The Developer’s Own Site Plan · Forest River, Salem

They drew the trails. Then said they couldn’t be built.

To win the public bid for the Salem State South Campus, the developer promised accessible trails and overlooks through the Forest River woods, and mapped them on the plan below. At the May 19 hearing, they called those same trails “not feasible.” Then Salem pushed back, and on June 9 the developer put the first piece, the Loring Avenue trail connection, back in their own filing. The pressure is working.

AvalonBay and WinnCompanies official Site Plan from their winning proposal. Two areas labeled 'OVERLOOKS + TRAILS' show switchback footpaths climbing steep, densely-contoured hillsides on the western and southern sides of the site, beside the Avalon buildings and Loring Villa, above the Forest River Conservation Area. — AvalonBay + WinnCompanies Site Plan, from their winning proposal. The switchback paths labeled **“OVERLOOKS + TRAILS”** climb the contoured hillsides where the developer now says those trails are “not feasible.” Decide for yourself: view the developer’s original Site Plan (PDF).

Approved

Planning Board · Apr 23 2026 No Conditions Imposed

Not Final

ConCom · Date TBD

Dear Salem ConCom Agent,

I am writing as a Salem resident
about DEP File #064-0825…

+ your name here

Let ’em know.

Already written. Just add you.

The South Campus is going away. Let’s save the trails.

The university campus is being replaced by up to 485 private apartments across two phases. On April 23, the Planning Board approved Avalon’s Phase I (340 units); Winn’s Phase II was continued. On May 19 the Conservation Commission hearing was continued after the developer disowned the trail network in its own proposal. On June 9, after a site walk and weeks of public pressure, the developer filed a commitment to build the Loring Avenue trail connection it had called “not feasible.” On June 16 the Commission took the matter back up and continued it again. The Order of Conditions, the step that can make that commitment binding and hold the developer to the accessible trails, overlooks, and public access it proposed, is still ahead. (The July 1 special meeting was cancelled: on June 24 the developers withdrew the application, and on June 30 they refiled it with the trail connection carried forward. See the July 9 update below, the new hearing is July 21.)

Dear Salem ConCom Agent,

I am writing as a Salem resident
about DEP File #064-0825…

+ your name here

Let ’em know.

Already written. Just add you.

Email the ConCom Agent See the Conditions to Demand

⚠ Remember to add your Name & Address to the email!

Update · July 9, 2026

They withdrew, refiled, and the trail is still on the plans. Now it has to survive review.

The July 1 cancellation is explained. On June 24 the development team withdrew its Conservation Commission application, and on June 30 it refiled. The refiled application says why: several commissioners had missed hearings and could not vote, so a fresh filing lets a full commission hear the project and vote. The review starts over, with the new hearing set for July 21.

The trail connection survives the refiling. The application states it plainly: “the project, as re-submitted, now includes the requested trail connection from Loring Ave through to the trailhead.” A standalone Trailhead Improvements Plan draws the public footpath and adds five trailhead parking spaces, an information board, granite conservation markers, and an invasive plant removal plan along the trail.

What we are watching

On the engineering sheets themselves, the footpath is a faint dashed line labeled “see landscape plans.” The real design detail lives on the landscape sheets. None of it is enforceable until the Commission writes it, and the Trailhead Improvements Plan by name, into the Order of Conditions. And the stormwater report was resubmitted without a single change from May.

Source: the developers’ refiled Notice of Intent and plan set, dated June 30, 2026.

Check the City’s page

A word of thanks

Credit where it is due: the Salem Conservation Commission has taken the public benefits this project owes the community seriously, pressing for the details rather than rubber-stamping the plan. We thank the Commission for that rigorous review, and we ask it to carry the same care into the Order of Conditions when it returns.

Update · June 16, 2026 · The Day of the Hearing

The June 16 letter, in its own words.

On June 16, the day of the hearing, Mayor Dominick Pangallo submitted a letter to the Conservation Commission. Read closely, each point it makes moves a commitment somewhere it can no longer be enforced. Here is what the letter says, and what the record shows.

The letter says

“…the RFP is not applicable to the Conservation Commission’s purview of the project.”

The record

The letter itself notes the development team promoted these connections “across public informational meetings and the required zoning hearings with the Planning Board and City Council.” The trail commitments were not confined to a state document. They were made through Salem’s own public approval process, the one residents relied on. A project approved on those representations should be held to them.

The letter says

“The most recent example of this is the proposed footpath extension to Loring Avenue, which the applicant has recommended be conditioned to be part of the perpetual access easement with ongoing maintenance responsibilities.”

The record

In the applicant’s own June 9, 2026 submittal, the continuous footpath behind the parking lot is committed only to reconfiguring parking “to the extent practicable.” The path fits in if the parking allows. And the improvements at the Loring Avenue end sit on state-owned (MassDOT) land, which the plans note are “subject to DOT approval.” A connection the applicant has made conditional on its own parking and on another agency’s approval is being described as a permanent easement commitment.

The letter says

“…the City will be applying to the Community Preservation Committee in its next funding round in order to fund an assessment of the trail bridge and the development of repair plans for it. Once there is a clear understanding of its condition and the required scope of work, the City will be able to identify funding sources to advance the necessary repairs.”

The record

This bridge was already awarded repair money, but the grant was built around volunteer labor, and the volunteer force could not be assembled. In 2022 the City awarded $66,148.66 in Community Preservation Act funds toward “Volunteer Bridge Rehabilitation” in the Forest River Conservation Area, with all work due within one year and the construction itself to be donated by volunteers, work a private contractor would have charged the City at least $318,000 to do. The volunteers could not be assembled, the funds returned to the CPA pool, and four years later the letter proposes to return to the same fund in its “next funding round”, this time only to assess the bridge and draw up repair plans, before any repair funding is even identified. The 2022 grant was meant to repair the bridge. The 2026 proposal is to study it.

The letter says

“There is no nexus with the proposed project to compel such funding from the applicant.”

The record

This is accurate as a matter of law, and beside the point. A “nexus” is what the law requires before a city can compel a developer to pay for something unrelated, it has no bearing on what a city can negotiate. When the Union Square redevelopment needed Somerville’s zoning approval, that city compelled nothing; it negotiated roughly $91 million in community benefits as the price of the approval, including $5.5 million toward the Green Line Extension. Salem held the same kind of leverage on this project, the Chapter 40R Smart Growth rezoning the City Council adopted, and the discretionary Conservation Commission waiver it still requires. The record shows the City used that leverage to support the project, and shows no request that the developer help fund the Forest River trails or the bridge. The City was never required to compel a payment. It was free to ask.

Read together, each enforceable commitment has been moved somewhere it cannot be enforced, and the one moment the City held clear leverage over the developer was spent supporting the project, not bargaining for the trails and bridge its own residents asked it to protect. The Conservation Commission’s role is to protect the wetland resource and the public access that was promised, and to decide on the record before it. We are asking it to do exactly that.

Salem deserves leadership that bargains for its residents when it holds the cards.

For the record · campaign finance (public data)

Per the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF), the Pangallo Committee (filer #18152) has received the following individual contributions from members of the project team:

$1,000

AvalonBay

David Gillespie, the project’s AvalonBay representative (Chestnut Hill), two $500 contributions, 2024 and 2025.

$1,000

WinnCompanies

Lawrence Curtis, President (Boxford); Michael O’Brien, EVP (Southborough); Gilbert Winn (Boston), 2024–2025.

$2,750

Project attorney

Joseph Correnti (Correnti Kolick LLP), attorney of record on the application (Salem), four contributions, 2023–2025.

Combined, from the project team

$4,750

Of these donors, only the project attorney resides in Salem. The developer executives reside in Chestnut Hill, Boxford, Southborough, and Boston.

These contributions are a matter of public record and are legal under Massachusetts law, which prohibits corporate donations to candidates. We draw no conclusion from them and make no claim that they influenced any decision. We believe the public is entitled to the full record and can weigh it themselves.

Source: OCPF, Pangallo Committee filer #18152, ocpf.us/Filers?q=18152.

The full case, in three parts

This site has three more pages. Start anywhere.

Page 1

The Promise

What the developer put in writing to win this public land, conservation access, trail improvements, and work “in concert with the Conservation Commission.”

Read it

Page 2

The Story

How those written promises shrank, step by step, between the winning proposal and the plans on the table today.

Read it

DANGER, UNSAFE BRIDGE CONDITIONS, KEEP OUT sign posted at the Volunteers Bridge

Page 3

The Bridge

Salem awarded $66,148.66 toward fixing the Volunteers Bridge in 2022, but the grant relied on volunteer labor that could not be assembled. Today a DANGER sign hangs at its entrance instead.

Read it

Update · June 9, 2026 · From the Developer’s Own Filing

They just put the Loring trail back. That was you.

On June 9 the developer’s own consultants filed new plans with the Conservation Commission committing to a 5-foot-wide public footpath from Loring Avenue to the Forest River trailhead, with access written into the easement “in perpetuity.” Three weeks ago they told the Commission this was “not feasible.”

2022 · To win the land

The winning proposal promised a path from Loring Avenue into the trailhead, and drew a trail network through the woods, to win the public bid.

May 19 · Land secured

At the hearing, the developer called the promised trails “not feasible.” A commissioner called it a bait-and-switch. The room pushed back.

June 9 · Under pressure

After a packed hearing, a site walk, and weeks of letters, the Loring connection is back in their own filing, which calls it “likely the largest improvement.”

Klopfer Martin Design Group Conservation Area Improvements Plan, sheet L1.1, dated June 9, 2026. A single red line labeled 'PUBLIC FOOTPATH CONNECTION' runs from Loring Avenue, behind the Harrington Building parking lot, to the Forest River trailhead. Notes read 'Widened Loring trail connection' and 'Improvements on DOT land subject to DOT approval.' An enlargement panel details the trailhead: bike racks, bench, trash and dog bag dispenser, granite markers, permeable pavers, and reserved trailhead parking. — The developer’s own new plan (KMDG, sheet L1.1, June 9, 2026). The red line is the committed public footpath: Loring Avenue, behind the parking lot, to the trailhead. **Count the trails: one.** A single 5-foot connector, where the plan that won this land drew an entire network of woodland trails and overlooks. Note the fine print at lower left: **“improvements on DOT land subject to DOT approval.”** See for yourself: view the full plan sheet (PDF).

Let’s be clear about what this is

This is not a gift. This is the developer agreeing to do part of what they promised four years ago to win public land. The terrain never changed. Their own June 9 letter admits the rules they blamed “originally appeared to be a barrier”, appeared. It took a peer review, a continued hearing, a Commission-ordered site walk, and a city’s worth of letters and testimony to get a commitment back to roughly where it started.

That is the lesson of June 9, and it cuts both ways. Pressure works on this developer. And without pressure, the default is the bare minimum. The rest of the promise, the trail network, the overlooks, the bridge, is still on the table, and there is one hearing left.

And watch what a well-timed concession does. The good news travels. The hearing room thins. And the rest of the promise quietly disappears into an approved Order. The answer to a partial concession is not a smaller crowd at the next hearing. It is a louder one.

Clawed back under pressure · per the June 9 filing

✓The Loring Ave trail connection, a 5-foot permeable footpath from Loring Avenue, behind the parking lot, to the existing trailhead. Winn is reconfiguring its parking to fit it.Already in the 2022 package · the proposal named this exact Loring Ave path
✓“In perpetuity” language, the developer says Loring access will be written into the final public-access easement, permanently.Already in the 2022 package · public access was required and scored in the RFP
✓Invasive-plant removal roughly doubled, four management zones (~21,000 sq ft plus the trail edges), no herbicides, native replanting, a wetland scientist on site.Baseline wetlands mitigation · owed in any project this close to the river
✓A real trailhead package, benches, bike racks, a dog-waste station with weekly trash service, granite boundary markers, reserved parking, and repair of the outdoor classroom area.Already in the 2022 package · the “enhanced connectivity” promise
✓Naumkeag land-acknowledgement signage, two locations identified, all signage subject to City approval.Genuinely new · added at the Commission’s and residents’ request

Read the tags. Four of these five were part of the package that won the land in 2022. One is new.

Still missing · what the Order of Conditions must lock in

✗The trail network and overlooks they drew to win the bid, still disowned. June 9 restores one connector path, not the network.
✗The Volunteers Bridge, zero mentions in all 27 pages of the new filing.
✗Binding language, the filing says the developer “intends” to put the trail in the easement. An intention is not a recorded deed or an Order of Conditions.
✗A fallback if MassDOT says no, the Loring end of the new path sits on state highway land, “subject to DOT approval.” No DOT approval, no connection.
✗Long-term upkeep, monitoring ends after two years, and daytime weekday trailhead parking is still ambiguous in the developer’s own clarification.

The floor and the ceiling

The 2022 package is the floor. A win starts above it.

Getting back what was already promised is not a concession to celebrate, it is the starting line being restored. The question for the Order of Conditions is not “is this enough to say thank you?” It is: bind the floor, then build above it. Above the floor looks like:

▲The Volunteers Bridge repaired, City-funded professional construction, paid through Community Preservation money and the Chapter 40R payments this project brings the City, because the 2022 CPA award was structured around volunteer labor that could not be assembled. The full story.
▲Real visitor parking, ten deeded public spaces, available all day, every day, not five visitor spots whose public hours are defined around the developer’s business day.
▲Maintenance that doesn’t expire, trail, plantings, and trash service obligations that outlive the proposed two-year monitoring window, recorded so they bind every future owner.

Why the Order of Conditions is the whole ballgame

The same June 9 filing asks the Commission to issue the Order of Conditions, to close the hearing and approve the project. Every commitment above is, right now, words in a consultant’s letter. The Order of Conditions is the one document that turns words into obligations. One trail back is not the deal Salem was promised. They moved because Salem was watching. Be there when it counts, and stay on it until all of it is binding.

Get the Next Hearing Date Email the Commission First

Source: Supplemental Submission to NOI, Goddard Consulting LLC on behalf of AvalonBay Communities and WinnDevelopment, June 9, 2026 (DEP File #064-0825), trail commitment and “largest improvement” at pp. 3 & 6–7; easement “in perpetuity” at p. 2 (comment 1); “originally appeared to be a barrier” at p. 6; invasive-management zones in the revised Invasive Species Management Plan (rev. 6/09/2026), p. 5; trailhead package at p. 2; parking-hours clarification at p. 5 (comment 10); “subject to DOT approval” on Klopfer Martin Design Group sheet L1.1 (June 9, 2026); request to issue the Order of Conditions at p. 10.

First, to be clear

We support this housing. That’s the whole point.

Salem needs homes, and this project delivers real ones. WinnDevelopment, the nation’s largest manager of affordable housing, is committing to roughly 60% affordability across the 55+ community in the historic Loring Villa and Convent buildings, and the broader project reserves roughly half its units for households at or below 80% of area median income. That is genuinely needed housing, and it deserves to get built.

This is not a fight against the housing. It is a request that the developer keep one promise they made to win this public land: build the trails they drew. The homes and the trails were always meant to come together, that was the deal.

Source: AvalonBay + WinnDevelopment proposal (affordability commitments).

Why the next hearing matters

The conditions to demand at the hearing.

The redevelopment cannot be built without work inside the 25-foot No-Disturb Zone and the 100-foot Wetlands Buffer. That waiver is discretionary, so the Conservation Commission can attach conditions. Here is what its Order should require.

Honor the Proposal

What the Order must require

Not a wish list. Each item is something the developer itself proposed to win this public land.

1

Build the trail network they proposed

The accessible footpaths and overlooks on the western and southern sides, plus the new path connection toward the Forest River and the re-established trailhead, all shown in their own proposal and Site Plan. Completed before the first certificate of occupancy.
2

Deliver the public art they said they would

Their proposal stated they would engage Salem’s art community and the Salem State University art department under Salem’s Public Art Master Plan. The Order should hold them to that stated intent.
3

Deeded public access

Public parking guaranteed at the Forest River trailhead via an easement recorded at closing, so people can actually reach the trails.
4

Make the June 9 commitments binding

The Loring Avenue trail and its “in perpetuity” access written into the recorded easement and the Order itself, not left as a consultant’s letter, with a required fallback route if MassDOT does not approve the Loring Avenue end, and maintenance that continues beyond the proposed two-year monitoring window.

“The campus is going away, the access shouldn’t.”

How to Act

Now back the Commission

Two ways to push before the next hearing.

Email the Conservation Commission, and share this with neighbors. Below: the pre-written email, the hearing calendar, and a procedural note.

Send Your Emails

Email the Conservation Commission

The email is already written for you and current as of the developer’s June 9 supplemental filing. It asks the Conservation Commission to make the trails a binding condition in the Order of Conditions. It opens in your email app. Just add your name and address at the bottom before you send.

Email the Conservation Commission For the Order of Conditions

⚠ Important: add your Name & Address at the bottom of the email!

Want to push on the Volunteers Bridge too? There’s a third pre-written email asking City Hall to fund a real repair, not another study.

Public Hearing Calendar

Conservation Commission

Initial hearing opened

April 21

Completed

Salem Planning Board

Phase I approved · Phase II continued

April 23

Completed

Conservation Commission

Bait-and-switch on trails · continued to June 16

May 19

Continued

Conservation Commission

Hearing continued again · to July 1

June 16

Continued

Salem Planning Board

Winn Phase II site plan · continued public hearing

June 25

6:30 PM · Zoom

Salem Planning Board

Winn Phase II · no new materials; draft decision in progress with staff

July 9

Continued

Conservation Commission

Special meeting · cancelled by the City

July 1

Cancelled

Conservation Commission

Application withdrawn June 24, refiled June 30 · trail now on the plans

June 30

Refiled

Conservation Commission

New hearing on the refiled application

July 21

6:30 PM

Salem Planning Board

Winn Phase II · draft decision expected back before the Board

July 23

6:30 PM · Zoom

View Project Materials

Click “Salem Conservation Commission SharePoint website” for the full files.

Procedural Note

A fair hearing, by the book.

The strength of any public hearing rests on procedural fairness. Massachusetts conflict-of-interest law, MGL Chapter 268A, §23(b)(3), requires municipal officials to file a written disclosure whenever a relationship with an applicant or their representatives could reasonably be perceived to affect their judgment. It is a routine safeguard that protects public trust in every city decision.

Residents attending the next hearing may respectfully ask the Conservation Commission, as a matter of ordinary procedure, to confirm that all required disclosures are on file for the matters being heard. It is a fair question. It assumes good faith. The answer, either way, belongs in the public record.

State Ethics Commission: Planning Board member guidance