Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-12-PB-minLexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 12, 2023, Page 1 of 11 [DOCUMENT TITLE] | [Document subtitle] Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Thursday January 12, 2023, Virtual Meeting at 6:00 pm Present: Robert Peters, Chair; Michael Schanbacher, Vice-Chair; Melanie Thompson, Clerk; Robert Creech, Charles Hornig and Michael Leon, Associate Member. Also present were Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development; Abby McCabe, Planning Director; Ms. Sandhya Iyer, Economic Development Director; and Molly Belanger, Planner. Robert Peters, Chair, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Thursday, January 12, 2023, at 6:00 pm. For this meeting, the Planning Board is convening by video conference via Zoom. LexMedia is filming this meeting and will record it for future viewing. Detailed information for remote participation by the public may be found on the Planning Office web page. Mr. Peters conducted a roll call to ensure all members of the Planning Board and members of staff present could hear and be heard. Mr. Peters provided a summary of instructions for members of the public in attendance. It was further noted that materials for this meeting are available on the Town's Novus Packet dashboard. Board Administration Zoning Work Session: Multi-Family Housing Zoning for MBTA Communities. Public work session for Planning Board to develop zoning proposal for Annual Town Meeting. Mr. Peters said that the Board planned to continue the process of going through the proposed district maps. Ms. McCabe shared the presentation which detailed the continuation of the Public Work Session from January 4, 2023. Ms. McCabe suggested the Board members go through the maps showing the district boundaries and continue reviewing the districts and later review the text of the Zoning bylaw. Ms. McCabe gave a quick summary of the reason behind zoning for MBTA Communities and detailed the progress made by the Planning Board in this regard and the basis of decisions made by the Board. Ms. McCabe showed pictures of multi-family housing in Lexington for the Board to visualize the proposal. Ms. McCabe shared a map of Lexington which showed the areas that the Board was considering to include in the zoning for multi-family housing, based on the discussion by the members of the Board in their previous meetings. Ms. McCabe reminded the Board about their consensus to remove a few areas that were considered and about requiring first floor commercial uses in Lexington Center. The first area discussed by the Board was VLO Bedford St/Worthen Road. Ms. McCabe said that this area has the most acreage and would qualify as the large contiguous area that has to be proposed to comply with the State’s guidelines. The Board discussed the properties that were included in the district and agreed that this was a good location to include for zoning for MBTA Communities. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 12, 2023, Page 2 of 11 [DOCUMENT TITLE] | [Document subtitle] Public Comments Mr. Tom Shiple, 18 Phinney Road, had a question regarding the limits on commercial developments and said he wanted to put back limits on the commercial floor area ratio. Ms. Pam Hoffman 4 Range Way, Lexington, agreed with Mr. Shiple. Ms. Barbara Katzenberg, 37 Moon Hill Road, wanted to know why an adjacent property was not included. Mr. Hornig said that it had a conservation restriction. The Board unanimously favored the location. The next district discussed by the Board was VLO Bedford Street/Reed Street. Ms. McCabe described the locality with the help of a map and went over the properties that were included. Mr. Hornig raised the issue that connecting the two locations on either side of the bike path through DPW was not permitted for this sort of development. The Board discussed including adjacent properties on the even side of Bedford Street and excluding the DPW facility from the location. Public Comments Matthew Saradjian, 259 Bedford Street, wanted to know why the bus depot was included and asked where the buses would be parked, if it was developed. He also wanted to know whether, if the bus depot was not developed, it was ideal and safe to have a multi-family housing next to a school bus depot. Mr. Saradjian also wondered, since only one MBTA bus operates near this location, why this location was included, when other options with more bus services were available. Mr. Hornig said that with the proposed MBTA’s bus network redesign, the transportation situation will change for the better. The Board discussed whether the DPW facility should be included as part of the district. Mr. Schanbacher wanted to include DPW as part of the location in order to have extra acreage and flexibility with other locations, and if the Board decides to use a similar overlay strategy as adopted in Lexington Center. Mr. Hornig said that in the discussions during 186 Bedford St construction, one of the points discussed was having a consistent mixed-use plan for this portion of Bedford Street and so felt the inclusion of this area for multi-family zoning was a good strategy along those lines. Ms. Kowalski felt that it creates more opportunities to have the DPW facility included. The Board discussed and agreed that it is a good location to consider. The next location discussed by the Board was VLO-R Bedford/Ivan/Eldred Streets as a subdistrict of an overlay district. Mr. Creech felt that by rezoning Ivan Street, developers may feel encouraged to build 3 family housing at market rate and create very expensive housing resulting in the loss of existing well maintained houses that are more affordable. Mr. Creech said he is not in favor of including this location for zoning for multi-family housing. Mr. Hornig thought that since this district did not have any neighborhood retail commercial amenities available, this is a district where it is critical to permit limited commercial uses on the first floor and disagreed with making this a fully residential district. Mr. Hornig thought this was an opportunity to create better development patterns that would work in conjunction with the area across the street and create a better streetscape along Bedford Street. Mr. Schanbacher reiterated Mr. Hornig’s thoughts. Mr. Peters felt that this zone could work only by assembling a few lots, Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 12, 2023, Page 3 of 11 [DOCUMENT TITLE] | [Document subtitle] which could turn out to be a challenging process. Mr. Peters added that he cannot foresee using the existing curb cuts on Bedford Street for accessing the limited retail units that were proposed. Mr. Leon reminded the Board about the concession discussed in the previous meetings relating to this location, which included having a slightly lower height and not granting any bonuses for first floor commercial development, and felt that it will be a great location for multi-family housing. Mr. Hornig proposed that this district be classified as VLO instead of VLO-R. Mr. Creech preferred the classification to stay as VLO-R if the sub-district was considered. Mr. Schanbacher wanted the district to be called VLO. Mr. Peters said that if the district was moved into VLO or a different district, he would only support it if the bonus was reduced from 25 feet to 15 feet, and so he wanted it to be VLO-R. Public Comments Ms. Edna Luther, 28 Eldred Street, agreed with Mr. Creech that Ivan Street should stay zoned for residential but disagreed with the transition area and adding commercial units to the location. Ms. Luther also wanted multi-family units on 475 Bedford Street and wanted the buildings on 475 Bedford Street to be low-rise units. Mr. Paul O’Shaughnessy, 61 Ivan Street, agreed with Mr. Creech, said that the houses along Eldred and Ivan streets are some of the more affordable houses in the Town, did not agree with the idea of adding commercial units to the location, and wanted to maintain the existing zoning in the location. Ms. Dorothy Tribeman, 31 Drummer Boy Way, agreed with Mr. O’Shaughnessy and Mr. Creech, felt that, with the setbacks for the commercial buildings on Bedford Street, it is not overwhelming to have building of contrasting sizes, and felt there was no need for a change in the area on the North side of Bedford Street. Ms. Meg Bonnell Bradley, 20 Eldred Street, wanted the area to be residential and said she was concerned by the noise she heard from Revolution Hall in summers. Ms. Doris Wang, 12 Drummer Boy Way, wanted to know why the contrasting heights of buildings on Bedford Street were not taken into consideration when the South side of Bedford Street was rezoned, did not support commercial units on Ivan and Eldred streets, and felt that there was great opportunity to make Hartwell Avenue a vibrant mixed-use area that can be patronized by the whole neighborhood. Ms. Krista Lane, 59 Fifer Lane, said that Bedford Street does not look like a tunnel, added that it is not going to be a walkable neighborhood until sidewalks and crosswalks are built, and agreed with Ms. Wang regarding the opportunities present on Hartwell Avenue to promote mixed use. Ms. Lane said that she wanted to keep this area residential and reiterated that these homes were some of the few affordable homes in Lexington. Ms. Tina McBride, 45 Turning Mill Road, stressed that this was one of the most affordable neighborhoods in Lexington and felt that it should stay residential. Ms. McBride added that the first half portion of Hartwell Avenue should be zoned for mixed use. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 12, 2023, Page 4 of 11 [DOCUMENT TITLE] | [Document subtitle] Ms. Pam Hoffman, 4 Rangeway, wanted to know the permitted height allowance for commercial buildings on the south Side of Bedford Street and the stories that it would correspond to. Mr. Hornig said that the allowed height is 115 feet which allows 6 stories and a penthouse for the kinds of buildings that have been built. Ms. Hoffman explained to the audience about the letter she and a few other neighbors had sent to the Planning Board stressing that the Ivan/ Eldred Street area should be relinked with 475 Bedford Street and the Armory, the entire area should remain residential, and Hartwell Avenue should be zoned for mixed use. Ms. Prathima Patil, 2 Drummer Boy Way, felt that in order to maintain the character of the neighborhood, the area should continue to have only residential low-rise buildings. Mr. Bob Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue, agreed with the members of the community that the houses in this location were affordable and wanted to know if when the zoning was adopted, it would promote affordability in this neighborhood. Mr. Leon said that there is an inclusionary housing proposal as part of the bylaw and with increased density, there would be at least 10% affordable housing to begin with. Ms. Kowalski said that it will be some time before we have enough housing supply in response to the new State law, leading to more affordable housing in the region. Ms. Kowalski added that the State’s main intent for proposing the law is to address the housing crisis and to increase housing supply and stabilize the cost of housing. Mr. Hornig did spot research and concluded that some of the houses in the neighborhood were less affordable and some were more affordable, like any other neighborhood in Lexington. Mr. Hornig said he did not have any issues in considering this area as a mixed use, given the neighborhood amenities it enjoyed. Ms. Helen Theodosiou, 38 Drummer Boy Way, said that, with regards to 475 Bedford Street, expansion of housing stock and addition of affordable housing should be the prime goal and that the neighborhood character has to be maintained. Ms. Hoffman said she supports multi-family housing, but opposes mixed use in residential areas and that the new state law is for creating housing and not commercial development. Mr. Mauro Tedeschi, 34 Drummer Boy Way, wanted the Board to consider the traffic issues on Bedford Street and wanted to regulate the traffic especially with regards to mixed-use zoning for 475 Bedford St. Ms. McBride said that people welcome multi-family housing but oppose high rise buildings. Mr. Arnold Clickstein, 19 Drummer Boy Way, agreed with Ms. Hoffman and said that the Ivan/Eldred Street areas along with 475 Bedford Street have to remain residential. Ms. Donna Rossi, 509 Bedford St, said she supported housing, opposed mixed-use zoning and high-rise buildings, and expressed her concern about the high traffic that would result due to rezoning. Ms. Rossi believed mixed use should be confined to Hartwell Avenue and Ivan/Eldred St should stay residential. Ms. Ruth Thomas, 10 Parker Street, commented that there have been several 40B developments which require 20 to 25% affordable housing and, if developers could make profit from them, they can definitely profit from developing MBTA housing. Mr. Peters explained the State’s mandate and the requirement of 10% affordable units under this provision and that the Board was working within the parameters of the state law and DHCD guidelines. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 12, 2023, Page 5 of 11 [DOCUMENT TITLE] | [Document subtitle] Mr. Hornig summarized saying that he felt that this area was an appropriate place for multi-family housing, and he felt it was important for the neighborhood to have access to nearby retail services. Mr. Schanbacher agreed with Mr. Hornig and stressed the importance of mixed-use developments and how retail and residential can mutually support each other. Mr. Creech was opposed to the idea and said that the residents did not want Ivan/Eldred St to have tall buildings. He also said that this would not address the traffic mitigation plans for Bedford Street. Mr. Creech summarized by saying that if the area is considered, it has to be kept in the VLO-R with a 40 feet maximum height. Ms. Thompson said that this was not one of her favorites and agreed with the public’s dislike of having retail stores close by. Ms. Thompson said it is important to consider Bedford Street in a futuristic way and wanted the district to be VLO. Mr. Leon said he is not particularly convinced that this particular location would be ideal for mixed use. Mr. Peters said that this location would not be high on his list and if included he would lean towards VLO-R. Mr. Schanbacher added that with walkable and lower floor commercial use, a location very similar to Lexington Center will be created, which will lead to traffic calming down and solve the traffic problems. The Board recessed at 8:06 p.m. and reconvened at 8:11p.m. The Board discussed and decided to keep this location aside for the time being and revisit and discuss further on a later date, if needed. The Board next discussed VMO-1 (Bedford St/Hartwell Ave) and VMO-2 (Bedford St. North). Ms. McCabe shared a map of the location and went over the proposed height limits and the bonus for commercial units. The Board discussed VMO-2 and began their discussion on 475 Bedford Street and the Armory property. Mr. Peters recalled the current staff proposal for VMO-2 to be limited to 48 feet in height if residential only with a 20 ft bonus for mixed use. Mr. Hornig felt a little increase in height was appropriate, given the location and topography and also recommended limited neighborhood commercial uses on the first floor to create a walkable neighborhood. Ms. McCabe shared the slides prepared by Mr. Creech which showed an aerial view of 475 Bedford St. Mr. Creech went over the various features of the property and agreed with Mr. Hornig that the height can be increased a little due to the topography of the location and felt the staff proposal was reasonable. Mr. Schanbacher supported the proposal as presented. Mr. Leon supported the staff’s proposal and said that he felt that, due to the size of the property, it can tolerate more height, but was aware of the height sensitivity from the neighboring community. Mr. Leon felt that this location was great for mixed use and providing enough height on the ground floor will make a huge difference. Ms. Thompson agreed that this was a good location for multi-family. Mr. Peters said he was in favor of the 48 feet for residential and a 15 feet bonus for commercial, if commercial units were permitted. Public Comments Ms. Rossi said it was not possible to create a walkable neighborhood in this location and was against having retail in her neighborhood. Ms. Mary Hamilton, 23 Fifer Lane, felt that Bedford street is eminently walkable and felt it would be ideal to have mixed use on Hartwell Avenue. Ms. Hamilton said that the community around 475 Bedford Street wanted multi-family housing of a reasonable height without any commercial incentives. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 12, 2023, Page 6 of 11 [DOCUMENT TITLE] | [Document subtitle] Ms. Edna Luther, Ms. Tribeman, and Ms. Lane said that 475 Bedford St is a perfect place for multi-family housing, but opposed any forms of mixed-use developments. Mr. Tedeschi mentioned that the traffic problems will become worse if 475 Bedford Street was a mixed- use development and wanted to know what type of businesses will be permitted. Mr. Peters said that if the Board decided to go forwards with a commercial incentive, where the underlying zoning was residential, the type of permitted businesses will be limited to a set of businesses to be approved by the Board. Mr. Andreas Theodosiou, 38 Drummer Boy Way, said 475 Bedford St was zoned Residential and it should remain that way. Ms. Carol Coleman, 63 Fifer Lane, echoed Mr. Theodosiou’s thoughts. Ms. Keranie Theodosiou, 38 Drummer Boy Way, reiterated what Mr. Theodosiou and Ms.Coleman said and wanted to know the maximum permitted commercial square footage on commercial properties. Mr. Hornig said the Board had agreed that there should be no fixed ratio between residential and commercial, but there should be some multi-family in the development. Mr. Arnold Clickstein, 19 Drummer Boy Way, said that the focus should be on creating low rise multi- family housing in 475 Bedford Street. Ms. Patil echoed Mr. Clickstein’s views and added that adding commercial units would change the landscape and would create parking issues. Mr. Jerry Michelson, 3 Clyde Place, speaking on his own behalf, expressed his support for having first- floor retail in 475 Bedford Street, and was of the view that it would create neighborhood commercial amenities. Mr. Michelson said the limits of the ratio of residential to commercial units have to be discussed by the Board. Ms. McBride said that the focus should be on housing and not retail and stressed that this area does not need any commercial units. Ms. Theodosiou echoed Ms. McBride’s thoughts. Ms. Luther wanted to know, if there was no cap on the permitted commercial square footage, will a bio lab be permitted. Mr. Peters said there is no likelihood of a bio lab being a part of the multi-family developments. Mr. Theodosiou said that the Drummer Boy Community supported multi-family housing in general and commercial development on Hartwell, but they do not want commercial development right in the middle of a residential district. Ms. Lane and Ms. Rossi echoed Mr. Theodosiou’s thoughts. Mr. Hornig said he was concerned with both the communities pushing commercial and mixed-use developments to other neighborhoods. Mr. Creech said that the amount of ground floor commercial to be permitted should be clarified and he supported small service businesses and not big commercial or office space. Mr. Leon said the idea was to have a limited amount of ground floor commercial that would typically be 20 to 30% of the ground floor area, which would be small local businesses that provide neighborhood amenities. Mr. Leon added that this is a way of providing incentive to accommodate neighborhood service businesses on the ground floor. Mr. Schanbacher agreed with Mr. Hornig and Mr. Leon and stressed the need to define and clarify with the help of visuals and said that this was a very common type of development with retail services only on the ground floor to promote Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 12, 2023, Page 7 of 11 [DOCUMENT TITLE] | [Document subtitle] walkable neighborhoods. Ms. Thompson said that it has a great potential for multi-family housing. Mr. Peters said that he felt that properties that were zoned as residential should only be in the VLO-R, and so felt that 475 Bedford Street and the Armory property are appropriate for residential with a higher height limit. Mr. Creech said that the location can certainly support 48 feet and a developer could get four stories from that height and since residents are opposed to commercial, he wanted to support only residential. Mr. Hornig said that since the nearest property to this location was at a distance of 620 feet, a limited commercial neighborhood with friendly first floor commercial use and 60 feet height would be a good option. Mr. Schanbacher agreed with Mr. Hornig. The Board discussed and agreed to have this location zoned as VMO-R with 48 feet height limits and discuss at a later point whether to increase the height to 60 feet as it was on a location that could support that height. The next locations discussed by the Board were VMO-1 (South side of Bedford Street and Hartwell Avenue) and VMO-2 (North side of Bedford Street). Ms. McCabe reminded the Board about the members’ support to Ms. McCabe’s proposal to expand the overlay district onto Hartwell Avenue and suggested that the Board discuss further to arrive at the exact location. Ms. McCabe suggested the properties at the intersection of Hartwell Avenue and Bedford Street and along Maguire Road. Mr. Hornig said that he does not see any value in adding 12 Hartwell Avenue, since a large development was just approved by the Board and that it does not have any residential component in it. Mr. Hornig said that the meaning of mixed use in VMO-1, overlaying with CM District, needs to be established and also wanted to clarify the permitted height. Mr. Hornig proposed that no bonus is needed for commercial development because of the characteristics of the location, that the height limit in VMO-1 has to be the same as the underlying district, and so it would in reality be VHO with a height limit of 110 feet. Mr. Hornig said he would expand the southern side of this district to include 10 Maguire Road and properties on Westview Street. Mr. Schanbacher said that he had the same question as Mr. Hornig regarding the suggested height and agreed with Mr. Hornig regarding the viability of allowing only 48 feet including the bonus for commercial and added that a significant number of stories of residential is possible with 110 feet. Mr. Schanbacher favored the proposal and also favored expanding VMO-1 as suggested by Mr. Hornig. Ms. Iyer gave a brief background on the properties located on Maguire Road, extended her support for housing and mixed-use development on Hartwell Avenue to encourage first floor commercial on Hartwell Avenue, supported life science uses and have more dense development on Hartwell, and encouraged the Board to include more properties on Hartwell for the purpose of multi-family housing. Mr. Leon agreed with Mr. Hornig and Mr. Schanbacher to include more properties along Maguire Road for consideration and added that different sets of terms are required in the bylaw to accommodate standalone residential developments and agreed to increase the height limits to 100 feet. Mr. Creech said he does not agree with buildings over 110 feet and wanted to come up with a number between 48 and 110 and agreed that the properties on Maguire Road and Westview Street should be included. Mr. Peters agreed with Mr. Creech and said it is hard for him to visualize 110 feet apartment buildings in this district. Mr. Peters said that he supported the inclusion of properties on Maguire Road and Westview Street and agreed with Mr. Hornig to exclude 12-18 Hartwell from consideration. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 12, 2023, Page 8 of 11 [DOCUMENT TITLE] | [Document subtitle] Ms. Thompson thought it would be good to include Maguire Road and felt this location was ideal for mixed use. Mr. Schanbacher said the best approach to provide development opportunities in this area is to come up with a reasonable height for housing. The Board discussed and decided to remove 12-18 Hartwell Avenue from the district and include 10 Maguire Road in the district. Mr. Hornig said that the guidelines specify that these districts cannot have any special restrictions that are different from other uses and so 115 feet has to be permitted. Mr. Hornig was concerned that too many properties from Hartwell were included in the district, as that would lead to decrease in tax revenue for the Town. Ms. McBride and Ms. Hoffman expressed their support for the idea to have mixed use on Hartwell Avenue. The Board recessed at 10: 02 p.m. and reconvened at 10:06 p.m. The next location discussed by the Board was VLO Marrett Road and Waltham Street. Ms. McCabe gave a recap of the Board’s stand from the previous meetings. Mr. Peters and Mr. Creech felt that the location was not on the top of their lists, but did not have any problems with the location. Ms. Schanbacher supported this location as it was. Mr. Hornig said that, since some developers have expressed interest in promoting mixed use in this location, this location would provide an opportunity to see good outcomes, and that he was happy with the district as it was. Mr. Leon agreed with Mr. Hornig’s view. Ms. Thompson agreed that this location is a perfect location for mixed use. The next district discussed by the Board was VLO Marrett Road and Spring Street. Ms. McCabe gave a brief recap of the Board’s discussion from the previous meetings. The Board members reiterated their views from the previous meeting, that this was a good location for consideration. Public Comments Mr. Tom Shiple, 18 Phinney Road, favored both this location and the location in the intersection of Marrett Road and Waltham Street, welcomed redevelopment of the areas, and stressed the need for commercial units to create walkable communities. The next district discussed by the Board was VLO Concord Avenue and Waltham Street. Ms. McCabe reminded the Board of the inclusions made to the district in the previous meetings. Mr. Schanbacher supported this location as it was presented, with extra bonus for commercial units. All the other members of the Board extended their support for the location. Public Comments Mr. Michelson wanted to know the reason for exclusion of April Lane from consideration to the district and also wanted to know the process if a property like April Lane were to be developed today. Mr. Hornig said the reason for exclusion was the cumbersome process of getting the consent from all the owners of a condominium and assumed that a property like April Lane would be permitted by right if it were in the VLO. Ms. Barbara Katzenberg, 37 Moon Hill Road, gave some background on the corner property that was not included in the district and said that there is a lot of opportunity in that property. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 12, 2023, Page 9 of 11 [DOCUMENT TITLE] | [Document subtitle] The Board revisited the Ivan Street and Eldred Street intersection. Mr. Creech favored removing the location from consideration. Mr. Schanbacher stated that the issues along the entire corridor of Bedford Street had to be addressed eventually. Ms. Thompson and Mr. Peters agreed with Mr. Schanbacher and decided to take this district out of consideration. The Board discussed the VLO East Lexington area and went over the staff suggestions. The Planning staff had suggested splitting the districts one along the north side of Mass Ave and the other on the South side of Mass Ave and for having the area starting at Taft Avenue as residential only and for a height of 40 feet, allowing 3 floors residential, which was consistent with the underlying zoning. Mr. Hornig felt there was no need to split the districts and added that, if Mr. Shiple’s proposals were adopted, the commercial uses in that part of the district will have only limited commercial uses and the low impact friendly ones will have a height bonus of only 15 feet. Mr. Hornig said the buildings would be significantly smaller and it is important to have a consistent streetscape along Massachusetts Avenue. Mr. Hornig said that this was an opportunity to revitalize this location as a major secondary commercial center and hence the district should be VLO and not VLO-R. Mr. Hornig added that all the VLOs should only get a 15 feet height bonus if the underlying district is residential and only limited commercial uses will be permitted. Mr. Schanbacher supported the idea of making all of the proposed district as VLO along with Mr. Shiple’s proposals. Mr. Creech, Ms. Thompson, Mr. Leon and Mr. Peters supported the idea as well. The Board discussed the challenges in parking requirements this area would face due to the dimensional constraints of the location. Ms. Schanbacher said that this makes creating walkable communities all the more important. Public Comments Mr. Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, wanted to know why the district stopped at the Toyota Dealership and not continue further. Mr. Hornig said that the area is in the historic district and redeveloping is extremely difficult in the historic district. Review Planning Board sponsored zoning amendment articles submitted for Annual Town Meeting (time permitting): The Board decided to review the zoning amendment articles at a later meeting. Board Administration Staff Updates Ms. McCabe said that she did not have any staff updates. Board Member Updates Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 12, 2023, Page 10 of 11 [DOCUMENT TITLE] | [Document subtitle] Mr. Hornig updated the Board about the Special Permit Residential Committee’s progress in drafting motions for the public hearing and informed the Board about their upcoming meeting on January 17th at 8 a.m. Mr. Creech updated the Board about the Community Preservation Committee’s meetings and informed the Board that there were 19 applications for the Community Preservation Act funding. Upcoming meetings: Wed. Jan. 18, Wed. Feb. 1, Wed. Feb. 8 Mr. Peters reminded the Board about the upcoming meetings on January 18th, February 1st and February 8 th , and went over the anticipated agenda items for the meetings. Review of Meeting Minutes: 12/21/22 Mr. Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board approve the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Board held on December 21, 2022 as submitted tonight. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Adjourn Mr. Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of January 12, 2023. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 10.55 p.m Lex Media recorded the meeting. Material from the meeting can be found in Planning Board’s Novus Packet. List of Documents: 1. Multi-Family Housing Zoning for MBTA Communities –Community Workshop Map, Summary of Changes since 01.04.23, Proposed Village Overlay District Map,01.11.23 Draft Village Overlay Zoning REDLINED,01.11.23 Draft Village Overlay Zoning Bylaw Clean, Presentation Visuals. 2. Village Overlay District – Warrant Article Request, Village Overlay District Zoning Bylaw and Map Amendments 3. Supplemental Inclusionary Zoning Requirements for Village Overlay District - Revised Zoning Bylaw Amendments dt 1.11.23 4. Amend Zoning Map – Central Business District – CB Zoning Map Amendments- Public Hearing Notice 5. Modify Action Deadline for Major Site Plan review – February 1 Legal Ad for Public Hearing, Modify Site Plan Review Procedures – Notice of Public Hearing 6. Add Provisions for Minor Modifications to Approved Permits- Minor modifications Zoning Bylaw Amendments Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 12, 2023, Page 11 of 11 [DOCUMENT TITLE] | [Document subtitle] 7. Technical Corrections and Housekeeping – Technical Corrections and Housekeeping Zoning Bylaw