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 August 28, 2025 _____________ at ______6:00_______P.M. for the purpose of discussing the matters(s) listed below. Notice of this meeting was posted on __August 1, 2025__ at ___ 12:23 P.M._ (This meeting is being recorded) ATTENDANCE OLLA – Hapworth (chair), Cohen, Jerzylo, Morsillo, Varela. COW – Stott and Merkl. City – Amanda Chiancola. ABSENT WERE: COW – Davis, Prosniewski, Harvey, and Watson-Felt. SUBJECT(S) #250 Ordinance to amend Ordinance relative to Zoning – Amend Section 7 Special Residential District Regulations by adding a new section, 7.4 Smart Growth Overlay District. Chiancola - I'll go over the planning board recommendations and the most recent letter. They had a positive recommendation on this ordinance and had a few comments that they included. The first comment was regarding veteran housing, and that they had recommended that the developer consider, or have a good faith effort in encouraging veteran housing. There is no necessary change to zoning for that. That's a consideration, that they wanted to include for the developer. Their second comment was regarding parking minimums and maximums. The ordinance proposed one space per unit minimum for multifamily, and some other minimums, and then a multiplier of 1.75 that is the maximum. Given another discussion we're having through the City Council process on right-sizing our parking requirements, the Planning Board had recommended removing the minimums from this ordinance, and that way it aligns with other discussions and efforts we're having in the city. If the City Council would like to remove the minimums, the regulations allow that, but the 40R regulations, require parking maximums, because it's a smart growth principle. The goal of the parking maximum is to reduce driving by limiting parking supply. We propose 1.75 as the parking maximum. We got to that number by talking to developers. We have been working and collaborating with a development team on this 40R district, and they have vetted that number. We also looked at it against what we saw through our perfect fit parking analysis on the ground. And found that developers are building to a supply of 0.8. We saw that as being feasible and vetted it through the development community and that's how we got to the 1.75. The Planning Board also had noted a concern with the 120-day time frame. The approval must be made within 120 days of the application being filed. That's a regulation that’s requirement by Massachusetts Chapter 40R and therefore not cannot be changed. The 120 days can be extended through a mutual agreement between the developer and the planning board. The planning board can also condition the project if they get a design that they see is almost there, but we don't like the specs of trees, for example, they can add time for correct the plan. The planning board did discuss that they would like to see an opportunity for a joint hearing with the design review board and it would help with the timeline and meeting the 120 days regulation requirement. It doesn’t have to be listed in the ordinance, but the council can add it if they want to. I included language on page 4 of the letter that is in the SharePoint file for this meeting. It’s in the middle of the red line version of the ordinance; the planning board may choose to review the application at a joint meeting with the design review board. The last comment the board had was they wanted some clarification on the definition of landscape and open space, so we put together some language to clarify those definitions. Morsillo – Is the 120 days for the entire project or will they be getting approval in phases? Chiancola – The 120 days is for each site plan review application, and the project is being proposed in phases so there would 120 days to review for each phase. In a 40R district, when there is a large area to be developed, the projects aren’t built all at once, so you expect them to come in one at a time. Morsillo – Was the planning board ok with that? Chiancola – They understand that it is a state requirement and therefore it can’t be changed. They recommended approval for the project. Varela – I am in favor of removing the minimum parking requirements. I think the developers will make sure there is ample parking for the residents. I would like to see more green space and maybe if we remove the minimum parking requirements then we could have more green space and maybe some retail space for the residents. Merkl – Can you repeat what you said about the veterans’ housing? Chiancola – The planning board requested that the developer make a good faith effort to encourage multi-inclusion of veterans and veterans’ family housing in the development. It’s not a zoning recommendation, but a request from the board. Cohen – I am fine with including the landscaping open space language. I don’t think the ordinance should include something that is just a request. It doesn’t sound like the design review board requires any action, but don’t all their decisions get referred to the planning board? Chiancola - Yes, the design review board makes a recommendation to the planning board. The language in here is just that the board may choose to start as a joint meeting rather than having the planning board start and then refer it separately to the design review board. Morsillo – I think having it included helps to clarify the process to the public. Jerzylo – I don’t think we should remove the minimum parking requirements until the ordinance is passed to right size the parking in the city. I would hate to get this started and them there isn’t enough parking and the parking overflows into the neighborhood. Cohen – I respectfully disagree. This project will have more lower income units and therefore won’t need as much parking. I would like to get rid of the minimums and I am not so keen on the maximums, but I know that is required by the 40R. Morsillo – Just to clarify, the requested change, to make it compliant with the regulations, is a maximum off-street parking space required for multifamily housing at 1.75 spaces per dwelling unit. Business office, 1.75 spaces for each employee. Professional office. 1.75 spaces for each professional person. Plus 1.75 spaces for each other employee, plus 3.5 additional spaces for each professional person in the case of medical or dental clinics. Retail is a permitted use and 1.75 spaces for each 150 square feet of gross floor area of the retail area, excluding storage area. Chiancola - I want to note that Section 7.4.5, the parking requirements, is in the umbrella district, so that is for all uses in any future 40R district. We feel very comfortable with these numbers, looking at the city-wide, multi-family buildings that are being built. Morsillo – Motion to amend Section 7.4.5 parking requirements. Change to “the following are the maximum numbers of off- street parking spaces permitted within the Smart Growth Overlay District. Such parking spaces may be provided as surface parking or within garages or other structures.” That includes the strikeout of the lines and the change to maximum. The table, instead of minimum, will say maximum off-street parking, and changes everything to 1.75, and in addition, in the professional office category, change to 3.5 additional spaces for each professional person in the case of a medical or dental clinic. Seconded by Varela. Motion carries 4-1 Morsillo – Next, motion to amend in Section 7.4.7.4, adding the line, “the planning board may choose to review the application at a joint meeting with the design review board”, and that comes as the second sentence in that paragraph. Seconded by Varela. Motion carries 5-0 Morsillo - Motion to amend Section 7.4.1 adding definitions for landscape and landscaping. Seconded by Varela. Motion carries 5-0 Morsillo - Finally, motion to amend Section 7.4.8F, Section 3-1, adding “the planting plan shall provide trees throughout the project, both along streets and within landscapes”. Seconded by Varela. Motion carries 5-0 Morsillo - Motion to refer to the full council for second passage as amended with a positive recommendation. Seconded by Varela. Motion carries 5-0 On the motion of C. Morsillo meeting adjourned at 6:25P.M. ________________________________________________________ (Chairperson)