City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Special Meeting
Date and Time: Tuesday July 12, 2011 at 6:30pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairperson Michael Brennan, Russell Vickers, Robert Mitnik
Members Absent: Conrad Baldini, Robert Curran
Others Present: Executive Director and City Planner Lynn Duncan
Recorder: Sarah Brophy
Chairperson Michael Brennan calls the meeting to order.
Welcome
Brennan states the purpose of meeting. Meeting is to update the community on the Urban Renewal Plans for Heritage Plaza East and Heritage Plaza West.
Purpose and Overview of the Project
Duncan provided a brief overview of the project and oriented the audience to the scope of work. Heritage Plaza East and West are located in downtown Salem. The goal is to update the plans and gain approval prior to expiration in 2012.
The Cecil Group was hired by the SRA to assist with the technical aspect of the undertaking.
Mayor Driscoll formed an advisory group to help guide the planning effort. Duncan listed the members of the advisory group (present and absent).
Scope of Work and Timeframe
Cecil provided a brief overview regarding urban renewal planning in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and how it relates to the City of Salem.
Process for updating an urban renewal plan involves a lot of community engagement as well as State approval. It is a public process that requires much due diligence.
Project schedule and critical milestones were reviewed.
Cecil summarized the boundaries, focus, purposes/objectives and actions of each plan. The existing plans for the City of Salem are available on-line. The plan for Heritage Plaza East expires in 03/12. The Heritage Plaza West expires six – seven years later years later.
The revised plan will combine the two plans into one. Heritage East will be expanded to include Heritage West. Heritage West will be abandoned. A new name may be selected.
Cecil opened up the discussion to the audience with a focus on the following three topics.
- Geographic Areas of Urban Renewal Plans
- Specific Goals and Objectives to Retain or Add
- Activities that want to grow from the plan
Public Comments
Questions –
- Audience – Is it possible to extend the SRA to additional areas within Salem (i.e. 44 Parcels, B5 on Lafayette Street - St. Josephs)?
Duncan – The SRA has not made the recommendation to extend the area of the urban renewal plan at this time. It is not a viable solution to do design review on a city wide basis.
- Audience – Can the parcel be expanded to include Riley Plaza and the adjacent areas near and around the Police Department and Public Works?
Cecil – Geographic boundaries are not fixed and can be amended in the future as needed.
Audience - Should the plan be expanded to City owned parcels to protect these areas in the future?
Duncan – Does the parcel have to be contiguous? Should it extend to all City owned pieces of land?
Cecil – It is possible to include City owned parcels in the new plan. However, the City can appoint the SRA to City run projects on an as needed basis.
Audience – Should the Post Office be included?
Cecil – Much like the MBTA, the SRA has no jurisdiction over Federal properties.
- Audience – When would the new urban renewal plan expire?
Cecil – The duration of the plan is up to the City.
Duncan – Interested in the opinion of the group on this topic.
Audience – Having an expiration date forces the SRA to critically look at the plan and re-evaluate if it is meeting the needs of the City.
Cecil – Indicated that State Legislation changes and that it is prudent to have an expiration date to re-evaluate the plan against these changes.
- Audience - What is the benefit to a private property owner to be included in the plan if not included?
Cecil – SRA may provide incentives to improve your property.
- Audience - What are the limits of the B5?
Duncan – Described the boundaries of the B5.
Cecil – Commented that the revised plan will be consistent with the zoning.
- Audience – Does the current SRA refer to the existing land use and circulation plan?
Duncan –New plans have been done since the original urban renewal plan that are referred to and are consistent with the outlined design goals. The plan for the pedestrian mall should be outlined in the new plan. Not explicit to the design, but indicate that it needs improvement.
- Audience– What about the Common? Is the Common a Historic preservation area? The Common is a jewel of the City and could use some guidance.
- Audience– Riley Plaza and the adjacent buildings should be covered under the new plan. The SRA should have design review over such a major project when it happens.
Cecil – Gateways to and from the City need consideration.
- Audience – Will requirements for development of the downtown as residential be addressed?
Duncan – Zoning governs these requirements.
Cecil – When the original plan was development, mixed use was not relevant. This is a topic that can be addressed in the new plan. However, zoning is the overriding authority.
- Audience – Are Federal tax credits still available for façade improvements?
Duncan – Does not think this program exists.
- Audience – Is there funding for acquisition of property? How would funds be raised?
Duncan - The Jail project was cited as a reference.
- Audience – At the next meeting, will the Cecil Group prepare similar boards that are streamlined?
Cecil – At the next meeting, plan scope and outline as well as statement of goals and objectives will be defined and presented in a consistent format. Information will be distributed by the SRA.
Duncan – To post material from tonight’s meeting for people that could not attend. Cecil to provide.
- Audience – Does the tobacco shop on Washington Street fall under the SRA?
Cecil – SRA does not planned to target a specific buildings or projects in the revised plan.
- Audience –Is there an example from a similar City with a mixed use downtown that can be reviewed for best practices?
Cecil – Urban renewal plans are rare and very few new ones are generated. The plans produced for Norwalk, CT and Providence, RI are applicable to the scale of Salem. However, Salem needs to create its own that addresses specific needs.
- Audience – Is it possible to make a new plan for other areas within Salem?
Cecil – Establishing a new plan is difficult. Defining blight is problematic. The geography of the plan can be amended within reason.
Audience – Can there be varying design goals within one plan?
Cecil – The plan must be legally defensible.
Audience – SRA is a valuable resource. The new plan should have broader goals that can allow for future expansion to other areas within the downtown.
Brennan – Reiterated that the revised plan should be general and expansive.
Mitnik – Expressed an interest in having the advisory group become part of the SRA.
Vickers – Overarching concern is to get things approved before expiration. There is a very tight deadline.
Adjournment
Brennan: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Mitnik. Passes 3-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 8:28 pm.
| 
