[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6236311,"mediaKeyId","3366088-a27f2c51cfc6e9cae39d1f16abda802f","parentId",3366088,"title","Committee advances ordinance tightening rules for vacant and abandoned properties","audioSeconds",2195,"startMs",115000,"endMs",2310000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3366088-a27f2c51cfc6e9cae39d1f16abda802f&start=115&end=2310","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3366088-a27f2c51cfc6e9cae39d1f16abda802f/thumbnail_115000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6236311/Salem-City/Essex-County/Massachusetts/Committee-advances-ordinance-tightening-rules-for-vacant-and-abandoned-properties","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6236311-4460d132de18d6e83085c3e0f7ebd20d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770436910&Signature=Rf3-qGIvhOta5BhDWAAGm25dilCUhuiu6ejpfrvCcgNc1PWOWnpobclkyXb61hwyGs25gMboMIFXngYbKiotxi4CeFz71ZICgsbdjVPjk0VCQETerKwiTnYiY85IRy3EZOxES9sEwnZ0w0kQslvLBiI9uCRC6IKLR-BJRSXhMTeYihRny6sbdvxBgvw9MB7GNHOya2XXhfvS~uDciB465idpt~bDupEta0eH6Mfwr1vpbOiKityFl1l79avfRFQs0~eTeShFX2w6bsfEFE-C9LpiLKnkrAy61QbDm8UKpwPFq6GJpv4qMlTBjpHcoPq4owgkx2rXwwSVfQC~D-VC3Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Salem City, MA","date","2025-05-18T04:03:46Z","article","Salem City’s Committee of the Whole voted May 15 to send a revised ordinance to the full council that expands the city’s tools for addressing long‑term vacant and abandoned properties, including a new registration requirement, posted contact information, and daily fines for failures to maintain properties.

The ordinance is intended to target properties “that aren’t being maintained that are a nuisance and a blight to the neighborhood,” Assistant City Solicitor James Welak told the committee, adding the draft now defines “vacant” and focuses on properties that are unoccupied and not the subject of an active building permit. “The target of this ordinance is those properties aren’t being maintained that are a nuisance and a blight to the neighborhood,” Welak said.

Why it matters: Committee members said abandoned and vacant properties have required repeated department responses — police, health, fire and building inspectors — and that the city currently lacks a centralized way to track calls, inspections and owners. The revised ordinance would require owners or local agents of vacant properties to register annually, post a contact person on the property, update contact information, and respond to city communications within prescribed timeframes. Failure to maintain a property as required would be punishable by a $300 fine per day.

Key provisions and how they changed
• Definition of “vacant”: The draft adds a definition stating vacant means a property “that is not legally occupied and is not the subject of an active building permit.” Committee members clarified an active building permit generally expires after 180 days unless extended for ongoing work.

• Scope of covered properties: The ordinance removes an earlier trigger tied to the start of foreclosure and instead covers properties that have been vacant or that show signs of abandonment such as broken windows or unsecured doors for more than 45 days. The language applies to residential and commercial properties.

• Registration and contact posting: Owners of vacant properties must register and provide a local contact (property manager or agent) whose information must be posted at the property so inspectors and first responders can identify who to contact. The registration may become a municipal lien if unpaid.

• Enforcement and penalties: The draft sets enforcement language in section 12‑71 and removes the phrase “up to” from the $300/day fine language so the violation is described as punishable by a fine of $300 per day for each continuing offense.

What staff and councilors said
James Welak, Assistant City Solicitor, said the change away from a foreclosure trigger narrows focus to properties that are truly vacant or a blight, including foreclosed houses that are nonetheless occupied during foreclosure. Vula Devarulis (city staff) and a City staff member identified as Bill presented a cost analysis that estimated staff time per property might range from about 5 to 40 hours per year depending on calls and compliance and that the city currently charges $300 annually (a rate the proposed ordinance increases).

Councilors asked about appeals, police notification, city‑owned properties and receivership. Welak said appeals would go to the municipal hearing officer under Chapter 40U and that the ordinance would help with receivership proceedings by making it easier to document last known contacts for owners. Staff said the city uses a monthly “problem properties” meeting among departments to coordinate responses and that proposed registration software would allow police officers in patrol cars to see whether an address is registered as abandoned when they respond.

Public comment and next steps
Multiple councilors and a public commenter urged care with exemptions for institutional uses such as churches and former school buildings; the ordinance’s definition includes nonresidential properties and committee members discussed how condemned or formerly institutional properties (for example, St. Anne’s School was mentioned during discussion) would be treated where windows or doors are broken or a building is otherwise vacant for more than 45 days.

On a motion by Councilor Cohen, seconded by Councilor Morsolla, the committee voted to forward the redlined ordinance with the amendments discussed (including removal of the phrase “up to” in the fine provision) with a positive recommendation to the full council. The committee carried the matter to the council for final action.

The council will consider the ordinance on the council floor; the committee noted that the revisions are meant to be an additional tool alongside existing building‑code enforcement and receivership processes.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Committee on Ordinances Licenses and Legal Affairs May 15th, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Salem City’s Committee of the Whole voted May 15 to send a revised ordinance to the full council that expands registration and enforcement for vacant and abandoned properties, including a $300 per‑day fine for failure to maintain a registered property.","taxTitle","Salem City, Essex County, Massachusetts","taxId",70531,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6236306,"Committee recommends ADU ordinance changes, removes owner‑occupancy requirement to comply with state law",3058,2472000,5530000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3366088-a27f2c51cfc6e9cae39d1f16abda802f&start=2472&end=5530","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3366088-a27f2c51cfc6e9cae39d1f16abda802f/thumbnail_2472000.jpg","/articles/6236306/Salem-City/Essex-County/Massachusetts/Committee-recommends-ADU-ordinance-changes-removes-owneroccupancy-requirement-to-comply-with-state-law","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6236306-cc038e5b9282e5a8851aca85bab79ecc/orig.mp4?Expires=1770436910&Signature=PAov1zaDn7WrXeCCg~BRtGERYLejaufgu6GE-GoXriZ3SHpuEXUtG0WEqWzgC~UlHMomSmJEcKkqyYZ1CyTPk5K~qLcqliptOwegqiMxq72yEvjpt0xFbNCfsWwOsPOF9IVZyW~Fkz5TzZhHUIZfeEKy1sn8XxfN~9vzgOm5yaoRgDBZt4SVHOu~r1ZKS~ZQTc3Z9kk08RRoihoVG1I4Q34pwrubUKIzDLB3bC4gPTSmB7wyhF2d8TYUKeRnXw07lYnpvSmbYVwPVZv~FDa51g8IpaYbfabxUrsy0mNfZJT2gYLFBN-QQMdBk~CDUU9aRd1neSYS0OTSuIe8LGuk5A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Salem Committee of the Whole on May 15 voted to forward a set of amendments to the city’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance to the full City Council for second passage, implementing state ADU requirements and several city clarifications on utilities, non‑owner occupancy and the process for multiple ADUs on the same lot.

The vote follows staff presentations about the state’s new ADU rules and local redlines that reflect guidance from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities and practical concerns raised by city departments. Amanda Ciancola, a planner with the City of Salem planning department, said federal and state changes require allowing protected‑use ADUs as‑of‑right in single‑family zoning districts and explicitly prohibit local owner‑occupancy requirements. “We’re not allowed to require owner occupancy. That’s right in the state’s legislation,” Ciancola said.

Why it matters: The changes will expand the circumstances in which ADUs may be built in Salem, including removing owner‑occupancy as a local requirement and clarifying when utilities must be on separate services. Proponents said ADUs will increase housing supply and provide smaller, lower‑cost units; opponents raised concerns that non‑owner‑occupied ADUs could enable investor purchases and accelerate conversions to rental properties without ensuring affordability.

Major amendments explained
• State requirements and single‑family zones: The planning department relied on guidelines from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities that define single‑family zoning districts for the statute’s protected ADU requirement. Staff corrected a zoning‑district table entry (B‑1) to allow ADUs where single‑family dwellings are permitted.

• Owner occupancy: Because the state legislation forbids owner‑occupancy requirements for protected ADUs, the city removed owner‑occupancy as a condition. Staff and several councilors discussed tradeoffs; public commenters and some councilors urged preserving local controls to protect neighborhood character and affordability, while others noted state law preempts local owner‑occupancy mandates.

• Utilities for detached ADUs: The draft removes a blanket requirement that ADUs share combined utility services; instead, it requires detached ADUs that are not owner‑occupied to have separate electric, water and sewer services for safety, billing and code reasons. Ciancola said this aligns with electrical code and the city engineer’s preference.

• Multiple ADUs on a lot: The ordinance clarifies that one ADU is allowed by right per lot. For lots that already have multiple principal dwelling units (for example, 2–5 units on a parcel), the draft allows one ADU per principal dwelling unit by special permit; the special‑permit route was included to meet the state guidance and to address equity among multiple‑unit owners.

Council discussion and public comment
Councilor Cohen and others sought clear language to prevent a single‑family home owner from adding multiple ADUs on the same lot; the amendment adopted by the committee states there shall be one ADU by right on a lot, and lots with two to five principal dwelling units may have one ADU per principal unit by special permit. That amendment was moved by Councilor Cohen and carried by the committee.

Public commenters voiced both support and concern. Supporters said removing owner‑occupancy will enable more housing production and examples were offered of homeowners and small developers who would build an ADU more efficiently while constructing a primary dwelling. Opponents urged preservation of affordability and warned that allowing non‑owner‑occupied ADUs could encourage investor purchases and higher market rents; one commenter urged the council to consider municipal interests such as parking, neighborhood character and affordability when implementing the state law.

Votes and next steps
The committee voted to forward the redlined ADU ordinance and the committee’s amendment to the full council for second passage; Councilor Marcela (Morsolla) moved the referral, seconded by Councilor Cohen. Staff said the planning department will prepare the ordinance as amended for the council’s next vote.

","The Salem Committee of the Whole forwarded amendments to the city’s accessory dwelling unit ordinance that implement state ADU requirements, clarify utility service rules for detached ADUs, and allow additional ADUs on multi‑unit lots by special permit. The committee voted to send the amended ordinance to the council for second passage.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee advances ordinance tightening rules for vacant and abandoned properties

Committee recommends ADU ordinance changes, removes owner‑occupancy requirement to comply with state law