4 and 6 Valley Street Statement of Hardship STATEMENT OF GROUNDS FOR ZONING RELIEF
FOR 4 AND 6 VALLEY STREET
The Petitioner, as fiduciary for her deceased parents, owns two legally separate but adjoining
lots on Valley Street, as created by a recorded subdivision plan in 1925. The petitioner's
parents acquired Lot 245 (a/k/a 6 Valley Street) in 1957 and constructed the existing family
residence with parking on it. The City of Salem describes the use of this lot as a "One-Family
ranch-style": dwelling.
In 1980, her parents purchased the adjacent vacant Lot 311 (4 Valley Street) but never
constructed anything on it. The City of Salem describes the use of this lot as "Undeveloped
land" and assesses and taxes it separately.
Virtually the entire Valley Street neighborhood was developed prior to the 1965 enactment of
current zoning laws in accordance with the original 1925 Subdivision Plan, which laid out about
200 lots, including many on and around Valley Streete with lot areas of about 6-8,000 SF and
frontage of 50 feet the same as 4 Valley Street. The development of a dwelling at 4 Valley Street
will, therefore, be very much within the existing character for the neighborhood.
The applicant is seeking to re-establish the historic lot lines shown in the 1925 Subdivision Plan
to construct a new residential dwelling on the vacant parcel at 4 Valley Street. It is clear from
the ZBA Plan of North Shore Survey Corp.as filed that a single-family dwelling can be
constructed on the lot at 4 Valley Street in compliance with the other applicable dimensional and
parking requirements. However, under common law, the vacant lot is considered "merged" into
the house lot for zoning purposes, which prevents it from being separately developed.
The "merger" of these lots has resulted in an unusually shaped parcel where the existing .
residence is crowded onto one side while leaving a large area of vacant space sufficient for
another dwelling that cannot be built. These circumstances are conditions that specially affect
this land, but not other lands or buildings in this neighborhood or district.
The application of merger and the density requirements of the Ordinance that are honored by
virtually none of the residences in the neighborhood constitute a hardship, financial and
otherwise to the applicant, and deprive the City of a perfectly reasonable opportunity to add one
more code compliant and badly needed dwelling unit to the City's housing stock.
Wherefore, the Board may approve this application without substantial detriment to the public
good, and without nullifying the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.