City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday July 9th, 2014 at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairperson Robert Mitnik, Conrad Baldini, Robert Curran, Russell Vickers, Grace Harrington
Members Absent:
Others Present: Executive Director and City Planner Lynn Duncan,
Andrew Shapiro, Economic Development Planner
Recorder: Jennifer Pennell
Chairperson Robert Mitnik calls the meeting to order. Roll call was taken.
Chairman Mitnik recognized and welcomed Ms. Harrington and asked if she would want to say a few words.
Ms. Harrington thanked the Board, noting that some or all of them may already know that she had worked for Representative Keenan and would be moving on to work for Senator Lovely as her Chief of Staff. She noted that she is excited to be a part of the SRA and get to work.
Executive Director’s Report
Lynn Duncan noted that legislation to move forward with disposition of the District Court is still in committee and is on its third reading.
Ms. Harrington confirmed that this was in fact the case and further noted that all signs point to the legislation moving forward.
Duncan noted that the Superior Court and County Commissioners office is a separate issue. She stated that the legislation for disposition would not be moving forward at this time given that Secretary Galvin is interested in utilizing some of those properties for State functions.
Duncan explained that Old Town Hall would no longer be managed by Gordon College. A new Public Art Planner, Deborah Greel, will be responsible for staffing the newly formed Public Art Commission and managing Old Town Hall going forward. An agreement to have the City manage bookings and have Gordon College continue management of Old Town Hall was to have expired at the end of August, but given the College’s apparent violation of the City’s anti-discrimination ordinance, the Mayor felt it best to sever the contract starting next week.
Current staff will be kept on through the end of August. Duncan commented that the City would work to file a separate rental agreement to maintain Cry Innocent, and to have the Salem Museum stay on the first floor. Any new rental agreement will be very clear with its anti-discrimination clause.
Old/New Business
- Discussion and vote for SRA Treasurer
Chairman Mitnik asked if there were any nominations for Treasurer.
Duncan explained that Matt Veno had been Treasurer but is no longer on the SRA.
Vickers nominated Bob Curran to be SRA Treasurer.
Vickers: Motion to approve.
Seconded by Baldini. Passes 5-0.
- Discussion of warm “mothballing” of Superior Court complex
Duncan explained that the architect advising the Commonwealth’s Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM) on how to “warm mothball” the Superior Court Complex had contacted the Department of Planning and Community Development to seek comment from the Salem Redevelopment Authority on the matter. The firm, Perry, Dean and Rogers would provide comments to DCAMM. She further pointed out that the firm would be using the Secretary of the Interior’s Preservation Brief 31 – “Mothballing Historic Buildings” – as a reference.
Duncan referenced page 6 of the Brief noting that it suggested ½” or ¾” thick plywood panels be installed for protection of windows. She suggested that perhaps these panels could be painted in a decorative manner or to appear as operable windows in order to preserve the outward appearance of the buildings.
Mitnik questioned if there were any other options aside from mothballing. Mitnik commented that he would like an explanation on why no other options were proposed.
Duncan noted that the State is moving forward with warm mothballing.
Vickers questioned what the scope of work would be with Peridine and Rogers Architects. Vickers questioned why the architect is asking for recommendations.
Shapiro clarified that recommendations to come out of any discussion at this meeting would be incorporated into comments to the architect so that they could be included in a full report to DCAMM on who the buildings should be mothballed.
Mitnik asked if there would be a public hearing process.
Duncan explained that there will be no public hearing and that this is the SRA’s opportunity to comment. Duncan also noted that the Historical Commission would have an opportunity to weigh in on the issue.
Vickers questioned what plans they propose for fire protection and security. People can still inhabit the building without the city knowing. The plan should include these measures and confirm that they are adequate.
Duncan responded noting that security was specifically cited in the Brief as an issue to be taken into consideration.
At this point Chairman Mitnik asked if there was any public comment on the issue being discussed.
David Hart of 104 Federal Street – A Member of the Historical Commission and Board Member of Historic Salem Inc. (not representing these bodies but as an independent citizen remarked the following):
Hart began by noting that water on the interior and exterior could destroy masonry and should be the primary concern with respect to warm mothballing. All water should be drained from the systems; if not, a sudden cold snap could freeze up plumbing. Condensation on the interior is very important and should be monitored throughout the time that it is mothballed. Hart noted that small battery operated instruments called Hobos can monitor temperature and humidity level and could be used for monitoring. Temporary heat is very important, and of course, fire suppression is as well, but water contained in that system could freeze.
Vickers noted that he did not distinguish between wet or dry fire suppression but brought up the issue because structures have been lost in the past due to fires and lack of security.
Other than that, keeping an average temperature of 45-degrees is important. Hart noted that preventing the building from getting hot and moist during the summer should be a top priority.
Next, Jennifer Firth, 3 Carpenter Street, Board Member of Historic Salem commented:
Firth noted that HSI was an interested party in the original MOA with DCAMM and would like that to remain as such. She thought it would benefit the City if the first building assessment could be done as a coalition: HSI, the City, Historical Commission, etc.
Duncan questioned whether HSI was a signatory on the MOA with DCAMM. Vickers noted that he did not think they were, but that he endorsed the idea of inspecting the building and to monitor inspections.
Vickers noted that inspections and reporting should occur every few months. An ongoing management plan from consultants that the committee could review would be ideal. An annual report and walkthrough should be created.
Duncan commented that the City would want to know the plan for monitoring and reporting, as well as to receive reports on an ongoing basis. The Historical Commission and HSI could be kept informed of this reporting.
Vickers: Motion to approve.
- Monitor system (temp, humidity, condensation)
- Management Plan for review
- DRB to review exterior aesthetic features
Winterize building
Seconded by Baldini. Passes 5-0.
Old/New Business
- 155 Washington Street (Adriatic Restaurant and Bar): Discussion and vote on proposed pole lights for outdoor seating area.
Shapiro noted that the applicant came before the Board at the last meeting and that the Board approved the project subject to approval from the Building Department, and that the pole lighting required more information prior to it being approved.
Shapiro noted that the Building Department looked at how fencing and fixtures were installed. They approved the proposal. It meets clearances (5 and 6 feet in most places), quality, and safety. Shapiro noted that four pole lights would be fixed to ground and evenly aligned with fence but closer to sidewalk.
Shapiro explained that the owner of the restaurant would keep the fence and lighting in place throughout the year, but could uninstall it if asked to by the Building Department or other City Departments. Shapiro also commented that there was a precedent for affixing lights or fencing to the sidewalk, as Tavern in the Square had done similar things with their outdoor seating area.
Curran: Motion to approve.
Seconded by Vickers. Passes 5-0.
- 217 Essex Street (Verizon Wireless): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of wireless telecommunications equipment.
Carol Holahan was present on behalf of Verizon Wireless.
Holahan noted that her client had been before the DRB twice and accommodated its requested revisions to its original proposal. Verizon would be adding 6 additional antennas to the rooftop. Holahan commented that 2 antennas would be hidden and mounted to the side of an existing penthouse and painted a brick color to match. 4 new antennas would be mounted to posts and painted a warm grey color. She commented that the steel support structure would be pocketed closer to the parapet.
Holahan noted that the original proposal before the DRB called for a faux chimney to house the 4 antennas, but the Board rejected that idea.
Shapiro added that the applicant has requested that a gas run-up be installed along the south elevation of the building, and that the DRB requested that it be run along the seam of the building. It would be painted to resemble the brick color. Holahan confirmed that this was the case.
Baldini: Motion to approve as recommended by DRB
Seconded by Vickers. Passes 5-0.
- 155 Washington Street (Tavern in the Square): Discussion and vote on proposed signage.
Stephen DeSousa was present on behalf of the applicant and noted that he is appealing the DRB’s request to remove one of the blade signs on the Washington Street side of the buidling.
DeSousa noted that they had redesigned their logo and therefore changed the blade signs on the building to reflect the new logo. They were not aware that they had to seek DRB and SRA approval, but when told that they would need to appear before the Boards, they applied for consideration of the new signage.
DeSousa continued by noting that a couple of the DRB Members made it clear that they did not like the new signs, but did not want to punish them. They did request that one of the signs be removed. The original proposal from years back approved three signs, and these three news signs have been erected in their place, and are smaller than the original signs.
Shapiro confirmed what DeSousa had explained and went further by noting that the DRB wanted to remove one of the blade signs because there was a lot of signage and a large building sign on the corner of Washington and Derby Street as well.
Mitnik asked if all combined signage was in compliance with the City’s sign ordinance.
Shapiro confirmed that they are.
Baldini commented that he had no problem with keeping all three signs. We should exercise our power to keep all of the signs in place.
Baldini: Motion to approve.
Seconded by Curran. Passes 5-0.
- 87 Washington Street (Opus): Discussion and vote on proposed revisions to back and front outdoor seating areas, and proposed A-Frame sign.
A representative of Richard Griffin Architects presented the proposal noting that Opus would like to change their rear outdoor seating scheme to include new furniture, as well as their front outdoor seating area to also include an A-Frame sign.
Shapiro noted that the proposal includes a revision to outdoor seating located in the rear of the building (38 seat capacity), which would extend the area to include the front of outdoor storage area, and a center teak furniture lounge space. The DRB voted in favor of the rear seating area revisions as amended without comment.
Shapiro continued by noting that the DRB had reviewed the proposal for an A-Frame sign and for teak benches to be placed at the front outdoor area of the restaurant. Since that meeting, the applicant has revised its proposal to include a different sign than had been reviewed by the DRB, and to reinstate outdoor seating tables, as opposed to just benches.
Shapiro said that he had conferred with the Building Department and they had indicated that the seating plan for the front was acceptable.
Shapiro clarified for the Board that 5’ of clearance was needed for the A-Frame sign, and 4’ of clearance was needed for the seating area to the curb or other obstructions.
Vickers: Approve Drawing A1.2B and new a-frame sign subject to final review and approval by DRB.
Seconded by Baldini. Passes 5-0.
- 186 Essex Street Unit 2 (October Moon): Discussion and vote on proposed signage.
Shapiro explained that the original proposal included only one sign, but members of the DRB felt that the storefront would look better with a simpler primary sign, and additional signage along the face of the awning and on the windows. The proposal now calls for a sign with raised letters along the face of the awning in the center and for letters running along the sides of the awning, and 2 window decals. Shapiro noted that the recommendation made by the DRB was conditional upon the applicant working with DRB Member Glenn Kennedy to iron out final details. Shapiro noted that the applicant did in fact work with Kennedy and the final proposal is in compliance with the City’s sign ordinance.
Harrington: Motion to approve.
Seconded by Vickers. Passes 5-0.
Minutes
The minutes from the June 11, 2014 regular meeting were reviewed.
Vickers: Motion to approve.
Seconded by Baldini. Passes 5-0.
Adjournment
Harrington: Motion to adjourn,
Seconded by Vickers. Passes 5-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 7:06 pm.
| 
