Malden planning board tables request to convert storefront at 91–95 Medford Street to sixth unit amid parking and trash concerns

The Malden Planning Board on Wednesday heard testimony and public comment on a petition from 41 Warren LLC to convert 1,650 square feet of a first-floor, formerly commercial storefront at 91–95 Medford Street into a sixth residential unit. Attorney Patrick McDonald represented the petitioner and said the application seeks relief so the building can be used entirely for residential purposes without any expansion to the building’s footprint. McDonald said the prior commercial use lapsed during the pandemic and the owner now seeks to convert the vacant space to make the property consistent with the Residence A zoning of the area.

Why it matters: board members and neighbors focused on immediate operational concerns — notably a persistent deficit of on-site parking, how trash and recycling are stored, and outstanding building-department orders from the period when the commercial tenant operated. Those items affect nearby streets, neighborhood livability and whether the site can function with one more dwelling unit.

The petitioner’s team included Mitesh Rai, identified as a business partner, and Roy Lloyd, the property manager. McDonald told the board the conversion would not change the structure’s footprint and no exterior work is proposed. He described a long dispute and eviction with the previous commercial occupant that left the space unused for about two years early in the pandemic, arguing the commercial grandfathering effectively lapsed and conversion to residential was the only practical use of the space.

Board members and residents pressed the petitioner on how parking, trash and tenant compliance would be handled if the sixth unit is allowed. Chair Chuck Ayoven and Planning Board member Ken Antonucci repeatedly questioned how the property manager would administer six tandem spaces laid out as three sets of double (3-by-2) tandem stalls. Property manager Roy Lloyd said tenants have been discouraged from parking on-site during ongoing construction and that, at present, only about two cars are associated with the occupied five units. Lloyd acknowledged the tandem configuration is difficult to manage and that some tenants currently disperse throughout the neighborhood for street parking.

On trash and recycling, several board members cited photographs showing numerous bins and shopping carts stored along the side yard. Mitesh Rai told the board he would work with a contractor and modify the site for a better storage solution; he agreed to consider the board’s and neighbors’ suggestions on enclosed storage and said he would comply with recommendations. The petitioner said they intended to refinish basement space to provide resident laundry and storage, and described plans to add a hallway from a new front entrance to provide shared basement access for all units; a redraw of the floor plans to show that corridor was promised to the board.

Staff and board members also raised permit and code questions. Planning staff noted outstanding building‑department orders tied to unpermitted work in the former commercial area dating back to 2020; McDonald said the petitioner understands permits will be required and that construction has been on hold pending resolution. The board’s inspection and housing program requirements were discussed; the petitioner agreed, if the board imposed it as a condition, to participate in Malden’s rental unit inspection program.

Public comment included adjacent neighbors who initially submitted a letter supporting reuse of the vacant storefront as housing but then said they wanted clearer answers about parking and long‑term site management before reaffirming support. Board staff reported the city’s public‑health director had told staff that rodent issues previously reported at the property had been addressed.

The Planning Board voted 6–2 to table the petition and reopen the hearing later so the petitioner can provide revised floor and site plans and other documentation. Board members specified what they want returned: revised drawings showing the proposed corridor and basement access; detailed finished‑basement plans; a trash‑management and screening plan; a clear parking plan describing allotment of tandem spaces to specific units; documentation of any work‑in‑progress permits and proof of required building permits for remodels under way; fencing and other exterior site improvements; and evidence of a neighborhood meeting with the ward councilor and nearby residents. The motion passed with members Antonucci, Chuha, Gray, Henry, Stone and Raj Verma voting in favor; two members voted against.

What’s next: the petition is tabled and the petitioner will be notified of the requested plan changes and conditions. The hearing will be reopened once the petitioner submits revised plans and the required documentation.

“I would suggest the grant be subject to submission of a revised floor plan,” Attorney Patrick McDonald told the board during the hearing, reflecting the petitioner’s willingness to show the corridor and basement access on a new sheet.

Board action: tabled 6–2; public hearing will be continued on a date to be posted by the city clerk.