The discussion on the 15 Oak Street project was notably charged with concerns about parking logistics and street accessibility. Craig Hartwell, representing Exma Properties LLC, presented plans to expand the existing single-family structure into a two-family dwelling. Hartwell assured the board that the modifications would not detract from the neighborhood’s current character. However, the proposed addition, which would increase the building’s height by two feet and include two three-bedroom units, demanded careful consideration of parking accommodations.

Detailed inquiries from board members illuminated potential challenges. The proposal included two driveways intended to accommodate the required six parking spaces for the new units. However, board member Jeff Sour raised questions about the adequacy of these arrangements, noting that the narrow driveways could complicate parking logistics, especially for tandem arrangements. A nearby resident, Eugene Jalia, echoed these concerns, stressing that the proposed parking configuration might increase on-street parking, thereby restricting access for emergency vehicles.

These issues were further compounded by insights from another long-time resident and landlord, who voiced strong objections based on the logistical challenges of navigating the street, particularly during emergencies or adverse weather conditions. The resident pointed out that the street’s narrowness already posed difficulties for fire trucks and ambulances. The resident remarked, “You can’t get a piece of fire apparatus down there period,” underscoring the urgency of addressing these concerns.

Beyond immediate parking issues, the board touched upon broader implications for street infrastructure and local regulations. Conversations revealed that recent curb cut installations on Oak Street, some reportedly unpermitted, had already contributed to parking congestion. One individual expressed frustration over these developments, arguing that they encouraged residents to park closer to their homes rather than utilizing designated spaces, thus reducing street access for larger vehicles.

The zoning board also contemplated the project’s implications for neighborhood density and lot occupancy. Some residents questioned whether current zoning regulations permitted the development of additional dwellings on smaller lots. These apprehensions were voiced amidst broader discussions on the potential for further residential developments and their impact on community infrastructure.

As the meeting progressed, the board considered various solutions to mitigate parking concerns. Suggestions included reducing the number of bedrooms in the proposed units or expanding parking capacity by altering driveway configurations. Despite these discussions, board members remained divided on the feasibility of the proposed solutions, with some emphasizing the need for a more comprehensive approach to address traffic and safety concerns.

Amidst diverse perspectives, consensus emerged on the necessity for revised plans that more adequately addressed parking and emergency access. One board member, who had personally experienced the challenges of navigating Oak Street on trash day, described the situation as a “nightmare,” highlighting the compounded difficulties posed by parked vehicles and trash bins. This sentiment resonated with others, prompting the board to agree on continuing the discussion at a future meeting.

In addition to the Oak Street project, the board briefly discussed a variance request for 180-182 Pine Street and Silven Street, where attorney Nancy McCann sought approval for eight two-bedroom residential units on a combined parcel. However, the primary focus remained on the issues surrounding 15 Oak Street.