At its October meeting, the Essex Zoning Commission decided by a vote of 3 to 2 that zoning regulations pertaining to properties along Main Street in Essex that are zoned both as Essex Village District (EV) and Village Residence District (VR) will remain unchanged.

The question as to whether a change was necessary for these “split-zoned” properties (which have portions of a property in both the EV and VR) along Main Street started as open discussion at the commission’s June meeting, after its denial of a zone change for a project modifying a garage at 20 Main Street.

A request for a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for the project had also been denied for this property in 2019. The project received a favorable referral from the Planning Commission.

The discussion on split zoning developed into an application by the Essex Zoning Commission, for which language was drafted to amend regulations for properties located in both districts. It was this application that was ultimately denied at the commission’s October meeting.

The commission reached its decision after reviewing suggested language for a text amendment that would average the setbacks and coverage for these split-zoned properties. The commission also reviewed a map identifying approximately 11 split zoned properties along Main Street in Essex.

After discussing each of the 11 property’s characteristics, Essex Zoning Enforcement Officer Joseph “Joe” Budrow said that there was the potential for approximately 4 of the 11 to benefit from the proposed text amendment.

The Request

Chris Smith, the attorney for Tom Evans of 26 Main Street, had been involved in helping to draft language for the proposed text amendment, as invited by the Zoning Commission.

Smith had petitioned the Zoning Commission in 2018 for Evans to relocate the property at 26 Main Street entirely within the EV district. The petition was later withdrawn.

At the meeting, Smith spoke regarding the process and the importance of providing relief for owners of split zoned properties along Main Street in Essex.

“We’re not talking about a wholesale disregard and fire sale with your regulations. They are still there,” he said.

With the proposed text amendment, Smith said that the commission would be “providing some minimal relief. It’s a very specific formula.”

Several Zoning Commission members cited concerns with overdevelopment of the downtown village area if any text amendments modifying current regulations for Essex Village were approved.

William Reichenbach, secretary for the commission, discussed the different uses permitted within each district and the importance of keeping the two districts distinct from one another as the EV district permits certain business activities while the VR district does not.

“I don’t think this is the average situation where you have abutting residential districts with some differences and you sort of meld one into the other. These two districts should not be melded…I’d argue for keeping things the way they are,” he said.

Thomas Carroll, an alternate on the commission, noted that based on the proposed language for a text amendment, the property at 26 Main Street could increase its square footage by 75 percent.

“These zoning laws are in place, they’ve been in place for 50 years, we just need to steer the ship. We don’t need to make drastic changes that are going to screw things up, particularly in the downtown village area,” he said.

Jeffrey Lovelace, an alternate on the commission, pointed to the precedent that would be set by changing regulations for the split zoning of properties along Main Street in Essex, especially since split zoning exists in other areas of town.

“I just think we’re opening up a can of worms because if we’re going to do it for VR in Essex, why not do it for VRl and Rural Residential and the rest of town? So, I think we’re opening up a can of worms…I think the Zoning Commission should withdraw its application,” he said.

“We have this regulation now, which really gives us the control over the downtown area, and I agree with others that we’re playing with fire if we start messing with this,” said commission member Mark Reeves.

Ruthann Paulin, who owns the property at 20 Main Street along with her husband Peter Glyman, discussed, at the meeting, their intention to “bring more life and vibrancy” to the downtown area, and how their end goal of modifying a garage on the property for an in-law apartment is “a really positive thing.”

In email correspondence with the Courier after the commission’s October meeting, Paulin said, “the entire year-long process from the ZBA to zoning was emotionally exhausting, as we were simply looking to build an in-law apartment for my mother.

“We do plan on following up with the town in the future to obtain approval to renovate or build upon the garage structure on our property as it’s important we find a way to keep our multi-generational family together. However, we are unsure of how and when we’ll re-engage in that process,” she added.