Questioning the fairness of the new system and its impact on future development, local business owners have again raised objections to a proposed roadway fee system that is before the Planning Board.

Under the proposed system drawn up by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc., impact fees would be assessed on any new development in the town, from retail space to single family homes, and raise the fees already in place on Route 28 and the Pelham Road corridor.

Implemented in its current form, the proposed system would increase fees on retail development along the southern portion of Route 28 from $1 per square foot and $3 per square foot on the northern portion to a flate rate of $4 per square foot.

Near Stiles Road, office space would rise from $1 per square foot to $2.65 per square foot. A fee of $2,200 would be assessed on any new single family home construction across town.

Chris Goodnow, of Goodnow Real Estate Services, challenged the evenhandedness of the new system, telling the Planning Board at their July 14 public hearing that the developers working on projects in the Stiles Road area had paid the old impact fees – left unadjusted for inflation since 1994 – without complaint.

“I have a client who has been involved in development on Stiles Road for 25 years and paid the imapct fees. I think they are a prime candidate to say that they’ve been treated unfairly for 25 years,” Goodnow said. “I would go even further than that. The fact that they have paid fees for 25 years, it is inequitable that the rest of the town hasn’t. Keeping the fee structure for the existing corridors and make everybody else adopt the fees, that would be fair to them.”

Representing the Greater Salem Chamber of Commerce, Executive Director Donna Morris told the board that the new system would likely put a damper on the local economy in the midst of a recession, make it harder for existing properties to be redeveloped and put Salem at a disadvantage when it came to attracting new business.

“Although the Chamber recognizes the need for reasonable impact structure, the consensus reached is that the proposed fee would have adverse impact on the development of the community. The current core economic conditions do not merit the proposed fees,” Morris said.

The proposal also sparked divisions among the members of the board, with Ronald Belanger arguing that any increase in impact fees should be held off until after the economy improves. Board member Phyllis O’Grady said she wanted a system in place that let developers cover the cost of traffic improvements rather than the taxpayers. No decision was made on the proposal last night, though Chairman Jim Keller said he planned to hold another public hearing – the third on the proposal so far – before moving forward.

According to Planning Director Ross Moldoff, the proposed overhaul of the existing impact fee system has been in the works since last year.

Officials hope the proposed plan will put in place a comprehensive system of fees while making it easier to adjust for inflation on a yearly basis and give developers a better idea of what fees will be assessed ahead of time.