Salem Accessory Dwelling Unit Proposed Changes Under Fire In Hearing

SALEM, MA — A majority of public comment hammered away at two key proposed changes in Salem's new accessory dwelling unit ordinance designed to increase participation in the program during Wednesday night's joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Board.

While Mayor Kim Driscoll proposed several alterations to the year-old program that she said in a letter to the boards are designed to "remove current zoning barriers to creating these much-needed affordable units," the two that met the most resistance during Thursday's two-hour public hearing were the elimination of the requirement that the ADUs — or so-called "in-law apartment" — be part of an owner-occupied home and the one that would allow separate construction on a lot not attached to the main residence.

Those speaking out against the changes argued that they violated the spirit of the ADUs — which twice failed to gain the "super majority" in the City Council required for zoning by-law changes before a change in state law allowed those changes through a simple majority vote in 2021.

Residents who spoke on Wednesday charged that with the new construction allowance and without the owner-occupancy requirement, the ADUs would become just another opportunity for developers in the city to exploit renters, and not provide the financial resource for seniors that was used to sell the program in the first place.

Driscoll's letter to the City Council and Planning Board dated Oct. 20 argued that eliminating the provisions, combined with grant and tax incentives from the city and state, would help jumpstart the program that received only eight building applications as of late October.

There was no vote on the proposal Wednesday night with the public hearing closed at the end of public comment and the changes referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to the City Council within 21 days.

City Councilors, who had already reviewed the proposed changes during a September meeting, did note that units created under the changes would still have to meet the ordinance provision that they are made available at 70 percent or less of "fair market value" in the city — about $1,400 for a one-bedroom unit.

"There are a number of people expressing concern about whether this ordinance directly addresses affordability," Ward 4 City Councilor Lev McClain said. "I understand that many people struggle with the formulas that are used to calculate affordability because of where we live in our particular community relative to the Boston community. But it is simply a fact that there are multiple instances within this ordinance that directly address the question of affordability.

"It very clearly states what the maximum amount of rent is that can be charged for an ADU, and that is actually quite rare in our zoning. ... We can argue about whether it goes far enough to support the most vulnerable in the community but we cannot argue that it does nothing for affordability because that's just not true."

City Council President Patricia Morsillo said that when the Planning Board comes back to the City Council on a recommendation for the proposed changes in the ordinance — which could be adopted as a whole or each separately — the City Council will then refer the recommendation to a subcommittee, which will then made a recommendation to the entire City Council for a decision.

The City Council has 90 days to act on the proposed changes as of the close of the public hearing Wednesday night.

Other less-debated proposed changes in the ordinance include those on utility hookups, stairway entrances and setback requirements.

Proponents of ADUs say they allow more affordable housing in a housing-crunched community such as Salem and allow older residents to stay in their homes by renting out a portion of it to gain the income necessary to stay in the city and reduce living space.

Opponents say additional units reshape the character of established neighborhoods and create more traffic and congestion.

McClain said Wednesday night that the city's approach to affordable housing must take into consideration the needs of seniors looking to stay in the city as well as younger and more marginalized populations looking to make their way as Salem residents.

"I don't think anyone has an argument with the idea that we have to protect our seniors and maintain their connection to our community as they age," McClain said. "That is a clear goal to want our seniors to age in place. But we have other vulnerable populations in our city as well. Half of our city is renters. They are being squeezed incredibly hard. Many of them are being forced out of town because they can't afford to live here anymore.

"We cannot pit one vulnerable group against the other. We must take action to help our seniors, and our renters, and our children, and our families.

"Everybody counts."

(Scott Souza is a Patch field editor covering Beverly, Danvers, Marblehead, Peabody, Salem and Swampscott. He can be reached at Scott.Souza@Patch.com. Twitter: @Scott_Souza.)