124 Boston Street Statement of Hardship and Grounds STATEMENT OF GROUNDS FOR
124 BOSTON STREET SALEM
INTRODUCTION:
Petitioner is a corporation owned and successfully operated by Ms. Yuhua ("Cindy")
Zhang, who has operated body spa businesses in Salem since 2021, and at the building at
116 Boston Street since 2022. Unfortunately, that structure suffered afire earlier this year,
forcing her to close her business. Cindy now applies to the Board for the necessary zoning
approvals to operate her business in the first-floor commercial space at the nearby building
at 124 Boston Street.
The zoning approvals that she seeks are 1) a Special Permit to operate her personal
service business in this location in the B-2 Zoning District, and 2) a variance from the on-
site parking requirements for this business.
In 2023, the Board of Appeals issued a Decision to the property owner, not
appealed, to alter the structure and make use of it as a commercial office on the first floor
and two residential apartments on the second and third floors, and to approve a parking
plan for 5 parking spaces, that allocated 3 legally compliant parking spaces to the
commercial use and 1 each to the residential units.
The commercial space is about 781 SF, which, for a personal service business,
requires 1 space for each 150 SF of floor space excluding storage, thus requiring 5.2
spaces, rounded to 6 on-site spaces for this day-spa use. The applicant proposes using
the 3 existing spaces for commercial use and continuing the use of one space by each of
the residential units. The variance request is, therefore, to allow the existing 5 on-site
parking spaces for this mixed use, where 9 spaces are required.
It should be noted that the day spa serves between 3 and 5 customers per day, with
only one customer on the premises at a time. It should also be noted that
there is ample legal on-street parking on the adjacent portion of Boston Street.
GROUNDS FOR SPECIAL PERMITTO OPERATE DAY SPA IN THE B-1 DISTRICT:
The operation of the day spa will not be substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood than the existing use because:
a. The applicant has successfully operated the same day spa business since 2022
in the nearby building at 116 Boston Street with no neighborhood issues or
complaints.
b. The low volume of traffic generated by applicants'use of 3 on-site parking
spaces will not create any traffic flow or safety problems.
c. The premises are already connected and served by adequate public services.
d. Because there wilt be no exterior renovations or construction, and the layout and
elevation of the existing paved parking lot and driveway are not being changed,
there will be no adverse impact on the natural environment or drainage.
e. There will be no exterior construction or expansion of the building's footprint,
and the existing materials and design of the structure will remain unchanged, so
there will be no adverse impact upon the neighborhood character.
f. The interior improvements are likely to result in an increase in the assessed
value of the property with a positive impact to the City's tax base.
GROUNDS FOR HARDSHIP FOR PARKING VARIANCE:
This building was constructed more than 130 years ago, when no zoning regulations
existed. It sits at the very front of a long and narrowly shaped lot.This neighborhood up
and down Boston Street was developed with relatively with large wood-framed structures
on relatively small lots of under.1 -.2 acres, all nonconforming under today's Ordinance.
There has been a history of allowing non-conforming commercial uses along Boston
Street in this neighborhood, and many contain less than the legally required amount of on-
site parking.
The topography at the rear of 124 Boston Street is significantly different than that of its
abutter, and a large concrete retaining wall supports the lands between and helps prevent
surface drainage from crossing over. The size and shape of the lot, together with its
topography are factors that are unique to the property not affecting other lands in the
zoning district. Enforcing the existing parking requirements would create hardship to the
owner and applicant by preventing the full economic use of the structure.
The parking relief requested, allowing 3 on-site parking spaces for the applicant, where 5
are required for the applicant's use, can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good, and without nullifying from the intent of the district or the purpose of the
ordinance.