HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-14-PB-min
Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes
August 14, 2024
Page 1 of 10
Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board
Held on Wednesday August 14, 2024, Virtual Meeting at 6:00 pm
Planning Board members present: Michael Schanbacher, Chair; Robert Creech, Vice-Chair; Melanie
Thompson, Clerk; Robert Peters, Charles Hornig, and Michael Leon, associate member.
Also present were: Abby McCabe, Planning Director; Meghan McNamara, Planner; Carol Kowalski,
Assistant Town Manager for Development; and Kiruthika Ramakrishnan, Planning Coordinator.
Michael Schanbacher, Chair of the Planning Board, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning
Board on Wednesday, August 14, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. For this meeting, the Planning Board is convening by
video conference via Zoom. Lex Media is filming this meeting and is recording it for future viewing here.
The Chair explained the process and the procedure of the meeting.
Mr. Schanbacher conducted a roll call to ensure all members of the Planning Board and members of staff
present could hear and be heard.
Mr. Schanbacher 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. The
Board will go through the agenda in order.
Development Administration
89 Bedford St. – Continued public hearing for a major site plan review to relocate the historic
house to the front of the lot and construct a new multi-family building in the village overlay
district (hearing continued from 6/5 & 7/17)
Mr. Schanbacher re-opened the continued public hearing to review updates since the July meeting.
Application is for a major site plan review under §135-7.5 [Village & Multi-Family Overlay Districts] and
§135-9.5 [Site Plan Review] of the Zoning Bylaw and Article VI of §181-71 Stormwater Management
Regulations at 89 Bedford St.
The applicant FK Partners Lexington LLC was represented by Ben Finnegan. Also present were Jamie
Osborn, and Joe Peznola from Hancock Associates, architects Mark Moeller and Richard Morris from JSA
Design, and attorney Fred Gilgun.
Mr. Finnegan went over the changes made to the plan since their last meeting in July. Mr. Finnegan said
they made changes to the roof pitch of the new building to match the roof pitch of the historic house and
changed the transformer location to be near the bike shed, which is still subject to approval by the
electrical company. Mr. Finnegan stated that they have agreed to go all electric except for the generator
to eliminate fossil fuels in the building and that the new building will be solar ready. Mr. Finnegan added
that smoking will be prohibited in the exterior of the building and in all common spaces. He added that
exterior balcony lights will have individual motion sensors to avoid being left on overnight. Mr. Finnegan
said that the parking was reduced to 1.68 spaces per unit and a certified arborist will be engaged to
prepare the tree protection plan and that the landscaping will be maintained by the HOA in perpetuity.
Staff Comments
Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes
August 14, 2024
Page 2 of 10
Ms. McCabe informed the Board about the memos from Assistant Planning Director and the Peer
Reviewer and added that many of the staff comments have been addressed by the applicant including the
emergency egress path which will be now in the paved and be situated in the west side of the building.
Ms. McCabe added that the light posts in the parking area will be 12 feet to the top of the light fixture and
that the applicant has also updated their planting plan to have more variety of plant species and had
shared details of tree removal analysis. Ms. McCabe added that staff recommended that the tree bylaw
be waived so that the approved landscaping plan will be on record for the project. Ms. McCabe stated
that staff also recommends additional evergreen plantings to shield any possible headlight glare that could
go over the 6-foot fence. Ms. McCabe informed the Board that the applicant did not agree to the request
for a pedestrian flashing beacon light requested at the first hearing, but was amenable to helping the
Town if the Town were to apply for a State Grant to fund it.
Ms. McCabe asked the Planning Board members to discuss the item related to giving preference for locals;
people who live or work in Lexington, in two of the four inclusionary affordable units associated with this
project. Ms. McCabe informed the Board that since their last meeting, the Select Board had approved No
Parking signs in the front portion of Lois lane. Ms. McCabe mentioned the recommendation from the
Bicycle Advisory Committee to not have a separate storage shed for bikes and instead have provisions to
store the bikes in the garage. Ms. McCabe also shared that there were comments from the public
regarding their concerns related to traffic and drainage, which were forwarded to the Board members.
Ms. McCabe mentioned a neighbor’s request to postpone the installation of a bus shelter, and added that
staff supported the idea of having a bus shelter because that would encourage the use of public
transportation.
Peer Reviewer’s Comments
Bill Maher from Nitsch Engineering stated that the applicant has addressed all his comments. Mr. Maher
added that the applicant might have to add an extra area drain to prevent any puddling of water in the
northwest corner of the building. With the shift of the pathway from the easterly side of the building to
the westerly side, Mr. Maher said he had some concerns regarding erosion that could be caused by
running water on a smooth paved surface and hence asked the applicant to take some measures to slow
down the water in order to help prevent some erosion. He recommended a minor plan change that could
be considered as a condition of approval but has determined the project compliance with the Town’s
stormwater regulations.
Board Questions
Mr. Creech wanted clarification on why the height of the fence was 6 feet instead of the 7 feet mentioned
in the draft decision. Ms. McCabe explained the change was to comply with setback requirements. Mr.
Creech also wanted to know if the applicant explored his suggestion to move the entire building forward
by 6 feet and reduce the width of the rear units by 6 feet thereby increasing the distance between the
abutters and the building by 12 feet. Mr. Finnegan responded that there was a pinch point at the front
corner of the building which would prevent moving the building forward by 6 feet and reducing the width
of the rear units would have a negative impact on the layout of the units.
Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes
August 14, 2024
Page 3 of 10
Ms. Thompson stated that though she missed the previous hearing pertaining to 89 Bedford Street, she
had reviewed the materials and watched the video of the meeting to stay updated. She thanked the
applicant for going all electric.
Mr. Hornig asked the applicant if they had seen the staff’s proposed draft decision and if they felt if any
of the conditions were unreasonable. Mr. Finnegan responded that they had reviewed the draft decision
and that they felt that all the conditions were reasonable.
Mr. Peters asked the peer reviewer Mr. Maher if he was factoring the melting snow in the drainage
calculations. Mr. Peters also asked staff if the bus shelter’s location would warrant usage by commuters.
Ms. McCabe clarified that the bus shelter was in response to the recommendations made by the Town’s
transportation manager and the Transportation Advisory Committee.
Mr. Leon asked Mr. Finnegan if with the reduced parking, there would be sufficient parking for visitors
especially during holiday parties and such, which was one of the main concerns of the abutters. Mr.
Finnegan said he was confident that it would be good. Mr. Leon asked Mr. Finnegan if he felt that there
was any space to add a few more parking spaces in the future if there were any significant issues and Mr.
Finnegan said adding a few more in future is an option.
Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing for public comments.
Public Comments
Cerise Jalelian, 7 Lois Lane, expressed her concerns regarding stormwater management and asked the
Board to ensure that stormwater management regulations are complied with.
Tom Shiple, on behalf of the bicycle advisory committee, said the current proposal of bike and car parking
would encourage people to ride their bikes more and also give the site a clean and more pleasing
appearance. Mr. Shiple added that safe battery charging facilities should be provided for e-bike users.
Kunal Botla, Chair Transportation Advisory Committee, stated that the committee is supportive of adding
a bus shelter near the proposed development and to consider decoupling parking from units.
Mary Kate Franchetti, 97 Bedford Street, expressed her concerns regarding proximity of foliage to the grill
and the risks of its accessibility to anyone. Ms. Franchetti also expressed her concerns regarding traffic.
Richard Ruben, 11 Carol Lane, stated that the average house in Massachusetts is smaller than the size of
the proposed units.
Staff Comments
Ms. McCabe clarified that the peer reviewer has confirmed that the project complies with the Town’s
stormwater management regulations.
Board Comments
Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes
August 14, 2024
Page 4 of 10
Mr. Creech wanted clarification as to why someone didn’t want the bus shelter installed. Ms. McCabe
clarified that staff supports the inclusion of the bus shelter with a public easement in front of the property
and asked the applicant to slightly shift to the west to ensure clear visibility while accessing the driveway.
Mr. Creech also wanted clarification on the safety of e-bike charging stations and electric grills. Mr.
Finnegan responded that the electric grills can be designed to operate with a timer on their circuits and
similar circuits can also be added to the e-bike charging stations.
Mr. Peters asked the applicant if the water from melting snow was factored in the runoff calculations. Mr.
Peznola, the Project Engineer, responded that all but one of the snow storage areas is graded in such a
manner that it will drain into the stormwater system. Mr. Peters also asked the applicant if he had
considered decoupling the parking from the units. Mr. Finnegan responded that there will be one deeded
space per unit and apart from the 2 accessible spaces, the remaining 7 parking spots will be decoupled.
Mr. Peters asked the applicant if he had explored ground source heat pumps as a heating source. Mr.
Osborn responded that they did not consider ground source heat pumps as they are currently difficult to
maintain.
Mr. Hornig expressed his view that the project appeared to meet the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw
with the conditions imposed in the draft decision.
Mr. Creech added that he supported Mr. Leon’s proposal to consider adding a few more parking spots if
necessary in future to address the parking concerns of neighbors.
Ms. Thompson wanted clarification on how the decoupled parking spots will be utilized. Mr. Finnegan said
that the decoupled spots would be sold separately to a resident who wanted additional space.
Board Deliberations
Mr. Schanbacher also felt that the proposal meets all the regulations and standards put forth by the Board
and added that this would be the first application that the Planning Board would be approving under the
MBTA Communities Bylaw and hence it was a really important project both for the Board and the Town.
Mr. Schanbacher added that the location of the project on an existing bus line and also the addition of a
bus shelter as part of the project strengthened the purpose and commitment of the MBTA Communities
Bylaw. He also discussed the value of the bicycle shed to the project.
Mr. Hornig noted that local preferences had frequently been used in the past to exclude people from
communities. He recommended that the condition be dropped.
Mr Hornig also noted that it was not appropriate to require a monetary contribution for an off-site
improvement as a condition of approval. This condition should be dropped with the finding about the
applicant’s offer remaining.
Mr Creech felt that it would be appropriate to require that one two-bedroom unit have a local preference
rather than two.
Mr. Creech proposed that the grill shutoff and the e-bike charging stations be conditions of approval.
Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes
August 14, 2024
Page 5 of 10
Mr. Peters preferred to not require a local preference, or at least have it for only one unit. He also
supported e-bike charging.
Ms. Thompson supported e-bike charging. She also felt that, in this small project, the Town’s inclusionary
message is best communicated without a local preference.
Mr. Schanbacher supported e-bike charging. He also agreed with Ms. Thompson and this first project
should be inclusionary to all.
Ms. McCabe summarized the changes to the proposed conditions discussed by the Board.
Mr. Finnegan had no objection to the changes to the conditions.
Mr. Creech moved to close the public hearing on the site plan review application for 89 Bedford Street.
Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call:
Creech – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Peters- yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED
Mr. Creech moved to waive application of the Tree Bylaw because the project is best mitigated with the
proposed landscape planting plan that meets the tree mitigation requirements on the project site, and
through conditions of this approval requiring a tree protection prepared by a certified arborist. Ms.
Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech
– yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Peters- yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED
Mr. Creech moved to approve the draft decision with the findings and conditions prepared by staff
updated revised through August 14 with the conditions as modified during this evening's hearing. Ms.
Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech
– yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Peters- yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED
Mr. Creech moved to have the Chair sign the decision and correct any non-substantive changes such as
grammar, typos and for consistency. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in
favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Peters- yes;
Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED
5 & 7 Piper Rd. – Continued public hearing for a major site plan review proposal for a multi-
family development in the village overlay district (Continued from 5/22)
Mr. Schanbacher re-opened the public hearing to hear from the applicant on changes since the May
meeting.
The applicant Morgan Point LLC was represented by Philip Porter. Also present were Architect Daniel Riggs
from Embarc Design, Landscape Architect Mike Rettenmeier with MDLA and Engineer Michael Novak from
Patriot Engineering.
Mr. Riggs gave a brief overview of the project and went over the revisions made to the project in response
to the feedback received during the Planning Board meeting on May 22. He explained that the scale of
Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes
August 14, 2024
Page 6 of 10
the project was reduced both in terms of the number of units (from 59 to 46) and parking spaces (101 to
88) and also the size of the buildings. Mr. Riggs added that based on geotechnical testing and mapping,
the stormwater management system was relocated to increase its efficiency. Mr. Riggs explained that
more open space was created with the revised plans. Mr. Riggs shared the revised architectural plan and
the parking design and provided details of bike storage and pedestrian connection between the buildings.
Mr. Riggs provided details of the change in locations of the EV charging stations and garage entry in
response to comments received from the Fire department. Mr. Riggs stated that the tree planting plan
and lighting plan was updated in response to the comments received from Planning staff. Mr. Riggs also
shared the perspective renderings of the building from different directions showing the effects of the revisions
made to the plan.
Staff Comments
Ms. McCabe said she appreciated the applicant’s efforts in making the changes to the plan to
accommodate the concerns from staff and abutters and providing perspective renderings for a better
understanding of the project. Ms. McCabe stated that all the concerns of the fire department from the
earlier meeting were addressed and added that staff favored the underground parking as it creates a less
impervious surface. Ms. McCabe added that she also favored the varying sizes of units and the outdoor
courtyard area.
Ms. McCabe stated that the staff had some concerns which are outlined in the staff memo from Ms.
McNamara and would like them to be addressed in the future revisions including raising the clearance for
the parking garage and modification to the parking to meet with parking design standards in zoning bylaw.
Ms. McCabe asked the applicant to provide tree removal calculations and details of proposed plantings to
ensure the requirements of the tree bylaw are complied with. Ms. McCabe also asked the applicant to
provide the average natural grade and height forms and calculations related to earth removal. Ms.
McCabe added that the revised proposal requires six inclusionary affordable units and said that the
recommendation to the applicant is to have two of each unit size dispersed throughout the property.
Ms. McCabe reminded the Board about the comments received from abutters and the bicycle advisory
committee which were forwarded to them before the meeting and asked the applicant to provide a
revised set of plans and narrative response for their next meeting before the Board.
Peer Reviewer’s Comments
Mr. Bartlett, the peer reviewer, stated that the applicant had made significant changes to address most
of the concerns raised by him during the previous meeting and added that he wanted more information
on the hydrology analysis for the roof runoff to get a better idea of how the roof runoff is collected and
brought to the recharge systems. Mr. Bartlett also asked the applicant to provide construction details and
added that there are some data gaps on the northern end of the recharge area and asked for more testing
in that area to document their proposed design. Mr. Bartlett also asked the applicant to provide more
details on the recharge system and recommended connecting the two separate systems for better
efficiency. Mr. Bartlett asked for revised plans to ensure the garage entrance was not flooded in the event
of severe storms and asked for details pertaining to pipe penetrations to protect the foundation from
flooding and asked for details on the water and sewer crossings on Piper Road.
Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes
August 14, 2024
Page 7 of 10
Board Questions
Mr. Hornig asked the applicant if he will be able to resolve the concerns raised by staff and the peer
reviewer. Mr. Porter responded that he was confident that all the issues are addressable.
Mr. Peters asked the applicant if he considered the recommendation from the Board to decouple parking
from the units. Mr. Porter said that he is open to considering that recommendation. Mr. Peters asked the
applicant if the building will be all electric and Mr. Porter confirmed that it was. Mr. Peters asked the
applicant if they had considered a ground source heat pump as a source of heating and Mr. Porter
responded that the site is not suitable for that but instead they are exploring options for a heat pump.
Ms. Thompson asked for revised renderings that would help get a better idea of the proposed building
from the perspective of abutters from all sides. Mr. Porter said he will provide the renderings.
Mr. Leon appreciated the attractive architectural design of the building and asked details of the visitor
parking spots. Mr. Porter said that currently they are providing 7 spaces. Mr. Leon also asked for access
details to the eastern open space and Mr. Porter provided the details. Mr. Leon asked if the applicant will
be providing e-bike charging stations in the bike storage area and Mr. Porter responded that they will
provide. Mr. Leon pointed out the peer reviewer’s comment about the lack of information about the
groundwater recharge capability of the new groundwater systems and asked the applicant if head any
back up plans to provide supplemental stormwater recharge on the site. Mr. Novak, responded that he
has a couple of potential solutions and he will provide the details in the next response.
Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant if the fire department had any concerns over the parking garage
stacker system. Mr. Porter said he will work with the fire department to ensure their requirements are
complied with and more information is typically provided at the building permit stage. Mr. Schanbacher
wanted to know if the applicant had any purpose other than the dog park over the infiltration system. Mr.
Riggs responded that it is primarily open green space, which will be flexible for people to play any sport
or games. Mr. Schanbacher felt that this space can be more appropriately used as some sort of playground
instead of the current space designated as play area. Mr. Riggs said that they will explore that option.
Public Comments
Bob Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue, asked the Board to stress that the geotechnical study recommended by
the initial reviews of the Peer reviewer be done.
Steve Heinrich, 11 Potter Pond, asked for a better location of the play area to ensure safety of the kids
and added that he was very impressed with the revised design.
Kunal Botla, Chair of the Transportation Advisory Committee, reiterated the committee’s support for
installing a bus shelter and also requested a contribution to the Town’s traffic demand management fund
to support services and infrastructure and also encouraged decoupling of parking and units.
Arleen Chase of Temple Emunah expressed her major concern towards public safety and asked for revised
plans for access to fire trucks and large vehicles.
Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes
August 14, 2024
Page 8 of 10
Chadi El Saleeby, 8 Piper Road, expressed his concern regarding the number of visitor parking spaces and
asked for clarity on the timeline for construction.
Staff Comments
Ms. McCabe stated the Town’s Transportation and Safety Group will review the request for adding no
parking signs on Piper Road and make their recommendations to the Select Board for consideration.
Mr. Porter corrected his response to Mr. Peters’ question regarding the building being all electric and
added that they were planning for gas for cooking and for grills in the courtyard.
Ms. McCabe recommended the Temple install signage and explore options to come up with a turnaround
area to guide people straying into the Temple’s property unintentionally and asked the applicant to do a
sight line analysis at the corner of Piper Road and Waltham Street.
Board Comments
Mr. Creech asked for directional signs along the property directing users to the location of parking and
asked the applicant if he would consider allowing the neighbors on Piper Road to use the exercise facilities
in his development. Mr. Creech shared his idea of a roundabout with the Board, which will give a safe
turnaround for people when they had gone too far into the property.
Mr. Hornig asked the applicant if they were confident that they would be able to address the issues and
concerns raised by staff and peer reviewers for the Planning Board meeting to be held on September 25th.
The applicant said that he was confident.
Mr. Peters encouraged the applicant to consider developing the building as an all-electric building and to
also have open discussions with the Temple to arrive at solutions for traffic and trespass.
Mr. Schanbacher appreciated the change to the central open space and the reduction in the scale of the
project and asked the applicant to reassess some of the initial findings and explore better alignments. Mr.
Schanbacher suggested minimizing the vertical elements in the design and reemphasizing the horizontals.
Mr. Schanbacher applauded the applicant for coming up with the architectural design and for their
presentation comparing the original and revised designs in the same slide, which helped in better
understanding the revisions.
Mr. Creech moved to continue the site plan review public hearing for the 5-7 Piper Rd. application to
Wednesday, September 25 at or after 6:00 pm on Zoom. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The
Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Peters-
yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED
Board Administration
Board Member Updates
Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes
August 14, 2024
Page 9 of 10
Mr. Creech briefly updated the Board about the Town Manager Search Screening Committee, which will
recommend finalists after their August 22 meeting.
Staff Updates – Annual Report due Sept. 12
Ms. McCabe informed the Board about the recent changes in state law pertaining to accessory dwelling
units and that the Town Counsel’s recommendation was to review the Zoning Bylaws and bring forward
any amendments that may be required. Ms. McCabe recommended that the Board review the regulations
in the next couple of months and come up with amendments to be made during the next annual Town
Meeting. Ms. McCabe also reminded the Board about the Annual Report of the Planning Board that will
be due on September 12th and that she would come up with a draft for the next Planning board Meeting.
Review of Draft Meeting Minutes: 7/31/24
Mr. Creech moved that the Planning Board approve the draft Minutes of the meeting held on 07/31/24
as presented. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-
0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Peters- yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION
PASSED
Upcoming Meetings: 8/28, 9/11, 9/25, 10/9, 10/23
Ms. McCabe reminded the Board about the upcoming meetings and the proposed agenda items.
Adjournment
Mr. Creech moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of August 14, 2024. Ms. Thompson
seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes;
Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Peters- yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED
Meeting adjourned at 8:44 p.m. Lex Media recorded the meeting.
Material from the meeting can be found in the Planning Board’s Novus Packet.
List of Documents
1. 89 Bedford St: Staff memo #3 dated 08.08.24, Peer reviewer’s memo #3 dated 08.08.24, full link
to application material (latest material uploaded here
https://lexingtonma.portal.opengov.com/records/89324 ) Architectural Plan set, Peer Review
memo, Staff memo, crosswalk memo, average natural grade worksheet forms, Stormwater
report dated June 21, 2024, Permit Site Plan, Live Load Analysis, SITESv2Scorecard, perspective
renderings, light fixture cut sheets, tree removal analysis, construction mitigation plan,
stormwater management plan, LEED Checklist, Response to DRT comments, Neighborhood
meeting notes, preliminary construction management plan, project narrative, preliminary
signage, zoning summary, design checklist, Historic House construction memo, Bike Shed plan,
Traffic Study, Bicycle Advisory Committee comments, Inclusionary Housing comments,
Inclusionary dwellings narrative, solar energy efficiency narrative
List of Public Comments:
Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes
August 14, 2024
Page 10 of 10
a. Electronic Mail from Cerise Jalelian to Planning Board, Subject: 91 Bedford/ August
14,2024 Hearing/ Jalelian Letter, dated August 5 ,2024
b. Electronic Mail from Tom Shiple on behalf of Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee to
Planning Director, Subject: LBAC Feedback on 89 Bedford and 331 Concord, dated July
22,2024
c. Snail Mail from Marcia Steere to Planning Director and the Planning Board members,
dated August 7 ,2024
d. Electronic Mail from Mary Kate Franchetti, Subject: 89 Bedford Street- Public Hearing,
with an attached document dated August 8,2024
2. 5 & 7 Piper Rd: Peer Review Memo #2 dated August 2, 2024, Staff memo dated August 9, 2024.
full link to application material (latest material uploaded here:
https://lexingtonma.portal.opengov.com/records/88884 ) Architectural Plan set, Peer Review
memo, Staff memo, Neighborhood meeting notes, Project timeline, Fire truck turning radius
sketch, RHSO Housing memo for Inclusionary dwellings, construction management plan, request
for continuance/ extension of constructive approval date, Site plan submission, Flow test report,
project narrative, preliminary signage, zoning narrative, design checklist, average natural grade
worksheet forms, Stormwater Management report dated April 12,revised July 21,2024, peer
review memo response, perspective renderings, Inclusionary dwelling unit narrative, definitive
site development plan set, DRT summary response, construction mitigation plan, LEED Checklist,
SITESv2Scorecard, solar energy efficiency narrative. Visual sketch of Piper Road turnaround from
Mr. Creech.
List of Public Comments:
a. Electronic Mail from David Lees, Subject: Comments for June 5,2024 meeting, dated June
3 ,2024
b. Electronic Mail from David Towers to Planning Board, Subject:5-7 Piper Road- Village &
Multi- Family Site Plan Application, dated August 3 ,2024
c. Electronic Mail from Cerise Jalelian to Planning Board, Subject: 91 Bedford/ August
14,2024 Hearing/ Jalelian Letter, dated August 5 ,2024
d. Electronic Mails from John Wiser to Planning Director, Subject: Re- 5-7 Piper Rd: Wed
Aug.14 Planning Board Zoom Meeting dated August 12 ,2024
e. Electronic Mail from Arleen Chase on behalf of Temple Emunah to the Lexington Planning
Board, along with a letter to the Planning Board and pictures of trespass of truck from 5-
7 Piper Rd, dated July 12 ,2024
f. Electronic Mail from Rabbi David Lerner to Planning Board, Subject: letter from Rabbi
David Lerner of Temple Emunah 2 5/7 Piper Road, dated August 13 ,2024
g. Electronic Mail from Kunal Botla, Chair Transportation Advisory Committee to Planning
Board Chair, with an attachment Subject: 89 Bedford Street, 231 Bedford Street, and 5-7
Piper Road Comments — Transportation Advisory Committee, dated June 12,2024
3. Draft meeting minutes from July 31, 2024.