The first major case involved a request for a special permit for a driveway on Lewis Street. Presented by Adon Cortez Amaya, the proposal aimed to allow a driveway opening that fell short of the minimum front yard setback requirement. The planning board had previously reviewed and recommended approval of the permit, contingent on several conditions such as the installation of retaining walls and the use of permeable pavers. During the discussion, board members explored the technicalities of the driveway’s design, including its 35-foot length, necessary curb cut approval from the Department of Public Works (DPW), and potential changes to existing walls or fences. The applicant expressed willingness to comply with these conditions. Ultimately, the board unanimously approved the special permit, with the chair providing guidance on the next steps for the applicant.

Following this, board members deliberated on a similar request for 157-161 Congress Avenue, where Kiana Moreno Goff sought a special permit to permit parking within the front yard setback. Again, the planning board had recommended approval, with conditions mandating the installation of a fence and the use of permeable materials. The board’s discussion focused on the layout of the parking spaces, particularly the ability for vehicles to navigate without obstruction. Despite concerns about vehicle maneuverability, the board quickly moved to approve the permit, reiterating the conditions set by the planning board.

A broader dialogue ensued regarding parking logistics for an unspecified project. This discussion highlighted challenges with vehicle maneuverability in limited spaces, emphasizing the need to expand parking capacity to accommodate more vehicles without causing obstruction or requiring cars to back into the street. Suggestions were made to configure parking spaces in a parallel arrangement or a straightforward row, and a proposed fence to define the parking area and prevent unauthorized access was discussed. Landscaping plans, including adding shrubbery to obscure the parking area from view, were also considered essential for enhancing safety and aesthetics.

Attention then shifted to a new proposal involving Felipe’s Driving School, which presented unique challenges due to its parking requirements. The driving school, to be located in a two-story office building with only two parking spaces, would require 29 spaces according to zoning regulations. However, representatives argued that the actual demand would be lower since students, who are in the process of obtaining their licenses, typically do not have cars. They emphasized that student pickups and drop-offs would mostly occur at their homes rather than at the school, and that public parking and transportation options were conveniently available nearby.

The driving school proposal also included plans for in-person classes, a shift from online formats used during COVID-19 restrictions. The discussion covered the driving school’s operational model, including individualized classes and requirements for classroom and driving hours, as mandated by the RMV. The proximity of the RMV to the school was seen as beneficial. Nevertheless, the discrepancy between standard parking requirements and the school’s specific needs sparked further dialogue. The board acknowledged these logistical challenges and safety concerns, recognizing the need for a tailored approach to accommodate the unique nature of the driving school’s operations.

The meeting also addressed a proposal for additional residential units on Watts Street, seeking a special permit and variance to convert unused storage space into two two-bedroom apartments. This proposal would not alter the building’s footprint and promised to provide more parking spaces than required. The board discussed various aspects, including heating systems, egress adequacy, and potential visibility concerns for drivers exiting the property. The public hearing for this proposal, along with the driving school case, remained open to facilitate further community feedback.