[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,75,87],{"_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",6270968,"mediaKeyId","3030260-b685b30f581ef27286fa1989f46d56d4","parentId",3030260,"title","Salem proposes citywide October parking registration to replace arbitrary overlay zone","audioSeconds",3745,"startMs",6221000,"endMs",9966000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3030260-b685b30f581ef27286fa1989f46d56d4&start=6221&end=9966","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3030260-b685b30f581ef27286fa1989f46d56d4/thumbnail_6221000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6270968/Salem-City/Essex-County/Massachusetts/Salem-proposes-citywide-October-parking-registration-to-replace-arbitrary-overlay-zone","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6270968-d6c46a990980282b6f63fc8cdef41910/orig.mp4?Expires=1771213805&Signature=YCL4VtQMmS5fAnBSeezYQtRzloHT1TsNYeUPj0ByH-Sl-H3rV3766-jBtKfLoW1LXiUHgd24OqD1q1cEJQ2leXf5JkCPDFUi3J~U91KyJq9NZ8eRKIR7gsrmqaeq7ol~kztD841dcHu~SH4ucN-7dl2-Ou6MwDWUp18nhlwb3-1EovSGY~arK-~K3L~V3L9JgMslV2QSW8tuZTMN4ZcXK7xDEehSAY5a5~u896lBe~kG8XU68yMrDBn249bPFNofu~ixdWOWofrIzDoXYptGtlgZB2rfuqc5HJ8oPjojxhAodyYY4QGU6gzIDW2G1AdmG-3h9hRQeY558fdfoI8VUw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Salem City, MA","date","2025-04-16T03:30:23Z","article","City transportation staff presented a proposed replacement for Salem’s existing Halloween parking overlay at the joint City Council and planning board hearing on April 16, proposing a citywide, time-limited registration and a simpler set of rules to reduce enforcement burden and improve equity.

“It's April, so we're here to talk about October,” the presenter said, summarizing two years of experience with the earlier overlay and explaining why staff is proposing changes to the program’s geography and enforcement model.

Staff described downtown parking supply and visitor demand to make the case: roughly 3,000 parking spaces serve downtown (about 2,200 in city lots, garages and meters plus roughly 710 in the parking garage); staff analysis of aggregated mobile-location data showed about 87,000 visitors downtown on October 31 this past year and a peak day of about 118,000 on Oct. 12. Staff estimated that on the busiest days there were roughly 30–40 visitors per downtown parking space and noted that not everyone arrives by car (the MBTA train accounted for about a quarter of riders on Oct. 31; ferries and shuttles accounted for smaller shares).

Staff said the current B‑5 plus quarter‑mile overlay produced arbitrary boundaries that excluded potential parking providers just outside the line and created enforcement burdens for building-inspection staff; inspectors issued 73 zoning violation tickets related to October parking last year. The current permitting process, staff said, also required substantial staff time in October, the city’s busiest enforcement period.

The draft ordinance presented would replace the fixed overlay geometry with a citywide rule limited to the Friday before Oct. 1 through the Monday after Oct. 31 (the presenter emphasized the time-limited nature of the proposal). Residential streets subject to annual resident parking protections would be excluded from eligible properties. The proposal would require a city registration for properties offering parking; a $100 annual registration fee (equal to the current overlay permit fee) was proposed, and staff said the Home Rule Petition they filed would allow the city to assess a $2 per‑space per‑day surcharge on spaces offered to the public during the October period, with surcharge revenue directed to the Transportation Enhancement Fund.

The proposal also restricts subleasing and selling of registered parking slots, authorizes the Transportation Commission to adopt implementing regulations (including display and signage rules), and allows the city to disqualify properties with violations from future participation.

Public comment was mixed. Some downtown residents urged stronger protections for people who live in the heart of Salem year-round, describing instances last year where residents could not get in or out of their homes or could not have caregivers access property because of October parking. Several councilors asked for more detail on enforcement, time‑of‑day restrictions, and whether the registration fee should be tiered to reflect lot size; staff said those details could be addressed in the implementing regulations and that the proposed Home Rule Petition would let the city scale a surcharge by space count.

Local business owners and parking-lot operators spoke in favor, saying registered legal parking helped reduce circling and congestion and supported local businesses and nonprofit events; some urged modern marketplace tools (apps) to manage bookings and suggested visible proof of registration to reduce complaints.

After questions and public comment the council closed the public hearing and referred the draft to the planning board for review and a recommendation.

Ending: Staff said they would provide draft implementing regulations and maps for council and board review; the Home Rule Petition remains pending and would be required to collect the per-space surcharge.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council and Planning Board Joint Public Hearing April 16th, 2025 LIVE!","oneSentenceSummary","City transportation staff presented a proposed replacement for Salem’s Halloween parking overlay on April 16, proposing a citywide, time-limited registration and a simpler set of rules designed to reduce enforcement burden and improve equity during October events.","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},6270973,"Salem planning staff present ADU ordinance changes to align with state law; debate rent limits, B‑1 listing and nonconforming lots",4783,1418000,6201000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3030260-b685b30f581ef27286fa1989f46d56d4&start=1418&end=6201","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3030260-b685b30f581ef27286fa1989f46d56d4/thumbnail_1418000.jpg","/articles/6270973/Salem-City/Essex-County/Massachusetts/Salem-planning-staff-present-ADU-ordinance-changes-to-align-with-state-law-debate-rent-limits-B1-listing-and-nonconforming-lots","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6270973-7e4d2068c496ddc101f46b12c4f90742/orig.mp4?Expires=1771213805&Signature=RDSPdAwtdGxIuGYs5UhgOYGhuJVSCSIOvYX3qASpU9jSDURdehwVkO3~raG6UNwbGKuELaJD8yqrYVr1j9jTUC~SrZssnkrMzP7~NRtWOq7NrRG0E7CVTq3kQAjsJgdxixJPdr3dFDZ3GH5U2kWqFfK0~~AkgfQTHDHJfOUh1mf-US-myxpxqBgYoVbMuwDEKKw8eWxv55PhD3a8NawpBFKc~ijMRNYu3R588cVFoIPWqTzHgSlzQFst~B9qgqJtxcc6vW0EkDZWaEMLgba4TG3iBuAxGQRHfGWh-vg916Ih08xxOd4pUrCsEVm2V7TwsFYElZL3aaHVfjxrU8m1FQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Amanda Giancola, senior planner with the Salem Planning Department, told the joint City Council and planning board hearing on April 16 that the proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) amendments are intended to bring Salem’s zoning into alignment with the state Affordable Homes Act and the corresponding Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities regulations.

“The key reason we're here is to bring it into alignment with section 8 of chapter 150 of the acts of 2024,” Giancola said, framing the package as mostly preservation of existing local rules while removing requirements precluded by state law.

Giancola and attorney Robin Stein of KP Law walked the boards through three separate edits: changes to the use table (section 3.1), dimensional standards (3.2.4) and a replacement of the ADU-specific section (3.2.8). Under the proposal, ADUs must be allowed as-of-right in any district that allows single‑family homes (the definition adopted in state regulations), the owner‑occupancy requirement would be struck, and local rules may not require special permits for ADUs that state law treats as protected uses.

Stein explained the regulatory background: the Affordable Homes Act amended the Zoning Act and authorized the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) to adopt implementing regulations. She said EOHLC’s final regulations define a “single-family zoning district” to include districts in which single-family houses are allowed as of right or by special permit, and advised the city to work within that legal definition unless a court rules otherwise.

Giancola summarized other key points in the draft: the ordinance would keep existing size limits for ADUs (900 square feet or 50% of the principal dwelling, whichever is smaller), maintain a no-parking requirement for ADUs, keep single ownership (ADU cannot be sold separately), and allow one ADU as-of-right per principal dwelling while requiring a special permit for additional ADUs on the same lot. She also described an optional local mechanism: homeowners who register an income-restricted ADU with the assessor and show a written lease at 70% of HUD fair market rent would be eligible for a tax exemption under the city’s special act.

Councilors and members of the planning board pressed on several issues. Councilor Marcello asked how the state regulations are adopted; Stein answered that the regulations were posted for comment and finalized at the state level. Councilor Watson Feld asked whether accessory units could, in practice, be short-term rentals; Giancola said the city’s code prohibits short-term rentals for ADUs and the principal dwelling in this zoning context. Councilors also flagged a drafting error that omitted a “yes” in the B‑1 column of the use table; Giancola offered options for correcting that in the legal ad or by acting now.

Public commenters included Justin Whittier (10 River Street), who urged the city to retain local affordability protections and the two-category approach previously in the ordinance and warned that the EOHLC definition of single-family districts “gives a garbled and frankly ludicrous definition of single family zoning district,” saying the city should preserve neighborhood protections. Tom Furey of the planning board described ADUs as a “tool in the toolbox” with a “human face,” and Jonathan Burke said the changes would help financing and construction markets for ADUs.

Giancola provided permitting data: 22 active building-permit applications for ADUs and 14 certificates of occupancy since 2022, for a total of 36 ADUs either completed or in process.

On nonconforming lots, Giancola and Stein said section 6 of the Zoning Act (often cited as the statutory framework for nonconforming structures) still applies: a proposed ADU that requires structural change on a nonconforming lot would be subject to a Zoning Board of Appeals finding that the alteration is “not substantially more detrimental” to the neighborhood (a statutory standard), rather than a local special-permit process.

After public comment and discussion the council closed the public hearing and referred the amendments to the planning board for review and recommendation.

Ending: The planning board will draft a recommendation for the council; several councilors asked staff to return with clarifications (B‑1 listing, a map of affected districts, and draft regulations for nonconforming-lot review).","Amanda Giancola, senior planner with the Salem Planning Department, told the joint City Council and planning board hearing on April 16 that the proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) amendments are intended to bring Salem’s zoning into alignment with the state Affordable Homes Act and the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities regulations.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6270978,"Salem to update Flood Hazard Overlay District ordinance to reference new FEMA maps",428,845000,1273000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3030260-b685b30f581ef27286fa1989f46d56d4&start=845&end=1273","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3030260-b685b30f581ef27286fa1989f46d56d4/thumbnail_845000.jpg","/articles/6270978/Salem-City/Essex-County/Massachusetts/Salem-to-update-Flood-Hazard-Overlay-District-ordinance-to-reference-new-FEMA-maps","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6270978-972e098fe114208dbe1288ec913253d4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771213805&Signature=BjCxlf8-0~64xneBeC4UQHYWjyR2xsIFUglJKiL0h95HsfrU2Vlyt1FzGXaDmsgb38Cm1TnU7YZmSjzQba7P6EZA-1pHmoW84smb1i7w5sED3sZLakPzYrbh41fs3eeJYdqSXtKJCetLmCvs9wqFo87m4z8uC8Se~Zmo0h3lfdhsVLPxbSC1BYEvr-QocT8dEXI58YMSEMeF~bj7oHnlO0sGK~6~3XhRs~-6gXhSq5esvGqCoaK6gKSlJOaJAQjAd90S4nxQWU96IhvTE53qo9LXErFr9dG44CEwUmcoxWPeyMh~MGm6fJzUg0JX0m4ZV155PSVbqKoNU6YVZVKvAg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Tom Devine, the senior planner who presented the revision to Salem’s Flood Hazard Overlay District zoning ordinance, told a joint meeting of the Salem City Council and the planning board on April 16 that the update is primarily technical and map-driven.

“This is mainly to update the reference to flood maps that have been revised since the ordinance was last amended,” Devine said, adding that the ordinance also includes a few minor edits the state floodplain office requested.

The revision updates the ordinance to reference new FEMA flood maps scheduled to go into effect July 8, 2025, and makes a handful of state-requested text changes, Devine said. He told the boards the changes are limited in scope and will not add or remove homes from FEMA flood zones: “these map changes, they are pretty limited in Salem. There's no homes added to the flood zones or removed, and nobody's flood zones, nobody's flood insurance is changing,” Devine said.

Devine described a few substantive ordinance edits requested by the state: adding “A” zones to the FHOD provisions for recreational vehicles; adding a requirement that subdivision and development proposals demonstrate adequate drainage; and removing hard-coded postal addresses for state and federal offices. On drainage, Devine said Salem is relying on other, measurable permit standards (subdivision rules, Wetlands Protection Act requirements, the local wetlands ordinance, stormwater standards and Engineering Department rules) rather than defining “adequate drainage” inside the FHOD text itself.

He also proposed the ordinance’s effective date be tied to the FEMA map effective date (July 8, 2025) rather than the adoption date. Devine showed three limited map changes in the city—around Spring Pond, Thompson’s Meadow and the South Salem ponds—describing those changes as shifts in surface-water flood zones rather than expansions that add homes.

No councilors or planning board members raised substantive questions at the hearing. Devine closed by directing homeowners who want to review the maps or flood insurance options to FEMA’s map service center and to floodsmart.gov for federal insurance information.

The public hearing was closed and the matter was referred to the planning board for review and recommendation.

Resources and contacts: Devine provided contact information and pointed attendees to msc.fema.gov and floodsmart.gov.

Ending: The planning board and city council will receive the board’s recommendation before any formal adoption; Devine recommended the ordinance go into effect on the FEMA map effective date, July 8, 2025.","City planners presented a narrow update to the Flood Hazard Overlay District (FHOD) zoning ordinance on April 16 to reference revised FEMA maps that take effect July 8, 2025; presenters and staff said the changes are limited and will not add or remove homes from flood zones but will keep residents eligible for federal flood insurance.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Salem proposes citywide October parking registration to replace arbitrary overlay zone

Salem planning staff present ADU ordinance changes to align with state law; debate rent limits, B‑1 listing and nonconforming lots

Salem to update Flood Hazard Overlay District ordinance to reference new FEMA maps