Loading...
2025-07-09 SRA Meeting MinutesSRA July 9, 2025 Page 1 of 7 City of Salem, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Salem Redevelopment Authority Date and Time: Wednesday, July 9, 2024, at 7:15 pm Meeting Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting SRA Members Present: Chair Grace Napolitano, Glenn Larose, Christine Madore, Christopher Dunn SRA Members Absent: Dean Rubin Others Present: Tom Daniel, Executive Director, Kate Newhall-Smith, Principal Planner Executive Director’s Report Mr. Daniel reported that the Salem Arts Fest in early June was a success despite the weather, along with the July 4th festivities. He added that the work on the Charlotte Fortin Park shade structure is continuing and that Ms. Newhall-Smith is managing the revised engineering that is needed. Ms. Newhall-Smith added that Anthem is doing programs, has snacks and drinks, and encouraged people to stop down. Projects in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 292 Essex Street: Small Project Review – Review of Salem Housing Authority’s proposal to replace the roof. Debra Tucker, with the Salem Housing Authority and Andrew Brockway were present to discuss the proposal: • Ms. Tucker noted that the Housing Authority owns the top two floors of 292 Essex Street, which includes housing for the elderly. She stated that a replacement roof is badly needed. • The Historic Commission has issued a Certificate of Appropriateness or Non-Applicability. • Mr. Brockway shared the images of the building, which is located on the corner of Essex St. and Sewell Street. Aerial images were also shown. • The 10,000 sq ft. roof has a low slope. There is a high point in the middle of the roof, and the water sheds towards Essex St. • The existing roof is constructed of a gravel floor coat on top of wood decking with roof drains. Images of the wood cornice slash were shared. • The applicant would like to add approximately 5.2” of ridge insulation to bring it up to code, which will have a ½” coverboard and tapered edge strip to shed water back towards the roof drains and away from the edge. • All the existing wood tablature and slash cornice will remain. • Images of the cornice detail were shown. • The Historical Commission commented that the applicant set the edge back 4” to mitigate the sense of scale as seen from the street level. There were no comments or questions from the public. SRA July 9, 2025 Page 2 of 7 VOTE: Dunn made a motion to approve subject to DRB approval and recommendation. Second: Madore. Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Madore, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. 2. 246 Essex Street, Unit B: Small Project Review – Review of proposed façade painting for Witch City Broom, Co. Micah Hapworth (spelling?) was present to discuss this proposal: • The applicant is proposing to update the exterior paint, replace the metal door with a wooden door, and replace what had once been a transom window. The door is proposed to have a wooden panel at the bottom with a glass panel above that. • They would like to add grids to the windows to make it look more historic. • Photos and plans were shared, along with a mock-up. • The proposed paint color is Benjamin Moore Gentlemen’s Gray, which is a dark blue teal color. • Ms. Hapworth is proposing to install mullions on the windows. A carpenter is building them and they would be installed on the exterior and interior of the glass. The existing glass will be kept. • The Historic Inventory Form for the building was not reviewed by the applicant, though she noted that there are other storefronts in the area that have similar grids on their windows. • Mr. Daniel suggested that they review the inventory form to see if there was a specific grid pattern, such as 6 over 6 or some other pattern to consider. • Ms. Hapworth noted that the blade sign has been approved by the DRB. • Ms. Newhall-Smith summarized Mr. Rubin’s comments, which were summitted in writing prior to the meeting. Mr. Rubin wrote that he supports the color change, but not the window grids. He challenged the applicant to find window merchandising methods to distinguish themselves from their neighbors. He was concerned about the neighbors following through on their promise to change colors to that proposed by the applicant, but that he would support pre-approving the proposal and forwarding to the DRB. • Ms. Hapworth said she has a letter from the condo association saying that they would paint them, and she said that the other storefront owners are eager to repaint. • Ms. Newhall-Smith said that this approval would not cover the abutting storefronts who wish to repaint, those owners would need to come before the SRA. • Ms. Madore said she did not want to make any decisions based on what other owners might do. She sees this as a stand-alone project. There were no comments or questions from the public. • Ms. Napolitano said she would like to see the project come back to the SRA following DRB approval so that they could have input on the window grids. • Ms. Newhall-Smith said the neighbors could submit one application for the rest of the storefronts by Friday, which is the DRB deadline, and then come back to the SRA in August. • Ms. Napolitano said she didn’t want to hold up this applicant if that couldn’t be accomplished. • Ms. Madore said she understands the concern of consistency but doesn’t want other applications to hold this up. SRA July 9, 2025 Page 3 of 7 • The applicant said she is not beholden to the grid if that is what is holding up the vote. She would come back at a later time for that as she is eager to get the store open. • Mr. Larose agreed and said he doesn’t want to hold up this application for other owners. VOTE: Larose made a motion to refer the project to DRB. Second: Dunn. Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Madore, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. 3. 76 Lafayette Street: Small Project Review – Review of proposed closure of parking lot entrance Justin Sharkey, project manager with RCG, was present to discuss the proposal: • Images of the existing lot were shown. The applicant is looking to close off one of the entrances and add three parking spaces. • The Police Department, Fire Department, and Traffic and Parking Department do not object to the proposal. • The curb cut will remain. • Photos of the raised concrete were shown, and those will be removed and patched with asphalt and stripe to accommodate three more spaces. • There is demand for more parking with the current tenants, and more expected with the renovation of their second floor. • The applicant received the written support via email from the Fire and Police Departments for the proposal. • Ms. Newhall-Smith said she received verbal support for the proposal from the Transportation Department. • The fence will be the same as shown in the photos. There were no comments or questions from the public. VOTE: Madore made a motion to approve pending DRB approval. Second: Dunn. Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Madore, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. 4. 301 Essex Street: Schematic Design Review – Review of DRB Recommendation on the proposed amendment to the previously approved project that seeks to expand the square footage of the approved commercial space to the entire basement and ground floor, which will require additional permitting via the Zoning Board of Appeals for the removal of the proposed ground floor parking spaces, continued from 6/11/25. Mike Becker and Charissa Vitas were present to discuss the proposal: • Mr. Becker shared the floor plans of the units. He said they removed one unit from this floor and moved it to an upper floor that had larger units. • The first-floor shared included roof decks. The next floor up has units between 360 and 484 sf. • The penthouse units remain the same in this layout, which are between 750 and 1000 sf. • Mr. Becker noted that he sent Ms. Newhall-Smith comparable small units in Salem. • The residential entrance uses the original door opening that is currently on the building. SRA July 9, 2025 Page 4 of 7 • Ms. Newhall-Smith shared the first-floor plan. • Laundry will be in some of the units, and for those that do not have in-unit laundry, they will be in the building, likely in the basement. • Ms. Madore expressed hope that the applicant could give more thought in terms of which unit has laundry in terms of marketability and financial feasibility. Adding unit laundry does require more ductwork and drywall connections. • Mr. Daniel asked whether the board had completed its discussion about the commercial tenancy aspects of the project. • Ms. Napolitano said the board did discuss it, and that Ms. Madore and Mr. Rubin expressed concerns about the type of tenancy and desire to have tenants that service the neighborhood in a year-round capacity. • Mr. Dunn said he wished the SRA had more direction, through either the City Council or Mayor’s office. He expressed worry about setting precedent within the SRA’s district. The smallest unit is 300 sf. Mr. Dunn said he went on record at the last meeting saying he was comfortable with units starting at 400 sf. • Mr. Becker said that one of the comparable properties he sent was within the SRA overlay district. • Ms. Madore said that she believes the Board made their concerns and desires very clear in past meetings. She hoped that the effort in research into smaller listings would have also been applied to the commercial tenancy. She does not have an issue with the smaller units but wanted to see how they were laid out from a livability standpoint. She would like to see more due diligence in the commercial market. She would like to see neighbors surveyed to determine what is desirable. • Ms. Madore said she would also like to understand what the ZBA thinks about parking to service the commercial tenants as a loading area will be needed. • Mr. Becker reported that he reached out to all the tenants that Ms. Newhall-Smith provided, and that they all have different size requirements, but he can’t enter into any agreement with anyone not knowing what space he is going to have available or whether he needs to have parking. • Ms. Newhall-Smith summarized Mr. Rubin’s comments, which were summitted in writing prior to the meeting. Mr. Rubin said he spoke with some members of the City Council, housing organizations, and a few young professionals who recently moved into the City and the desirability of micro-units. After those conversations, he wrote that he’s now supportive of the idea, but with the important caveat that they be priced at a m aximum of $1200/month. If that does not work for the applicant, then he does not support the project. He wrote that he would not support building out the micro-units to see if they can get higher rents initially because he doesn’t trust that they will reduce the rents , and the units will be half occupied. He supports the DRB’s suggested improvements to the exterior design. He believes the units will likely cater to those wanting to work and live downtown, and parking in one of the garages won’t be an objection. He defers to the ZBA regarding parking. He would like to see a minimum size of 300 sf and a minimum height of X feet as a condition of approval rather than ask the applicant to come to the SRA just for that. He supports sending the revised interior configuration to the DRB and supports a requirement that the applicant provide a commitments to tenanting. • Mr. Daniel asked what the minimum height of the residential units is. Mr. Becker said he believes the residential units are required to be 8’ and commercial units are 11’. SRA July 9, 2025 Page 5 of 7 • Mr. Daniel said that with smaller units, you usually see a higher height elevation in the market so that it doesn’t feel small. • Mr. Larose inquired about what Mr. Becker has received for feedback on what commercial tenants are looking for in their space. • Mr. Becker said one prospective tenant loved the exposed brick, which was good for food and beverages, which is why he wanted to activate the outdoor space on the south side of the building. He believes there is a likelihood of a coffee, tea house, or a smaller café. He doesn’t see a large restaurant. He said the consignment tenant that was subletting the space is also interested. • Mr. Larose said he’s trying to flush out what the units are going to be set up for; something that is needed or established. Ms. Vitas said they’ve heard the SRA loud and clear and want there to be commercial tenants, year round, for the community. • Mr. Larose said it was nice to see the schematics of the units and that each one is going to have a kitchen area. He said the City of Boston has published some good information on micro-units. He said he doesn’t have any concerns about the exterior but reiterates the importance of appropriate commercial tenants. • Ms. Madore suggested that the SRA make it clear that there are specific types of neighborhood retail that they want to see and outline how they would like to see the applicant fulfill that agreement. She suggested that recommendation be a condition of approval. She described her concern around the saturation of a specific type of retail and thinks the Board can articulate it if they spend some time on outlining the conditions. She suggested that they move this forward beyond schematic and think about guidance on standards before it comes back for final design. She encouraged the applicant to do some market research within the neighborhood. • Ms. Napolitano said she is aligned with Mr. Dunn’s concerns regarding the size of the units, and what type of conditions or guidelines that they can provide such as ceiling height, window size, etc. and concerns of precedent. She would also want DRB’s guidance on this. • Mr. Larose noted the self-sufficiency of these types of units, i.e. no parking but including laundry facilities. • Ms. Napolitano said they may see more proposals like this, and they want to do it right. The City doesn’t have any ordinances to guide them. • Mr. Dunn said he appreciates all the work the applicant has done . • Mr. Becker said there is 4% ventilation and light, and the smallest units have a wall of glass with sliders. Ceiling minimums would be 8 ft. He also pointed out that the unit sizes vary because the shape of the building is asymmetrical. He said the floor plan is very well- thought out relative to usability. • Ms. Napolitano agreed that outdoor space is a mitigating factor. • Mr. Daniel noted Boston’s compact living guidelines that Mr. Larose spoke of. He suggested that the DRB and the applicant review Boston’s guidelines as a condition of the SRA’s recommendation. He said there is regional research and data the SRA can reference as the project continues. There were no comments or questions from the public. • Mr. Daniel said the DRB would be capable of providing feedback on the interior of the building. SRA July 9, 2025 Page 6 of 7 • It is up to the applicant to determine the order of City approvals, which operate independently. Mr. Daniel noted that the DRB never reviewed the interior of those configurations which came up during the refiling. • Mr. Dunn said that if the DRB is comfortable with the size of the units, it would give him more comfort in the size of the units. • Mr. Larose said he thinks the proposal is moving in the right direction and having a checklist reviewing the standards that were developed would be a strong path forward with this project. VOTE: Madore made a motion to refer the project to the DRB with the request that they provide review of the interior in the context of the Boston guidelines and standards for micro-units. Second: Dunn. Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Madore, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. Mr. Daniel, Ms. Newhall-Smith, and Ms. Owens will connect on the details and how to move the process forward efficiently. Mr. Becker asked if there was a more specific process for the commercial tenancy and expressed concern about the desired tenants not being available. Ms. Madore said she would like to see documented outreach, market research, and how Mr. Becker responds to the neighborhood demand. If the market doesn’t meet the demand, then she would like to see an explanation of why that is supported by research. She suggested having a commercial broker at the next meeting. Mr. Daniel said he’s hoping Mr. Becker will make a similar commitment to other downtown property owners who have passed on higher paying tenants because they weren’t the right tenant for their building or the neighboring tenants. New/Old Business 1. Redevelopment of the Historic Courthouses and the Crescent Lot: Update on Project Status Mr. Daniel reported that after many months of testing, the color for the Crescent Lot has been finalized and approval of that color was made by the DRB. He said they are continuing to meet with DCAMM to work through their proposal and will be coming before the SRA. They are looking to have an early start of construction, before they have ownership, so they will need the SRA’s approval for that as it is outside the terms of the P&S. 2. SRA Financials 3. Other Meeting Minutes 1. June 11, 2025 a. Joint Meeting with the DRB SRA July 9, 2025 Page 7 of 7 VOTE: Dunn made a motion to approve the Joint DRB meeting minutes. Second: Madore. Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Madore, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. b. Regular Meeting VOTE: Dunn made a motion to approve the regular meeting minutes. Second: Larose. Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Madore, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. Upcoming Meetings 1. DRB: July 23 2. SRA: August 13 Adjournment VOTE: Madore made a motion to adjourn meeting. Seconded by: Dunn Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Madore, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. SRA adjourned at 7:45pm.