Board suggests striking restrictions from proposed accessory dwelling ordinance

Apr. 10—SALEM — A hotly debated accessory apartment ordinance is back in front of the City Council, possibly bringing a conclusion to three years of efforts.

This week, the City Council was given comments and suggested changes by the Planning Board for a proposal that would overhaul the city's in-law apartment rules.

Currently, residents can build "accessory dwelling units" within the footprint of their homes, but they can only be used by relatives or caretakers. Once the need for the unit ends, it must be destroyed.

City planners have been trying since 2019 to expand the ordinance as a means of addressing the housing crisis. That involves removing the family-or-caretaker requirement, adding affordability components, and allowing any homeowner who lives in the building to create a unit and rent it to anyone. Supporters say this increases the number of housing opportunities in Salem while also giving empty nesters a way to make some income from their home instead of selling it.

Opponents have argued both that no one would use the ordinance — given there are only about a dozen of these apartments today — and that everyone would use it, thus turning single-family neighborhoods into two-family neighborhoods and burdening city infrastructure and streets.

The ordinance failed to gain enough support in 2019 on a 7-4 vote, as two-thirds of the council — eight members — were needed to pass zoning changes. The issue was resubmitted with changes in 2020, only to be tabled when it became clear it would fail again. Since then, the state's rules on zoning changes have changed, no longer requiring a supermajority for approval. Now, zoning issues can be decided by a simple majority. In this case, six votes.

Like the last two versions, this iteration of the proposal was reviewed by the City Council and Planning Board at a joint meeting at the end of March. The Planning Board has since provided suggestions for changes, which the council sent to its ordinance committee Thursday night.

The next meeting with that ordinance committee is expected for next week, although a date wasn't scheduled on the city website's calendar on Friday. It's expected the committee will dig through the proposed changes and discuss other issues that could decide the fate of the ordinance. The proposal would then go back to the full council for a vote up or down.

This time around, criticism has also focused on the affordability component. Opponents have argued that anyone could rent the units, including wealthy residents, meaning rules should be added to restrict the units to those who earn less money than an as-yet-unidentified threshold.

Planning Board edits

As it stands, the proposal requires units be rented at 70% of the area's fair market rent. While the Planning Board didn't address the concern about ensuring the units are reserved for those below specific income levels, it did note that the rent value could shift unexpectedly since it's based on a ratio, not an actual locked-in value, according to city planning director Tom Daniel.

"They wanted to make it clear that the rent is 70% of the fair-market rent, but as that changes over time, the landlord could raise the rent," Daniel said.

The Planning Board also suggested two parking-related requirements. The proposal is written so that units within a half-mile of public transit don't need to provide off-street parking, but those outside of a half-mile from bus or train stops must have one dedicated off-street parking space.

The proposal also includes a line limiting housing lots to one accessory apartment per lot. The Planning Board is looking to have that removed as well, citing a concern about multiple buildings on one lot — like a row of townhouses — blocking each other from building accessory apartments, according to Daniel.

"If Unit A puts one in," Daniel said, "then the others could never do it."

The proposal also requires that entry to accessory apartments must be through an "existing entry or on the back or side of the main dwelling." Egress, meanwhile, "shall be located on the side or rear of the building so that visibility from public ways is minimized." The Planning Board suggested striking both of those lines as well.

"The Planning Board felt that by removing it, it allows design flexibility for each homeowner to determine what makes sense from a design perspective," Daniel said.

Contact Dustin Luca at 978-338-2523 or DLuca@salemnews.com. Follow him at facebook.com/dustinluca or on Twitter @DustinLucaSN.