City Council

CITY OF SALEM OCTOBER 15, 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 Amending Section 7 Special Residential District Regulations by adding a new Section 7.4.8.2 Smart Growth Overlay Subdistrict entitled Margin, Endicott, and High Street Smart Growth Overlay Subdistrict (“the Subdistrict”) pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40R and 760 CMR 59.00. The proposed Subdistrict is a subdistrict of Section 7.4 Smart Growth Overlay District. Section 7.4 identifies the purposes, definitions, processes, and affordability requirements per the requirements. of M.G.L. Chapter 40R. Section 7.4 also includes permissible uses across all subdistricts, as well as parking regulations. The proposed Subdistrict is located at 56 Margin Street, 54 Margin Street, 7 High Street, 20 Endicott Street, and 24 Endicott Street., Salem, Massachusetts, having a land area of approximately 0.7 acres in size that is superimposed over the underlying zoning district. The purpose of the amendment is to encourage sustainable development and mobility options in accordance with the purposes of G.L. Chapter 40R. The permitted uses in the subdistrict include supportive housing, medical clinic, educational use; Club or lodge, private; and Accessory Uses typically associated with any of the permitted uses. Maximum parking is proposed for all uses. For all Projects in the subdistrict containing at least 6 residential units, not less than seventy-five percent (75%) of housing units constructed shall be Affordable Housing that is eligible for households with incomes at or below sixty (60) 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. The maximum units per acre is 115 units per acre, with a land area of approximately 0.7 acres. The maximum building height in the subdistrict is 55 feet and four (4) stories. The subdistrict has a maximum lot coverage of 75% with minimum open space of 25%. There are no setback requirements. For Supportive Housing, the maximum parking requirement is 1.75 spaces per unit. For Medical Clinic, Educational Use, and Club or lodge, private, the maximum parking requirement is 1 parking space per each 1,00 square feet of gross floor area, excluding storage and mechanical/utility areas. A Joint Public Hearing of the Salem City Council and the Planning Board was held in- person in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washington Street, 2nd floor, Salem, MA on Wednesday, October 15, 2025 at 6:00 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 7.4.8.2 Smart Growth Overlay Subdistrict entitled Margin, Endicott, and High Street Smart Growth Overlay Subdistrict (“the Subdistrict”) pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40R and 760 CMR 59.00.  CITY OF SALEM OCTOBER 15, 2025 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING BOARD Notice of this hearing was posted on October 8, 2025, at 12:55 P.M. and advertised in the Salem News on October 1, 2025, and October 8, 2025. Councillors Absent: Jerzylo and Watson-Felt. Council President Conrad Prosniewski presiding. Planning Board Members present: Sarah Tarbet, Helen Sides, Zach Caunter, Josh Turiel, Tom Furey, Kirt Rieder, and Graham Wing. Kirt Rieder arrived at 6:38 pm; Josh Turiel left at 7:43 pm Absent: Jonathan Berk and Carole Hamilton Others in Attendance: Mayor Dominick Pangallo, Salem’s Housing Stability Coordinator, Lori Stewart, Director and Deputy Director of Planning and Community Development, Tom Daniel and Amanda Chiancola, Senior Planner Elena Eimert, Planner Robyn Lee, Jason Etheridge of Lifebridge and Andrew DeFranza of Harborlight. Amending Section 7 Special Residential District Regulations by adding a new Section 7.4.8.2 Smart Growth Overlay Subdistrict entitled Margin, Endicott, and High Street Smart Growth Overlay Subdistrict (“the Subdistrict”) pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40R and 760 CMR 59.00. Mayor Dominick Pangallo speaks on the crisis of homelessness in Salem and provides a timeline Lori Stewart, the City’s Housing Stability Coordinator, shares the story of one of the residents of Salem that she has worked with in her role; explaining how quickly an individual can fall into homelessness and how Lifebridge was a lifeline to this resident. Elena Eimert, Senior Planner, begins the presentation on the Margin, Endicott, and High Street Smart Growth Overlay Subdistrict. Councillor Morsillo What boards the project will be required to go through if this passed?  CITY OF SALEM OCTOBER 15, 2025 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING BOARD Planning Board for land use, Conservation Commission (ConCom), and Historical Commission if relevant and. Additionally, the Design Review Board (DRB) is included as part of the Planning Board review this property. Is this in jurisdiction of Salem Redevelopment Authority Elena says it is not. Councillor Morsillo asks about the full range of housing choices for all incomes, ages, and family sizes. Elena states that the Margin Street SGO proposes adding supportive housing as a by right use in addition to the multi-family and mixed-use that are allowed in all Smart Growth Districts under the umbrella ordinance. Not all uses are required and the EOHLC (Executive Office of House and Livable Communities) has reviewed the adopted umbrella ordinance and Margin Street SGO and concluded that they meet the requirements for 40R. Will the larger facility negatively impact city industries, including tourism and hospitality? Have local businesses provided any comment? Amanda says that this is a housing need that the city has, we see this as necessary not a detriment. Elena adds that as part of public comment, they heard from two business owners adjacent to subdistrict – they both did express concern. The Christopher Columbus Club is fully in support of this proposal. What happens if archeological artifacts are found during construction? Elena states that given the deep affordability, any project placing housing on site would need to obtain subsidies. There is attached historic review associated with these subsidies. Are there state guidelines or laws associated with this for any development? Amanda says that for any project getting state review or federal funding, this would kick in a review from the Massachusetts Historical Commission. Councillor Morsillo is concerned about construction. Amanda says that during construction, there is environmental review aspect and that there are standard conditions around this. How does this address the city’s C-ROD (Coastal Resiliency Overlay District) requirements? Amanda says that any project within C-ROD is still applicable. Is it fair to assume a larger shelter will lead to more police activity? Amanda says that this is outside of zoning purview; what is being proposed is a use that has wraparound supportive services. Councillor Morsillo asks the Mayor to answer this. Mayor Pangallo says that regarding Lifebridge, this is adding twenty (20) beds. Net change in shelter beds in the city will decrease when Canal Street closes. There will be fewer beds overall. Regarding Harborlight’s Boston Street Crossing, before and after there was fifty two percent (52%) decrease in police calls for service. Concerned where sixty-five million (65,000,000) is coming from in the current federal climate. What happens when project loses funding during construction? Mayor Pangallo cannot speak to this; right now, is a challenge for federally funded projects.  CITY OF SALEM OCTOBER 15, 2025 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING BOARD The housing market is structured so that higher risk projects won’t be able to start. None of this is relevant to zoning. Ask if the project team, Jason Etheridge of Lifebridge and Andrew DeFranza of Harborlight are able to participate this evening. She explains that many of the questions she has and has received surround the entanglement of the shelter and the housing; what are the boundaries between the two. Mr. DeFranza says that they are two distinct places. The residential building is exclusive to the residents and there are two distinct access points; though Harborlight residents can utilize Lifebridge, but this cannot be required. Additionally, the residential building will have leases, can own a car, and sometimes permit pets. Regarding partners, the units are single room occupancy (SRO) under the health code and as such, partners are not allowed. Residents are able to own cars, but it is not common. And, pets are not encouraged, but it does happen. Mr. DeFranza also says that the Harborlight homes on Boston Street is able to manage behaviors through the lease and house rules; again, group sessions at Lifebridge are not required. Mr. Etheridge says that partnership is common; the common thread is supportive services. Please review the security measures for supportive housing. Mr. Defranza states there are three (3) staffers who work for Harborlight. Cameras around the building. On call 24-hour person. A live-in staff member is a possibility. Many of the emails received are that people consider housing to be warehousing. Why is the shelter model being used here not warehousing? Mr. Etheridge says that the motivation for this project is to move beyond congregate housing shelters with individual separations between beds; SROs are the opposite of warehousing. How does Lieutenant Governor Driscoll’s statement that shelter stays should be “rare, brief, and non-recurring” sync with the larger shelter proposal? Mr. Etheridge says this is complex, but that Lifebridge’s goal is to facilitate brief and non-recurring stays. This is done through case management, but the fact is that without enough housing stock it is difficult. What is the turnover at Boston Street Crossing properties? Mr. DeFranza says that it is modest and that most people like being there. It is often a family/partner situation that compels people to leave. Regarding federal funding… In the recent budget process, there was improvement in the low-income tax credit which is the majority of the funding for projects like this. These tax credits are politically durable and there is little concern about them not being available. There is concern about HOME and CDBG funds, but this is not the primary source of funding. Rental vouchers are the biggest vulnerability to housing  CITY OF SALEM OCTOBER 15, 2025 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING BOARD right now. Mr. Etheridge says that they will not embark on a project doomed to fail; they are seeking not to disrupt services when this project begins. When clients arrive from out-of-state, is there any attempt to send the individual back to their home state? And, if so, is there any pushback from the home state or community? And are clients ever wanting to go home but are unable to do so? Mr. Etheridge says that reunification is one of the most successful paths that clients of Lifebridge can take. There are people who arrive and are looking for help return home, this is privately funded. If this occurs, there would be an attempt to prohibit the individual from returning to Lifebridge. What will become Christopher Columbus Memorial Courtyard? Mr. Etheridge stresses that items contained within the courtyard are possessions of the Christopher Columbus Club, which is operational and will remain operational during this project. They have a say in what happens to them with the intention of maintaining and highlighting the items. How will Lifebridge clients be housed during construction? And how will the Seeds of Hope residents be housed? Will they be guaranteed return after construction? Will they receive a written guarantee of return? Mr. DeFranza says that Seeds of Hope residents will be relocated but with the guarantee of return to the facility. Regarding the shelter, the new shelter will be built in a separate space to the existing shelter; clients moved and then construction begins on housing. Does the Lifebridge acquisition of the church in Beverly affect this project at all. Mr. Etheridge stresses that the church has been given to Lifebridge. They will use it to offer supportive services to that community. In terms of office space, but cannot say; but there will be some migration of staff, but this acquisition is irrelevant to this proposed project. Construction to begin in 2027 or 2028 and would not be ready for occupancy for years. What will people do until then? Continue to live on the street or in the woods? The plan uses an outdated case management system. The State Department of Mental Health (DMH) provides those in need with 7-20 hours of case management services/week. If Lifebridge were to provide just 7 hours each week to each occupant of the new development, they would need 28 full-time case managers; Lifebridge currently has 4 with another 4 proposed with the new structure. They would be better off with an emergency shelter, a real case management program and money to subsidize apartments. They could start serving people tomorrow. Mr. Etheridge stresses that Lifebridge and DMH are very different organizations. He finds it inappropriate to  CITY OF SALEM OCTOBER 15, 2025 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING BOARD assume that all Lifebridge clients would need DMH services, a lot of people need basic case management services. Councillor Harvey Overall beds will be lost with this project? How many homes will be used for homeless population in Salem? Mr. DeFranza states that the city will require local preference around the funding process and the state regulations allow up to 70% local preference, which they expect to be approved. This applies to the housing, not the shelter. Who requests this? Mr. DeFranza says this is usually required by the municipality in the permitting processes and then the developer takes it to the state. The state max is 70%, but there is chatter for gateway cities to be higher. Mayor Pangallo says that the 70% is included in the permitting process, had wanted it in zoning but EOHLC said no. Mr. Etheridge says that the change in number of beds is happening even before, as they are winding down the transitional housing opened as a result of the no camping ordinance. Will the new shelter offer more services? Mr. Etheridge, yes. The face of homelessness is changing; there are more people that need mental health services. We also need to delve deeper into our complimentary partnerships; NSMC, Workforce Development, etc. Councillor Merkl Asks for the project team to touch on the day center. Mr. Etheridge says that the services Lifebridge provides are often overshadowed by the shelter. The day center is in the former St. Mary’s church. There are activities and food and case managers and people who are looking for help. Including newly housed people who need help. 60-70 people a day. Councillor Hapworth Confirms that what is being seen is homes for Salem residents. Regarding the Lifebridge Board, what is the discussion about having a voting member from the City of Salem and a liaison from the neighborhood association. Mr. Etheridge stresses that Lifebridge provides a regional response and that there are currently two members from Salem who are voting members of the board; anywhere Lifebridge has a facility or program, they strive to have board representation. Lifebridge will be the most invested in Salem. Mr. Etheridge says yes, but there is also a large footprint in Beverly.  CITY OF SALEM OCTOBER 15, 2025 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING BOARD Planning Board Comments and Questions Tom Furey states that he is supportive of this project; he is the human face of homelessness. We should be partners for good and a source of hope. Josh Turiel asks about the Dover Amendment and wants to know the technical difference between that and the 40R? Amanda says that under Dover, many, if not all uses would be applicable. The city could impose reasonable regulations, but Dover is an administrative review, not a review before a board, there would be no design standards, and there is no public commenting period. Kirt Rieder asks if the minimum open space at 25% is considered open space? Amanda says that the design standards for open space are written in a positive way so residents can inhabit a positive space; MGL defines open space as land for recreational use, not parking. Public Comment Elizabeth Miller 11 Albion Street Public school educator. Supports the overlay as it will help loosen the housing crisis and help students with housing. Jim Rose 25 Linden Street This is a unique opportunity. Feels that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. This is the right thing to do; it sets an example for other North Shore communities. Faith Simons Housing Navigator for HAWC coordinator There is a housing need for domestic violence survivors. It is a big piece of recovery. Annie Harris 28 Chestnut Street Heartened to hear that this is Salem first for 70% and is curious as to whether it is forever or just for the first rental period. Does the sixty percent (60 %) AMI (area median income) apply to any and all development in perpetuity? Is there a requirement for Salem residents on Lifebridge board? Andy Lippman 28 Chestnut Street Echoes Councillor Hapworth and would like more significant representation on the Board. Would feel more comfortable if Mr. Etheridge provided the services that we all  CITY OF SALEM OCTOBER 15, 2025 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING BOARD talk about. Would like Lifebridge to take responsibility for the people who leave during the day. Grace Rodgers 26 New Derby Street Has been homeless and is supportive of this. Having a place to sleep is priority one. Being required to use services not needed is not good. Julia Sherhook 15 Winter Street Supportive of the project. Delighted to see the services provided. Affordability crisis is the real problem. Resident Has more questions every time the developers speak. Why is the city rushing this process? There has not been a comprehensive discussion about homelessness yet. Concerned about the business plan of the expansion. There are not enough staff to provide supportive services. Katelyn Holappa 70 Boston Street Must recognize the failure of multiple support systems is what ultimately causes homelessness. 50% of people experiencing homelessness spend time in foster care. ¼ transgedered unhoused. Majority of people in Lifebridge are from Salem and work downtown. This is a nationwide issue and Lifebridge helps with homelessness in Salem. Lydia King 4 Forest Avenue Supportive of the ordinance. Supportive services from Harborlight are backed up by data for helping people. Like the seventy percent (70%) local preference. Megan 27 Surrey Road Supportive and sometimes volunteers at Lifebridge. Eileen Fitzgerald Winthrop Street In opposition. Existing zoning doesn’t allow a project of this size. Concerned about height and overall size of building, traffic, and safety issues for students who walk to and from school. Is also concerned with well as attracting others from outside the city. Joseph Ingemi 85 Moffatt Road Representing the Christopher Columbus Society Supportive of the project. Not just for society but for the people in Salem.  CITY OF SALEM OCTOBER 15, 2025 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING BOARD Ed Sacco Winthrop Street Services being provided are not sufficient, intensive services are needed. Elizabeth Padgen Chestnut Street Many problems, but Coastal Resiliency Overlay District (C-ROD). The language of C- ROD says it overwrites all other zoning. It is likely that this building needs to be redesigned, even if base flood elevation is thirteen (13) feet whereas the state code is three (3) feet. Lack of input over project design and there needs to be a cap of allowed number of beds in zoning. Andrew Smith 12 Gifford Court Supportive of project. Jessica Kristal Endicott Street Lifebridge needs to be a better neighbor and more accountability for the services provided. Concerned about safety in surrounding neighborhoods. Krystle Brown 13 Meadow Street Supportive and likes that this provides solutions to housing and shelter for homeless populations. Shelters reduce harm and affordable housing strengthens neighborhoods. Veronica Miranda 9 Garden Terrace Mental health counselor. Healing and recovery needs a safe space to live. Joe Cultrera This project is not ready for this zoning and the Lifebridge model does not work. There is not enough outdoor space, and people will be forced into neighborhoods and the downtown. This will lead to more unhoused people from elsewhere. John Femino 90 Margin Street Echoes Joe Cultrera – the problem isn’t getting better; it is getting worse. A Salem resident on the Lifebridge board was promised from the beginning. Is against the project, the neighborhood is uncomfortable. Pamela Zomback  CITY OF SALEM OCTOBER 15, 2025 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING BOARD Lived in Salem twenty years. The problem is how this is being addressed. People are afraid to go to Lifebridge. Do this at an existing facility, not in the downtown area. Councillor Morsillo Moved that the public hearing be closed. All in favor. Helen Sides moves that the Planning Board close the public hearing. Ms. Tarbet seconds. All in favor. Councillor Morsillo Moved that the matter be referred to the Planning Board for their recommendation. All in favor. On the motion of Councillor Morsillo, the meeting adjourned at 8:46pm. All in favor.