Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council refers ADU zoning changes to Planning Board for joint public hearing
Summary
Council voted to refer proposed amendments to the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance to the Planning Board for a joint public hearing; supporters urged removing owner‑occupancy and other barriers to encourage more ADU construction.
Get email alerts on the Adu Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Salem City Council voted to refer proposed amendments to the city's accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance to the Planning Board and to hold a joint public hearing, starting a formal review process that will include public comment.
Councilor Hepworth moved the referral and described two main issues the city must address: compliance with the state Affordable Homes Act and local ordinance changes beyond that minimum, including the owner‑occupancy requirement. He said the state law requires changes "in any zone that allows single family homes," which the council should reflect locally.
Councilors who spoke in favor said removing barriers could increase the number of small, naturally affordable units. Councilor Stott noted the ADU ordinance's history: an initial 2018 ordinance limited ADUs to caretakers or relatives; the 2021 ordinance allowed ADUs as‑of‑right and included a 70% cap, and, he said, "13 ADUs have been completed under that ordinance." Other councilors urged balancing speed with careful rulemaking and pointed to parking and neighborhood impacts as areas for planning review.
Public comment before the vote included several residents who urged the council to move quickly. Christine Madore, a former councilor, told the council she supported tweaks that would get homes built "so I hope you keep that in mind during your deliberations." Judith Riley and Caitlin Halapa also spoke in favor of the amendment and raised parking considerations linked to increased housing.
The referral passed without recorded opposition; the sponsor said the measure will proceed to a joint public hearing with the Planning Board, then return to the council for further steps, including possible legal review and additional revisions.

