Oh Salem, last night was a misery. The council meeting, which started 20 minutes late because the Ordinances, Licenses, and Legal Affairs (OLLA) committee meeting ran long, carried on well past midnight and was full of drama and very little action. Let’s get to it, shall we?
Councilor Madore introduced an amendment submitted by Mayor Driscoll that would increase the fines for noise ordinance violations to $300 per offense. Councilor Morsillo wanted to make a change to ensure that the ordinance was clear that this was specifically in reference to noise caused by fireworks. The motion to vote on first passage (this will take two votes) was stalled when Councilor Dibble asked that the matter be passed and sent to OLLA. Madore was hesitant to do so, noting the urgency of the matter. The council has only one more meeting in the summer, 9 July, and then they will not meet again until September. At present, there is no OLLA meeting scheduled between now and then. All councilors agreed that the fireworks issue was pressing; residents have been upset by the incessant barrage of the illegal firecrackers. Councilor Dominguez wanted to ensure that there was a way to communicate the change to all communities, which is a fair point, but not something that OLLA would do–communication plans are not written into ordinances. After much back and forth, the council voted for first passage, but it was indeed sent to OLLA. (Ironically, immediately upon passage the fireworks started in South Salem.)
Next up: Parking meters on Sundays. There was a lot of discussion and debate about whether this was better or worse for downtown businesses. The debate veered off into the appropriateness of making exceptions for church services. Outcome: approved. No free METER parking on Sundays after noon, friends. Parking is now and will continue to be free for Salem residents on Sundays in the kiosk lots (Universal Steel, Church Street, and MBTA lot).
Now that the councilors were good and riled up, we came to the zoning ordinances. OLLA discharged both the Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) ordinance, which would require private developments of 6 units or more to make 10% of the units affordable (60% of area median income [AMI]), and the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance with recommendations for first passage. Neither received the 2/3 votes required for first passage.
The IZ ordinance is straightforward and progressive. It is the result of a multi-stakeholder, six-month process in which every financial scenario was penciled out; comparable ordinances were reviewed and debated; and local need was assessed. The councilors involved in the group that DRAFTED the IZ ordinance were Madore and Dominguez. Dominguez never raised any issues with the density bonus during those meetings. He was enthusiastic about the decisions and weighed-in when the merits of deeper affordability were being compared against higher percentages of units. I am unsure when he changed his mind on this, but it is frustrating. First, Sargent and Dibble moved to eliminate the density bonus from the ordinance completely, which failed. Madore agreed to review the second recommendation being put forward by Dominguez that the ordinance be modified to expand the number of units to 15% at 60AMI if the developer takes advantage of the density bonus. The process should have been a motion and approval for first passage, then send the matter back to OLLA where the committee could look at the financial feasibility of the change. Dibble insisted on modifying the language on the floor, but that amendment also failed. Because the amendment failed, there was no first passage, the matter was voted back to OLLA. This ordinance cannot pass without a special council meeting now, because there is a clock ticking and not enough meetings between now and the expiration date to make a decision. This is a massive failure.
The IZ ordinance was the one that was enthusiastically embraced (in theory and oratory), so you can imagine what happened with the ADU ordinance. Madore addressed two of the arguments against the ordinance. The first was that “the ordinance will not create affordable housing in Salem.” Madore introduced an amendment that would deepen the fair market rate requirement to 60% (down from 75%). That means ALL ADUs would be affordable. Dominguez, who was the loudest voice for deeper affordability, voted against this amendment; along with Sargent and Flynn. Dibble voted “present.” The second criticism of the ordinance was that it could either overwhelm Salem and change the neighborhoods, or it wouldn’t create anything at all – the ADU paradox. Madore offered to cap the number of units and run a pilot, but that too was rejected by Dibble, Dominguez, Flynn, and Sargent, who voted against it. Here are some of the councilor statements on the matter:
Sargent: “We don’t have the space for ADUs and we don’t need more rental units.”
Flynn: “People moved to Salem for R1 and parking is already an issue.”
Dibble: “We aren’t Boxford or Ipswich, but we don’t want to be Chelsea. We don’t want to destroy really nice, single-family neighborhoods.”
Hapworth: “We are not in the same place as a city that we were years ago, where we could manage incremental growth. This is a good first step.”
Morsillo: “I did a lot of research and even Googled ‘negative impacts on neighborhoods,’ but could not find anything. Most neighbors don’t even realize they are living next to an ADU. Traffic and cars are an issue, but should be handled separately from this matter.”
McCarthy: “We should acknowledge the changing demographics of the family [with relation to the size of houses].”
With a clear failure to procure the 2/3 vote in favor, the matter was once again tabled.
One point of clarification on the IZ: At present, Salem does NOT have ANYTHING in place to ensure any measure of affordability. There have been “gentleman’s agreements” with developers to provide 10% at 80 AMI, but there is NO code or ordinance requiring affordability.
Finally, at 11:45PM, the council turned their attention to the budget, which was passed easily. They approved a total general fund of $152,159,486. I will try to dedicate a separate post to the budget; this post is too long as it is. Take a note, because it is how the council should work. The heavy lifting, the fine-tuning, the debate, the discussion, the compromise should be worked out in committee meetings. When a matter is brought to the council, it is to take a vote. These marathon meetings (7:20 PM–12:45AM ) discourage resident participation and they are inefficient.
As I was about to log off, two permits for block parties were denied because the governor’s order prohibiting large gatherings has not been lifted. Dibble voted to approve both permits.
NB: Flynn had asked to see the results of a city-wide survey that asked about the ADU ordinance. He was specifically interested in the breakdown by ward. I append the results below. It is a snapshot of the city, with ~1200 respondents. The survey is in its 11th year and is conducted each spring. The full results are publicly available and published in the budget book. Additionally, citizen-led petitions were circulated through Change.org. One in favor of ADUs and one opposing. The petition in favor had 964 signatures; the one opposed had 306, so roughly the same numbers as the survey.
Respectfully submitted,
Jen Lynch