2024-06-12 Meeting MinutesSRA
June 12, 2024
Page 1 of 5
City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday, June 12, 2024, at 6:00 pm
Meeting Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting
SRA Members Present: Christopher Dunn, Christine Madore (joined meeting at
6:35pm), Cynthia Nina-Soto, Dean Rubin
SRA Members Absent: Chair Grace Napolitano
Others Present: Kate Newhall-Smith, Principal Planner
Others Absent: Tom Daniel, Executive Director
Recorder: Beth Forrestal
Executive Director’s Report
Mr. Daniel stated that the Arts Festival was a successful kick-off to summer programming in the
downtown. The Charlotte Forten Park memorial project is on track and installation should be in
September. Electrical improvements are nearly done at the park. Ms. Newhall-Smith updates that the
Anthem Group’s activation should be running by early July. The shade structure at Charlotte Forten is
proceeding; two bids have come under budget and should have a contract and a timeline soon. Mr. Rubin
asks about who connects with the Salem News for press releases. Ms. Newhall-Smith says that there is a
list of places where the information is shared. Mr. Daniel updates on the parking study in the home stretch
and a joint meeting with the SRA and Traffic is forthcoming.
Projects in the Urban Renewal Area
1. 30 Federal Street: Review of DRB Recommendation regarding the 100% construction drawings
for Phase 1 of the project, which includes the installation of a new south entry door, a railing
modification, and relocation of existing, previously approved tenant sign.
Micheal Becker, applicant and owner of the property, was not present to discuss the project. Kate
Newhall-Smith provided a summary of the DRB review of this project
Public Comment:
No one in the assembly wished to speak.
Public comment is closed.
VOTE: Nina-Soto made a motion to approve the project pursuant to the DRB Recommendation
and with the staff’s recommended conditions. Seconded by: Dunn.
Roll Call: Dunn, Nina-Soto, and Rubin. 3-0 in favor.
2. 1-7 Central Street: Small Project Review – Review of DRB Recommendation: Removal of
existing brick wall on the back and side of the building from the second floor to the roof line and
rebuild of same using a mix of salvaged bricks and new waterstruck bricks, repair chimney, and
fire escape bracket.
Juliana Silva of MS Masonry and Stone Services was present to discuss the project.
SRA
June 12, 2024
Page 2 of 5
Images shown of 1-7 Central Street. A sample was done to match brick to the existing with
success per DRB recommendation.
Ms. Nina-Soto asks about the salvaged brick that is to be used, is it in decent condition and is it
on hand? Ms. Silva confirms that the salvaged brick will from the current wall.
Public Comment:
No one in the assembly wished to speak.
Public comment is closed.
VOTE: Dunn made a motion to approve the project pursuant to the DRB Recommendation.
Seconded by: Nina-Soto.
Roll Call: Dunn, Nina-Soto, and Rubin. 3-0 in favor.
3. 137 Essex Street: Small Project Review – Proposal to designate an area of the building for
temporary public on the PEM Connect building.
Dereck O’Brien, Chief Marketing Officer for the Peabody Essex Museum was present to discuss
the project.
Mr. Dunn clarifies that this proposal is for an approval that is valid for perpetuity. Ms. Newhall-
Smith confirms that yes as long as the scope doesn’t change. Mr. Daniel says that a timeframe
can be added to the approval. Mr. Dunn asks how they determine the marketing goals; Mr.
O’Brien says that they are looking to use this space about one time per year as a pop-up space and
how it would be used will be determined by how other public spaces are being used.
Ms. Nina-Soto asks if the red is always red and if this is to serve as advertising. Mr. O’Brien says
no to both of these and that they will not serve as advertising signage but as pieces of artwork
from a temporary exhibition or, possibly in the future, from PEM’s permanent collection. Ms.
Nina-Soto is not comfortable for a blanket approval and seeks to avoid setting precedence.
Mr. Rubin asks what the intent is of the vinyl wrap. Mr. O’Brien says that it is a way to let people
know when the space is activated. The DRB has approved signage separate from the wrap. Mr.
Rubin points out that the public must make the connection and is concerned about the precedence
this sets and cites Black Cat not being able to paint brick black but could potentially choose to
wrap their building in black vinyl. Mr. Rubin doesn’t believe the SRA should be approving
artwork regularly. Ms. Nina-Soto concurs.
Mr. Daniel says that if something is permanent then the SRA would be reviewing it for
appropriateness for the location. The DRB and Public Art Commission would have opinions on
permanent works.
Mr. Dunn asks about the banners outside the PEM and what is the difference between the banners
and the vinyl wrap. Mr. Daniel says that they were reviewed as part of a prior expansion project.
Mr. Dunn is open to trying the vinyl wrap for a year or two.
Madore joins the discussion at 6:35pm.
SRA
June 12, 2024
Page 3 of 5
Ms. Madore chimes in that vinyl wrapping has been done before on this building without review.
Mr. Daniel say that there is a signage piece that has been approved. Ms. Madore does not agree
with blanket approval.
Mr. Rubin feels that if this was a permanent fixture then he would be more inclined to agree. Mr.
O’Brien wonders if the temporary art were to go through the same process as a permanent art,
with review by the Public Art Commission would the project be more likely to receive approval.
Mr. Daniel believes this could be explored.
Mr. Rubin asks Mr. Daniel to establish a working group to make smarter decisions regarding
work like this. Ms. Newhall-Smith is concerned that this application is before the board right now
and wonders if there is action to be taken tonight knowing that guidelines take some time.
Public Comment:
No one in the assembly wished to speak.
Public comment is closed.
VOTE: Nina-Soto made a motion to approve the project as presented for this one-time use with
the proposed images for the mural on the building for no longer than four months as the SRA
staff works with a committee of stakeholders to create guidelines for temporary artwork and
murals. Seconded by: Dunn.
Roll Call: Dunn, Madore, Nina-Soto in the affirmative, Rubin in the negative. The motion carries
3-1.
4. 41 Lafayette Street: Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed outdoor dining for Barrio
Kate Osborn, Barrio, was present to discuss the proposal.
The project has been before the Accessibility Commission and per their recommendation, they
will extend the railing on the far side of the patio.
Public Comment:
No one in the assembly wished to speak.
Public comment is closed.
VOTE: Nina-Soto made a motion to approve the project pending successful completion of DRB
review. Seconded by: Madore.
Roll Call: Dunn, Madore, Nina-Soto, and Rubin. 4-0 in favor.
5. 120 Washington Street: Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed outdoor dining for The Gyro
Spot, request to continue to July 10, 2024.
The Authority did not discuss this application.
6. 288 Derby Street: Outdoor Dining – Amendment to Bambolina’s approved outdoor dining area
for the construction of a temporary pergola.
SRA
June 12, 2024
Page 4 of 5
Tim Haigh, owner, was present to discuss the project.
In addition to the pergola, Mr. Haigh states that he is seeking an amendment for an additional 18
square feet of outdoor dining space.
The structure is built with pressure treated lumber, and tinted, UV protected polycarbonate. The
half wall is constructed of corrugated metal capped by extruded aluminum. Mr. Dunn asks if the
umbrellas were not sufficient. Mr. Haigh feels that umbrellas require too much maintenance.
Ms. Nina-Soto asks if this will be removed seasonally and is worried about precedence. Mr.
Haigh says that this costs less than the umbrellas and their replacements each year. Mr. Haigh
assures the SRA that if a waiver is not granted by the City Council to keep the patio year-round
then it will be removed by November 1. Ms. Nina-Soto does not feel that this fits the scope of the
temporary outdoor dining space dictated by the Outdoor Dining Policy. Mr. Haigh says that it is
City Council that determines year-round patios. Mr. Haigh cites Brothers Taverna as an example
of a permanent patio.
Ms. Madore says that the structure was not approved by the SRA and it is bigger than previously
presented. The fact that there is a waiver being sought diminishes the ability of the SRA to utilize
the Outdoor Dining Policy and questions why this was intentionally built that way; there is a
process and policy for a reason. Mr. Haigh shares that the structure is put together with screws
and can easily be taken down. Additionally, he shares that the Commission on Disabilities did
approve the setup of the tables. Regarding the SRA approval, he has no excuse except to say that
businesses are concerned with becoming and remaining compliant and the pergola is more
efficient way of operating an outdoor dining facility. Ms. Madore doesn’t see how they can grant
an amendment simply because Mr. Haigh misread the policy.
Mr. Haigh says they are on the agenda for City Council to approve the additional 18 sq. feet.
Ms. Newhall-Smith ask if the request to be year-round is before City Council. Mr. Haigh says
that if the City Council grants the waiver, then could he return to the SRA for any adjustment.
Mr. Rubin is concerned about the nominal fee currently associated with the outdoor dining and
the tax structure mode on the parcel if the applicant were to receive the waiver from the City
Council. Mr. Rubin also believes this to the be introduction of an outdoor cafe, possibly affecting
the outdoor dining next year. Ms. Madore states that City Council approval would equate to land
disposition without an RFP.
Public Comment:
Andy Varella, Councilor, Ward 7:
Has been in preliminary talks with City Engineer for Phase 3 of Derby Street. There has been a
precedent of permanent outdoor dining set with Brothers Taverna. If this fits the character, then it
will help the businesses if it is more permanent. Councilor Varela feels that we are here to help
and work with businesses.
Susan Moulton: Disapproves of the pergola.
SRA
June 12, 2024
Page 5 of 5
Ms. Madore notes that the reason there is a policy in place is because not all businesses have the
same amount of space and this is a privilege and they need to keep a level playing field. This may
encourage other restaurants to construct more permanent structures.
Ms. Madore asks if there are design guidelines regarding pergolas. Mr. Daniel does not believe
so. Mr. Haigh says that there is a pergola at Casa Tequila. Mr. Daniel says that it is different
context. Mr. Haigh mentions Finz, which is not in the urban renewal area.
No one else in the assembly wished to speak.
Public comment is closed.
VOTE: Nina-Soto made a motion to reject the proposal as presented. Seconded by: Madore.
Roll Call: Dunn, Madore, Nina-Soto, and Rubin. 4-0 in favor.
Adjournment
Members requested continuing all remaining agenda items to the July meeting and asked to adjourn.
VOTE: Madore made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Dunn.
Roll Call: Dunn, Madore, Nina-Soto, and Rubin. 4-0 in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15PM.
Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-028
through 2-2033