Loading...
2025-08-13 SRA Meeting MinutesSRA August 13, 2025 Page 1 of 9 City of Salem, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Salem Redevelopment Authority Date and Time: Wednesday, August 13, 2025, at 6:00pm Meeting Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting SRA Members Present: Chair Grace Napolitano, Dean Rubin, Glenn Larose, Christine Madore, Christopher Dunn Others Present: Tom Daniel, Executive Director, Kate Newhall-Smith, Principal Planner Executive Director’s Report Mr. Daniel noted that next month’s September meeting is the Annual Meeting and will be held in - person with a hybrid option in the City Hall Annex. Projects in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 252 Bridge Street and 32-34 Federal Street – Discussion on Courthouse project status and vote on potential amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement From Winn Companies, Micheal O’Brien, Executive VP, Adam Stein, Executive VP, Lauren Canepari, Senior Project Director, Derek Hansen, Courthouse Project Director, and Chance Brady, Project Director were present to discuss the proposal: ● Mr. O’Brien said he’s very grateful for the partnership with the City and the SRA. He recalled the RFP was awarded in 2020. He said they remain steadfast to all the terms and conditions of the overall vision and of the PSA. He said Winn Development is pushing hard , despite negative economic pressure, to start the projects as soon as September 2025. ● Mr. O’Brien requested SRA approval of an early start in September for the Exchange via work on the crescent lot to support the development. ● He also requested an early start on the Courthouse project with SRA and DCAMM approval. He said it will be at their risk as they won’t close on financing until the first quarter of 2026. ● He said an early start will allow permanent public works improvements to the City, a jump start to the residences and work to start within the confines of City date constraints and while weather is good. ● General contracts will be executed with contractor pricing will be locked in with 2025 pricing with that early start. Those prices are expected to expire within 60 days. ● Without the early start, the overall cost for the project is expected to rise $4-6 million. ● Mr. O’Brien said they fully expect to redevelop the former County Commissioners building on Federal Street as workforce condos with funding via MassHousing and adaptively redevelop the former courthouse as publicly accessible space for meetings, performances and cultural events. They will still own the buildings, aside from the condos once sold, and be responsible for all the ownership costs including real estate taxes paid to the City. ● They intend to complete and fill the courthouse with uses and create tenant revenue streams to cover the operational costs. He said they are committed to being successful in their partnership with the City, the Commonwealth, and others. SRA August 13, 2025 Page 2 of 9 ● Mr. Daniel clarified that there are two items on tonight’s agenda, both related to this project. He requested that Ms. Napolitano read the second agenda item since the discussion involves both. Ms. Napolitano read the following: 2. 252 Bridge Street – Discussion and vote on applicant request to consider an Early Start License to enable developer to begin site work on the property prior to taking ownership. ● Ms. Canepari acknowledged all the work that Mr. Daniel and Ms. Newhall -Smith have put into this project and working with the proponent. ● Ms. Canepari said that Crescent lot, as it is today, is not developable. She said there is no drainage for that parcel of land, that the City’s system and MBTA system is overwhelmed and to make it developable, a new outfall is required to the North River. ● The Chapter 91 permitting process, working with the Conservation Commission, City Engineering, and Mr. Daniel and Ms. Newhall-Smith, has been long and expensive. ● She said that to not have a $5M bust on the project, they need to start the work early to get the outfall installed so that the site is developable and usable as residential housing by the end of September. There was a $3M gap that has been filled, but was due to an increase in project costs from March from increased construction pricing, tariffs, the new outfall, and other permitting. She said if they don’t lock in construction pricing with an early start, then they risk another large delay to the project. ● There is no financial request to the City, the request is to go on to the lot and begin work on the outfall and some utility ground work, which would enable them to begin work in early 2026. ● The approved renderings were shared and reviewed by Mr. Brady. ● Due to the large influx of people during the month of October and through November 10 th, only a portion of the lot would be used. A 3-D rendering was shown showing the outfall. ● Winn would take over the full site after November 10th. If for some reason things did not work out, Mr. Brady reported that they would restore the lot back to its original condition. ● Mr. Hanson provided an update on the Courthouse and the idea of public activation being the cornerstone goal of the project. ● Their scope of work includes renovation of the key rooms in the most historic spaces such as the law library in the red building. Pre-positioning work is happening including MEP upgrades, life safety code, ADA access, and key exterior elements so that it no longer looks like a vacant space. ● Mr. Hanson reported that there will be deferred work at the Superior Courthouse that Winn cannot get to due to funding limitations, but it is their intent and plan to continue to pursue the funds to complete the project though it is not a certainty at this moment. ● Fourteen units of deed restricted housing units will be created in the gray building that Winn is proposing to complete now. ● Winn has a partnership with Anthem events company, who has proposed a mix of events such as weddings, corporate events, comedy shows, lectures, etc. at the site. Those events would be managed by Anthem who would have two full-time employees and a mix of part- time catering staff. SRA August 13, 2025 Page 3 of 9 ● The simultaneous closing, scheduled for December 2025 per the PSA, when Winn would take title to both buildings is when Winn would start to incur all carrying costs including payment of real estate taxes to the City and work would begin immediately. ● Winn would remain the owner of the courthouses for a period of five years after the work completion. ● Mr. Stein reiterated his thanks to the City and the SRA since the deal started in 2019. He said with an early start they’ll have invested over $6M into this project. ● He said he understands there are two items on the agenda tonight, but requested that the Board review the early start on its own merits and to authorize Mr. Daniel to have a working session to finalize the amendment to the PSA. ● Mr. Daniel clarified that he wanted the Chair to read both agenda items so that the public understood that both were being discussed. ● Mr. Rubin noted that they had a long history with Winn, and he agreed that they are closer than they’ve been. He requested clarification about the request to separate and have the amended PSA. He noted that the Crescent lot was the easier piece for a developer and that it was included as a sweetener and moneymaker knowing how difficult the courthouse projects would be. He did not want to go too long without an amended PS A before calling a termination and then run into funding issues. ● Mr. Stein responded that the key component to the amendment is to further define simultaneous start and simultaneous completion. He acknowledged there was always a concern that a developer would do the Crescent lot, and leave the courthouses fallow. Mr. Stein said Winn went into the deal with eyes wide open and at the time they had a commercial partner in the RFP, and they still wish to have one. ● Mr. Stein said they were comfortable with the terms in the PSA about how the projects would start together and end together, but there have been discussions about putting more detail into those terms. He said if you can’t finish one, you can’t get a certificate of occupancy on another and they won’t be able to get a lender for those terms. ● Mr. Stein said he didn’t want to say to the SRA that Winn wasn’t going to do the early start until the PSA is ratified. He preferred the SRA to make judgement on the early start so they don’t have to come back conditioned on the PSA amendment. ● Mr. Daniel agreed with Mr. Stein’s sentiments and that they did not want to prevent the deal from proceeding and they understand that some flexibility is needed. He thinks they are close in terms of agreement and had hoped they would have had agreement by tonight’s meeting. ● Mr. Daniel said that the amendment provision about committing to the building five years post completion which ties to the historic tax credit is confirmation of the situation. ● Mr. Rubin said he was happy to hear that. Mr. Rubin said a large part of this project was intended to activate this center of downtown and that after conducting surveys found this was a dark spot in how people moved through the City. There was interest in finding businesses that could generate tax revenue here. He expressed concern that the special and private events don't excite him for the building, though he does appreciate the public access component and the work that Anthem does. He worries that people will only access the building once or twice a week. ● Mr. O’Brien said they have worked very closely with City staff over the past six years to find tenants to fill the courthouse spaces and looked at over 140 opportunities. He said in Executive Session they can go into more detail about prospective tenants. SRA August 13, 2025 Page 4 of 9 ● He added that they are still working in context of the world reset that occurred since they started this process and that the Boston commercial marketplace is still in retraction with vacancies. Ms. Napolitano reported that Board member Chris Dunn joined the meeting. ● Ms. Madore asked to what degree the building is being built out for Anthem’s use and whether the build-out will translate for further tenants. ● Mr. Hansen said that this is a NPS reviewed historic rehab which limits the degree to how custom the space can be. The historic rooms will be refreshed with new lighting, building systems, etc., but most of the work with Anthem relates to furniture. There may be a higher bathroom count for use as event space. The space will be very adaptable. ● Anthem’s business plan is projected out for three years, but Winn is going to stay focused on public activation of that space. ● Ms. Madore said she hopes the activities Anthem conducts in the spaces are very intentional as proof of concept. She hopes they can test out markets. ● Mr. Hansen said many of the people they’ve brought through the building were we ighed down by the capital improvements. ● Ms. Madore asked if there has been any discussion about potential risks and liabilities during the license period. ● Mr. Brady said the early start license has an indemnification clause for the owners of the parcel. All risks would be borne by Winn, not the SRA. ● Mr. Daniel will circulate a copy of the indemnification language that is being worked on with the City’s attorney. ● The SRA parcel isn’t subject to an MBTA easement. Winn will need a zone of influence permit from the MBTA. ● Mr. Daniel asked for clarification on the early start for the courthouses. Mr. O’Brien said Winn thought it was important for both with respect to the early start. The goal would be to work with DCAMM to get an access agreement and remove the plywood from the building and request to do a very detailed window survey for NPS, which they have been unable to do. They want to be able to show the start of the buildings’ transformation. ● Winn has had some high-level conversations with DCAMM about this proposal and there has been receptivity to it. ● Ms. Napolitano asked about the remaining sticking points on the PSA language, timeline, etc. ● Mr. Stein said he hoped that could be discussed in a working or executive session, but he thinks they can get to agreement. ● Mr. O’Brien asked if there could be a vote for approval for an early start, with language to be worked out with Mr. Daniel so that Winn doesn’t have to wait another month and allow them to lock in prices. ● Ms. Newhall-Smith noted that there was a letter submitted by Historic Salem, Inc. (HSI) a copy of which has been placed in the public folder. The meeting was open for public comment. SRA August 13, 2025 Page 5 of 9 ● Karen Garvey Beck, 4 Andover Street, spoke on behalf of HSI and noted that they are strongly opposed to the phasing of the Superior Courthouse in connection with the development of the Exchange on Bridge St. She said the City transferred the Crescent lot to the SRA to serve as an incentive for the chosen developer to undertake this very important restoration project in the core of Salem’s historic downtown. She said that Winn has not clearly identified a definitive use for the redevelopment of the Superior Courthouse, and it needs to be a priority for them to do so. She said HSI believes it is critical not to phase this multi-site development because of the risk that the courthouse development will languish alongside other already restored court properties on Federal St. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to enter into Executive Session pursuant to G.L. c 30A §21(a)(6) to consider the proposal submitted by Winn Development regarding the redevelopment of real property located at 32-35 Federal Street and 252 Bridge Street in Salem, MA, that if the Chair determines an open meeting may have detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the public body. Second: Madore. Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Madore, Rubin, and Napolitano. 5-0 in favor. Ms. Napolitano noted that they would return to open, public session following the executive session. At 8:25pm, Ms. Napolitano noted the Board returned to Open Session. Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Madore, and Napolitano were present. Mr. Rubin left the meeting. A quorum is still in place. ● Mr. Dunn said the SRA was very glad to hear the commitment from Winn for their overall commitment to the courthouse, which is very much of interest to the SRA and Salem residents. He said that the project may be a phased approach, but that the SRA has full expectation that Wynn will complete the courthouses. VOTE: Dunn made a motion to authorize the Executive Director to execute on behalf of the Redevelopment Authority the early start license agreement for the Crescent lot granting them pre- closing access to the Crescent lot to conduct the work specified in the licensing agreement. The authorization is contingent on and subsequent to execution of an amendment to the PSA that addresses, at a minimum, the definition of substantial completion, ownership requirements, and related SRA consent. The SRA Executive Director and SRA Board Chair are authorized to negotiate the final language to the amendment to the PSA. Second: Madore. Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Madore, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. ● Ms. Napolitano explained that the SRA approved the amendment preemptively, approving the early start, and that it is contingent on successful completion of the PSA amendment so that Winn does not need to come back as long as it’s successfully negotiated. SRA August 13, 2025 Page 6 of 9 Projects in the Urban Renewal Area Continued 3. Lappin Park: Request from the owners of Gulu Gulu Cafe to set up a tent on the weekends in October 2025 for the purpose of selling food and non-alcoholic beverage items from their menu. Jess Crescimano, owner of Gulu Gulu Café was present to discuss the proposal: ● They are proposing to use their own tent in Lappin Park to sell food and beverages. ● Their tent would end earlier than Saucer’s tent, and they don’t expect much crossover. They would like to be able to sell coffee, beverages, and some grab and go items off their menu. There will not be alcohol. ● The tent would be up for weekends in October, Friday through Sunday, including the weekend that goes into November. ● Hours of operation would be 9am-6pm. Tent set up will begin at 8am and will be broken down by 7pm. ● There would be folding tables and an espresso machine, coffee and milk held in ice, a hot box for breakfast burritos and a cooler for wraps and sodas. They would also have a handwashing station and trash cans. ● The size of the tent would be 10x10. ● Following the SRA’s approval, the applicant plans to reach out to the licensing department and health department for those approvals. ● A rough site plan was shared. There were no comments or questions from the public. ● The project does not need to go to the DRB. VOTE: Madore made a motion to approve. Second: Dunn. Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Madore, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. 4. 246 Essex Street, Unit B: Small Project Review – Review of DRB Recommendation on the proposed façade painting for Witch City Broom, Co. Micah Hapworth was present to discuss the project: ● Ms. Hapworth reported that she is seeking approval for a color change to the exterior of the building. ● She is no longer seeking approval for changes to the windows. There were no comments or questions from the public. VOTE: Madore made a motion to approve. Second: Dunn. Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Madore, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. 5. 216 Essex Street: Small Project Review – Proposal to modify the façade to facilitate the change in use from offices to hotel, including new doors, new trim paint, and new light fixtures. The use SRA August 13, 2025 Page 7 of 9 of public land adjacent to the property will be considered at a later date via a separate permit application. Scott Grover, representing Essex Cabot LLC, and Pavel Espinal, one of the principals, and Erica Hamilton from SV Design, were present to discuss the proposal: ● Essex Cabot is purchasing the property at 216 Essex St. ● Aerial imagery, images, and a rendering were shared. ● The property is a landmark, historic building. ● The new owners are proposing to convert the building to a boutique hotel. ● Very minor changes to the exterior of the building are proposed as part of this application, but there will be a future request for the ability to use the garden area for outdoor seating. ● Mr. Espinal reported that the building was constructed in 1801 and was originally known as the Jacob Parsons Rust Brick Building. Since that time, it has served many uses. ● Mr. Espinal said they are planning to convert the building into a 14-room boutique hotel. He said the tourism industry in Salem is booming and they, as real estate developers, have recently been focusing on the hospitality industry. ● He reported that they are looking to add a storefront door to match the existing right-hand door. It will be a gift shop that will be available to both the public and hotel guests. They also want to bring forward the vestibule entrance to the façade to create symmetry. ● In the future they are looking to create an indoor/outdoor seating/lobby bar area along Cervoni Walk. ● Ms. Wilson described the changes to be a ½ light double door that would be black in color to match the secondary door while pushing the recess forward flush with the exterior. The storefront door would have a side light. ● Renderings were shared along with images of proposed lighting and hardware. ● Public access will not be impeded by the outdoor seating area, which will actually be located in what is now an overgrown garden. ● The estimated construction timeline for the interior is 6-9 months. Exterior construction is very minor and will be completed in less than a month. ● Historic tax credits will support the redevelopment. ● The applicant does not believe there is a historic preservation restriction on the property. ● The applicant does not need any other City Board approval beyond the SRA and DRB for the exterior work. There were no comments or questions from the public. VOTE: Madore made a motion to refer the proposal to the DRB. Second: Dunn. Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Madore, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. A comment letter from John Kucinski, Salem Five Bank, can be found in the public folder. 6. 311 Derby Street: Extension of Premise for Outdoor Dining – Proposal from The Goat for outdoor dining on both the privately-owned front and rear patios. SRA August 13, 2025 Page 8 of 9 Justin Pasay, Chief of Development from the Flurry Group, parent company of Salem Goat, LLC, Adam Prentice, Creative Director, Ken Woods, Engineer, and Al Flurry, owner, were present to discuss the proposal: ● The applicant is seeking to permit Goat restaurant in Salem, and they are seeking an outdoor dining permit application. ● They are proposing outdoor dining in the same location as the previous owner, American Flatbread, who had outdoor dining in both the front and rear patio area. They are proposing to add 48 seats in the front, with 52 in the back, for a total of 100 additional outdoor dining seats. ● Mr. Woods put together an architectural review of both the indoor and outdoor seating capacity. ● A site plan and photos were shared. ● Concerns about spacing, table height, and quantity for patio areas were addressed. ● Images of the unbranded umbrellas, proposed tables/chairs, and fencing were shared. ● Planters would be used in the front and rear to act as an entrance and exit. ● Fencing barriers are moveable so that they can be removed in the offseason. ● Photos of the Newburyport and Manchester, NH restaurants were shared as examples. The meeting was open for public questions and comments. ● Tom Kusterer asked what was going on with the covered wooden structure in front of the restaurant in the parking area and asked about the construction timeline. ● Mr. Flurry said he believes that structure is now gone. He expects construction to start as soon as possible, hopefully by the end of the summer. He said most of the work is interior and superficial. VOTE: Dunn made a motion to refer the proposal to the DRB. Second: Madore. Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Madore, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. New/Old Business 1. Redevelopment of the Historic Courthouses and the Crescent Lot: Update on Project Status 2. SRA Financials 3. Other Meeting Minutes 1. July 9, 2025 VOTE: Dunn made a motion to approve the July 9th meeting minutes. Second: Madore Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Madore, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. Upcoming Meetings 1. DRB: August 27 SRA August 13, 2025 Page 9 of 9 2. SRA: September 10: Annual and Regular Meeting, hybrid format (both in person and online) Adjournment VOTE: Madore made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Dunn Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Madore, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. SRA adjourned at 9pm.