Salem Lakes approves exemption to sex offender residency ordinance

The Salem Lakes Village Board granted an exemption to the village’s sex offender residency ordinance at a special meeting Monday night.

The exemption for Daniel Frank Olszewski, 36, to be allowed to live with his mother was approved unanimously, with Trustee Bob Raymond absent.  Trustee Michael Culat moved to grant the exemption and Trustee Ted Kmiec seconded the motion.

The village’s ordinance prohibits a registered sex offender from living within 2,000 feet of places that children congregate, such as schools, parks and churches, village administrator Patrick Casey said.

Olszewski’s said at the meeting that his mother’s residence is 1,983 feet from Shorewood Terrace Park, as he measured it. He added he planned to live with his mother only until he could find another residence.

“I’m not looking to stay here a long time,” Olszewski said at the meeting. “I am just looking to stay here until I find my own place.” He said he is again working for the same company that employed him before his conviction.

Olszewski was convicted in 2014 of possession of child pornography. A report from the state Department of Corrections shows Olszewski underwent treatment while in prison. Two corrections psychologists did not recommend further treatment for Olszewski.

“I made some poor choices, but that’s not the person I want to be,” Olszewski told the board.


  1. Jake says:

    From what “I” know and what has taken place and speaking to him….He has made a transition and I support him and his family. It was good meeting at the Town Hall for him and he spoke well of himself and the situation he is in and his efforts at becoming a better person. I’m not religious and never will be, I take a person for how they address themselves about their issues….I support him.

  2. Are we holding comments Darren? says:

    We aren’t holding comments, are we Darren? Because two of the incumbents voted YES to allow a sex offender in the village in opposition to the Village Ordinance? We aren’t trying to cover up the response of the citizens to this action, are we? I guess the thought that silence will let it disappear before the election is the action to take!

  3. @Are we holding …: Ummm, the story says how the vote went, and even who motioned for the action, seconded and was absent. So that’s a cover-up now? Have you seen the comments on the Facebook post for this, which is where most comments end up these days anyway? So you say we’re covering up reaction? Get real.

Leave a Reply

  • Follow us on