Last updated July 11, 2026
At the May 21 hearing, Board members asked the developer the right questions about the trails and pedestrian connections it dropped from the Forest River Residences. The Board’s own chair said a hillside path is “challenging, but doable” and that pedestrian access is squarely within the Board’s authority.
On July 23, that authority becomes a choice: the Board can make those trails and multi-modal connections a written condition of approval, or let them stay “aspirational.” This page is a thank-you to the members asking the right questions, and a push to finish the job.
The good work
When Winn’s Phase II came before the Board on May 21, 2026, the developer presented a plan that had quietly dropped the woodland trails from its winning proposal. These members did not let it pass, and their words are now on the public record. Salem owes them a genuine thank-you: not for taking anyone’s side, but for doing the review thoroughly and taking the public’s access seriously.
Graham Wing
Board member
“A missed opportunity for folks getting out to walk around.”
He raised the eliminated trails directly, and made the key point the developer can’t answer: part of the proposed trail sits outside the wetlands. So “the wetlands make it infeasible” cannot explain dropping it.
Kirt Rieder
Chair · landscape architect by profession
“Challenging, but doable.”
A landscape architect by profession, he told the developer’s “no way to affordably build a path across the hill” was wrong, he is “fairly confident the landscape team are able to do this.” And that pedestrian access “is in their wheelhouse” under site plan review, the Board’s authority to require.
Sarah Tarbet
Vice Chair
“Isolated and vehicular-centric… undercooked.”
Called the upper-campus pedestrian experience “lacking,” and asked the question that matters: how does the public actually walk up from Loring Avenue? A development this size should answer it.
Source: City of Salem Planning Board, Minutes of May 21, 2026 (continued public hearing on WinnDevelopment Phase II, 8 & 9 Harrison Road and 262 & 266 Loring Ave). Quotations are as recorded in the official minutes.
The developer’s answer
Asked about the trails it drew to win the land, WinnDevelopment’s Steve Senna did not engage the substance. The record shows a pattern of deflection:
“It was aspiration that would be difficult and costly for an affordable housing project.”, on the trails, which he said were “developed in 2023.”
“Late in the game… several meetings in”, suggesting it was too late to raise the missing trails, though the chair noted he had raised it at the very first meeting.
The RFP visual “was aspirational”, pointing back to the proposal’s own trail map as if it were never a real commitment.
But the record cuts the other way
The Board’s own chair, a landscape architect by profession and not an opponent of the project, said the opposite on the record: the hillside path can be built. And Mr. Wing established that part of the trail is outside the wetlands, where the affordability-and-wetlands excuse simply doesn’t reach.
“Aspirational” is the word a developer uses for a promise it would prefer not to keep. Site plan review is the moment the Board can turn the promise back into a requirement.
What “not feasible” means here
It does not mean it cannot be built. The Board’s own chair said the trail across the slope can be built, and is within the Board’s authority to require. So when the developer says “not feasible,” the record shows it means a cost they would rather not carry, not an engineering limit.
Source: City of Salem Planning Board, Minutes of May 21, 2026. All quotations as recorded in the official minutes.
The leadership this moment asks for
When the developer said the hillside trail simply could not be built, the Chair did not reach for the easy “not our purview.” A landscape architect by training, he looked at the same slope and said plainly it was “challenging, but doable,” and squarely within the Board’s authority to require.
That is the kind of civic leadership Salem remembers. On July 23, residents can give the Board the public backing to follow through, and make the accessible trails a condition the whole city will thank them for.
Why July 23 matters
Winn’s Phase II alone adds up to 145 homes; the full Forest River Residences, across both phases, adds up to 485. Hundreds of new neighbors will walk straight onto the existing Forest River trails. That is exactly why the pedestrian and multi-modal connections matter more here, not less, a development that intensifies use of public trails should be required to strengthen the connections to them.
Under site plan review, the Planning Board can attach conditions to its approval. That is the lever the chair pointed to when he said pedestrian access “is in their wheelhouse.” Unlike a simple yes-or-no, the Board can say yes, on these terms, and one of those terms can be the accessible trail and multi-modal connections the developer drew to win the land.
The standard isn’t “a path.” It’s accessible, for all ages and abilities.
This is the heart of it, and it should be written into the condition in plain words: the trails, connections, and overlooks must be accessible to people of all ages and abilities, usable by a resident in a wheelchair, an older neighbor with a walker, a parent with a stroller, not a steep, narrow path only the able-bodied can manage.
That standard isn’t something residents invented. The public bid for this land required real public access, and the developer’s own winning proposal promised “a series of accessible footpaths” and “an inclusive space for residents and the wider community.” Accessible was their word. The condition should hold them to it, and say so explicitly, so it cannot quietly shrink into a token path later.
What to ask the Board for on July 23
One honest note on timing
At the July 9 meeting, the applicant told the Board it had no new materials and that it is working with planning staff on a draft decision. The hearing was continued to July 23 for that purpose. In other words, the conditions are being written right now, which is exactly when a comment matters most: before the draft hardens into a vote.
Tell the Planning Board
The most persuasive comment a Board hears is its own members’ words coming back from the public. One click opens a pre-written email to the Planning Board’s comment inbox, each click loads one of seven versions, so the inbox fills with neighbors, not copies. Add your name and address before sending.
Goes to planningboardcomments@salem.com, the Board’s public-comment inbox. Remember to replace the name and address placeholders before you hit send.
There’s also a pre-written email to the Conservation Commission for the Order of Conditions hearing.
Add your name
Sign the Petition
At 100 signatures we deliver it to the City: keep the promised trails and access.