Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Malden Board of Appeals approves front-yard setback variance for 65 Davis Street
Summary
The Malden Board of Appeals on Oct. 15 approved a variance allowing a reconstructed front porch at 65 Davis Street to match the existing nonconforming setback. The 5–0 decision followed board discussion that the petitioner’s lot is smaller than neighboring parcels and that the proposal does not increase the existing nonconformity.
The Malden Board of Appeals approved a variance on Oct. 15 allowing a reconstructed front porch at 65 Davis Street to remain at the property’s existing front-yard setback.
The petitioner, Troy Ferriero, sought relief from the City of Malden zoning regulations (City of Malden Code, 12.16.010, Table of Intensity Regulations) to rebuild an open front porch at the front of a single-family house at 65 Davis Street. Ferriero told the board, “We are seeking a variance for a ... front setback for a front porch build on the property I own at 65 Davis Street.”
Board members said the lot size and neighborhood context supported a variance under the board’s four-part test. Members noted Ferriero’s lot and two adjacent lots measure about 3,068 square feet, substantially smaller than many lots on the same street and compared with properties across the street, which range above 4,000 square feet. At the hearing, board members emphasized that the proposed porch would not create any new encroachment beyond the existing nonconforming footprint and that similar porch treatments exist on multiple houses in the block.
Ferriero described the work as removing the enclosed mudroom and returning the front element to an open, farmer-style porch while keeping the existing bay window. He said the existing stairs will remain and “be brought up to code if they are not,” and that the rebuilt porch will align with the same front setback that exists today (approximately 5 feet 8 inches from the sidewalk, as described during the hearing).
No members of the public spoke for or against the petition. After discussion and review of neighborhood lot sizes and comparable porches, a board member moved to approve petition 25-012; the motion was seconded and carried on a 5–0 roll call vote. Board members recorded affirmative votes from Bilgin, King, Sherwin, Froio, and Kramer. After the vote, a staff member confirmed the decision and said the office will file the decision and send the petitioner a decision letter with the time frame for proceeding.
The variance applies only to the front-yard setback as shown on the submitted plans and application; the board’s approval notes that the proposal does not increase the property’s existing nonconformity. The petitioner was advised to coordinate any building-permit work and stair upgrades with the city’s inspectional services and to await the official decision letter file stamped by the clerk before starting construction.
The board adjourned after completing the hearing.
