Malden City Council ratifies enrollment of ADU zoning change, vote 9-1

Malden City Councilors ratified the enrollment and the council president’s ruling on Paper 1325 on a 9-1 roll-call vote, confirming changes to the city code that establish rules for accessory dwelling units. The council’s roll call showed Councilor Condon as the lone dissenting vote; nine councilors voted in favor.

Paper 1325 amends the Code of the City of Malden, Title 12 (Zoning), to add definitions and create site-plan review procedures for accessory dwelling units and to amend several zoning sections. The clerk read the ordinance text as: “Be it ordained by the Malden City Council that the code of the city of Malden, title 12 zoning is hereby amended to establish requirements and regulations for accessory dwelling units including definitions and the establishment of site plan review committee for accessory dwelling units by amending chapter section 12.03016.010, 20.010, 32.060, and by adding new subsections 12.28010k32030d.”

The ratification vote followed extended debate among councilors about procedure after an amendment vote the previous evening. Councilor Cica, who said she had consulted the city solicitor, moved to rescind the enrollment and asked the council to revote; she said she feared a developer could challenge the prior night’s handling of a councilor’s change of vote. “I would like to make a motion to rescind the enrollment and revote on an amendment,” Cica said during debate. Council President O’Malley apologized to the public and councilors for confusion caused by a long meeting and by how an amendment had been announced the prior night, saying he would ensure it did not happen again.

Council debate focused on whether the ratification was legally necessary or primarily a housekeeping step to record the council’s intent. The president stated that, after consulting with the city solicitor, the ordinance had already been enrolled the prior night and that ratification would provide additional support for the council’s intent if the process were later questioned. “I do not believe the enrollment is or the amendment is really in question, but if we want to ratify it, we can do that now,” O’Malley said. Other councilors pressed that the earlier change of vote may not have followed Robert’s Rules of Order and argued ratification would reduce the risk of a successful procedural challenge.

Councilor Crow had proposed an amendment during the prior session to restore a variance procedure; the council ultimately recorded that Crow’s amendment failed during the prior meeting and the ratification vote was framed as confirming that outcome and the enrollment. The clerk read the roll call for the ratification: Councilor Colon Hayes (Yes), Councilor Condon (No), Councilor Crow (Yes), Councilor Linehan (Yes), Councilor McDonald (Yes), Councilor Ciega (Yes), Councilor Simonelli (Yes), Councilor Taylor (Yes), Councilor Winslow (Yes) and Council President O’Malley (Yes). The clerk announced: “The ratification passes 9 to 1.”

After the ratification the council moved and passed a motion to adjourn. The transcript records a procedural note that councilors had until 7:38 the following evening to reconsider the action; no reconsideration was recorded in the provided transcript.

The ordinance as read will take effect according to the city’s enrollment and ordaining process; the council president stated the enrollment taken previously has legal force and that the ratification was meant to clarify and reinforce the council’s intent.

For clarity: the transcript of the meeting alternates spellings for one councilor’s name (appearing as both “Cica” and “Ciega” in different places). This article uses “Councilor Cica” for the councilor who moved the rescind/ratify motion because that spelling is used repeatedly during her remarks in the record. The transcript does not include first names for councilors.