Loading...
116 Highland Avenue Unit A1 ZBA Final Decision DOMINICK PANGALLO MAYOR CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 98 WASHINGTON STREET  SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978-619-5685 October 22, 2025 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals The petition of CYNTHIA NINA-SOTO at 116 HIGHLAND AVENUE UNIT A1 (Map 14, Lot 0105) (R1 Zoning District and Entry Corridor Overlay District) for a Variance per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.2(2) Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to convert a nonconforming mixed-use commercial office building with three (3) dwelling units on the second floor to a nonconforming seven-family residential building with a smaller first-floor commercial office space. The proposed Variance would decrease the lot area per dwelling unit from 5,400 square feet to 2,316 square feet, where 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit is required. On October 15, 2025, the following members of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals were present: Nina Vyedin (Chair), Peter Habib, Christa McGaha, Stephen Larrick, and Ellen Simpson. Hannah Osthoff was absent. Statements of Fact: The petition was date-stamped on September 15, 2025. The petitioner sought Zoning Board of Appeals approval for a seven-family residential building with a smaller first-floor commercial office space. 1. Cynthia Nina-Soto owns 116 Highland Avenue Unit A1. 2. Cynthia Nina-Soto was the petitioner. 3. Attorney Ryan Carlucci was the representative for Cynthia Nina-Soto. Attorney William F. Quinn and Cynthia Nina-Soto presented on October 15, 2025. 4. 116 Highland Avenue Unit A1 is in the R1 Zoning District (Map 14, Lot 0105). 5. On October 15, 2025, Cynthia Nina-Soto stated that she owns 116 Highland Avenue, formerly the Pediatric Associates Building. She added that they received permission from the Board for three (3) second-floor residential units and a first-floor real estate office when they purchased the property. She noted that the property had one (1) three- bedroom unit and two (2) two-bedroom units on the second floor. Ms. Nina-Soto stated that they required special permission to construct this because the property was in the R1 Zoning District. 6. Ms. Nina-Soto stated that there has been almost no use of the office space since COVID- 19. She added that, considering Salem’s need for housing, they are coming before the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 2025 Page 2 of 9 Board to build four (4) studio apartments and reduce the first-floor office space. Ms. Nina- Soto stated that the apartments would be rented to traveling nurses and high school paraprofessionals. She noted that the units would be naturally affordable because of the building’s structure. Ms. Nina-Soto stated that they are looking to maximize the space while creating the best use for Salem. 7. Chair Vyedin asked whether there would be any exterior changes. Ms. Nina-Soto stated that there would be no exterior changes to the property. Chair Vyedin asked whether the entire first floor is an office space. Ms. Nina-Soto stated that the entire first floor is an office space. 8. Chair Vyedin asked to view the plot plan and the dimensional table. Chair Vyedin stated that the property would remain the same and added that there is a large amount of parking. She noted that the dwelling units would be different sizes and asked how large they would be. Ms. Nina-Soto stated that the square-shaped block along Highland Avenue is a three-bedroom unit. She added that the rectangular-shaped block away from Highland Avenue contains two (2) two-bedroom units. She noted that they tried to maximize the building’s livable space when they purchased the property. 9. Attorney William F. Quinn stated that 116 Highland Avenue Unit A1 was one of three (3) buildings developed decades ago as part of a medical office park. He added that the three (3) buildings share a driveway and a right-of-way extending further from Highland Avenue. Mr. Quinn stated that the building was vacant when Ms. Nina-Soto purchased the property in 2019 and added that it had been a pediatric practice. Mr. Quinn stated that a January 2, 2019, Zoning Board decision permitted the change from a medical use to a residential and office mixed use. He stated that Ms. Nina-Soto’s need for office space has decreased, and the area’s demand for office space is soft. 10. Mr. Quinn stated that his client thought a good investment in the property would be to keep it more fully occupied with a residential use. He added that the application would add four (4) one-bedroom units in the rear of the building. Mr. Quinn noted that his client would retain the front office space along Highland Avenue for her own use. 11. Mr. Quinn stated that they have twenty-seven (27) parking spaces and noted that they need ten (10) fewer spaces than that. He added the parking plan assigned each residential unit two (2) parking spaces, assigned the office space three (3) parking spaces, provided seven (7) visitor spaces, and assigned two (2) handicap spaces near the building. Mr. Quinn stated that these are legal, conforming, and existing spaces. 12. Mr. Quinn stated that they are requesting to change the nonconforming use as a first- floor office with three (3) apartments to a smaller office space with seven (7) apartments. He added that they are seeking relief from the lot area per dwelling unit calculations. Mr. Quinn stated that the proposal has plenty of space and parking while fitting with the owner’s plans. 13. Chair Vyedin asked the Applicant to show how the studios would operate. Ms. Nina-Soto stated that they have apartment renderings to show for the Board. 14. The renderings showed existing photos of the property, the existing and proposed first- floor plan, the scope of the proposed work, and the location of parking spaces for each proposed unit. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 2025 Page 3 of 9 15. Chair Vyedin asked how large each unit would be and how large the commercial space would be. Ms. Nina-Soto stated that each unit would be a studio with the front door opening on the driveway side of the property. She noted that the studios would be rented fully furnished, with the bathrooms in the rear of the studios. Ms. Nina-Soto added that the backside of the property has ledge. She stated that they would build a murphy bed and kitchenette so that there would be living space when the bed is not used. 16. Ms. Nina-Soto stated that the renderings shown on Page 6 of the architectural plans showed a view of the studio apartments looking towards the driveway. She added that another view showed the property’s exterior after proposed changes. Ms. Nina-Soto stated that the property would be the same, aside from doors added to access the units. 17. Staff Planner Brennan Postich stated that the Board’s policy is for petitioners to submit materials a week before the hearing date. He added that any submissions received after the period cannot be guaranteed to have enough time for Board review. Staff Planner Postich noted that the renderings were not submitted in the application’s OpenGov portal or via email. He stated that the Board had the right to decide that it did not have enough time to substantively review the documents. 18. Mr. Habib stated that he believed the renderings did not have enough of an impact on the decision and noted that it helped clarify the first-floor activity. 19. Mr. Larrick asked whether the property was in the Entry Corridor Overlay District (ECOD). Mr. Quinn stated that the property was in the ECOD. Mr. Larrick stated that the renderings were helpful and liked the idea of microunits as a housing type that the City does not currently have a great supply of. He noted that the ECOD had a few requirements he wanted the proposal to address. 20. Mr. Larrick stated that Section 8.2.5 Parking Areas of the Salem Zoning Ordinance requires parking lots with more than twelve (12) spaces to provide landscaping. He added that nothing in the file allowed him to determine that the Zoning Ordinance’s requirements were being met. He noted that the application did not request relief for those requirements. Mr. Larrick asked whether the Applicant had reviewed Section 8.2.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, requiring landscaping and tree planting amenities for parking lots of a certain size with screening from the street. 21. Mr. Quinn stated that they are not requesting special relief from those requirements. He noted that they would comply with those requirements. Mr. Quinn stated that he does not have a landscaping plan and noted that none have been completed. Chair Vyedin stated that the Board may require special conditions for a landscaping plan that fits the Zoning Ordinance’s requirements. Mr. Quinn stated that they would submit a landscape plan before receiving construction permits. He noted it would be up to the Building Inspector to determine whether they comply with the Zoning Ordinance or need additional relief. 22. Chair Vyedin stated that she would like the landscape plan provided beforehand to the Board. She noted that the Board could add a special condition for the Building Commissioner to review a landscaping plan before issuing a building permit because the application seemed complete. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 2025 Page 4 of 9 23. Building Commissioner Stavroula Orfanos stated that the proposal would require Site Plan Review with the Planning Board because it would involve six (6) or more dwelling units. Chair Vyedin stated that a site plan review would require the Planning Board to review landscaping. 24. Mr. Larrick asked what the dimensions of the curb cut would be. Ms. Nina-Soto stated that they would use the existing curb cut. Mr. Larrick stated that the Board should ensure the proposal meets the twenty-four-foot (24’) maximum curb cut requirement in the ECOD, given the property’s change in use. He noted that the curb cut was not indicated in the plot plan. Mr. Larrick stated that this is an area they would want to be more walkable, given the density increase and proximity to the high school. He noted that the petitioner could improve upon that existing condition. Ms. Nina-Soto stated that they could provide a twenty-four-foot (24’) curb cut. 25. Mr. Larrick stated that, having done a site visit and looking at Google Street View, the curb cut looked like more than twenty-four feet (24’). Mr. Habib stated that the curb cut looked like it was fifty-five feet (55’). Mr. Habib stated that adding additional curbing benefits the design by adding plantings and improving the conditions on the street. 26. Chair Vyedin stated that she would not want to add more time reviewing this proposal by requiring that the petitioner return to the Board. She added that a special condition would be appropriate because another Board would review the proposal in a site plan. 27. Building Commissioner Orfanos asked whether there would be one means of egress for the smaller dwelling units. Ms. Nina-Soto stated that there would be one (1) means of egress and added that the entire building is sprinkled with fire prevention in between each unit. She noted that the rear of the building abuts ledge that extends to the second floor. Building Commissioner Orfanos stated that their architect should review whether the requested design meets building code requirements. 28. Ms. Simpson stated that the proposal provides a nice design with housing that Salem does not have enough of. She added that the laundry room at the end of the building was a good use of space. Ms. Simpson noted that she would be okay with ensuring the requirements of the ECOD are completed under Building Commissioner and staff review. 29. Mr. Habib asked whether the intended use at the end of the building would be a laundry room. Ms. Nina-Soto stated that the extension is currently a vestibule entering into the office space. She noted that there would be stackable washers and dryers so people would not need to leave the building for laundry. 30. Mr. Habib asked what the space to the east of the drawing is used for. Ms. Nina-Soto stated that there is a shed used for storage for the three (3) second-floor units. She noted that they have picnic tables, so children living upstairs have a place to sit and play. Mr. Habib stated that the units make sense given the proximity to the hospital and the number of nurses moving in and out of Salem. 31. Mr. Habib stated that having substantial office space is difficult and added that many clients push to convert office uses to residential uses. He noted that keeping a small office space along the street and adaptive reuse for the rest of the project would be great. Mr. Habib stated that the Board could make conditions for the curb cut and added that he would be okay with the project going through as-is. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 2025 Page 5 of 9 32. Mr. Larrick stated that he would be okay with adding conditions, but wanted to ensure those conditions were clear and specific by specifically referencing the Zoning Ordinance. 33. Staff Planner Postich stated that the Application Guidelines did not specifically require applicants to describe ECOD requirements in an application. He added that the Board could state expectations relating to the ECOD on the Application Checklist so Staff can require those expectations during initial review. 34. Chair Vyedin opened the hearing for public comments. 35. The City received zero (0) public comments on the proposal before the hearing. At the October 15, 2025 public hearing, zero (0) members of the public commented on the proposal. 36. Chair Vyedin stated that the Board could put the application to a vote with proposed special conditions. She added that the Board proposed special conditions for a curb cut of twenty-four feet (24’) in compliance with the ECOD. Mr. Larrick stated that the special condition should clarify that action is required to improve the current condition. 37. Staff Planner Postich proposed wording for a special condition: The petitioner shall submit the Floor Plans and Architectural Renderings by Flow Design Architects dated August 6, 2025, to the Department of Planning and Community Development prior to issuance of a building permit. 38. Staff Planner Postich proposed wording for a special condition: The petitioner shall provide a curb cut not exceeding twenty-four feet for access to and from the proposed development in compliance with Section 8.2.3 Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 39. Staff Planner Postich proposed wording for a special condition: The petitioner shall provide landscaping per Section 8.2.5(1), 8.2.5(2), and 8.2.5(3) Parking Areas of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The petitioner shall meet the requirements below unless provided a waiver by the Planning Board per Section 8.2.9 Design Waivers of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: a) Landscaping shall include one (1) medium to large shade tree of three and one-half- inch to four-inch caliper diameter at breast height (DBH) for each three (3) parking spaces unless otherwise waived pursuant to Section 8.2.9 of this section. Trees shall be planted in plant beds bounded by six-inch granite curbing. b) No plant bed shall be less than fifteen (15) square feet, and no dimension of such plant bed shall be less than forty-two (42) inches, measured from inside face of curb to inside face of curb or wall. c) A planting strip of no less than forty-two (42) inches wide shall separate vehicles parked face to face in a parking area. Such planting strip shall include one (1) three and one-half-inch to four-inch caliper tree every twenty-seven (27) feet. 40. Mr. Habib stated that there are many parking spaces on the property. He added that more landscaping around the front of the property would benefit the rentability of the units by making them feel like they are not in an office park. Mr. Habib stated that the Overlay Districts are designed to benefit projects like these. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 2025 Page 6 of 9 41. Chair Vyedin asked the petitioner whether they would be okay with the wording of the special conditions. Mr. Quinn asked whether there would be a standard condition that minor changes could be approved by the Building Inspector and Chair of the Board. Staff Planner Postich stated that it would be included per Standard Condition #11. Mr. Quinn stated that he consented to the Board moving forward with the proposed special conditions. 42. Ms. Simpson motioned to approve the petition with the special conditions proposed by Staff Planner Postich. Mr. Habib seconded the motion. The Salem Zoning Board of Appeals, after carefully considering the evidence presented at the public hearings, and thoroughly reviewing the petition, application narrative, and plans, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: Variance Findings: 1. Special conditions and circumstances especially affect the land, building, or structure involved, generally not affecting other lands, buildings, and structures in the same district. The petitioner owns a building with an outsized amount of office space. The slope and topography along the property’s southern lot line restricts the petitioner’s ability to build on the lot. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance involves substantial hardship to the petitioner in attempting to put the property to productive use. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would force the petitioner to maintain significant amounts of vacant office space. The petitioner requires relief to economically use the property. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. The petitioner is not proposing to increase the footprint of the existing structure. The proposal preserves the City’s amenities by maintaining some existing office space along Highland Avenue. The proposal ensures housing for all income levels by providing microunits accessible to individuals of varying backgrounds. Special Permit Findings: The Board finds that the reconstruction, extension, alteration, or change will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. 1. Community needs are served by the proposal. The petitioner is creating four (4) additional housing units inside the City. 2. The impact on traffic flow and safety is negligible. The petitioner consented to special conditions requiring landscaping and a curb cut in compliance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. More than adequate parking serves the proposed structure. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 2025 Page 7 of 9 3. The proposal has minimal impacts on utilities and other public services. Adequate utilities and other public services already service the structure. 4. The proposal has positive impacts on neighborhood character. The structure’s footprint will not change. Using additional space as microunits for workers and replacing vacant office space positively contributes to the neighborhood’s character. 5. The proposal has positive impacts on the natural environment, including greenhouse gas emissions and view. The amount of screening and landscaping on the property increases due to special conditions associated with the proposal. 6. The proposal has a positive potential economic and fiscal impact, including impacts on City services, tax base, and employment. The proposal will increase the property’s tax base while providing a positive impact on City employment. Based on the above statements of fact and findings, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, (Nina Vyedin (Chair), Peter Habib, Christa McGaha, Stephen Larrick, and Ellen Simpson) and zero (0) opposed, to grant Cynthia Nina-Soto at 116 Highland Avenue Unit A1 (Map 14, Lot 0105) (R1 Zoning District and Entry Corridor Overlay District) for a Variance per Section 4.1.1 Dimensional Requirements and a Special Permit per Section 3.3.2(2) Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to convert a nonconforming mixed-use commercial office building with three (3) dwelling units on the second floor to a nonconforming seven-family residential building with a smaller first-floor commercial office space. The proposed Variance will decrease the lot area per dwelling unit from 5,400 square feet to 2,316 square feet, where 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit is required. Standard Conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any city board or commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 9. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor’s Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 10. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 2025 Page 8 of 9 replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 11. All construction shall be done per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by this Board. Any modification to the plans and dimensions must be approved by the Board of Appeals unless such changes are deemed a minor field change by the Building Commissioner in consultation with the Chair of the Board of Appeals. 12. Petitioner shall schedule Assessing Department inspections of the property, at least annually, prior to project completion and a final inspection upon project completion. Special Conditions: 1. The petitioner shall submit the Floor Plans and Architectural Renderings by Flow Design Architects dated August 6, 2025, to the Department of Planning and Community Development prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The petitioner shall provide a curb cut not exceeding twenty-four feet for access to and from the proposed development in compliance with Section 8.2.3 Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The petitioner shall provide landscaping per Section 8.2.5(1), 8.2.5(2), and 8.2.5(3) Parking Areas of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 3. The petitioner shall meet the requirements below unless provided a waiver by the Planning Board per Section 8.2.9 Design Waivers of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: a) Landscaping shall include one (1) medium to large shade tree of three and one-half- inch to four-inch caliper diameter at breast height (DBH) for each three (3) parking spaces unless otherwise waived pursuant to Section 8.2.9 of this section. Trees shall be planted in plant beds bounded by six-inch granite curbing. b) No plant bed shall be less than fifteen (15) square feet, and no dimension of such plant bed shall be less than forty-two (42) inches, measured from inside face of curb to inside face of curb or wall. c) A planting strip of no less than forty-two (42) inches wide shall separate vehicles parked face to face in a parking area. Such planting strip shall include one (1) three and one-half-inch to four-inch caliper tree every twenty-seven (27) feet. __________________________ Nina Vyedin, Chair Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 2025 Page 9 of 9 Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Southern Essex Registry of Deeds.