The first joint public meeting to discuss two ordinances pertinent to affordable housing was held on Monday, 30 March. The next meeting will be held Monday, 13 April at 7PM.
The meeting on 30 March was intended to introduce an Inclusionary Zoning ordinance and to re-introduce improvements to the accessory dwelling units ordinance. Councilor Dibble objected to the meeting before it got started, and over 40 minutes were wasted debating whether or not they should continue with the meeting. Councilors Dibble, Flynn, Dominguez, and Sargent objected to the meeting citing concerns about citizens’ ability to participate, and mentioned that they received email and phone calls from constituents complaining about the forum. Salemites could access the meeting through Zoom, which, like email, requires an internet connection, on the telephone, or by watching on Salem Access Television (SATV). The irony of their objection seemed to be lost on them. The statistics from the first meeting are in, and 108 unique viewers connected by computer, 192 total connected by phone or computer, which includes the panelists (City Council, Planning Board, Mayor, and city staff) and attendees (members of the public). I think these are encouraging figures. I have attended a number of city council meetings in chambers and have often seen far fewer than 192 people made to stand in the hall or crowded in the spaces between aging chairs. In-person meetings have their own limitations. I won’t go into a ton of detail, but if you are interested in how technology can improve public engagement and citizen participation (sometimes by upward of 800%!), then please enjoy this article on the matter from Strong Towns.
Because of the late start, they never got to the Inclusionary Zoning ordinance, so this recap will focus on accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The current ADU ordinance is very restrictive and only applies to related family members. If a space within a qualifying home is converted to an ADU and the family member who occupies that space moves away or dies, the owner cannot let that space to anyone else (unless they are another family member).
When the ADU ordinance was introduced last year, the mayor alluded to incentives. This time, these supplemental incentives have been incorporated into the measure. The incentives include a property tax exemption or an interest-free loan, and are only provided if the unit is designated affordable, which is set at 60% of area median income. To give you an idea of what that translates to, rent could not exceed $1245 for 1 person; $1333 for 2 people; or $1600 for 3 people (including utilities).
Additionally, almost all of the objections to the ADU ordinance from last year have been addressed. The proposed ordinance is expanded to allow any tenant, but requires the owner to be on-site. It does not allow for short-term rentals (cannot use the space as an Air B&B, for example). It requires a special permit if the new unit will not provide a parking space, if the unit exceeds 800 square feet, or if there is a net loss of trees.
The ADU ordinance on its own will not solve the affordable housing crisis, but it will open up new opportunities for homeowners. It will add (in many cases, affordable) rental units to the market.
The opposition is concerned about the new ordinance changing “the fabric of neighborhoods.” Different neighborhoods will see different types of growth, and there are ample opportunities for community engagement during the planning process.
For the next meeting, we encourage you to read up on Inclusionary Zoning and lend your voice in support of the ordinance, either at tomorrow’s meeting, or via email to your ward and at-large councilors. If it passes, the ordinance will require new residential developments of more than six units to set aside units for low to moderate income families. SALEM DOES NOT HAVE ANY SUCH GUARANTEE at present. There are often “handshake agreements” to set aside affordable units, but it is a shallow rate of affordability.
Until the next meeting, Jen