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.