City Council

281 CITY OF SALEM JUNE 18, 2025 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING BOARD The Salem City Council will hold a Joint Public Meeting with the Planning Board in- person in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washington Street, 2nd floor, Salem, MA on Wednesday, June 18, 2025 at 6:30 PM. in accordance with Chapter 40A, Section 5, of the Massachusetts General Laws for the purpose of discussing Amending Section 7 Special Residential District Regulations by adding a new Section 7.4 Smart Growth Overlay District ( “the District ”) pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40R and 760 CMR 59.00. Notice of this hearing was posted on June 12, 2025, at 6:16 P.M and advertised in the Salem News on June 4, 2025, and June 11, 2025 Absent were: Absent were: Councillor Prosnewski, Councillor Stott and Councillor Harvey Councillor Patti Morsillo presiding. Board Members present: Kirt Rieder, Tom Furey, Helen Sides, Josh Turiel, Graham Wing, Sarah Tarbet Absent were Jonathan Berk, Zach Caunter, Carole Hamilton Also, in attendance were Mayor Dominick Pangallo, Amanda Chiancola, Deputy Director Planning and Community Development and Robyn Lee, Planner. Notice of this hearing was posted on June 12, 2025, at 6:16 P.M. and advertised in the Salem News on June 4, 2025, and June 11, 2025 282 CITY OF SALEM JUNE 18, 2025 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING BOARD Zoning Amendment - Smart Growth Overlay District #250 - Amending Section 7 Special Residential District Regulations by adding a new Section 7.4 Smart Growth Overlay District (“the District”) pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40R and 760 CMR 59.00. Amending Section 7 Special Residential District Regulations by adding a new Section 7.4 Smart Growth Overlay District (“the District”) pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40R and 760 CMR 59.00. The proposed District includes a Harrison Road Subdistrict section (7.4.8.1) located at 8, 11, 20-32 Harrison Road & 262 Loring Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts, having a land area of approximately 23 acres in size that is superimposed over the underlying zoning district. The purpose of the amendment is to encourage sustainable development and mobility in accordance with the purposes of G.L. Chapter 40R. The permitted uses in the District include multifamily and mixed-use housing and retail, business or professional offices, and parking. Minimum and maximum parking is proposed for all uses. For all Projects containing at least 6 residential units, not less than twenty percent (20%) of housing units constructed shall be Affordable Housing that is eligible for households with incomes at or below eighty (80) percent of Area Median Income (AMI) at purchase prices or rents that adhere to the income limits determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development applicable to the City of Salem. There is proposed a by-right Planning Board review and approval authority with the Design Review Board as an advisory body to the Planning Board. In addition to the uses outlined in the District, the following uses are also proposed in the Harrison Road Subdistrict: Age Restricted Senior Housing; Supportive Housing; and Accessory Uses typically associated with the above. For both Age Restricted Senior Housing and Supportive Housing, the minimum parking requirement is 0.5 spaces per unit, with the maximum allowed parking equivalent to that for multifamily housing. The affordability requirements in the Harrison Road Subdistrict exceed the District requirements. In subzone 1, ten percent (10%) of the units will be affordable to households at or below eighty percent (80%) of the Area Median Income (AMI), and another ten percent (10%) will be available to households at or below sixty percent (60%) AMI. In Subzones 2 and 3, a 283 CITY OF SALEM JUNE 18, 2025 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING BOARD combined total of forty percent (40%) of the units will be affordable for households earning at or below sixty percent (60%) AMI. Ms. Chiancola presents and discusses the proposed 40R umbrella zoning district and Harrison Road subdistrict. This is aligned with the city’s housing goals and the 2026 goals of Imagine Salem (2018). This joint public hearing is a part of a state process. Ms. Chiancola shares the work the SSU and DCAMM have done for the development of South Campus. The current zoning is R1/RC. Meaningful development requires a change to the regulations. The 2022 Housing Roadmap further developed strategies for creating housing, including utilizing 40R as a zoning tool. The 2024 Gateway Cities Housing Monitor report estimated that Salem needs 2229 housing units in the next 10 years to keep up with demand. What is the 40R? This is also known as “Smart Growth Zoning and Housing Production Act,” or Massachusetts General Law 40R. Its intent is to create diverse housing with a variety of mobility options. The zoning must meet specific criteria. Two ways a district is created: zone an area to attract development; collaboration with a development team to create future development. The latter is what the city is pursuing. This is an intensive tool. The city has additional requirements to what the state requires. The city cannot move forward with a local zoning process without an approval from the state with the submission of a preliminary application letter. The state granted a conditional letter of eligibility in April 2025. Next steps require referral to the Planning Board for recommendation and then two votes from City Council. An umbrella ordinance is proposed as the city may consider more than one 40R. Tonight the district is The Harrison Road Smart Growth Overlay District (South Campus). 23 acres and 4 subzones. 13 acres are developable, 10 non-developable, and 3.4 substantially developed. Each subzone has its own dimensional and affordability requirements. The process is like a site plan review, with the key difference being the timeline. Additionally, the Planning Board cannot issue a decision without a recommendation from the Design Review Board (DRB) to adhere to design standards. 284 CITY OF SALEM JUNE 18, 2025 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING BOARD The DRB can also request comments from the Historical Commission. If the project meets the criteria and requirements, it is approved as-of-right. The umbrella ordinance has allowed uses: Multi-family residential use, mixed-use (multi-family with retail/professional office), parking accessory to the permitted use, accessory use customary to any of the permitted uses (leasing office). Harrison Road subdistrict has specific uses: age-restricted housing and supportive housing. Parking requirements in the umbrella ordinances require minimums and maximums. Harrison Road are ½ space/unit with 1.75x the minimum = the maximum. Subzone 1 (Bates Complex) 37 units with max building height of 70 feet, max lot coverage 75%, minimum open space 25%, front and side setback 15’ and rear 30’; affordability: 10% at 60% AMI; 10% at 80% area median income (AMI). Subzone 2 (Harrington Building) 29 units with max building height of 50’, max lot coverage 75%, min open space 25%, no front yard setback, 5’ rear and side. Subzone 3 (Loring Villa) 10 units with max building height of 70 feet, 75% max lot coverage with 25% open space min., 30” front setback, 5’ side, and 10’ rear. Affordability for subzones 2 and 3 is 40% of combined units at 60% AMI. Design standards exist for new construction, adaptive reuse, and landscaping. The Planning Board can grant a waiver against these standards if needed. Orientation, setback, unappealing functions (dumpsters, etc.), connectivity between building, parking, form and scale, architectural scale, mechanical equipment, structured parking, façade articulation, ground floor design, architectural treatments, building materials. Adaptive reuse design standards: applicability, architectural elements, exterior, interior, additions, accessibility. These would apply to Loring Villa and the former Convent St. Chretienne, St. Chretienne School, and St. Chretienne Academy. Landscaping Design standards: Site connectivity, open space, streets and parking, and driveway and parking. 285 CITY OF SALEM JUNE 18, 2025 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING BOARD Mayor Pangallo discusses that this will help provide additional housing and affordable housing. This will help support tax base growth. Councillor Watson- Felt would like to understand inconsistencies with approved plans and what is built. Mayor Pangallo says the mechanism to review is through occupancy permits issued through city departments. The increase in staff in Inspectional Services and Planning helps hold developers to account. Would like to know how do proposed dimensions compare with current heights? Ms. Chiancola responds that the project team has been looking at that and she will get back to the council on that. Will there be loss to the forestry on the hill? Ms. Chiancola says that the trees will be discussed through the plan review process. Councillor Watson-Felt asks if there are no restrictions on how we are handling trees. Ms. Chiancola will look into that along with the conservation land borders. Council Waston Felt asks if there is a percentage of rentals v. condos? Ms. Chiancola says that zoning or plan approvals cannot dictate tenure, but the developer is looking at a rental project. Councillor Jerzylo asks if it will be 1 parking space or 0.5 parking space per age- restricted unit and if it will be a parking garage or a lot? Ms. Chiancola says that the zoning has been changing and that since November has been 0.5 space and that while the zoning allows for a garage, this will be looked at in the Planning Board stage. Councillor Varela commends the formal process and finds South Campus to be appropriate for this overlay. Councillor Merkl likes the clarity on affordability numbers and revenue benefits, infrastructure improvements. Councillor Cohen asks if part of the process to submitting to state requires submitting all public testimony. 286 CITY OF SALEM JUNE 18, 2025 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING BOARD Ms. Chiancola says “yes,” public comment is provided to state as part of state application and change made due to public comment. Councillor Cohen mentions the diminishing rental stock and these rental units will benefit the city. Pleased with the passive house design. The ability for council decision making for this project is good. Councillor Davis echoes the gratitude for the presentation. Finds 40R to be a powerful tool for affordability. Planning Board Questions: Mr. Furey likes the umbrella ordinance and sees this as a visionary project for all ages, particularly veterans. Mr. Turiel asks if the number of new units to stay on top of production is that net or gross? What is net growth? Ms. Chiancola says assuming losing and building new, net. He believes this would lower intensity of usage compared to commercial use, lower traffic counts in that neighborhood and serve affordability markets that have been neglected, i.e., elderly or 60% AMI) Ms. Tarbet asks about mobility and how does that factor into umbrella and subdistrict? How has transit factored into the subdistrict numbers? Ms. Chiancola says that as a part of the process, the City Engineer and Transportation Department has determined there is adequate infrastructure to accommodate this development. Design standards speak to pedestrian improvements. Ms. Tarbet asks if there are other public transit opportunities for that area. Ms. Chiancola says that they looked at existing transit opportunities as a part of this process. 287 CITY OF SALEM JUNE 18, 2025 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING BOARD Mr. Rieder asks what defines open space and does this definition include parking? In the 40R, parking is separate from open space. Ms. Chiancola will review the language and add language to clarify. Mr. Rieder also draws a distinction between landscape and landscaping. It is imperative that any applicant be ready to discuss the totality of landscape, i.e., current tree requirements at 30 ft apart are too large for the 21st century urban development. Finally, he feels there should be separation of conservation land from residential development. Residential conservation does not make sense. Public Comment: APPEARING IN FAVOR: Phillip Johns Historic Salem, Inc. Resent a letter today regarding lack of specific design standards. The letter is available in the written public comments. Alyssa Rosemartin 12 Buchannan Road Is excited to see upzoning and the addressing of the housing crisis. APPEARING IN OPPOSITION: 288 CITY OF SALEM JUNE 18, 2025 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING BOARD Claire Bencal Grant Road Is neither pro nor against but has asked for traffic study and hasn’t heard anything about infrastructure. We are abutters on opposite side of Loring Ave. We get emails from Avalon and Winn. Councillor Morsillo says that asking for information from Councillors is not in their jurisdiction and that meetings are posted on the city website. Ms. Chiancola says that abutter notices follow state law. Additionally, the city would be happy to give studies. Linda Feraresco 67 Aurora Lane Is neither pro nor against but would like the team to consider including a retail site that would benefit the community. Ms. Sides clarifies that the Planning Board and the Planning Department are two separate entities. Mr. Rieder also clarifies that the board listens and processes the data that they are presented. Councillor Hapworth moved that the public hearing be closed. All in favor. The motion carries. Councillor Hapworth moved to accept the amendment of section 3.G.2 to include: provided that, notwithstanding the requirements of Sections 7.4.6.1 and 7.4.6.16, if a minimum forty (40) percent of the units in Subzone 2 are made available to households with incomes at or below sixty (60) percent AMI, then a minimum of ten (10) percent of the units in Subzone 3 shall be made available to households with incomes at or below sixty (60) percent AMI, seconded by Councillor Cohen. All in favor. The motion carries. 289 CITY OF SALEM JUNE 18, 2025 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING BOARD Councillor Hapworth moved that the matter be referred to the Planning Board for their recommendation. All in favor. The motion carries. Councillor Hapworth moved to adjourn. All in favor. The motion carries. Mr. Turiel moves to adjourn the Planning Board. Seconded by Mr. Furey. All in favor, the motion carries. On the motion of Councillor Morsillo, the meeting adjourned at 7:50 P.M.