Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Front Yard Setback topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Malden Zoning Board tables variance request for front-yard stairs at 19 George Street

2706601 · March 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Malden Zoning Board of Appeals on March 19 voted to table Petition 25-001, a variance request for a front-yard setback at 19 George Street, for 60 days while the applicant provides a formal survey or a revised flat plan.

The Malden Zoning Board of Appeals on March 19 voted to table Petition 25-001, a variance request for a front-yard setback at 19 George Street, for 60 days while the applicant provides a formal survey or a revised flat plan.

The petition concerns exterior stairs the applicant built as part of a new rear/side deck. Peter Lighten, the property owner and petitioner, told the board the deck and stairs are already constructed and said the stair layout was chosen to provide a direct second means of egress from the second floor. "Yes. It's built already," Lighten said, and later described his health reasons for the straight run: "I'm 71. I have 2 prosthetic knees, [a] prosthetic hip." He said his wife also has back problems and that a straight staircase made moving and daily access easier.

The board opened discussion after the petitioner described that a licensed contractor, identified in the hearing transcript as Flynn Construction, pulled the building permit. A Malden building inspector refused final sign-off and advised the petitioner to seek a variance because the bottom step of the new stairway lies closer to the public sidewalk than the front-yard setback permits.

Lighten told the board the new deck sits about 11 feet back from the sidewalk and that he measured the bottom step at approximately 5 feet 6 inches from the sidewalk. He said turning the stairway at the landing — the alternative the board discussed — would have added about four risers and made the stairs steeper: "I would have added 4 more risers instead of the 20 risers that I have. I would have ended up with 24 risers," he said.

Board members pressed for a formal measurement. Several members said a survey would clarify the relationship among the house, the new stairway and the sidewalk, and they discussed the cost of a survey, which Lighten estimated at about $1,000 to $1,200. One board member noted that if a formal survey shows the stairway is near the reported 5 feet 6 inches, the panel would be inclined to grant the variance; if the measurement is substantially less, the board might not approve it.

The board offered two practical paths: the petitioner may obtain a formal survey and return within 60 days for a decision, or he may alter the stair configuration so it complies with the setback and seek building-department final sign-off without returning to the board. The board formally moved to table the petition for 60 days pending a revised flat plan or survey. The motion to table was made by Sherwin and seconded by Bilgan; the recorded vote was Bilgan — yes; King — yes; Froio — yes; Sherwin — yes; Kramer — yes. The petition was tabled.

The board clarified that tabling preserves the petitioner's options for roughly two months and avoids the risk that the petitioner would pay for a survey and still face denial. Board members repeatedly emphasized they wanted an accurate, documented measurement before granting a variance because front-yard setbacks "run with the land" and become a permanent condition if approved.

Lighten said he bought the house in September and that the property is configured like a two-family but is legally a single-family dwelling; his stated intent in buying and modifying the property was to provide care for elderly relatives who live in the lower unit. He told the board the existing concrete slab at the bottom of the stairs was reused as the landing and that the licensed contractor involved was Jimmy Flynn of Flynn Construction.

No written opposition letters were reported; the record included at least one neighbor in support, according to the board. The applicant said he could either pay for a survey and keep the straight stair alignment if the panel grants the variance after measurement, or he could reconfigure the stairs immediately and avoid returning to the board.

Petition 25-001 remains pending; the petitioner has 60 days to submit a survey or revised plan, or he may alter the stairs and seek building-department final approval without the board's further action.