A new year, a new council composition! The hope and possibilities are endless, and I for one, dear readers, was excited to see how this new group interacted. Before the meeting even started, Councilor Dominguez took a point of personal privilege to give a speech extolling the need for respect and civility, while outlining the many important matters they would have to tackle together. At the top of his list of concerns was “housing,” yet within the hour, he voted against a popular project that would have resulted in a large number of new units. More on that in a minute…
Public testimony was particularly powerful last night. The citizens were divided about equally between two issues: the zoning map amendment and a petition that would require Salem to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA compliance petition, which was submitted by a citizen, not one of the councilors, is long overdue. Those who testified noted time and again that this was not a suggestion, rather, the ADA is law, and it is a moral imperative for the city to work to improve the quality of life for disabled residents. This sounds like a project that all councilors will support.
All of the public testimony was in favor of the proposed zoning map changes. Planning Board member and former Councilor Matt Veno testified that though the planning board vote, his included, was “against” the zoning change, the project itself is good and he endorsed it. He explained that the current zoning code DOES NOT WORK for the city. It is a patchwork of zones that were pieced together over the years, and the need to modify zoning to accommodate projects is not a sensible way to plan a city. He encouraged the council to fix zoning. [Ed: This is sorely needed and long overdue, but with a 2/3 majority needed to pass any zoning measures, and a clear minority opposed to zoning changes full stop, this is not something that will likely happen this term.]
On to business. Appointments and reappointments reminds me to tell you that there are board vacancies, if you are interested in serving the city. Currently, the Cemetery Commission, Council on Aging, Licensing Board, and Salem Redevelopment Authority are all seeking applicants.
The council took petitions out of order, and moved the petition on ADA compliance to the committee on Public Health, Safety, and Environment, co-posted with the committee of the whole. A large number of invited guests were included on the motion and the chair (Councilor Dibble) was asked to refrain from setting a date for the meeting until after the final ADA compliance report was available (in roughly 2 weeks). President McCarthy offered to set a presentation about the ADA report for the full council, as well. We will certainly be watching this one, because we agree that this is sorely needed.
The other petition was from the Village Tavern, who was seeking to establish a courtesy shuttle. That was sent to the committee on Ordinances, Licenses, and Legal Affairs (OLLA).
Committee reports were also taken out of order so the zoning matter could be determined. Remember, any change to zoning requires a 2/3 vote (or 8 members in favor). The parcel in question is in Ward 3 along Highland Avenue. It is the location where CinemaWorld was first proposed and shot down. The zoning in that area is spotty and includes several different patchwork zones (R1, which is single-family residential, BPD, which is business park development, and more). The developer worked with the neighborhood to determine what kind of development they would like to see there. The neighborhood held meetings with their councilors (then councilor Peterson and current councilors Morsillo and Flynn) and the developer to envision a project that they could all support. After the project was “approved” by all parties, the zoning was reviewed. It would require the zoning to change from the patchwork to R3, multi-family residential with mixed use, so the ability to include a restaurant or business on the bottom floor of the building. The new councilors spoke on the matter, and several have posted the justifications for their votes on their websites and Facebook pages. The Ward 3 councilor, Patti Morsillo, was in favor of the change and had the support of the neighborhood. While several councilors voting in favor expressed concern about modifying zoning to accommodate individual projects, the same concern Veno had, they, like Veno, acknowledged that this was the best way for development to occur in Salem. There was a collaborative effort between abutters and developers to create a project that most would endorse. Several councilors also agreed with Veno that the zoning map was a mess and needs a complete overhaul, but that in the meantime, that work should not hold this project up. Nevertheless, the same people voted down the change.
In favor of the zoning change: Councilors Hapworth, Madore, Morsillo, Prosniewski, Riccardi, Turiel, and McCarthy
Against the zoning change: Councilors Dibble, Dominguez, Flynn, and Sargent
Sorry this is getting a bit long, but only two more items. Following the zoning vote, Councilor Sargent made a motion for “immediate reconsideration,” and that process was botched. It caused a great deal of consternation. [Ed: This has been misunderstood and abused for years, and we’d like to see the council stop with these shenanigans.]
When a vote is taken, there are 4 possible follow-ups:
No one does anything. The vote stands.
A councilor immediately moves for reconsideration, in that current meeting, right then and there. (First part of section 15: "Except as provided in section fourteen, it shall be in order for any member to move a reconsideration of any question upon which a vote shall have been taken at the same meeting . . .")
A councilor immediately gives verbal notice, in that current meeting, that they will be moving for reconsideration at the next meeting. At that point, no one is allowed to move for reconsideration at the current meeting. (Section 14 plus middle part of section 15: "Except as provided in section fourteen, it shall be in order for any member to move a reconsideration of any question . . . at the succeeding meeting, if a notice to that effect has been given at the meeting at which the vote was taken . . .")
A councilor gives written notice, within 24 hours of the meeting, that they will be moving for reconsideration at the next meeting. (Last part of section 15: "Except as provided in section fourteen, it shall be in order for any member to move a reconsideration . . . at the succeeding meeting, if . . . a written notice is given to the clerk within twenty-four hours after the meeting at which the vote was taken . . . ")
Why would this be an option? In the case of #2, a councilor has voted “nay” and meant to vote “yea.” This could happen if the motion on the table has several amendments or is written in a confusing manner, such as “to vote ‘no’ is to approve the matter before you.” In the case of #3 and #4, a councilor could have noticed that some of the justifications for the vote were premised on misinformation, and the delay would give time for councilors to get up-to-speed on new developments or information. OUR council regularly uses the vote for reconsideration in the “hope that it does not prevail,” which is a way to put a nail in the coffin of the matter on the table; effectively eliminating the ability for a councilor to have a change of heart after the meeting, when cooler heads may prevail. It is a bully move by a majority and it needs to stop.
The last two matters on the table were:
The council approved a filing with the Federal Transit Administration so they can receive the $3.3M in funds to purchase a new ferry.
The council approved to establish the Century Tree Program, which seeks to plant “century trees” throughout the city ahead of 2026. Project details and tools to determine if you can participate are available on the Tree Commission website.
I think that’s enough for this morning! Happy weekend.
Respectfully submitted, Jen Lynch