Committee pauses Salem condo-conversion ordinance after debate over tenant protections and enforcement

The Salem City Council Committee of the Whole on May 1 heard a detailed presentation on a proposed condo-conversion ordinance designed to slow conversions of 2‑ and 3‑family rental housing and to strengthen protections for tenants facing displacement.

Housing Stability Coordinator Lori Stewart outlined the ordinance’s main provisions and the reasons staff and advocates say the rules are needed. "The state's condo conversion law does not provide regulations for municipalities to implement it," Stewart told the committee, arguing that local rules and enforcement are necessary to prevent displacement.

The proposal would require an administrative permit, issued in two stages (conditional permit and final conversion permit), and set waiting periods and relocation payments. For occupied units the draft calls for a two‑year waiting period, with the draft matching protected-class rules that allow an additional two years if tenants cannot find housing in Salem. Relocation payments would be $6,000 per unit and $8,000 per unit for older adults, people with disabilities or low‑income tenants; payments would be due within 10 days of vacating. The ordinance would require notices translated into tenants’ primary languages and give tenants a right of first refusal: 120 days to buy, or 180 days for protected classes, on the same or more favorable terms than offered to outside buyers.

Stewart also described administrative details: a $600 nonrefundable application fee (unless withdrawn before processing), the housing stability coordinator’s authority to create forms and guidelines, appeal hearings before a municipal hearing officer, and grounds to deny or revoke permits where owners took steps to circumvent the law (for example, by imposing unreasonable rent increases or eliminating services).

City solicitor Beth Renard described editorial and legal edits to the draft, including added definitions (for example, what constitutes an "intent to convert") and language to address what happens if a unit is converted to a condo but a tenant is not displaced immediately. The draft includes a two‑year "look‑forward" provision so a converted unit would retain protections if the owner later sought to displace a tenant within that period.

Council discussion focused on two contested provisions: the one‑year waiting period for vacant units and the two‑year protections for units that remain occupied after conversion. Councilors expressed concern that owners could claim a unit was vacant to avoid the longer occupied‑unit waiting period; Planning staff said the vacant‑unit rule was recommended after Somerville tightened its ordinance and saw a drop in claimed vacancies. Amanda Ciancola of the Planning Department said Somerville’s change reduced the share of applications claiming vacancy from 92% to under 2% in the example staff reviewed.

Some councilors questioned the burden on owners. Councilor Merkel said she appreciated the focus on enforcement and the detail in the draft, but asked for clarity on application fees and exceptional owner‑occupied cases. Councilor Cohen pushed for a limit to how long tenant protections could extend after conversion, arguing leases should carry weight and that protections should not lead to an indefinite lock‑in. Public commenters backed the ordinance’s tenant protections and the $6,000 relocation figure as data‑driven: Felipe Zenerberlini, a member of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund board, said the draft reflected years of research and “a number based on metrics that are real about people’s lives and people’s ability to rent.”

The committee did not adopt the ordinance or final red lines at the May 1 meeting. Councilor Drissell moved to leave the matter in committee for further study; the motion, seconded and called for additional data and red‑line review, carried. Committee members asked staff to return with comparative data from Somerville, Boston and other communities, conversion rates over time, and the solicitor’s annotated red lines.

No regulatory changes or payments were enacted at the meeting; the item remains in committee for further edits and data review. A motion to adjourn passed at the end of the session.

What remains unresolved - Whether the vacant‑unit one‑year waiting period should apply in owner‑occupied or clearly vacant sales without tenants; staff said exemptions are included where a unit was owner‑occupied in the prior 12 months or is being sold to a family member. - How long conversion‑related tenant protections should persist when owners keep tenants in place after converting a unit to condominium ownership (the draft’s proposed two‑year "look‑forward" drew questions). - Precise enforcement resourcing; staff noted Somerville and Boston have dedicated staff and that enforcement requires funding and administrative capacity.

The committee asked staff to return with a memo explaining the $600 application fee breakdown, conversion rate data (absolute numbers and rates), Somerville/Boston ordinance comparisons, and the solicitor’s revised red lines for further committee review.