City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, at 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairperson Michael Brennan, Conrad Baldini, Michael Connelly, Robert Mitnik, and Russell Vickers
Members Absent:
Others Present: Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel
Recorder: Andrea Bray
Chairperson Brennan calls the meeting to order.
Old/New Business
Development Project Review
1. 50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail): Update on restaurant status
Penn Lindsay of New Boston Ventures states that they are well into construction and on schedule. He updates the Authority on the status of the work, making the following points:
- The demolition is underway and much of the building has been cleaned out.
- The bars have been removed from the windows.
- The McIntire building (Jail Keeper’s House) is being framed.
The carriage house has a foundation in and is ready for framing.
They asked the contractor to begin demolition and place structural steel in the restaurant space at the north end of the building so the walls can be opened and the space can be ready for showing to prospective restaurant tenants.
- The restaurant space will have 18-foot ceilings.
Some memorabilia has been discovered and will be saved for the exhibit space. One piece of interest is an intra-jail newsletter from about 1987.
The restaurant space was covered with debris and during the cleaning process they discovered that the floor is composed of beautiful granite blocks which will be washed and polished and left in place.
Vickers asks about the seating capacity.
Lindsay states they hope to have close to 80 seats, not including the outdoor dining area. He adds that they might move the bar to the back of the space.
Lindsay states that he will return to update the Authority again this year.
Brennan thanks Penn Lindsay for the update.
Small Project Review
2. East India Square, Essex Pedestrian Mall: Discussion and vote on proposed seating
Daniel states that this is a proposal to add a small number of tables and chairs to the fountain area at East India Square, and the furniture will be the same as that installed on the Old Town Hall outdoor area at Derby Square. He adds that the City will manage these tables and chairs.
Baldini: Motion to approve the outdoor seating design as recommended by the DRB, seconded by Connelly. Passes 5-0.
Outdoor Café Permit Review
3. 189 Washington Street (Tavern in the Square): Discussion and vote on proposed seating plan for outdoor café permit
Daniel states that the applicants are across the hall at the public hearing regarding the trees. He will summarize the status of the proposal, and if there are questions, ask a member of the applicant’s team to join the SRA meeting.
Daniel states that the original proposal was revised and the seating area was reduced in order to save some of the green space, specifically the area with the horse chestnut trees. He explains that the northern end of the current greenspace will be left as is and the southern end will house the patio surrounded by a boxwood hedge and planters. Daniel confirms that this design calls for the elimination of 3 trees (2 crabapples and one 6-inch caliper oak), and one of the crabapple trees is diseased and must be removed anyway.
Daniel states that the tree warden is holding a public hearing about the removal of the trees. He acknowledges that all of the DRB members agree that this is a stronger proposal because it strengthens that corner, which they describe as “a failure in urban planning” and improves the visibility of the building.
Daniel clarifies the plan stating that the dark grey band shows the open area for passage. He explains that in addition to patio seating there will be red umbrellas and heat lamps, and the boxwood hedge will be maintained to keep the height low enough so as not to impede visibility of the building.
Brennan opens the meeting to the public.
Daniel asks Stephen Sousa from the applicant’s team to join the SRA meeting.
City Councillor Jerry Ryan asks about the City’s liability and if the applicant will be getting free use of this space.
Brennan explains that the liability is the same as for all of the restaurants with outdoor seating. He adds that there are no fees associated with the use of city property for outdoor seating.
Councillor Ryan suggests adopting a licensing system similar to Cambridge. He expresses concern about the City’s liability.
Daniel explains that there is currently a process that applicants must follow if they wish to provide outdoor dining, which includes a review process, approval by the licensing board, and assurance with the Board of Health that there are no outstanding issues. Additionally, Daniel states that all applicants must obtain a certificate of proof of liability insurance. He confirms that this is the process all other applicants have followed including, most recently, Caffe Graziani.
Councillor Ryan states that he is in favor of having a fee system for outdoor dining.
Councillor McCarthy asks if they will do all of the upgrades and then gift it back to the city.
Brennan states that the pavement and boxwood hedge will remain on the site if the applicant ceases to use the property.
City Councillor McCarthy expresses concern about the depletion of open space, stating that the use will be limited to restaurant patrons, not the public. He explains that foot traffic must go around the seating, and food/alcohol will be carried across a sidewalk while the public is passing through. He states that he is pro-business, but asks if this area is too big. He expresses concern about setting precedent, stating that all other café seating is connected to the building and there is no sidewalk passing through.
Architect Stephen Sousa, representing the applicant, states that outdoor seating area at the Central Square Tavern in the Square location uses this same layout with food/alcohol carried across a public way to a patio space, and it doesn’t seem to be an issue.
Councillor Stephen Pinto states that he called Cambridge to get the criteria that they use. He expresses concern about the taking of open space, and the public will no longer be able to go there, only restaurant patrons. He speaks in opposition to the outdoor seating and presents the criteria used by Cambridge for the members’ review.
Sousa states that the City of Cambridge has awarded the Tavern in Central Square a City Preservation Award.
Mitnik states that there is a pedestrian alternative route around this seating without going into the street.
Daniel reads a letter from Jennifer Bell of Salem Main Streets into the record. The letter expresses support for the outdoor seating.
Daniel states that this letter echoes the DRB’s view on how this patio will activate the downtown area and remedy an urban planning failure.
Brennan agrees with Mitnik about the way the public can get around this space. He states that this is open space, but it isn’t currently used for anything, and he sees this as a way to bring people into this open space and he loves the idea of outside seating. He explains that subject to the tree warden’s ruling and the review of the liability issue by the City Solicitor, he would support this application.
Baldini agrees with Brennan.
Vickers states that there are many of these types of areas in Florence, Italy, and he loves it, and he loves the fact that this design is smaller than the original design.
Connelly agrees with Mitnik about the pedestrian passage and states that the time has come in Salem for this type of area and the City is ready for this.
Vickers agrees that the liability issue needs to be addressed.
Councillor Stephen Pinto urges the SRA to review the criteria used by Cambridge. He stresses the fact that Cambridge gets a fee for outdoor seating and Cambridge put six months into this process.
Councillor Jerry Ryan agrees that the outdoor seating livens up the downtown. He cites the Cambridge ordinance and requests that the Authority members read it prior to arriving at a decision. He expresses concern about the liability.
Daniel iterates his previous point about the process that is in place for this application and repeats all of the requirements for the approval. He confirms that this applicant is in the process of meeting these requirements.
Brennan asks who awards the permit for the outdoor seating.
Daniel explains that the SRA gives the permit only in the urban renewal areas, and the permits are in place for one year and will renew annually. They can be revoked at any time if an issue arises.
Councillor Jerry Ryan emphasizes that the City should collect money for the use of this space.
Council McCarthy asks if the SRA addresses the railing on the Derby Street side of the restaurant, next to the curb.
City Public Works Director Rick Rennard states that he put the crowd control barrier there temporarily until the situation can be addressed. He explains that there is a hazard at the spot with a step in the sidewalk down to the curb.
Daniel states that the step that is there was in the plans approved by the City. The temporary railing is in place as a safety measure until a permanent solution can be designed. The permanent solution will be reviewed and approved by the DRB and the SRA.
Vickers states that he is in favor of going forward based on the current process that is in place, and the City Council can review or amend the ordinance for this type of permit. Once the new ordinance is in place, they can bring all of the establishments into conformance.
John Hayes of 13 Hancock Street cites the Salem Marketplace Design Peer Review Report, stating that the land in question is not in that plan. He urges the SRA to review this and hold off approval for about one year. He states that he derives aesthetic pleasure from the trees. He speaks in opposition to the outdoor seating.
Councillor Jerry Ryan speaks in opposition to the outdoor seating.
Councillor Stephen Pinto speaks in opposition to the outdoor seating. He urges the SRA to give this decision more time.
Councillor McCarthy urges the SRA to give this more time, and to reserve the right to take the seating area back.
Daniel clarifies that it is a one-year permit and can be revoked at any time for failure to comply with the terms of the permit.
Owner Joey Arcari states that he has been in business 14 years and he understands that if he does something wrong the permit will be taken away from him, and he can accept that. He confirms that he is going through all of the required steps in the approval process and he doesn’t see why they wish to stop and wait for the City Council to rewrite laws.
Vickers states that most of the issues can be dealt with and the only thing in contention is what to do with the trees and the tree warden will determine that. He suggests making the approval subject to resolution of the tree warden.
Joey Arcari states that he is willing to pay to replace any trees that are removed.
Brennan asks the Authority if there is any purpose to delay this decision until the tree warden makes his decision.
Daniel states that they could make a decision leaving the tree decision to the tree warden.
Brennan states that there are three City Councillors here tonight and two others that wanted to be here and could not be here, and he would not have a problem delaying this until the tree warden makes his decision.
Mitnik states that he agrees with the DRB from the point of view of urban space, and this space it underutilized and urbanism is for people. He explains that businesses have suffered here since the 1950’s with the rise of the shopping centers and he would like to enliven the City. He adds that an entire culture in Paris uses café dining as one of its base elements.
Baldini agrees.
Connelly agrees but states that he understands the hesitancy and he isn’t sure if everything will be settled in two weeks.
Mitnik: Motion to delay this decision and hold a special meeting in two weeks to allow time for the City Councillors to comment.
Councillor McCarthy confirms that the Licensing Board meets Monday. He states that the SRA still has control over this issue and he will respect the SRA’s decision. He iterates that his biggest issue is the fact that they are bringing alcohol/food across a public way.
Owner Joey Arcari states that he doesn’t understand why this is being delayed for the City Council to rewrite rules.
Architect Stephen Sousa asks the SRA if they can approve this application contingent on the tree warden’s approvals.
Much discussion ensues.
Vickers amends the motion as follows: Motion to delay the SRA decision and to hold a special hearing in two weeks to wait for the decision from the tree warden and for the benefit of hearing the City Council as a whole speak on this subject. After amending the motion, Vickers seconds the motion.
The members vote on the motion. Passes 5-0.
Executive Director’s Report
Council on Aging Building Reuse and Disposition: Daniel speaks for Lynn Duncan and presents her memo.
Daniel states that the Mayor recommends that the SRA be charged with disposition process for the Council on Aging property on Broad Street. He explains that the SRA will follow a process similar to that used for the Old Salem Jail and Old Town Hall.
The Authority will follow the process as described below:
- The SRA will select a consultant to perform a feasibility study for the property.
- The SRA will hold a public hearing to gain public input on potential uses for the site.
If the determination is made that municipal reuse of the building is the best option, then the Authority would not need to take any further
action.
If the determination is made that the building is not needed for municipal uses, then the SRA will use the feasibility study to solicit
proposals for the reuse of the building.
After reviewing proposals, the Authority will make a recommendation to the City Council on disposition of the building.
Daniel states that there will be a meeting on this issue on Monday.
Vickers asks if this site might be declared surplus and the property be disposed of based on the criteria that it be redeveloped.
Daniel states that it could.
Vickers confirms that the disposition process includes recommending a use.
Parking Study: Daniel states that a working group has been formed, and Mitnik will be representing the SRA on that group.
Mitnik states that he was impressed with the committee because they have done their homework and have a good base of knowledge.
Approval of Minutes – June 10, 2009 Meeting
Baldini: Motion to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Connelly. Passes 5-0.
Connelly: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Vickers. Passes 5-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 7:20 pm.
| 
