7 June 2020 Addendum: On 26 May, Jen received questions and comments from a concerned LWVS member regarding this post. Some questions/comments and answers are listed at the bottom of the post and some related clarifications appear within this post in italics.
The joint public hearing of the city council and the planning board reconvened on 13 April via Zoom. The meeting was also accessible via Salem Access TV and telephone. Nevertheless, Councilor Dibble started the meeting with an objection to meeting once again. And, once again the same tired arguments were made. (The preceding sentence refers to the previously settled arguments about whether the Council should conduct its business on Zoom during the stay-at-home order.) The majority of the council voted to carry forward with the meeting, with Councilors Dibble, Dominguez, Flynn and Sargent opposed. (This entire paragraph is about the repetitious argument over a matter that had been decided already: that the Council will meet and take public comment via Zoom.)
Amanda Chiancola, the Senior Planner in Salem, reviewed the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance. She had made several clarifications per the comments and feedback her office received following the first meeting. For example, the definition of setback compliance was reworded to be clear. Even though the principal structure may not comply with the code, the new unit mush. They also clarified that only one unit per lot would be allowed; specified that the building inspector would be in charge of enforcement; and made it clear that if a condominium wanted to include an ADU, all owners of all units in the condo association would have to sign the application.
A chart showing the difference between the current ADU ordinance, the one proposed in Summer, the one modified in Winter, and the newest proposed ordinance.
Planning board member DJ Napolitano made the point that many councilors are citing the “permanence” of zoning as a reason for postponing the meeting, but he countered that logic by noting zoning should change as the needs of the city change.
Councilor Turiel asked about the logic of not requiring a special permit for a stand-alone unit (not part of or integrated with the original structure; for example, converting a carriage house or garage). Helen Sides, a planning board member and architect, did not expect that to happen often, if ever. She noted that the better value in the long-term would be an attached or inclusive unit.
Income parameters and maximum rents (including utilities) at 80% and 60% area median income, or the exact middle income for the greater Boston area.
Public testimony was primarily vocal opposition, and ended with a long screed by one member of the public who directed his ire at the League by name and continued on about how accessory dwelling units were not affordable housing. I see them as another tool that can help alleviate the housing crisis. Accessory dwelling units will add housing stock to the market and they are typically more affordable than apartments or condos. They give homeowners options for staying in their home and a boost to their monthly income. The LWV has not taken a formal position on this matter. (Please see the addendum at the end of this post for further clarification.)
The meeting moved on to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, which was the star of the show. Chiancola gave an in-depth definition and explanation about the types of affordability. Affordable housing falls into three categories: subsidized housing (such as the homes owned by the housing authorities); naturally occurring (stemming from smaller rentals, like ADUs); and income-restricted, which is what it sounds like. Inclusionary zoning requires private developers to set aside units for income-eligible households.
In Massachusetts, over 100 communities have inclusionary zoning ordinances. Chiancola walked through the impact of rent-reduction on financing for developers, and explained the finer points of the financial model used to determine how we could offer meaningful affordable units without driving development away. The group looking at the options for this ordinances had to look at the following:
Should this be city-wide or limited by neighborhood? Salem opted for city-wide
Should this be voluntary or mandatory? Salem opted for mandatory
How many units should trigger the inclusionary requirements? Salem opted for 6 or more
What percentage of units should be set aside? Salem requires 10%
What level of affordability should be defined? Salem requires units at 60% of the area median income, a much more affordable benchmark for Salem. The area median income for our region (the greater Boston region, which spans from south of Boston to southern New Hampshire) is $113,300. However, the area median income for SALEM is $65,528.
How long should the units be affordable until they convert to market rate? Salem opted for 99 years, or in perpetuity.
The questions on this ordinances were finer points, and there seemed to be a general enthusiasm for it.
Chiancola plans on providing another, deeper dive into the calculations that helped to inform this ordinance on 4 May. If you are interested in learning more before then, click on any of the links in this post. The Imagine Salem page and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council have a tremendous number of resources.
The LWV–Salem supports the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, which means that a group reviewed the ordinance against League core values and data collected over the past two years on housing matters. After the review, they came to a consensus to endorse.
NEXT MEETING: 4 MAY 2020 | Details to be provided in future
Submitted by Jen Lynch, LWVS City Council Liaison
Addendum (7 June 2020): Jen, who writes the City Council notes for LWVS, forgot to append her signature to a couple of synopses recently. This was not an attempt to hide her identity, as she has been listed as our City Council note taker in previous posts, as well as in our newsletter recaps and on Facebook. So when this post says “I see (ADUs) as another tool that can help alleviate the housing crisis,” now everyone can be clear that the “I” is Jen.
Question: Is it empirical truth that ADUs will add to the housing stock, or is it Jen’s opinion? Answer: If ADUs are created, they will add to the housing stock. There is no guarantee that just because ADUs are allowed, that they will be created.
Question: Again, is it truth or Jen’s opinion that ADUs “give homeowners options for staying in their home and a boost to their monthly income”? Answer: It is true that rental income from an ADU would boost an owner’s income and it is true that increased income would aid a person in staying in their home if the impediment to staying in their home was a lack of income. Increased income only helps with the problem of not having enough income.
Question: Is it remotely credible that LWVS has not taken a formal position on this matter, given this blog post? Answer: As of 7 June, the date of this addendum, LWVS has not taken a formal position on the ADU ordinance. LWVS will be posting further information in the coming days.
Addendum by Judith Reilly, Voter Services Chair, 7 June 2020