Loading...
2026-09-09 SRA-DRB Joint Meeting MinutesSRA and DRB September 9, 2026 Page 1 of 7 City of Salem, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Joint Salem Redevelopment Authority and Design Review Board Date and Time: Wednesday, September 9, 2026, at 6:00pm Meeting Location: Zoom Meeting SRA Members Present: Chair Grace Napolitano, Christopher Dunn, Glenn Larose, Ryan Macione, and Christine Madore DRB Members Present: Chair Paul Durand, Daniel Estes, Catherine Miller, Elizabeth Murray, and Joseph Badowski Others Present: Tom Daniel, Executive Director, Kate Newhall-Smith, Principal Planner, Stephanie Owens, Senior Planner Ms. Napolitano read the following statement: Before we get started with our meeting agenda items, I’d like to make a statement as Chair of the Board regarding the many comments received, social media posts, and media coverage about the recent updates made to the Sign Manual. First I’d like to say that as a Board, we have always been and will continue to be supportive of the contribution of the arts to the character of our downtown. Many may not be aware that prior to the establishment of Salem’s Public Art Commission, the SRA was the public body leading public art opportunities. Salem’s artbox program originated as a demonstration project supported by the SRA back in 2010. For many years, the SRA has led or supported public art projects including murals, sculptures, and public space activations. To this day, enhancing and activating public spaces by way of supporting public arts and programming remains a priority of the SRA. Over the years, we have worked closely with the Design Review Board (DRB), having often relied on their professional guidance to be partners in reviewing a multitude of projects – from the largest scale such as the courthouse redevelopment project to the smaller scale design elements of signage. We have also engaged the local community and valued public input from business groups and creative groups alike. Beyond this, we are all citizens of this city and personally enjoy the benefits of being part of the unique and vibrant community that Salem is. What I don’t think many people realize is that the recent update to the Sign Manual was a mechanism to expand the allowance of window art from outdated regulations of the 1970’s, which limited window art to no more than 15 days at a time and no more than 15% of the window area – however, these outdated regulations were rarely, if ever, enforced. Following collaboration with interested parties like Salem Main Streets, Creative Collective, and the Commission on Disabilities, updated changes were adopted in 2025 and efforts were then made to communicate the changes to downtown businesses – this seems to have sparked concerns and mischaracterizations of the intent of the outreach. SRA and DRB September 9, 2026 Page 2 of 7 I’d like to be very clear that no one on these Boards intended to diminish or censor public art. On the contrary, the whole purpose of instituting updated guidelines was to make it such that businesses could commission window art without needing to seek any approvals so long as time, place, and manner guidelines were followed. The updated guidelines were intended to allow more space for art on a window than previously, for longer periods of time, and to eliminate any need for Board review. Only if a business sought to establish something permanent or beyond the guidelines would they need to petition the Board to do so through our small project review application – and, this could still be approved. The intention was to clarify rules and support window art. However, it is clear that the impact of the new guidelines has been contrary to this intent. We as a Board welcome your input. We are more than happy to put this back on our agenda for further discussion, to take additional public comment, and see what changes might be warranted. While community members and businesses have every right to make their voices heard, I will be honest that I have struggled over the last couple of days to understand the need to stir up a heightened response over a long holiday weekend without giving the Board nor the city staff an opportunity to either respond to the concerns being raised or to facilitate a forum for change – like pausing and adding the item to our next agenda to consider additional public comment. Perhaps the community feels that this outcome would not have been achieved without such a response, and I hope that we can change that perception, because my personal experience with having served on this Board for over 10 years is that the city staff who work with us are responsive to concerns and keep us updated when there are issues or opportunities for pause. I do want to be clear on one point that at no time did city staff relay any intent to issue fines for window art. I’m not sure why that implication came about, but the SRA did not instruct nor did city staff inform businesses that we were seeking to fine anyone. As you may have already heard, the SRA through its Executive Director is pausing any enforcement on the updated guidance in order to add this discussion to our agenda at a future Board meeting once the city has moved past the height of the busiest time of the year. Staff will be meeting with businesses and the public during this time as well. Due to the Veteran’s Day holiday, the SRA November meeting is one week early on November 4. Where the meeting will be happening within days after Halloween weekend, staff will get input from businesses if they would prefer to wait until our December meeting. Generally, the Board’s process is to receive public comment only on the items on its publicly posted agenda, which was posted last week in advance of tonight’s meeting. This means that Temporary Window Art is not on the agenda this evening, so we will not be taking public comment relative to that topic at this time nor will Board members be engaging in any dialogue on the matter. However, as I stated, we intend to put Temporary Window Art on the November or December agenda and we’d ask any members of the public here this evening who planned to offer comment on Window Art to either plan to attend the future meeting or you can certainly feel free to email your comments and the Board will review them for the meeting. SRA and DRB September 9, 2026 Page 3 of 7 Lastly, as I said I have served on this Board for over 10 years and I’d just like to say that in that time, I have never once felt concerned or uncomfortable attending a meeting, no matter how contentious the issue or project might be. Sadly, that very much changed this week when it came to light that an individual posted a threatening comment relative to tonight’s meeting, prompting the decision to move to a remote platform rather than to be in person. This was hugely disappointing and works against our goal of civil public discourse. My understanding is that there have been threatening emails sent as well. It is my sincere hope that everyone who cares about this issue and wants to have their voice heard does so with the mindset that we are your fellow citizens and neighbors. We serve on this Board because we care about our downtown and our community. We look forward to hearing your input and to working towards a better outcome together. Thank you. Joint Public Meeting with the Design Review Board 1. Presentation of Lappin Park Redesign project. Mr. Daniel reported that the Lappin Park design process started a couple of years ago with the Department of Public Works to explore options for the park. There have been meetings to review conceptual design with Ms. Owens and Ms. Newhall-Smith. Previous comments from the public discussed concerns regarding construction. Funding has not been secured. Greg St. Louis with Bobrek Engineering and Construction and Michael Blier and Christopher MacFarlane of Landworks were present to provide an update: • Mr. St. Louis noted that they are at 95% design. • Mr. Blier noted that Lappin Park is a special place in the City but that it has limitations in terms of accessibility and rugged topography. • A site plan and several renderings were shared and reviewed. • The plan creates a primary gathering spot that is a flexible use space and provides a new home for the Samantha statue which will reduce spill out onto the sidewalk and street. There are space opportunities for various events year-round. • The planned perimeter is robustly planted to create thresholds and visual connections. The planted zones also create opportunities for infiltration for stormwater management. • There is new clearance for the pedestrian circulation and spill-out restaurant spaces. • Mr. Blier said the cross path from Essex Street to Washington Street is retained and bigger openings are created at the corner of Washington Street and Congress Street. • There is a prominent opening in the middle of the park for a holiday tree with an integrated tree holder in the ground. There is a drinking fountain, bike racks, and benches planned. Movable, seasonal kiosks are proposed. The commemorative stone column will remain. • The new park will be completely ADA accessible where the existing park is not. • Multiple stories of trees are planned that set the park up for shade immediately. Jefferson Elms are planned around the perimeter. • Concrete paving in a grid pattern with inlaid reclaimed stone is proposed. • The planting and layout plan was shared and reviewed. • The hope is that the redesigned Lappin Park will create continuity with the new work that has been created in the City. SRA and DRB September 9, 2026 Page 4 of 7 • In addition to the Jefferson Elm, maple and Amelanchier trees are proposed along with a shrub layer that creates seasonal interest. • The space is intended to serve as a social destination place with large and small programing that can be offered year-round for residents and visitors. • There is space proposed for art installations. Chair Napolitano opens the discussion to SRA and DRB members for questions and comments. • Mr. Durand expressed support for the design. • Ms. Miller said she likes the space and that it is useful for events and ADA accessible, and that trees are being replaced. She inquired about the accessibility of the doorways on the buildings. She said she has experience with grading and would like to see a grading plan to ensure that front doors of the restaurants are accessible. She knows there are a lot of grade changes in the area. • Ms. Miller noted that any public way can’t have an excess of a 2% cross slope. She does not want the City to have liability for promoting spaces that are not accessible. • Ms. Miller said it makes sense to pull in the palette that already exists in the City. • Mr. Estes echoed the comments that this is a massive improvement to the area. He asked if there was any consideration given to changing the location of the Samantha statue as it appears to counter the direction of flow. • Mr. Blier said they studied the issue and determined that the proposed location provides a visual from the various entries to the park without interfering with the crowd coming out of restaurants. • Mr. Macfarlane said that trash bins are proposed to be located along the perimeter of the park along the sidewalk areas. • Mr. St. Louis said they are at the maximum tolerance of grades. He said the ramp sections are about 4.5% slope and the plaza is at 1% and that is maintained as you come to the perimeter of the businesses. One business has a proposed ramp and two businesses have proposed improved landings for their doorway entrances. There are also secondary ADA access points. • Mr. St. Louis said they have a grading plan that they can provide to Planning Office. • Ms. Madore inquired about how the space could be activated and how people would flow through in the scenario of a small performance occurring. • Mr. Blier said there were many scenarios they considered such as performances or a winter ice ring. He said the pathway allows for a performance zone, and the pathway allows for people to walk around the street side without interrupting while they can still look into the event. An information kiosk is proposed on the side so that people can queue on the side. There is space for table and chairs similar to Derby Square. He said the space is inherently flexible for programming while also moving through. • Ms. Madore asked whether there could be an issue with people trampling the shrubs under the trees for more crowded events and asked whether a stone structure would create more of a flex space. • Mr. St Louis responded saying that some of the landscaping areas are being used to meet grade. He suggested that some of the landscaping could be minimized but that some of the framing of the space would be lost. He said there are some boulders SRA and DRB September 9, 2026 Page 5 of 7 proposed in the landscaping that provide seating opportunities and work to discourage vegetation trampling. • Mr. Macfarlane said they’d chosen shrubs to fill the space but not overfill the space. • Ms. Miller noted that the landscaping areas are also being used to address stormwater. • Mr. St. Louis said there is subsurface infiltration system under the plaza to handle extreme storm events. • Ms. Madore said she was glad there was a holder for a holiday tree. She asked about potential spaces for art installations, types of medium, vision, etc. • Mr. St. Louis said there could be a jack-o’-lantern festival, there are outlets for various installations or vendors requiring power. • Ms. Miller inquired whether there was any desire from the City to secure a site certification for the project. Ms. Miller said that if the project reuses a lot of material or manages a lot of stormwater, you will earn many points. It would be worth having a discussion with staff. • In response to Ms. Madore’s question about public art, Mr. Daniel said that Julie Berry, the Senior Planner of Arts and Culture, has been managing a rotating sculpture display and that this park could become part of that rotation. • Mr. Macfarlane noted that reclaimed stone from the Crescent lot is planned for the site. • Mr. Daniel inquired about the safety perspective of the shrub plantings. Mr. Blier said the height is similar to the height of the landscaping at the PEM thresholds. It allows for different levels of spectators and for sightlines to be maintained. • Ms. Madore expressed hope that public art is not sited haphazardly that that it is installed with intention. She hopes the City can come up with a real, meaningful public art space that engages with the public. • Mr. Larose expressed support for the design. He supports the change to the taller light poles. The meeting was open for public comments and questions with Chair Napolitano providing a reminder that they will not be taking any public comment on temporary window art. • Tyler Twombly inquired about the justification for the removal of the Linden trees and if there is any possibility of preserving any of the trees. He also noted that mixed opinions about the Samantha statue and whether it represents Salem and if it should remain a focal point of the park. o Mr. MacFarlane responded that the trees have been looked at by arborists and that they have several issues, primarily the over-compaction of the roots, and while they are doing well, they are getting towards the end of their life cycle. He said they looked at whether they could keep them but that the new design would further negatively impact their root systems. Mr. Blier said trees are also at different elevations and keeping them would impact the accessibility of the park. o Mr. Macfarlane said they have tried to subtly deemphasize the Samantha statue. He said there were some people who did not want the statue moved at all. Mr. Daniel said the statue has been discussed internally for a few years, and the SRA and DRB September 9, 2026 Page 6 of 7 decision was made to keep the statue in Lappin Park. With the redesign, the statue is an element of the park, not a focal point. • Benjamin Selecki and his business partner Alexis Abare, owners of two abutting properties expressed concern about the underneath structure being able to support equipment needed to install the holiday tree. He also noted that he has never seen anyone have an issue navigating the terrain of the park despite the slopes. He expressed concern that the plantings may block the visibility of the restaurants from the park interior. He asked if the restaurants will still have outdoor seating capabilities. He wondered if this park would be similar in use to Charlotte Fortin Park and the Flag Pavillion. He wasn’t supportive of how those parks are used in everyday use. He expressed concern about the timeline of the trees being able to provide shade. Finally, he noted that he did not think the surrounding restaurants and retail stores would be enthusiastic about other restaura nts, food services, or retail markets popping up. He expressed concern about the area being an ad-hoc street market. • Mr. St. Louis said most of the parks they design accommodate vehicular loading and cranes can access the site from the roadway. He said the 10–12-foot space for seating plus the five-foot walkway is being maintained. He said that right now he believes that businesses signs are not visible on a summer day due to the density of the tree canopy. Mr. Blier said he believes the landscape design will enhance and bring in diners. He said the elm trees are very fast growing. He added that they are not looking to block views, but to create layers. He said they understand that concern as they have the same concern. He said he hopes ADA compliance of the park will bring in even more people. • Laura Potter, owner of Flying Saucer Pizza Company, said she loves the use of materials that can be found throughout the City as well as the proposed lighting. She is concerned that her signage cannot be seen from any of the angles shown. She has already made requests for trees to be trimmed so that her sign is visible from Washington Street. Visibility is her primary concern. She expressed interest in expanding their patio footprint. She expects that during construction business will be impacted. She requested extra trash cans be considered. She requested clarification on improved access and what that would mean for their restaurant. She thanked the SRA for approving their event request for Lappin Park. She hoped that existing businesses could have priority for using the park. o Ms. Newhall-Smith suggested that given Ms. Potter’s specific question that it may make sense to meet and discuss her questions with the consultant team. Ms. Potter agreed. • Averil Svahn, 99 Washington Street, lives across the street from the park. She understood how much work went into the planning and that there were many comments about restaurants, tourists, and City events, but very few comments were made about how residents would use the park. She would like a place close by where she could have morning coffee or meet friends for lunch. She does not want to see a park with very little green space. She hopes the park can be more resident-friendly. • Mr. Blier said that he also lives in Salem and acknowledges the diversity of open spaces within the City. He said there is a lot of pressure on this space from a tourist point of view and residents. He said they worked to create a space that feels like a garden. He said there are seating options, benches, etc. He said they listened to SRA and DRB September 9, 2026 Page 7 of 7 people in the neighborhood. They worked to create something flexible and open for people to enjoy almost at a courtyard scale for the neighborhood, but one that can also absorb the surges. • Ms. Svahn expressed disappointment that this seems to be designed for City tourists and restaurants instead of the residents. • Darleen Melis, Chair of the Salem Tree Commission, expressed her appreciation for considering elms for this location. She expressed concern that they require a great deal of soil in order to be successful. She expressed concern that the boulders will compete with the roots. She also expressed concern about maintenance of the plants. • Elizabeth Ide said this park is one of her favorite places in Salem and that it is working in a lot of ways. She noted that there are other proximate spaces for gathering that overlap with purposes of this park. She expressed concern about plantings not working out. She said the Linden trees are important to many people and asked whether a canopy study has been done downtown. She said important things are being given up when trees are removed in the urban forest. She noted that ADA does not cover every need that people have. She said shade keeps children from getting burnt on pavement if they fall which is what happens now at Charlotte Fortin Park. She said people waiting in shade is helpful and also in keeping pavement and adjacent restaurants with large windows cooler. She said a large flat surface is difficult to keep free of ice in the winter months. She said she could offer resources that help architects and planners find ways to build around mature trees. • Ms. Napolitano thanked everyone for their attendance and input and that there were many comments to consider. Adjournment VOTE: Madore made a motion to adjourn meeting. Seconded by: Miller SRA Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Macione, Madore, and Napolitano. 5-0 in favor. DRB Roll Call: Estes, Miller, Murray, Badowski, and Durand. 5-0 in favor.