Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant seeks 18-unit building at former Grumpy White’s site; Planning Board continues to June 25
Summary
Developer proposed a three-story, 18-unit building at 211 C Street with 41 parking spaces and subsurface stormwater controls. The Planning Board opened the public hearing, heard neighborhood input and continued the case to June 25 for additional peer-review responses and a lighting plan.
Attorney Edward Fleming presented a redevelopment proposal for 211 C Street (the former Grumpy White’s restaurant) on May 21. The applicant, 211–215 C Street LLC, seeks site plan review and a parking-waiver special permit for a three-story, 18-unit multifamily building with 41 parking spaces (23 surface and 18 in a below-grade garage) and professionally designed drainage controls to reduce runoff to the marsh behind the parcel.
Architect Lita Alba (2A Architecture) described a three-story design with six two-bedroom units on each floor, an elevator, a ground-level lobby entrance on C Street and a rear garage access designed to limit curb impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Civil engineer Michael Joyce (Joyce Consulting Group) said the project would reduce impervious area by about 3,750 square feet and proposed subsurface stone-chamber infiltration to detain roof and surface runoff and reduce off-site discharge relative to current conditions.
Traffic consultant Erin Fredette (Bowman/McMahon) said Institute of Transportation Engineers trip-generation estimates yield a modest addition — about 10 peak-hour trips for the full building — and that the proposed new signalization and adaptive signal coordination at Murphy Memorial Drive and C Street will further minimize the local traffic effect.
Public commenters included homeowners who supported the cleanup and reuse of a longstanding commercial site and neighbors concerned about scale, parking spillover and construction impacts. The Planning Department reported that peer-review comments had been received and requested additional submissions: specifically a lighting/photometrics plan and peer-review responses. The applicant agreed to provide those materials.
The Planning Board continued the public hearing to its June 25 meeting to allow the applicant to respond in writing to peer reviewer comments and to provide the requested photometric/lighting documentation and any additional DPW responses.
