazza continued to say that the retaining walls are a bit steep, though a distance from the neighboring properties. He firmly believes the specifics of the walls ought to be on the plan. They did show pictures and separation distance and cross-section as to what it would look like. James McDowell said they do not have an issue or disagree with Mr. Casazza but he does want to put it on the Definitive Subdivision Plan. He mentioned that the Building Inspector requires stamped structural engineer plans for the specific walls as the project goes along and they do issue permits on those walls. So, the jurisdiction of the walls does continue under the building department.
Walter Power asked Mr. Casazza about the use of swales. Mr. Casazza mentioned that he was here to review what has been presented and not come up with new designs. Mr. McDowell said any swale you construct would be of ledge, you would not get infiltration. A possible option would be vegetative swales. Chuck Puleo asked if they would build those lots first? Chris Mello said that the gravity sewers would be built first.
Chuck Puleo asked if there were any other questions by the Board members. There were none, the meeting was opened to the public.
Gale Fialho, Clark Street- Ms. Fialho lives opposite the project. Her biggest concern is blasting. She has lived there for 11 years and has lived through weekly blasts. She now has a crack in her foundation, from the cellar floor. If they blast in her yard, she is terrified as to what would happen to her house. Also, the hill that they’ll build on is very steep, are they building a wall? Mr. McDowell gave her photos to look at and explained the range of the walls. Ms. Fialho’s other concern is her view. Right now she can see a wooded area, she requests that when the Board goes to do their viewing of the area, if they can go by her property and see her current view and what she will be losing. Again, her biggest concern is the blasting.
Ellen Rugato, 13 Clark Ave- One concern she has is about the cluster and if the open land is truly useable. Chuck Puleo said the City has a formula to determine the useable land. Under the by right plan done on February 14, 2006 there would be about twenty (20) lots, the plan was done when all land was thought to be zoned residential so now it is not exactly what could be built by right. The 6 lots at the bottom are conventional lots. So they have only gained 5 lots. Ms. Rugato asked if it had been determined to be useable? The walking trail goes from one end to the other, but there is no parking for it. What will be separating the public walking trail from people’s property? Can they put a barrier in? Mr. Keilty and Mr. Mello said that yes, a barrier/fencing could be put up.
Sandra Tran, 21 Clark Ave (the back of her house abuts the roadway) -I am concerned about blasting, water and traffic. Mr. McDowell said that the roadway will be 3 to 4 ft higher. Mr. McDowell was asked if they propose to put up a retaining wall on the back of the sidewalk. Chuck asked about how much blasting they plan on doing. Mr. McDowell said for about an acre of land. Walter Power asked, “With the retaining wall, would it be higher than other property?” James McDowell said “There will be a wall with a fence on it facing the yards.”
Liliana D’Amato, 9 Clark Ave.- I pay taxes on 15,000 sq ft. of land, if you give them more, are they going to pay more taxes?
Christine Sullivan is concerned about the people who are concerned with the blasting. She feels they all should know the process for blasting. Gale Fialho said that it’s nice that there’s all these protections in place, and that the company is responsible should something happen, but what happens to her home? She doesn’t want to be misplaced. Chuck Puleo explained that prior to blasting there is a survey, and since she is within 300 ft. she would be included in the blasting survey. Also, Ms. Fialho asked where the walking trail would be. She was told at the bottom of the retaining wall. Ms. Fialho said that’s within the 100 ft buffer zone. The Conservation Commission will have to approve the walking trail. Gale Fialho said she objects to all of that because she cut a few
shrubs in her backyard within the buffer zone and she was fined and had to pay $5,000. Mr. Keilty said they have an order of conditions and they’re not going to actually build a path. Gene Collins said they have built other trails at other developments like this.
Richard O’Day, 11 Clark Ave- He asked if the Board knows how much blasting is going on. Aggregate blasts on a weekly basis. He has cracked in his doorways, etc. There is blasting near Walmart, we are surrounding by blasting. There is ledge that goes all the way from the quarry, where the developer is going to build its all rocks, ledge, boulders, etc. He said the width of the street is 23 ft. and there will be blasting and all sorts of trucks going up and down the street and people park on both sides.
Jeff Rugato, 13 Clark Ave- The cul-de-sac, has it been approved for a fire engine to turn around? Chuck Puleo said the City of Salem says it has to be 90 ft. in diameter, and it is. Steve Casazza said the centerline radius of the street is 220 ft. So, they made a template with a school bus and saw that it could make the turn but would have to go into the other lane to make the turn. That’s not totally out of the question for a secondary road. Mr. Regatto asked, “Why don’t you go to Technology Drive and buy part of that property to get access to the industrial area?” Mr. Keilty said that that is not out of the question.
Chuck Puleo asked about the road design, could they make it a different radius? Chris Mello said that they designed the road for little excavation. Mr. Puleo asked if they could make the road bigger? Mr. Mello said they could, but it would infringe on the wetlands.
Jeff Rugato said they are failing to recognize that cars park on both sides. Gale Fialho asked if the road were standard size, would they have less usable road? Chuck Puleo said no. Ms. Fialho said that the road approaching is steep and asked “Don’t you think a bus swerving into the other lane to turn on steep hill, and a car coming from the other direction may not see them over the hill and that they can collide?”
Gene Collins asked if they could instill the three-minute rule from now on.
Jean Pelletier, Councillor Ward 3- He directed toward Mr. Collins that the City Council did not put the Planning Board in this situation for granting/denying the access road. He said the Planning Board made a recommendation, but the Council makes the final decision. He asked for the correct number of lots- its 26. Mr. Pelletier said they need drainage improvements on Clark Ave. He understands from the City Engineer that the Sewer Pump Station is nearly at full capacity. Mr. Pelletier said that Mr. Keilty talks about city getting money to fix this, he wants to build, so he should assist. There is a citywide flood control committee that he is on. They have cleaned may drains this past summer. He is working with the City Engineer on redesigning the drainage on Clark Ave. The 100 yr floods- they
have had a few in about 13 few years. As for the cluster – the residents don’t seem to care about having a trail. If they’re going to propose possible building some sort of development on the industrial land later on down the road, the Planning Board should take that into consideration. Mr. Pelletier is going to the Conservation Commission to clean the culverts. Maintenance wise, the city is doing a lot, he doesn’t want to put it on the residents, the developer should help out.
Councillor Sargeant asked for the total acreage on the plan right now. Chuck has asked this as well and this information will be provided. Clr. Sargeant asked how are they determining how many buildable lots? Do they look at wetlands and include that? Chris Mello said there are different ways, and yes they do look at the wetlands. Lynn Duncan said the zoning ordinance doesn’t have to be 15,000 sq ft, doesn’t take out wetlands or slopes. For open space, you have to have a certain percentage. Clr. Sargeant doesn’t understand the density. Lynn Duncan said though it’s not written that way, it is a density bonus encouraging people to build a cluster.
Clr. Sargeant asked how big does it have to be to be a cluster? Steve Casazza said it’s a 5-acre parcel minimum. Clr Sargeant asked that any agreements be made part of the deed so they can be looked at in the future. Should potential buyers be let know about the industrial zoning?
Councillor Sosnowski said that Cathy Leahy (who did a presentation on clusters years ago) and the City’s ideas of buildable footage are different. You divide the buildable square footage not the total square footage. He then asked that when the templates were done with the school bus overlay, did it include parking on either side? Steve Casazza said no and that he will redo it.
Tim Ready asked, aren’t they bound to follow the law? Christine Sullivan said she would like to know how many houses could be built by right? 20-27. Is it normal for a developer to have a 30% increase than first asked for? Lynn Duncan said there is no norm. This is they way this ordinance is written. It comes to conformance issues and what works. There are a number of issues.
Pam Lombardini made a motion to continue the Public Hearing to December 6th, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved (8-0).
There will be no site visit this Saturday due to poor weather conditions forecasted; the date and time of the site visit will be determined at a later date.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening, a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved (8-0). The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by: Stacey Dupuis, Clerk
Salem Planning Board
| 
