City Council

City of Salem, Massachusetts “Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law, M.G.L. c. 30A ss. 18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.” The City Council Committee on Ordinances Licenses and Legal Affairs co-posted with the Committee of the Whole____________________________________________________________________________________ met in the Council Chamber on _Thursday May 15, 2025 _____________ at ______6:00_______P.M. for the purpose of discussing the matters(s) listed below. Notice of this meeting was posted on __April 29, 2025__ at ___ 10:52 A.M._ (This meeting is being recorded) ATTENDANCE OLLA – Hapworth (Chair), Cohen, Jerzylo, and Morsillo. COW – Prosniewski, Harvey, Davis and Stott. From the city – James Wellock, Stavroula Orfanos, Amanda Chiancola, David Greenbaum. ABSENT WERE: OLLA – Varela. COW – Watson-Felt and Merkl. SUBJECT(S) #100 Zoning Ordinance Adopted for First Passage as Amended relative to ADU’s – Accessory Dwelling Units. Accessory Dwelling Units - An accessory dwelling unit is a small residential living space located on the same lot as another home. ADUs can play a significant role in our housing crisis. The ADU policy recently signed by the governor allows property owners to build an ADU without having to get special or discretionary approval from the local zoning board. ADUs can be internal within an existing primary residence, like converting a basement into an apartment, attached to a primary residence as a new construction addition, or completely detached, like a cottage or converted detached garage in a backyard. #71 Ordinance to Amend Ordinance relative to Regulating the Maintenance of Abandoned and Foreclosed Residential and Commercial Properties. Discussion regarding #71 – Wellock – Based on the discussions at our previous meeting, I added a definition for vacant properties. I also changed the registration requirement to be just for vacant properties and not for foreclosed properties. If the property is vacant due to the foreclosure, they will need to be registered with the city otherwise, a foreclosed property will not need to be registered. This ordinance is targeted at vacant properties that could be a safety risk or otherwise. I also included in the definition of abandoned properties those commercial and residential properties that have broken windows and/or doors as well as those without a functioning lock for more than 45 days. The ordinance requires that an abandoned/vacant property needs to be registered with the city and a contact person be posted at the property (and kept updated) so if there is an issued with the property that the city inspector can contact them and get the problem resolved in a reasonable time frame. Hapworth – To refresh everyone’s memory at our last meeting. We asked for a breakdown of what the graduated fees would cover and a list of abandoned and foreclosed properties along with violation and police visits which have been provided to us. We also had questions on how city owned properties would fit into this ordinance with 5 Broad St., as an example. We also asked for a clear definition of an abandoned property, which we just covered. Then lastly, there were some concerns about unintended consequences that might be experienced by those living in foreclosed properties. Wellock – We addressed the unintended consequences because we are no longer requiring registration of a foreclosed property that is not abandoned. If 911 is called for a vacant property, then police should know that there shouldn’t be anyone living at the property. Orfanos – I submitted an abandoned/foreclosed properties cost analysis. I included 3 properties as examples. We could spend anywhere from 5 to 40 hours on each property annually. We could have police, fire, health, city inspectors. We don’t have any software that can track the activity so I had to go through emails, reports and anything else I had to show how much time we could spend at a property. Cohen – Under the appeal section, it says the hearing officers, is that the building commissioner? Wellock – No, that is the municipal hearing officer; the same person that hears appeals for traffic tickets. Morsillo – How does this information get relayed to the police department? Wellock – There is software that we could get that would be helpful so a police officer can look up a property and find out all the information on that property but we don’t currently have software to track the properties. Orfanos – We currently have monthly meetings where we discuss problem properties and police, fire, health, etc. are all there so they are aware of the situation. Morsillo – What about abandoned schools? This ordinance wouldn’t cover them, right? Wellock – The definition includes any property so it should include school/church buildings as well. Prosniewski - I used to be a part of the “Problem Property Task Force” years ago. We had a list of properties that were a problem in the city, whether they were abandoned or frequented by the health/police dept. etc. We would meet and go over those properties to see what could be done about them. Does it still work that way? Orfanos – Yes. Prosniewski – Those properties that are abandoned can be taken over by the city in receivership and then they can be sold. Is there a way to fast track that once violations have been issued if the owner is ignoring them? Wellock – We have several properties that are in receivership right now. This ordinance will help that process because part of the problem is knowing who the owner is and getting the notice to all interested parties. We must prove that we notified everyone to move on with the court. This ordinance will help get the heat on the owner to get the vacant property back on the market. Morsillo – I have a potential loophole regarding active permits, and I am going to give you a hypothetical with the Sylvania lot at the corner of Boston & Bridge. They have an active building permit, correct? Orfanos – They don’t have an active building permit. They are currently doing some drainage alterations. A building permit is only good for 180 days, but it can be extended if they are actively working on the property in case things are going slow. Morsillo – I didn’t know that a building permit is only good for 180 days and then you can extend it as you are working. Hapworth – Let’s go through the redlines of the ordinance. Wellock – There are several places where I just corrected or clarified language. I removed the foreclosure process since it is no longer applicable. I added the definition on vacant which means any real property that is not legally occupied and is not subject to an active permit. I changed the annual registration fee rubric and added the ability to charge unpaid registration fees as a municipal lien so the mortgage company would still be on the hook for unpaid registration fees. I added some info on the appeals process. Harvey – If someone is found to be squatting in a vacant building is it the owner’s responsibility to get them out or the city? And if it is the city’s responsibility, then do they get reimbursed for the time? Wellock – The police don’t remove squatters. The landlord or property owner would have to go through an eviction process to get them out. The city doesn’t get involved in that process unless there is a serious health or building code violation. This ordinance would not address reimbursing the city for their time, we would just be able to give them tickets for any violations. Morsillo – Do you know how many properties in Salem are bank owned and abandoned? Orfanos – I don’t know if they are bank owned, but there are about 10 properties in Salem that are considered abandoned. Cohen – Motion for a positive recommendation as amended by the red lines and striking “up to” in Section 1272, under the section, failure to maintain. Seconded by Morsillo. Motion carries 4-0. Public Comment – James Whittier – 10 River Street – Churches aren’t residential or commercial; they are considered exempt uses, and you might want to consider adding that to your definition. Hapworth – Moving on to ADUs. This went before council a couple weeks ago and received 1st passage but there were some outstanding questions. Harvey and Chiancola met to discuss those questions. We have what is required by the state as well and the regulations that we are adopting in the city to amend the ordinance. Chiancola – The first one we discussed at the joint public hearing. The state law requires that ADUs apply to any zone that allows for single family units and the B1 zone allows for single family units, so we change the “N” to a “Y” since B1 zone allows for single family units; that was just a typo previously. Hapworth – I will just note to council that this was voted on in the previous meeting. Chiancola – The next 2 changes are not state requirements but based on conversations with C. Harvey. The prior ordinance required that utilities be served on a combined service and that was in part for affordability because there was a requirement for owner occupancy. In this ordinance, we aren’t allowed to require owner occupancy. When there isn’t an owner occupancy requirement, then there can be a conflict on who is responsible for the utility service. The state requires detached ADUs that aren’t owner occupied, shall provide water, sewer and electric service separate from the principal dwelling unit. This is already required by the building codes, but this will make it clear to anyone that wants to create an ADU before they even get to permitting requirements. The next edit is to restrict ADUs to one per lot. So, if you have a duplex in an R1 zone, you can only have one ADU even though there are 2 principal dwellings on the lot. Cohen – This only restricts those that are in an R1 zone? Chiancola – Correct. Davis – Why is there a requirement to get a special permit for additional ADUs when every unit that is zoned for single family, can have one ADU by right? Chiancola – The language in the state law says, that if a community wants to allow more than one ADU, they shall do so by special permit. Since it uses the word shall, that makes the special permit a state requirement. Harvey – My concern is, if you have an investor that buys a single family house in an R1 zone, then adds 2 ADUs and rents all 3 of them out, they are in essence, making it a R2 or R3 zoned house. Someone that buys a house in an R1 zone, because they want to live in a neighborhood of single family houses, then an investor comes in and buys a house and add 2 ADUs now they are renting out 3 units instead of one. As long as they collect the rent, then a lot of times they don’t keep up the property and it lowers the value of the other houses in the neighborhood. Chiancola – If you have a single family home in an R1 zone, then you can only have one ADU but if you have a 2 family in an R1 zone, then if you change the ordinance, you could have one ADU by right and a 2nd one only by special permit. Jerzylo – How many residents used the tax exemption? Chiancola – 8 were used last year. Hapworth – We are going to discuss the redlines and then move on to any concerns about the ordinance as a whole. Cohen – I want to go back to the original wording because this is not adding a principal dwelling unit. It is stating if there are already more than one principal dwelling unit on the lot, then they can only have one ADU by right. I am fine with having a multi family to add an ADU for each principal dwelling unit. Harvey – If I have a single family unit in an R1 zone with an ADU in my basement, can I request a special permit to add a detached ADU over my garage? Chiancola – No. Morsillo – The language is a little confusing because it says 5 or fewer, so if you have one unit, that is less than 5. We should tighten up that language to say between 2 and 5. Hapworth – To clarify, if there is a multi family, then each unit owner could have an ADU. So, it would allow for an ADU by right and then other unit owner could apply for an ADU for their unit but a single family home, could only have one ADU on their lot. Cohen – move that “Q” says there shall only be one accessory dwelling unit by right on the lot with 2 to 5 dwelling units may have one accessory dwelling unit per principal dwelling unit by special permit per section 9.4, with a maximum height of 18 feet for accessory dwelling units. Hapworth - So Councilor Cohen's language was to say a lot with 2 to 5 dwelling units. then to remove the red line and then to say, may have one accessory dwelling unit per principal dwelling unit. There shall be one accessory dwelling unit by right on a lot, a lot with 2 to 5 dwelling units, and then you remove that red line. and then it goes, may have one accessory dwelling unit per principal dwelling unit by special permit. Motion carries 3-1. Moving on to the redlines in Section 4. D. Cohen – Motion to accept it as written. Matter carries 3-1. Hapworth – Any questions on the ordinance as a whole? Jerzylo – My question is on the tax exemption. Chiancola – There are 8 ADUs that received the tax exemption and between 2022-2025, we had 14 certificates of occupancies which is about 57%. Keep in mind that properties that received a grant to build the ADU were not eligible for the tax exemption. If a developer wants to purchase a property and charge market rent for the ADU, they can do that or they can request a tax exemption and cap the rent at 70%. That is an option for the homeowner, developer, etc. Jerzylo – Isn’t that taking away affordable housing if you are allowing developers to buy these homes and build an ADU and charge exorbitant rent? Chiancola – We need all types of housing in Salem; affordable housing that is deed restricted or naturally occurring and we need market rate housing too. ADUs that are a small unit and have less amenities than other rentals, may have a lower rent. An owner-occupied unit has the same opportunity to charge market rent or get the tax exemption. For the city, I see this as a win, because we need housing and we need different types of housing. Jerzylo – I don’t like that we are taking out the owner occupancies, the rent restrictions or the parking requirements. Chiancola – The current ordinance doesn’t have a parking requirement, so that part of the ordinance is unchanged. Cohen- The new ordinance would allow a single family dwelling to build an ADU and multi family units that are in an R1 zone, to build one ADU per primary dwelling unit. Some people will try to charge a lot for these units. In Salem, we have a need for smaller units, like one bedroom units. Based on the size of these units, they will or should be naturally affordable. Morsillo – I have a real world example. There was a developer that was building single family homes on Highland Ave., and he wanted to build an ADU while he was building the home which is the most cost effective way to do this. He couldn’t finish the project because he wasn’t allowed to build the ADUs. He was trying to do the right thing. Buying a single family home with an ADU in Salem makes it so much more affordable for a family because they would have immediate rental income. I think it is a great idea when building a single family home to build an ADU. It makes so much sense given our current real estate market. Hapworth – We have been talking about ADUs for many years. Amanda, can you talk about how the changes to this ordinance came about? Chiancola – The state recently passed new legislation referred to as the Affordable Homes Act, that says communities are required to allow ADUs as of right which mean it doesn’t go to a land use board to get approval; it just needs a building permit. The state law also states that you can’t require it to be owner occupied. Hapworth – Can you talk about the single family zoning districts? Chiancola – The state came up with guidelines as to what constitutes a single family residential dwelling. Single family residential zoning district is any zoning district where single family residential dwellings are permitted or an allowable use, including any zoning district where single family residential dwellings are allowed as of right or by special permit. Hapworth – When we first started talking about this in 2020 or 2021, we had a lot of discussion regarding the owner occupancy requirement but with the new state law, that takes that discussion out of the conversation, because that state law now says that they can be non-owner occupied. Public Comment – Justin Whittier – 10 River St. – Affordable housing is needed in Salem, and I think that creates a municipal interest under the state law because landlords are going try to get as much rent as they can instead of taking the tax exemption. Carol Carr – 7 River St. – I have lived here for 52 years. I don’t think non-owner occupied/developers should be able to build ADUs in Salem. Developers aren’t looking out for affordable housing; they just want to make money. Municipal Interest should apply to Salem because we are a unique community that relies on tourism. Lydia King – 4 Forest Ave. – I support all the changes that are being proposed to this ordinance. There is a need for affordable housing in Salem and that includes all sorts of housing including ADUs. If I have a family member that needs my help, I would rather they be able to live in an ADU here than having to live in NH because it is more affordable. Morsillo - Move to refer this back to the full council as amended with positive recommendation for approval, second passage. Seconded by Cohen. Motion carries 3-1. On the motion of C. Cohen meeting adjourned at 7:31P.M. ________________________________________________________ (Chairperson)