Proposal for 211C St. (former Grumpy White’s) revised to 18 units and 41 parking spaces; hearing continued to allow coordination with C Street improvements

Applicants for 211C Street (the former Grumpy White’s site at C Street and Murphy Memorial Drive) presented a revised plan on May 21 calling for a three‑story, 18‑unit multifamily building with 41 parking spaces, underground/garage parking and planned stormwater infiltration; the Planning Board continued the public hearing to June 25 to allow final coordination with ongoing C Street reconstruction and planning staff comments.

Attorney Edward Fleming introduced the team for 211C Street, including architect Alida Alba (Choo & Company), civil engineer Michael Joyce (Joyce Consulting Group) and traffic consultant Erin Fredette (Bowman/McMahon). The proposal covers a 28,273‑square‑foot parcel and was described as a three‑story building with six two‑bedroom, two‑bathroom units per floor; unit sizes were presented between 991 and 1,245 square feet. An elevator was included and a basement garage provides 18 spaces; 23 surface parking spaces were also shown for a total of 41 spaces.

Michael Joyce said the project reduces impervious area by roughly 3,750 square feet compared with the current condition (existing building and surface parking) and will collect rooftop runoff and convey it to stone‑filled infiltration chambers beneath the parking; post‑development flows were described as reduced for the 2‑, 10‑, 25‑ and 100‑year events in accordance with MassDEP stormwater guidance. Traffic consultant Erin Fredette said Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation for 18 units yields about 10 peak‑hour trips, an increase of less than 1% of volume on C Street; she added the new Murphy Memorial Drive signal and adaptive signal coordination are expected to reduce local impacts.

Speakers from the public offered a mix of support and concern. Neighbors thanked the developer for design changes (no balconies facing adjacent yards, dense landscaping buffer along Murphy Memorial Drive) but raised issues about construction‑period impacts and whether city sewer and drain capacity in the broader watershed can handle larger storms. Planning staff recommended continuance to allow a peer‑review response and submission of a lighting plan and other technical updates. The board voted to continue the hearing to June 25 so staff and peer reviewers can complete their reviews and applicants can submit any requested additional material.

The applicant was asked to submit a photometrics/lighting plan and coordinate final sidewalk designs with DPW given the ongoing C Street reconstruction; the department indicated it would post peer review comments for public inspection and expected applicant responses in advance of the next hearing.