Salem Observer : Salem, planning board

Couple proposing facility at their home loses appeal

Salem Editor — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:50:00 GMT

BY DERRICK PERKINS

A New Hampshire Supreme Court ruling upholding the Planning Board’s decision denying a proposal for a kennel last summer has local officials relieved, though the couple behind the project are crying foul.

The decision was handed down more than a year and a half after Thomas and Donna Richard first approached the town with plans to convert a residential duplex on the rural-zoned Galway Lane into kennel. According to Planning Director Ross Moldoff, the Richards had gone through a series of hurdles to gain town approval for the project before ultimately being denied in August of last year because the planning board felt the 28-dog kennel did not meet site-plan regulations.

The proposal also drew criticism from abutters, who voiced concerns over increased traffic, the possible contamination of well water and issues of drainage, runaway dogs and noise, according to Moldoff.

Though the Richards filed an appeal with Rockingham Superior Court, the court sided in favor of the town last January. According to court documents provided by town officials, the Superior Court ruled that the couple had failed to address “the big picture” despite their alterations to the original proposal and described the presence of a kennel in the residential neighborhood as a “recipe for disaster.”

Now, nearly a year after the proposal was last denied by the Planning Board, the state Supreme Court has rejected the Richards’ appeal of the lower court’s ruling on the grounds that the Planning Board adequately articulated the basis of denial and did not act on bad faith while considering the project plan.

“The board was just in its position,” Planning Board Chairman Jim Keller said yesterday.

“The principal issue was the impact of that type of operation and business in the neighborhood. They were putting the kennel in a residential home and it was within a home that was within a residential neighborhood. We had concerns about that with respect to the neighborhood ... We just felt that it just wasn’t the right project in the right place.”

While Keller said he was relieved the issue had been settled, Thomas Richard said the decision had left his family and his lawyer upset.

“The Planning Board, the Superior Court and the Supreme Court ignored everything we submitted as facts. Obviously, it was political,” Richard said. “You put your life savings into something and you meet the requirements and you get turned down by the politics. We were trying to do something, and we figured this was our future.”

Richard pointed to the board’s approval of a second proposed kennel project on Brady Avenue, a rural-zoned residential neighborhood, by the Salem Animal Rescue League at roughly the same time.

“They didn’t meet all the requirements, but they got approved. Every department signed off on us and we got denied. How can they not meet all the requirements and still be approved?” he asked. “We were treated so different from them.”

According to Keller, the circumstances surrounding both projects – the first proposed kennels in Salem in over two decades – differed greatly. The SARL kennel was designed specifically by an architect with experience working on similar projects to house animals and the group had a defined protocol for their operation, Keller said.

The zoning ordinance has since changed to prevent kennels from operating in rural residential neighborhoods as a direct result of both projects, according to Keller.

Though pleased by the outcome, Moldoff said he felt bad for the Richards, who are currently renting the property.

“It’s been a long battle ... (The Richards) had spent a lot of money and a lot of time on it. I had worked with them to help them understand the issues and the town’s regulations. It’s not a pleasant experience to go to court. You feel bad for the other side,” he said. “Ultimately, I’m glad we prevailed.”

Salem impact fees to go townwide

Salem Editor — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:32:00 GMT

BY DERRICK PERKINS

The Planning Board approved a new town-wide traffic impact fee system by a 6-1 vote on Aug. 11, but not before tweaking the proposal to offset concerns raised by local developers.

Under the original plan, roadway construction cost assumptions included in the new fee system had been based on the full-depth construction of a mile-long, 34-foot wide, fully directional roadway with an estimated price tag of $2.1 million. Martin Kennedy, the town’s traffic impact fee consultant, told the board that by eliminating a 5-foot-wide shoulder on either side of the roadway accounted for in the original calculations, the cost could be reduced to $1.5 million per mile, resulting in a roughly 29 percent decrease in the proposed impact fees.

The board also opted to decrease all of the proposed impact fees by a further 10 percent and delayed the start of the new fee system until March 1, 2010, to allow developers currently working on projects within the community a six-month window to have their plans approved under the old impact fee system.

Any development project that has already received approval from the Planning Board will be grandfathered in under the old system as well, though later adjustments made to plans given the green light before the town-wide fee system goes into effect will be decided on a case-by-case basis.

The adoption of a new traffic impact fee system has been in the works for the past several years, according to Planning Director Ross Moldoff. Under the old fee structure – which was last adjusted for inflation in 1994 – impact fees were collected solely from projects along the Route 28 and Pelham Road corridors.

Though officials argued that a comprehensive, townwide traffic impact fee system that could be easily adjusted for inflation would make it easier for developers to work with the community in the future, members of the business community objected to the proposal as potentially having a dampening effect on the local economy.

Christopher Goodnow, of Goodnow Real Estate Services, told the board that even though the impact fees had been reduced, they still represented a dramatic increase in costs.

“A (29) percent reduction on a huge increase still means a huge increase, just a little bit less,” Goodnow said.

Board member Gene Bryant said that after three public hearings on the issue, the only differences that remained were philosophical.

“I believe we have shown that it is important that this system be townwide. I believe we’ve shown that the new fee system, which is very important, is based on sound science,” he said. “I believe that we’ve done our homework, and we’ve gotten to a point where the fee schedule that I see makes sense.”

Ronald Belanger was the lone dissenting voice on the board, arguing that the changes would dull Salem’s competitive edge over neighboring communities and increase the impact of the recession on the local economy.

Businesses say impact fee change unfair

Salem Editor — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:41:00 GMT

BY DERRICK PERKINS

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.

New chairman of Charter Commission has been there before

Salem Editor — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:15:00 GMT

BY DERRICK PERKINS

Robert Campbell is not new to writing town charters, an experience he believes will come in handy as the community’s Charter Commission moves forward.

Campbell, a former selectman and current member of the Planning Board, chaired the commission in the late ’90s that established the first town charter in Salem. Serving again as chairman of Salem’s newly elected nine-member charter commission, Campbell said the past experience had left him with a strong understanding of the state statutes regulating municipal government and an idea of how to produce a document that voters will accept at next year’s Town Meeting.

“I know what can be done, and one of the things that is important is to communicate what are the options. It isn’t the sort of thing where you can start out with a blank sheet of paper. The state gives us a restricted outline,” he said.

“One needs to have a little bit of discussion to find out what direction we’re going to go. We can’t be flailing around on six different possibilities for four months. We have to develop a consensus or majority of what people are going to support and then start fleshing it out.”

According to Campbell, the commission has a wide latitude on what changes to make in the town charter.

The commission could recommend minor tweaks to the current document or adopt one of six basic forms of municipal government in New Hampshire.

That could mean potentially turning from the town meeting and board of selectmen to a town council or city council.

At the moment, nothing is off the table, according to Campbell. The focus for the next month or so is on developing a majority within the commission on what direction they want to take the town charter, he said.

Campbell anticipates that much of the discussion will revolve around how much power voters should have in the future when it comes to the budget and other spending proposals.

“One of the patterns you’ll see, the people who are in government tend to want to have a council type of government that gives them the power to directly implement their programs. The people who are marginally on the outside want to say, ‘I don’t want to give them that power. I want to keep this to the voters,’” he said. “It’s that tension that is going to cause much of the discussion in the months ahead.”

The commission has roughly six months to review the current charter, study alternatives and take public input before turning out a rough draft of recommendations that will go before voters in March. Residents will have the final say on whether to accept the commission’s findings.

The key to gaining voter approval for any alterations to the town charter is to keep it simple, Campbell said.

“We have had a lot of charter commissions in Salem over the last 30 years or so. The commission about 10 years ago was the first people had approved,” he said.

Earlier proposed charters could run as long as 60 pages and were met with defeat. In the late ’90s, Campbell said his goal was to keep the document small enough to fit on a single sheet of paper. Short and simple is the way to go this time around as well, he said.

“It’s like the Constitution, it’s not every last policy and procedure,” Campbell said. “I’d like to gain enough consensus on the commission and in the community so that it will pass.”

Businesses: Wrong time to increase fees

Salem Editor — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:11:00 GMT

BY DERRICK PERKINS

Local business leaders are concerned that a plan to update Salem’s system of traffic impact fees may put a damper on future economic redevelopment in the community.

According to Planning Director Ross Moldoff, the town’s current traffic impact fees have not been adjusted for inflation since 1994 and the system in place now is limited to projects on Route 28 and the Pelham Road corridor.

Moldoff said the Planning Board has been considering putting a new, comprehensive traffic impact fee system into place that would incorporate the entire town and make adjustments for inflation an easier process for the past several years.

“The problem was that if you built a big industrial building on Pelham Road, you paid a big impact fee. If you did the same thing on Lowell Road, you didn’t pay anything. The reason it applied to only those corridors is because they were considered the areas where the most growth was going to occur,” he said. “(The new system) will be able to be updated more easily, make the road impact fee system more fair and apply it to all areas of town. The negative part is that it is not a great time to be raising fees.”

Were the proposal begun in its current form, the fee attached to retail development would rise from $1 per square foot on the southern portion of Route 28 and $3 on the northern portion to a flat rate of $4, according to Moldoff. Office space near Stiles Road would rise from a $1 per square foot to $2.56. An impact fee of about $2,200 would also be attached to new single-family home construction across town, he said.

According to Chris Goodnow, of Goodnow Real Estate Services, the proposed changes come at exactly the wrong time to be raising impact fees in Salem. Goodnow said the impact of the new fees could put a chill on plans to redevelop the Route 28 strip and revitalize the Salem Depot while adding a tax burden onto the profit center of the town.

“Basically, an impact fee is a tax ... it’s a dramatic increase of this tax in an economic period where it is poor public policy to increase taxes,” Goodnow said. “If you view the town of Salem as a business, the residents enjoy the benefit of a very low real estate taxation relative to many communities in New Hampshire. They enjoyed that because of the large amount of commercial and industrial development that this community has been able to entertain.”

According to Jim Keller, chairman of the Planning Board, the change comes after a long lull during which the town’s impact fees were never changed for inflation.

The new system would also make the process of assessing fees simpler for the town and developers, he said.

For the moment, nothing is set in stone. The Planning Board held off on making a final decision on whether to begin the new impact fee system after Goodnow and other local business leaders voiced their concerns at a public forum held May 28.

Town employees expect to be able to address the concerns from the business community in time for a second public forum on the sometime in the next six weeks.

Joe Friedman, of Brooks Properties, is hopeful that the board will address the concerns raised by the business community last week the second time around. Friedman said there was a question of whether the board had taken into the account the impact the change would have on businesses considering a move to the community.

“It’s a very difficult times to raise fees,” he said.“We think it’s an extra tax on a specific part of the community. It certainly puts downward pressure on the ability to get tenants.”

Known names take Charter Commission seats

Salem Editor — Wed, 20 May 2009 18:30:00 GMT

BY DERRICK PERKINS

Voters backed candidates with a background in local government for the Charter Commission, giving town employees and elected officials seats on the nine-member board on May 19.

The three members of the Board of Selectmen on the ballot, Patrick Hargreaves, Michael Lyons and Chairman Arthur Barnes, won their bids for a spot on the commission, along with longtime Budget Committee member Stephen Campbell and Robert Campbell, a member of the Planning Board.

Fire Chief Kevin Breen and Deputy Police Chief William Ganley were given the nod by residents at Tuesday’s polls.

Annette Cooke and Cathy Ann Stacey also took a seat each on the commission.

Approved in March by Town Meeting, the commission has been charged with making a range of potential recommendations to improve municipal government, from small changes to Salem’s charter to possibly replacing the Board of Selectmen with a town council.

The commission stems out of one of several recommendations the now defunct Charter Reform Committee gave selectmen last fall. Formed early in 2008 to study ways to make the municipal government more efficient, Committee Chairman Dan Norris told selectmen at the time that the current form of government had limited possible solutions.

With a population over 25,000, Salem is one of the largest communities in the state that retains the town meeting form of government.

Voters did not give the twothirds majority approval needed for the Canobie Phase II water and sewer project. Part of the project was in line to receive federal stimulus funds, but the tally of 508 for and 308 against was not enough to accept the deal.

The plan will not go forward at this time. Town officials will seek alternate funding to bring town water and sewer to the area.

‘Salem advantage’ still attracts business

Salem Editor — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:38:00 GMT

BY DERRICK PERKINS

Planning board agendas may be lighter this spring than during past years, but town officials say the economy has not kept businesses from coming to the border community.

“There are signs of life in the economy here locally. There are projects coming before the planning board,” said Ross Moldoff, Salem’s planning director. “People are doing things. There is development activity.”

In February, Moldoff reported an unusually light workload, even during the already normally slow season of the year for his department. He was handling fewer phone calls and fewer people were dropping by his office. At the time, Moldoff said it would be interesting to see whether that trend continued into the spring, when activity within the department traditionally begins to pick up.

Officials got an added surprise toward the end of that month when plans that had been in the works for over a year to redevelop the Coca-Cola plant suddenly fell through. The proposal, which included a coffee shop and restaurant, died after the lead tenant, a CVS Pharmacy, pulled out.

Now, as the days become warmer and lengthen, Moldoff is seeing a turnaround in business.

“There is still activity is out there. It’s not dead by any means,” he said. “There is enough activity. I’m getting phone calls and people are making appointments. Sometimes it’s small projects and sometimes it’s big projects.”

The construction of two new pharmacies in town have been proposed, one near the border with Methuen, Mass., and the other on the far end of Route 28 near the border with neighboring Windham. A newly proposed supermarket and pharmacy on Route 97 has also gained approval from the town Zoning Board and is headed before the Planning Board.

The demolition and redevelopment of the DeMoulas Supermarket, also on Route 28, was also recently approved by the planning board and construction is set to start on the Lowe’s project in coming weeks, according to Moldoff. Part of what has kept Salem attractive to commercial development is its location directly across the border from Massachusetts, he said.

“One of the things we have always known, is that Salem is the first community over the border. That there is no sales or income tax is always an advantage to Salem when people are looking to open up a business or do something different,” Moldoff said.

While James Keller, chairman of the Planning Board, has noticed a dip in the amount of business his board handled in comparison to last year, he said the community had remained attractive to outside companies despite the economic downturn.

He pointed to Salem’s geographical location as one such advantage as well.

“It’s fair to say it’s slowed down. There is very little activity on the residential side of thing and the commercial activity is strong, but I would certainly categorize it as less than last year,” Keller said. “Salem continues to benefit from it’s location and with its vibrant business and commercial area, it’s quite appealing.”

No Salem skyscrapers yet

Salem Editor — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:52:00 GMT

BY DERRICK PERKINS

With commercial space in Salem nearly fully developed, Planning Board members say the only way to go is up.

A proposal to raise the height limits on commercial space around town is currently under discussion, though it may be put before the voters next March.

James Keller, the chairman of the board, said changing the ordinance would allow the town to develop taller commercial office space and expand the tax base, in turn reducing the amount paid by residential taxpayers.

“The notion of how does the town continue to attract business is the first consideration. How do we continue to increase commercial tax revenue?” Keller said. “The only way to do that is to support the notion of going with taller buildings.”

Fellow board member Gene Bryant echoed Keller’s assessments and said the town had already reached maximum commercial development. The only way to go was up, he said.

“Salem is a pretty fully developed community. There’s not a whole lot of land left. What matters now is redevelopment, going back to sites and looking at how some of these sites can be redeveloped,” Bryant said. “Once a community is fully built out, your tax base is what your tax base is. If you can’t go out, you have to go up.”

The change in the ordinance would not affect the height limitations placed residential or rural development.

At the moment, the height limitation on commercial development is at 35 feet, which allows for buildings that are about two-and-a-half stories high or lower, according to Bryant. While the potential new limit would allow higher buildings, Bryant said residents should not expect to see skyscrapers in Salem anytime soon.

The board is looking at commercially zoned locations on Route 28 and Pelham Road in Salem – with an emphasis on the area around Exit 2 – as potential districts that could support significantly taller buildings.

“The vision would be to increase the height of commercial buildings in the Exit 2 area and other districts so that folks who want to support taller office buildings would be enticed and intrigued in Salem,” Keller said.

While he said he has not seen a tremendous amount of demand for higher buildings yet, the demand may increase in the future.

“We believe that as commercial sprawl continues to head north and after the Interstate 93 project is completed, there is the potential for increased office space demand that is affordable,” he said.

The board has been considering the idea of increasing the limit for several years, but this has been the first year that they have moved forward with the potential change to the town ordinance.

For the next several months, the board will discuss the provision and take input from both the public and the Board of Selectmen. To put the change before the voters in March, the board will have to reach a conclusion by mid-December.

So far, the idea has received support from both selectmen and the public, said Keller.

“From the folks that have stopped me, most folks are in favor of taller buildings as long as they’re relegated to commercial areas,” he said. “It helps level and stabilize the residential tax impact. I haven’t heard anything negative yet.”