Loading...
2026-02-25 Meeting MinutesDRB February 25, 2026 Page 1 of 7 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting DRB Members Present: Chair Paul Durand, Kate Martin, Marc Perras, and Catherine Miller DRB Members Absent: Elizabeth Murray, and Sarah Tarbet Others Present: Stephanie Owens, Senior Planner Recorder: Christine Petryszyn The meeting was called to order at 6:02pm. Roll call was taken. Signs in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 26 New Derby Street: The Neighborhood Tavern Adam Knauer, with SRP Signs, was present to discuss the project: • Mr. Knauer shared the proposed signs. The letters are to be 15 inches tall and whole word just over 32 feet long. • The build was shared. A rendering of the front façade was shared. • Each of the letters will be lit. • Ms. Owens noted that lighted lettering is permitted with internal illumination features. She added that the DRB usually also has preference for color variation. • Mr. Knauer noted that the sign is set between two pieces of molding where there is a sign band. He said it was the only spot where there is a 20-inch-high spot. • Ms. Miller felt the 15 inches for the lettering for that space was reasonable. • The whole storefront is black. • Mr. Durand noted that they should review the paint color, but this application just covers the sign. There were no comments or questions from the public. VOTE: Ms. Miller made a motion approve with the caveat that the owner come back and present the design of the whole façade. Seconded by Martin. Roll Call: Martin, Miller, Perras, and Durand. 4-0 in favor. Projects in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 50 Washington Street: Schematic Design Review – Review of proposed adaptive reuse of the Salem Tabernacle Congregational Church into 48 studios that are, 100% affordable, permanent supportive housing units for at-risk veterans, with space retained for ongoing use by the church congregation. DRB February 25, 2026 Page 2 of 7 Christina Granese from Tinti & Navins, Courtney Koslow and Calvin Anton from Beacon Communities, Thad Siemasko and Krista Broyles from SV Design, and Danny Turgeon from Bohler, were present to discuss the project: • Ms. Granese noted that the project site fronts on three streets; Federal Street, Washington Street, and Lynde Sreet. The existing site includes a historic church and two parking lots. The existing church will remain, and two additions are proposed within the existing parking lots which will house 48 studio apartments. A two-car parking lot is proposed off Federal Street and a larger seven car lot off Washington Street. • Ms. Koslow noted that the church building itself is roughly 100 years old and that the congregation size has dramatically decreased in size to about 50 active members. • Through a visioning process, the church members came up with four goals; to continue worship, be a mission in the community, find a way to remain financially stable for the next 100 years, and preserve and restore the building. By partnering with Soldier On, they should be able to achieve these goals. • Beacon Communities will purchase the building outright, with a ROFR going to the congregation for the sanctuary space. • The apartments will be deed restricted for affordable housing. Federal and state historic tax credits will be used to preserve and restore the building. • Mr. Anton described the church use which will include the exclusive dedicated use of the office, storage for the piano, historic artifacts and other items, as well as two parking spaces. The sanctuary will be accessible via Washington Street. • The deed restricted affordable housing will include permanent rental housing for veterans (48 studio apartments). Solider On will provide supportive services. Beacon Resident Management will provide onsite property management. Amenity spaces include a community room with kitchenette, fitness center, a wellness office and laundry room. • Soldier On will provide fully furnished units, case management, transportation at no cost to residents, daily meals, health care navigation, wellness services, community building, and legal and end of life planning. • Mr. Siemasko said they started by revisiting the National Park Service Historic Design Standards, and in this case the Salem Historic District Guidelines and SRA commercial building guidelines. • A rendering of the site was shared with a review of the additions and new main entry. Renderings of the existing and proposed conditions from an aerial angle view were shared and reviewed. The church remains the most prominent and the additions work their way back to the neighborhoods. • Images of the first-floor plan were shared and reviewed including the main sanctuary, areas for public use, management offices, etc. • Each unit will have a kitchenette and bathroom. There will be community spaces sprinkled around to help foster the community. There is a maintenance and mechanical area in the rear of the building. • Images of the second-floor plan were shared and reviewed. Bike storage is included. • The balcony of the sanctuary space will be used for storage. There is a vaulted ceiling that they are working with a historic consultant to preserve as best they can. • The third level is the attic of the parish house and the floor plan was shared. • The only part of the building that has a fourth floor is on the Lynde Street side. The floor plan was shared. DRB February 25, 2026 Page 3 of 7 • Exterior elevations/renderings from each side were shared. • The gable roof facing the street has punched openings using the same window and sill heights, trying to be complimentary without copying. This was the preferred approach from National Park Service. • The church is being restored to National Park Service standards as part of this process. • The material board was shared and reviewed. It is a traditional, but lower maintenance palette. • Renderings of the Federal Street addition was shared. They worked to transition between the civic architecture and religious gathering space. • Renderings of the view from Lynde Street were shared. • Mr. Turgeon reviewed the landscape plan. The goal of which was to create an inviting recreational space integrated with the downtown. • The primary entrance becomes an inviting recreational space for residents. There is a seating area near the main entrance anchored by a shade structure. A radial bench seating area is anchored by an ornamental tree. Concrete unit pavers are proposed to soften the palette and add visual interest. • A six-foot-high timber fence will buffer the view from Lynde Street. The historic iron fence along the parking lot side will be retained. • A stone veneer on the seat wall will tie back into the stone veneer of the tabernacle. • The materials and planting palettes were shared. Native plantings with robust visual interest and complimentary flower colors were chosen. The planting plan was shown. • The site lighting was reviewed and includes two 16’ high light poles. Light bollards along the main entry and pedestrian connection and wall mounted fixtures at building entrances are proposed. All site lighting is dark sky compliant and has been located with light justice guidelines in mind. • This population of low-income veterans are not expected to have or need cars. The residents will have on demand transportation. The two parking spots on Federal Street are dedicated to church use. • Egress from the garden level apartments have been fully researched. There are code requirements for the distance from the well and the heights of the floor. They are conforming to all codes. • It was difficult to find a location for the one elevator, so a second was not considered. Ms. Koslow noted that they are using Livable Community and Low Income Housing Tax Credits for the project and don’t have the budget to pay for two elevators. She said a second elevator would also decrease the number of units they could provide. • Mr. Perras said he was more concerned about the distance from the elevator and navigating through other spaces in cold weather. • Mr. Perras thought the Lynde Street elevation appeared overly complex. He thought the size of the building didn’t warrant that kind of breaking it up. Mr. Siemasko appreciated the comment and said he would look at it. He did not disagree that it looked complicated. • Mr. Perras thought the primary entry off Washington Street looked a bit complex and wondered if it could be simplified. It was suggested that they could probably enhance it through the landscape design. • Mr. Perras suggested that multiple roof lines made it look like there were too many competing things and suggested they take another pass of that. DRB February 25, 2026 Page 4 of 7 • Mr. Perras requested that the actual materials for the palette be delivered to City Hall for review. • Ms. Miller inquired about the three-story addition being the transition to the orientation to Federal Street. Mr. Siemasko said they did look at that, and that the historic consultant did not want them to carry the line and not bend it to follow the line of the federal homes. Ms. Broyles said they tried to keep the addition secondary in view. Ms. Miller requested that the applicant take a second look at that issue. • Ms. Miller asked if the lawn could be replaced with a perennial mix or ground cover. Mr. Turgeon said they could look at that. Ms. Miller said she likes most of the plants, with the exception of the Florida Dogwood and Kousa. • Ms. Miller noted most spaces in Salem have red brick paving and that it could add beautiful element to the project. • Ms. Miller said she loved the color palette and how it lets the church be the more important building. • Mr. Durand expressed concerns about the transitions to the additions. He suggested that they grab too much attention by being darker, and perhaps more glazing or black painted glazing could make that transition fade away. He believes the SRA had the same comment. Mr. Siemasko said he thinks they are maxed out on glazing but could look at the coloration and have it blend more. • Mr. Durand said he likes the elevation of the three gables. Mr. Siemasko said they would look at it again. • Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street, commented on kitchenette in the community room and noted that in her experience a kitchenette may not be sufficient to offer the tenants an opportunity for a larger gathering. She also questioned the need for such tall light poles and felt that something lower would be more appropriate. VOTE: Ms. Miller made a motion to continue. Seconded by Perras. Roll Call: Martin, Miller, Perras, and Durand. 4-0 in favor. Projects Outside the Urban Renewal Area 1. 8 Harrison Road, 9 Harrison Road and 262 Loring Ave, 266 Loring Ave: Smart Growth Overlay District -Design review of the proposed first phase of a multi-phase project known collectively as the Forest River Residences. The first phase includes a residential building consisting of 340 units, an above-level parking garage with 524 parking spaces, and two enclosed outdoor courtyards. The proposed work also includes an approximately half-acre central landscaped common, extension of the existing Harrison Road, and connection to the Forest River Conservation Trailhead. Ed Bradford and Mark Klopfer were present to discuss the proposal: • Ms. Owens noted that this project was before the DRB and Planning Board joint meeting on February 19th. • The focus of the presentation is to respond to comments received at the joint meeting. DRB February 25, 2026 Page 5 of 7 • The comments received from the DRB and Planning Board were shared. A uniform comment was in regard to the contrast of coloration, depth of windows, brick detailing, coloration of the white coping, brick at the entry, and materials. • The proposed adjustment to the white coping and brick coloration was shared. The model was updated to show the relationship of the window to the brick and then the window to the siding. • A building sign has been added to the top at the cornice line so that it is visible from Harrison Street. Another primary sign would be added to indicate the primary entrance. • The second rendering shared was of the main entry and the adjustments to the coloration that were made. The brick was a deeper, richer color and less contrast with the siding. • A view of the rendering from the conservation area looking back across the common area. • The exterior building material palette was shared and the changes reviewed. • An aerial rendering and elevation of the existing conditions and proposed changes were shared, with the vertical and horizontal distance shared. • Mr. Klopfer noted that Weston and Sampson will present on the site at the next meeting and will include circulation, roadway, etc. and the whole site will be reviewed in total. • Mr. Perras noted that the walking paths were brought up multiple times. • Mr. Perras thought the color and material updates were very good. He asked whether there was a consistent attitude about how the different layers of the box were coming together. Mr. Bradford said the change happens at the actual break in the façade. • Mr. Perras said he prefers the glassier version of the amenity spaces and asked if they do go with brick that they continue to be set back. • Mr. Perras said he feels like the blade sign feels out of place. He thinks there is too much surface area for a blade sign. He encouraged the applicant to find a place on the building that is more appropriate, a different location. • Ms. Miller asked that the fiber cement lap side by smooth and not textured. She also did not like the blade sign and found it to be out of place. • Ms. Miller asked that the sample materials be brough to the City Hall Annex Building for review. • In terms of the public space, Ms. Miller said that it should be made more pedestrian because it feels like a lot of asphalt as it is currently designed. Her biggest concern is the entrance/exit to the structured parking near the crosswalk. • She expressed concern about how they are going to take a deserted wilderness area in Salem and put so many square feet of housing next to it without changing it’s character. • Mr. Klopfer said they will look at the structured parking connection. He also noted the driveway of the Win Harrington Building is one way. They are trying to avoid having all of Avalon’s traffic go across Winn Harrington’s front door. • Ms. Martin noted that the change in brick colors is very successful. • Mr. Durand said that all his comments from the previous meeting were addressed. • Polly Wilbur, 7 Cedar Street, asked the DRB to look at what equipment, EV panels, etc. end up on the top of garage. She said it is going to be significant change for the abutting homeowners and what they may end up looking at. She expressed concern over using the term “common” for the green space and that the garage is almost two-thirds the capacity of the MBTA garage. She expressed concern that kids could be tempted to go running across there. She said there is a lot of traffic in that area. DRB February 25, 2026 Page 6 of 7 • Mr. Perras said the comment on the mechanical equipment was helpful. • Mr. Perras asked to hear more about the elevations that wrap around the side of the building at the next meeting. VOTE: Ms. Perras made a motion to continue. Seconded by Miller. Roll Call: Martin, Miller, Perras, and Durand. 4-0 in favor. New / Old Business 1. Approval of Minutes: a. January 28, 2026 VOTE: Ms. Miller made a motion to approve. Seconded by Perras. Roll Call: Martin, Miller, Perras, and Durand. 4-0 in favor. 2. Staff updates, if any a. 288 Derby Street – Request to withdraw without prejudice Ms. Owens notes that the applicant made a request to withdraw without prejudice so that they could come back before the DRB at any time. This was the Salem Wax Museum and changes to the rear of the building. Ms. Miller noted that they seem to have permanent orange lights along the cornice of the building. Ms. Owens said would look into that. Ms. Owens reminded the Board about the required annual Conflict of Interest training which they should have seen in their inbox. She noted that the next joint meeting with the Planning Board is March 26th and the next DRB meeting is March 25th. Ms. Owens noted Ms. Leftwich unexpectedly had to step down from the DRB and to keep her in their thoughts. They will be looking for experts in design/graphic review to fill her spot. Mr. Perras noted that the pirate museum still had a vinyl banner up and that they now have eight signs installed. Ms. Owens will reach out to them about that. Upcoming Meetings 1. SRA: March 11 2. DRB: March 26 3. Joint Meeting with Planning Board: March 26 Adjournment VOTE: Ms. Miller made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by: Perras. All in favor. DRB February 25, 2026 Page 7 of 7 The meeting adjourned at 7:41PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033