Committee recommends denying petition to reinstate 'Lot 7' on Tinkers Island tax roll

The Salem City Committee on Ordinances and Legal Affairs voted 3-0 on Oct. 8, 2025, to recommend that the full council deny a petition from Peter H. Valles to reinstate a parcel identified in his documents as parcel 47‑0001‑907 (Lot 7) on the city tax roll.

Valles told the committee he sought reassessment and reinstatement of the former parcel and asked to be the sole recipient of tax bills for that lot dating back to 1984; he referenced state tax forms 62 and 63 and supplied municipal lien and Patriot property-list documents. He said the lot exists “on paper in dated maps” but is omitted from the city’s Patriot property list of leased lots.

Members of the Tinkers Island Association and residents described the island as city-owned land leased to the Tinkers Island Association under an agreement that allows up to 14 cottages. Annie Harris, a resident and camp owner on Tinkers Island, said the island has not been legally subdivided and that the assessor assigns parcel numbers for convenience to tax structures, not to denote separate land ownership. “They’re not legal parcels,” Harris said, describing the arrangement as a single island leased by the association.

Association members described a history of litigation and a mid-2000s episode in which a fifteenth structure was built without the association’s authorization; the association later negotiated to resolve that issue and maintain 14 occupied structures. The committee heard that Valles’s structure was destroyed in a storm in the 1990s, that he sold his interest and received payment in 2014, and that the city solicitor advised the city there is no legal mechanism to carve out and reinstate an individual lot contrary to the lease agreement.

The petitioner suggested a reinstatement or a “buyback” fee if the city could accommodate a remedy. The committee’s chair summarized the committee’s view: the city owns the island, the Tinkers Island Association holds the lease and manages the permitted structures, and the committee could not identify a lawful way to reinstate an individual lot without contradicting the 1969 lease terms and the practical arrangement currently in place.

Action taken: Councilor Sillow moved to recommend denial of the petition to reinstate the parcel; the motion was seconded and carried 3-0. The committee’s recommendation will be forwarded to the full council.