3.5 Rear Buffum Street 06.11.2025 Statement of Hardship
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF VARIANCE APPLICATION
3 ½ REAR BUFFUM STREET, SALEM, MA
Elton Cela (“Cela”) respectfully submits this letter in support of the Variance Application
requesting relief from Section 4.1.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Bylaws (“Bylaws”) regulating
the maximum number of stories in a R2 District for 3 ½ Rear Buffum Street, Salem, MA
(hereafter “the Property”).
Section 4.1.1 states that in R2 District, a building may only be 2.5 stories in height. The current
proposal of Cela for the Property is to add a unit, making the existing one-family residence into a
two-family residence, without changing the footprint of the structure. As the upper floor will
contain a bedroom and bathroom, the City of Salem Building Department has indicated that a
variance is required in accordance with Section 3.3.4. Cela’s proposed structure does not exceed
the 35-feet height requirement specified in Section 4.1.1.
The ZBA is allowed to grant variance from specific requirements of the Bylaws as long as the
ZBA finds "specifically finds [a] that owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions,
shape, or topography of such land . . . and especially affecting such land . . . but not affecting
generally the zoning district in which it is located, [b] a literal enforcement of the provisions of
the ordinance or by-law would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the
petitioner or appellant, and [c] that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good and [d] without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or
purpose of such ordinance or by-law."
Substantial Hardship
Cela intends on moving his family into the new unit. This will not be feasible if he is not
allowed to build another bedroom. He would not have enough room for his family and he will
not be able to live at the Property. The only place for this bedroom would be on the upper floor.
Strict enforcement of Section 4.1.1 of the Bylaws does, and would continue to, create a
substantial hardship for Cela as without it, the Property would not give the space needed for his
family to reside at the Property and the project will lack economic feasability.
It should be noted that the Property would not allow enough expansion of the footprint to
accommodate the space needed. In any case, an expansion outward would move the Property’s
building closer to neighbors, which would be detrimental to the neighborhood. The current
proposal to build upward, eliminates this detriment, without impacting the neighborhood as it
does not exceed the height requirement in Section 4.1.1.
Conclusion
The ZBA relief from Section 4.1.1 of the Bylaws requested herein will not be substantial
detriment to the public good. In fact, the opposite would be true. If relief were granted, it would
be a substantial benefit to the public good, will improve the exterior look of the current structure.
It will also provide an additional housing for the City and enhance the value of the Premises.
There will also be a positive fiscal impact on the City’s tax base as the value of the Premises will
increase with these improvements.
The ZBA relief from Section 4.1.1 of the Bylaws requested herein does not substantially
derogate from the intent or purpose of the Bylaws. We believe that information provided
sufficiently establishes and satisfies the conditions needed for the ZBA to grant variance
of and relief from Section 4.1.1 as herein requested.