Boston City Councilor Sharon Durkin, chair of the Committee on Planning, Development and Transportation, convened a Sept. 18 hearing (docket 0477) to examine contractor parking permits, permitting practices and enforcement after repeated constituent complaints from dense neighborhoods including Beacon Hill, Back Bay and the Fenway.

Durkin opened the hearing by saying contractor parking is “one of the top issues, and quality of life issues I hear about in District 8,” and described narrow streets and limited resident parking in neighborhoods such as Back Bay and Beacon Hill as drivers of the dispute. The committee heard a mix of city staff presentations and resident testimony before adjourning the docket for follow-up.

The nut graf: residents told the committee contractor permits are often long, repeatedly extended and sometimes used beyond their intended purpose — for example, to hold multiple vehicles or private employee vans — leaving few curb spaces for residents. City staff described the permitting process, provided recent counts and revenue figures for the street-occupancy program, and outlined enforcement tools including inspections, verbal and written notices, stop-work orders and permit revocation.

City-staff figures and program scope

Nick Gove, deputy chief for transportation (also serving as BTD commissioner), and Public Works staff said Public Works issued 25,894 street-occupancy permits and 3,170 excavation permits in calendar year 2024, and provided fiscal-year counts of 23,340 occupancy permits in FY24 and 23,533 in FY25. Staff reported approximately 8% of occupancy permits were for utility-related work. Gove also cited Boston Municipal Code, chapter 11, section 6, as governing public-way permits.

On program finances, staff said the street-occupancy program ran a deficit before a 2016 fee update; at that time the program was reported as costing roughly $7 million a year while bringing in about $5 million, leaving an approximate $2 million shortfall. By comparison, staff told the committee occupancy permit revenue was about $15.9 million in FY24 and roughly $19.8 million in FY25, and that the program is now broadly self-supporting within the city’s “street cabinet.”

How permits and enforcement work

Gove and Tanya Del Rio, commissioner for Inspectional Services, outlined city requirements: street-occupancy and excavation permits allow contractors to restrict access to streets or sidewalks for limited times and — for work requiring traffic changes — trigger review by the Boston Transportation Department and a required traffic-management or construction-management plan. Contractors must post signs in residential neighborhoods at least three days in advance of restrictions and distribute flyers within a half-block (timing differs for metered spaces). Contractors are required to remove signs and flyers after work is complete.

Del Rio described a progressive enforcement sequence: inspectors conduct daily site visits; minor infractions are addressed verbally and in writing; repeat minor infractions can lead to paused work; a third infraction can trigger permit revocation. For unsafe worksites or significant TMP violations the city can issue a stop-work order and require correction before work resumes. Del Rio said the city tracks stop-work orders. Staff also said they are legally required to evaluate permit applications on their merits even if an applicant has prior violations.

Kathy Garcia, Public Works community manager, described a neighborhood-specific practice on Beacon Hill: contractors may apply initially for 14 days; extensions beyond 14 days typically require sign-off from the Beacon Hill Civic Association. Garcia said the head of the civic association signs off on additional 14- or 30-day extensions and the city may withhold renewal beyond 30 days without that sign-off.

Resident testimony and examples

Ben Starr, chair of the Beacon Hill Civic Association Traffic and Parking Committee, said Beacon Hill and other dense neighborhoods have been “overwhelmed” and that contractors sometimes “give an inch, they’ll take 2 parking spaces.” Starr told the committee that on one morning this summer 37 of 40 spaces on Chestnut Street were occupied by contractors, and he asked the city for stronger penalties and enforcement so contractors “think twice.”

Resident Marlene Reynolds described a safety concern in Back Bay, saying she regularly exits a public alley blocked by a construction truck and worries about a future collision. Durkin asked staff to investigate that specific location and follow up with the resident directly.

Durkin read a selection of written constituent complaints into the record citing examples including: a 30-day permit for sidewalk repairs at 180 Commonwealth Ave that residents say appears to be unused; repeated, long-running permits in the Fenway (including for a company identified in testimony as D’Alessandro) that residents say block many blocks while crews are present only a few hours a day; and contractors occupying handicap spaces that were intended for residents undergoing medical treatment.

Gaps, limitations and follow-up promised

Staff told the committee they do not have, on hand, a reliable citywide count of the total number of residential parking spaces, which limits the ability to calculate the share of curb space taken by permits. Gove said geographic permit breakdowns and other data can be provided later. Del Rio and other staff said staff can supply historical permit totals and other aggregates after the hearing.

Staff described the enforcement gap residents cited (expired permits, misuse of permitted space, repeat offenders) and outlined existing reporting pathways: residents can report issues to 311; licensed trades can be reported to the Massachusetts Division of Occupational Licensure or to the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation for general home-improvement contractor complaints. Del Rio said the city will advise homeowners of those state-level complaint avenues and that, while the city tracks stop-work orders, it is required by statute and regulation to evaluate permit applications on their individual merits even when an applicant has prior violations.

Council directions and next steps

Durkin said she will keep the matter in committee and seek a working session with colleagues representing other affected neighborhoods to “have a conversation about what the path forward could be.” Staff agreed to provide the committee with: (1) geographic breakdowns of permits, (2) additional historical permit data, (3) clarification of enforcement tracking (including stop-work orders) and (4) follow-up on the daylighting/safety complaint in Back Bay. City staff also said they will look at fee levels as part of the next fee package to ensure fees reflect program costs.

The committee adjourned docket 0477 after the presentations and public testimony.

Ending: The hearing produced a mix of resident complaints and city staff data; no formal legislative action was taken at the Sept. 18 hearing. Councilor Durkin plans further committee work and staff committed to supplying follow-up data and case-by-case review for the specific sites raised in testimony.