Loading...
2026-05-20 Meeting MinutesDRB May 20, 2026 Page 1 of 7 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting DRB Members Present: Chair Paul Durand, Daniel Estes, Catherine Miller, Elizabeth Murray, Marc Perras, and Sarah Tarbet DRB Members Absent: Kate Martin Others Present: Stephanie Owens, Senior Planner Recorder: Christine Petryszyn The meeting was called to order at 6:03pm. Roll call was taken. Signs in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 195 Essex Street: Lil’ Zitelle Ken McTague was present to discuss the sign proposal: • Ms. Owens noted that the white background is too big and is not in compliance with sign requirements. • Mr. McTague changed the background to black. Ms. Tarbet noted black would be a nice relationship to the mullions. Board members agreed with the preference for the black background. There were no comments or questions from members of the public. VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to approve with the sign with a black background. Seconded by Tarbet. Roll Call: Estes, Miller, Murray, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. Mr. McTague asked what would be needed if the owner wanted a white background. The owner was not in attendance. Members of the Board were not supportive of the white background. 2. 100 Washington Street: Black Cat Dan Minkle was present to discuss the sign proposal: • The applicant reviewed the signage that was shared. One sign had light blue lettering on a black sign, and one sign had gold lettering on a black sign. • Signs should have 10 feet of clearance per the code requirement but appear lower on the mockup. • Mr. Perras noted that circulation paths should have 7’ 6” of clearance. He noted that they would like to see an official measurement. • Mr. Perras said the Spirits of Salem sign aligns nicely with the join in the pilaster, but that the Black Cat sign drops below that point. He suggested that they all be aligned with the horizontal joint. DRB May 20, 2026 Page 2 of 7 • Mr. Estes noted that the colors seemed a bit jarring and disjointed. He suggested that the same colors be used, or the signs reversed. Ms. Miller agreed with those sentiments and would like to see them be the same. • The renderings of the previously approved signs were shared. • Ms. Miller said she was not comfortable approving a proposal they cannot figure out. She understood that the applicant was working hard to get the signs up, but that she would like to see the dimensions drawings of the openings, and how the signs sit in the openings. She noted that the signs in the current proposal don’t necessarily line up to where they would be. Mr. Durand agreed. • Mr. Perras said they would want to see sign drawings showing the entire elevation, open size, fascia size, etc. • Ms. Tarbet said she would like to see more cohesion between the two signs. • Ms. Murray said she believes the coloration accomplishes the goal, but that the blue should sign should be trimmed out like the gold sign. Mr. Durand believed the previous submission was successful. There were no comments or questions from members of the public. VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to continue taking into account the comments received regarding cohesion between the signs and providing dimensioned drawing to understand how they fit into the space. Seconded by Tarbet. Roll Call: Estes, Miller, Murray, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. Projects in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 2 East India Square: Extension of Premise for Outdoor Dining – Not Ya Mama’s Vegan Café Gary Young was present was present to discuss the proposal: • The applicant noted that they are looking to add five two-seater tables, one of which will be ADA compliant. They will be brown metal tables with metal chairs. It will be a total of ten seats outside underneath the green awnings. • An image was shared showing the layout of the tables. • Small planters or a small fence were proposed to separate the sidewalk from the dining area but he said he could do chains on poles. • Photos of the location were shared. • Images of the non-ADA compliant café tables and chairs were shared. • The ADA compliant table is proposed to be at the entrance of the outdoor seating area. Mr. Durand questioned whether all sides were accessible. • The applicant noted the proposal was approved by the ADA Board. • The cane detectors will be affixed to the poles. • There was no photo of the ADA table. There were no comments or questions from members of the public. DRB May 20, 2026 Page 3 of 7 VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to approve with the condition that the Accessibility Commission review after the installation is complete and approved on site with the post, chain, and tab board. Seconded by Tarbet. Roll Call: Estes, Miller, Murray, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. 2. 73 Lafayette Street: Final Design Review - Review of proposed landscaping plans for the El Centro project, which consists of 73, 75 Lafayette Street and 9 Peabody Street. Ms. Tarbet recused herself from this item. Ms. Vogel, from North Shore CDC, and Jonathan Evans and Therese Graf from Mass Design were present to discuss the proposal: • Ms. Graf reviewed the landscape design plan. She said the focus of the design was to uplift the site as a connection between the South River, the community and creating a new public amenity that bridges downtown into the El Punto neighborhood. • The design looks to integrate healthy spaces for intergenerational engagement and interaction with the waterfront, increases ecological presence on the site with enhanced resiliency features, bring some art from the El Punto Art Museum into the site, and to celebrate the urban identity. • A site design rendering from Lafayette and Derby Streets was shared showing the enhanced greenscape. • Various renderings of the Lafayette Site Design were shared showing enhanced plantings, seating, and lighting, connectivity to the waterfront. • The hardscape materials were shared and reviewed that look to reinforce the identity of Salem. • The site seating was shared which looks to integrate a range of spaces and supportive seating to encourage gathering and community activation. Seating is oriented to the waterfront. • The planting plan is a mixture of typologies that uplift native species such as hemlock, oak, and grasses. • The lighting and security plan includes pole lights, bollard lights and integrated lights within seating elements. • The grading and resilience plan was shared. The grade of the buildings has been raised to 12.4 elevation. • The utility screening plan for the transformer was shared. • There have been changes to the site plan since submission for Chapter 91. A few adjustments along the waterfront were made to allow for a 10’ continuous path. • The applicant is in continued conversations with the Parks Department around the Peabody Park parcel. • Ms. Miller noted that her first question about the narrowness of the six-foot-wide path was addressed through the Chap. 91 process. • Ms. Miller asked about the grade of the cross-slope measurements. She noted that the low point, 9.24, and the drop-off seemed too steep. • The planting plan was inspired by hemlock but won’t have hemlock. • Ms. Miller expressed concern about planting green ash, as it is all dying. She noted that serviceberry can be messy. She also said the witch hazel and staghorn sumac are not great as standalone plants, so asked if those choices could be revisited. • Ms. Miller said she really likes the site walls. DRB May 20, 2026 Page 4 of 7 • Mr. Perras asked about the brick material. Ms. Graf said they would like to have complementary tone to the building. Mr. Evans said there are three bricks. • Mr. Perras noted that the copper utility screening may be out of place and wondered if a bronze or back would fit better with the color palette. Mr. Evans noted that they have copper in the front of the building, but that they are open to using another material. Mr. Perras suggested using something that doesn’t accentuate the utility screening. Mr. Perras said he would be happy to provide an opinion on a new proposal. • Ms. Miller said this was the first time they were seeing the landscape and grading plan. She understood their desire to move forward but wants to give the landscape and grading plan the same attention and review that was given to buildings. • Ms. Vogel noted that they are getting close to their funding deadlines, including a $9M HUD grant. • Ms. Miller said she could provide an intermediary review of revisions in the next week. Mr. Evans agreed that the landscape is extremely important in the public realm. • Ms. Miller noted that she has been asking about the grading plan since the first time the project was presented. • Ms. Miller said the plan would need to show the actual width of the path along the water, elevations, slopes, and cross slopes. Cross slopes should be labeled and the drop offs shown. She also needs a revised planting plan that reflects an urban center. • Ms. Owens noted the DRB could identify two board members to approve, staying below the quorum. The applicant can send the revised plans to Ms. Owens who will circulate to Ms. Miller. There were no comments or questions from members of the public. • Mr. Estes asked if the utility company had approved the screen on a raised flint. Mr. Evans said they are on board with it. Ms. Estes said he liked the integrated signage. VOTE: Ms. Miller made a motion to approve as presented with additional information to be provided on the riverwalk, cross slopes labeled, access to the building, grading at the access, and grading at those areas, with a planting plan carefully reviewed and revised, with screen studies, and delivered to Ms. Miller and Mr. Perras by May 27th at 6pm. Seconded by Perras. Roll Call: Estes, Miller, Murray, Perras, and Durand. 5-0 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 second phase of a multi-phase project known collectively as the Forest River Residences. The second phase includes up to 145 dwelling units through the adaptive reuse of the three existing Salem State University South Campus buildings (Harrington, Academic, and Alumni buildings) and the construction of one new four-story residential building along Harrison Road. No changes are proposed to the footprints of the existing buildings. Site improvements will also include approximately 159 off-street surface parking spots and a connective network of landscaped common areas and pedestrian paths. DRB May 20, 2026 Page 5 of 7 Ms. Owens noted that a 23B3 form for this project has been submitted to the SRA for Mr. Estes. Steve Senna with Winn Development, Matt Marotta with Icon Architecture, and Mark Klopfer with KMDG were present to discuss the proposal: • Mr. Senna noted the project has successfully exited the Planning Board process. • The Winn component of the project is primarily senior housing. • Mr. Senna noted that this is a 40R project so there is a 120-day review process deadline with the City. The initial application was submitted in February, so the time runs out in June. • The schedule update and recap was shared. Mr. Senna said they are heading down the path of filing an extension. • Mr. Senna reviewed some of the comments received at previous meetings such as the downspouts, awnings, canopy, and tying together the Harrison Building entry to match the Harrington Building entry. • Material boards have been provided. • Mr. Marotta reviewed the proposed materials and colors that reflect the comments previously received. The colors still require review by NPS. Photos of the palette were shared. • Two proposed changes were made to the entrance, the canopy, and the piers were reviewed. • NPS and Mass Historic have seen the renderings, though they do want to talk more about the wood element. • Both Mr. Durand and Mr. Perras expressed support for the second rendering shared. • The brick that was provided is not meant to match the existing school. It’s a darker gray. • Mr. Perras said he would like to see complimentary palettes. • Ms. Tarbet agreed with removing the wood but could go either way with the two options. There were no comments or questions from members of the public. VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to proceed with the version eliminating the wood infill panels and asked that the applicant come back or send renderings of the final color, the spandrel color after meetings have concluded with NPS. Seconded by Tarbet. Roll Call: Estes, Miller, Murray, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. New / Old Business 1. Approval of Minutes: a. April 22, 2026 Ms. Tarbet had a comment on the minutes at the end that read SRA instead of DRB, and that she would send the exact spot. VOTE: Ms. Tarbet made a motion to approve the April 22nd minutes with the edit provided by Ms. Tarbet. Seconded by Murray Roll Call: Estes, Miller, Murray, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. 2. Staff updates, if any DRB May 20, 2026 Page 6 of 7 Ms. Owens noted that there is another Jefferson Ave Corridor Plan survey request asking for people to share input on the plan. The City is coordinating with MAPC. Ms. Owens will share the link via email. If anyone has questions, they can reach out to the Planning Department. More information can be found on the City’s website as well as the MAPC website. Ms. Owens also reviewed the enforcement table she pulled together. The table will be added to the end of the meeting minutes. Ms. Murray asked what happens if owners don’t comply. Ms. Owens said that if an owner doesn’t comply, she will notify the Building Inspector, and they can issue warnings and fines. Ms. Owens has a longer list of properties that had past violations that have been remedied. Ms. Miller noted that the Wax Museum has Halloween lights up all year round. Mr. Perras noted that he has seen accessibility issues with outdoor dining. Ms. Owens noted that it is not the accessibility board that enforces, but the Building Department. She noted that the Building Department is short-staffed right now, but that they have been able to work with her when she noted that an outdoor dining area needed inspection. Any potential issues should be brought to Ms. Owens’ attention. Ms. Owens noted that there may be a joint meeting with the SRA in the future regarding Rockland Park as that design is continuing to progress. She also noted they are still looking for a graphic designer who may be interested in joining the board. She said they are starting with their direct network before advertising through the Mayor’s office. Upcoming Meetings 1. SRA: June 10 2. DRB: June 24 Adjournment VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by: Tarbet. All in favor. The meeting adjourned at 7:44PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033 DRB May 20, 2026 Page 7 of 7 Enforcement Tracking