Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-01-15-PB-min Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 15, 2025 Page 1 of 14 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday January 15, 2025, Virtual Meeting at 6:00 pm Planning Board members present: Michael Schanbacher, Chair; Robert Creech, Vice-Chair; Melanie Thompson, Clerk; Charles Hornig; and Michael Leon, associate member. Also present were: Abby McCabe, Planning Director; Meghan McNamara, Assistant Planning Director; and Carolyn Morrison, Planning Coordinator. Michael Schanbacher, Chair of the Planning Board, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, January 15, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. For this meeting, the Planning Board is convening by video conference via Zoom. LexMedia 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 , with the exception of the 75 Outlook Drive/Effie Place item. 75 Outlook Drive will be addressed immediately following 231 Bedford Street, then the agenda will continue as published. Mr. Schanbacher noted Board member Robert Peters is not present and submitted his formal resignation from the Planning Board, effective immediately. The Planning Board will have four (4) voting members on items when associate member Mr. Leon cannot be elevated to a voting member status. Development Administration 231 Bedford Street – Continued Public Hearing for a major site plan review application for a multi-family development in the village overlay [VO] district (continued from 9/11/2024 and 11/20/2024). Ms. McCabe informed the Board the applicant has submitted a request to continue the hearing without further discussion until the Board’s Thursday January 30, 2025 meeting. The applicant has also submitted a request to extend the final action deadline to February 28, 2025. Board Comments Mr. Hornig noted that the applicant has requested multiple continuances and is not meeting with the Conservation Committee until February 3, 2025. Mr. Hornig expressed concern there would not be enough new material to warrant meeting on January 30, 2025 regarding this project. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 15, 2025 Page 2 of 14 Staff Comments Ms. McCabe advised that the applicant has received the Peer Review feedback, but has not submitted all materials requested by the peer reviewer or the Conservation Committee. She anticipates the possibility of a further continuance at the January 30, 2025 Planning Board Meeting. Mr. Creech moved to accept the Applicant's request to continue the public hearing for the proposal at 231 Bedford Street to Thursday, January 30, 2025 at or after 6:00 pm on Zoom and to accept the Applicant's request to extend the final action deadline to February 28, 2025 . Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4 -0-0 (Roll call: Hornig – yes; Creech – yes; Thompson – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. 75 Outlook Drive (Effie Place) – Lot release request and change in performance guarantee Ms. McCabe introduced the applicant, Mr. Eduardo Alvarez. Ms. McCabe gave a brief overview of the project and explained applicant is requesting to release the remaining 3 lots from the covenant and will put up a new tripartite agreement for $70,578.43 as a performance guarantee. Ms. McCabe recommended accepting the new perf ormance guarantee and releasing the remaining lots from the covenant. Mr. Creech moved to accept the tripartite agreement in the amount of $70,578.43 with Dedham Savings Bank as the new performance guarantee to complete the ways and municipal services to serve the lots (A, C & D) to be released from the covenant, in accordance with the attached cost estimate exhibit revised through January 9, 2025. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Hornig – yes; Thompson – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Mr. Creech moved to release all the lots (A, C, & D) from the covenant recorded at the South Middlesex Registry of Deeds on August 9, 2022 in Book 80557 Page 474 for 75 Outlook Drive the Effie Place Site Sensitive Residential Special Permit Development. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes; Creech – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED 3-4-5 Militia Drive – Continued Public Hearing for a major site plan review application for a multi-family development in the village overlay [VO] district. Mr. Schanbacher re-opened the public hearing for the major site plan review application at 3, 4, 5 Militia Drive, continued from November 6, 2024. He noted that Mr. Leon had been elevated to voting member in anticipation of an absence by Mr. Creech. Mr. Creech will now be present, however due to the resignation of Mr. Peters, Mr. Leon will remain a voting member on this application. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 15, 2025 Page 3 of 14 The applicant team included: Fredrick Gilgun of Nicholson, Sreter, and Gilgun, attorney for the applicant; Adam Siegel of SGL Development; Brendan Seaver of BMS Partners; Matthew Curtis and John Gates, property owners; Michael Liu and Sam Buckens of The Architectural Team; Katie Enright and Ian McKinnon, engineers at Howard Stein Hudson; and Bruce Lee of Lee Partners of New England, commercial real estate broker. Also present was the Board’s peer review consultant from McKenzie Engineering Group, Austin Chartier. Mr. Gilgun shared revisions made to the plans since their last presentation to the Planning Board, notably removing one story from the East building and the removal of 19 residential units from the proposed plan. Mr. Gilgun discussed the waivers submitted for the application and outlined the revisions bringing the applicant into compliance for bicycle parking. It is the applicant team’s position that stormwater harvesting for irrigation is desirable, but not required , and would not hinder this application from moving forward. Mr. Siegel highlighted the thought put into the revised plans based on feedback from the Planning Board and public from the last meeting. He discussed the outreach the development team has done in order to address these concerns, including further renderings of street views and shadow studies. Mr. Liu and Mr. Buckens shared slides detailing the changes made to the size, location and setback, façade layout, and materials of the buildings in order to meet concerns of the Planning Board and residents. Mr. Buckens explained the changes, including removal of all ground-floor residential units from the West building, expanded bicycle storage, moving the garage back to provide a larger setback, removal of the proposed pickleball court on top of the garage, moving all transformer and electrical equipment to the rear of the buildings, and significant changes to the materials used in the façade and their layout. He also cited refinement of the stormwater infiltration system. Mr. Buckens addressed comments from the Lexington Fire Department about fire lane requirements and access. He explained they are still researching wayfinding signage and elements to minimize confusion on the tight layout. Mr. Buckens shared additional aerial views and rendered designs requested at the last Planning Board meeting. Mr. Buckens and Mr. Liu presented views showing elevation details compared to surrounding properties and neighborhood. Mr. Liu detailed the color studies and material options to refine his understanding of the Planning Board’s preferences. Ms. Enright shared slides detailing the stormwater revisions based on peer review and public feedback. The revised plans show additional subsurface system capacity to retain and process expected runoff from abutting wooded area. Ms. Enright also indicated that patios on the ground floor had been removed to minimize any potential interference with the subsurface systems. Ms. Enright detailed additional bicycle racks added to plans, and indicated applicant is agreeable to Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 15, 2025 Page 4 of 14 adding a bicycle rack near the public playground. She also discussed the movement of electrical transformers away from Militia Drive sight lines. Ms. Enright spoke to the water and sewer study results. The water study confirms that the Town of Lexington has adequate capacity to supply water to the proposed development. The draft results of the sewer study indicate adequate capacity as well. Ms. Enright then spoke to the revised lighting plan and indicated further revisions are forthcoming in the next plan set. Mr. McKinnon detailed traffic studies and indicated all major intersections would be able to operate at acceptable levels with minimal impact. He indicated the applicant will become a member of the 128 Business Council. Mr. McKinnon noted they have received the request from the Bicycle Advisory Committee for e-bike charging stations for residents and commercial use. Mr. Lee provided a history of past commercial tenants and expectations of potential future tenants. Staff Comments Ms. McNamara summarized the staff memo dated December 10th, 2024, highlighting three outstanding items. She expressed concern about the exact size of the commercial space and explained that pursuant to Zoning bylaw §7.5.5.10a, 30% of Gross Floor Area (GFA) must be dedicated to commercial principal uses in order to qualify for the 60’ height bonus. She asked the applicant to clarify dimensions and details of commercial use space as opposed to private residential tenant amenities, calling out the pool area specifically, to ensure this minimum is met. Ms. McNamara addressed the parking requirements of the site, noting the applicant is exceeding minimum parking requirements for the proposed residential units. She presented multiple scenarios of commercial tenants and the parking that would be required in those scenarios and asked the Planning Board to provide guidance on the proposed parking count given the uncertainty of the commercial tenants. Ms. McNamara requeste d that the dimensions of the loading bay area be provided along with an explanation of vehicle movement and turning diagrams through the space, as Zoning bylaw §5.1.13.1e requires vehicles to be driven in a forward direction. Ms. McNamara noted the applicant is required to submit an RDA to the Conservation Commission, which she understands is forthcoming. She asked this application be submitted prior to the next Planning Board hearing. Ms. McNamara notes the plans appear to show sufficient long-term and short-term bicycle parking, but asks the applicant to provide dimensions on the bicycle storage rooms to confirm. Ms. McNamara confirmed the applicant is required to provide revised lighting plans to meet the Zoning bylaw requirements. She noted that some proposed luminaires that have a higher Kelvin rating than required in the bylaws. She asks the applicant to review all proposed lighting to ensure compliance. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 15, 2025 Page 5 of 14 Ms. McNamara discussed the conservation restriction on adjacent property, noting the property and trails therein do not allow for public access. She asks the applicant to revise plans to remove the walkway leading to this area. Ms. McNamara informed the applicant that Conservation staff ask the applicant consider installing a fence along the shared boundary to discourage access in the future from tenants or residents. Ms. McNamara requested that the applicant reconsider the location of the group 2 accessible units, citing the distance a handicapped tenant may need to travel from the garage to their residential unit. Ms. McNamara states staff agrees with the applicant’s position on the stormwater harvesting regulation and the applicant does not require a waiver. She notes that this regulation has been waived for other projects under MBTA zoning. Ms. McNamara agrees the waivers regarding bicycle parking regulations can be eliminated once the applicant provides the requested dimensions and details of the bicycle parking rack. Ms. McNamara states staff recommends the Planning Board not waive tree bylaw jurisdiction due to new requirements under the tree bylaw. The applicant will be required to submit a separate tree removal permit application through the Tree Warden and Department of Public Works due to the volume of proposed hazardous tree removal. Peer Reviewer Comments Mr. Chartier summarized the scope of his peer review for this meeting. He confirmed the water and sewer capacity studies show sufficient supply to the site. He noted the water study did not review fire demands and the sewer station involved in the study would be near to capacity. He expects both items to be addressed when the applicant files for building and sewer permits. He is satisfied with the applicant’s revisions to the stormwater infiltration systems, but asks the applicant confirm their calculations using the NOAA Atlas 14 Atlas of Precipitation to follow Lexington stormwater management regulations. He also asks the applicant incorporate additional details into the plans. Mr. Chartier detailed their recommended conditions of approval for the Board’s consideration. He noted most recommended conditions are tied to the construction phase of the development. Ms. Enright replied to Mr. Chartier’s review and requested the applicant team be allowed to complete construction documents prior to responding formally to many of the conditions. Board Questions Mr. Hornig suggested the applicant coordinate with Grace Chapel and Douglass Funeral Home to create a more permanent path from the site to Grace Chapel, as there is currently an informal path through the restricted conservation land that should not be used. Mr. Hornig questioned the overall building height and if calculations include a parapet. He recommended adjusting plans to allow for greater variance in final height calculations to ensure final building is within the 60’ Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 15, 2025 Page 6 of 14 height limitation. Mr. Hornig requested the plans on file match the plans presented for the next Planning Board meeting. Mr. Leon was surprised that the East building remains at 60’, given the removal of one floor. Mr. Leon addressed public comments, specifically from and regarding Greeley Village. He requested further clarification on the shadow studies and impacts , which Mr. Buckens provided. Mr. Leon questioned the accessibility of the western common area and requested details on the slope calculations to ensure accessibility. Mr. Buckens provided slope grades and confirmed the accessibility of the amenity area. Mr. Podesky advised there is an accessible corridor through the West building to the area as well. Mr. Leon reviewed the traffic study and requested fur ther details and clarification on the level of service at the surrounding intersections. Mr. McKinnon detailed their data points and explained they are working with Lexington to re-time the lights to adapt to new traffic patterns. Mr. Leon questioned the snow management plan for the site. Ms. Enright confirmed most snow will be hauled off-site. Mr. Leon revisited the question of the commercial space, meeting the 30% GFA requirement, and how that would impact parking requirements. He raised the concern that this must be true public use space, not an amenity for residents only. He encourages the applicant to consider what tenants would be viable and successful in the development. He cautions certain types of businesses may suffer from limited visibility from the main road, Worthen Road. He asked Mr. Lee to expand on expected lease rates and occupancy. Mr. Lee responded, citing the existing older buildings with limited accessibility as a detrimental factor to existing leases. He expects updated, accessible buil dings to be highly desirable to future commercial tenants. Mr. Leon followed up with Ms. McNamara on restaurant parking requirements and asked if all commercial space could support restaurant. Ms. McNamara clarified if the applicant changes designation of residential parking spaces, they could meet parking requirements of all possible commercial needs. Mr. Leon suggested the Planning Board include conditions regarding the protection of trees on abutting properties during construction and questioned if they would be able to incorporate such conditions if they defer entirely to the Tree Warden. Ms. Thompson requested that the applicant provide further details about the changes made to the size of the buildings and parking. Mr. Buckens replied with additional details. Ms. Thompson asked if the building is actually smaller in square footage and how that impacts the visual appearance of the size. She requested additional visuals showing the reduced size and setbacks, particularly from Greeley Village, a clearer comparison to original plans to highlight size reductions, and overall incorporation with the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Thompson asked the applicant to provide interior renderings. Mr. Creech expressed appreciation of the new façade materials and layouts. He noted the lot is blanketed with structure and prefers the site to not be as dense. He stated the parking appears satisfactory, but will reflect further. He questioned if 5 -10 minutes was sufficient for short-term parking. Mr. Creech’s opinion is that electric-bike charging stations are a necessity. Mr. Creech Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 15, 2025 Page 7 of 14 re-iterated the need for a current set of plans prior to the Planning Board meeting, citing the fire truck turn around and the pool area. He cautioned that the emergency generator may produce disruptive noise to abutters. Mr. Creech addressed the abutting conservation land. He encouraged screening or plantings to discourage human trespass without hindering wildlife. He appreciated Mr. Lee’s reassurances about potential tenants in the commercial space and encourages him to consider pricing flexibility in case there are any difficulties leasing the space. Mr. Creech questioned the amenity space in the West Building, next to the pool area, and its future use. He suggested meeting space, open space, or exercise equipment. Mr. Buckens stated they intend to keep it open for residential use. Mr. Creech requested further details about HPL panels and lap siding, agreeing with the architectural team on the necessity of durable and low maintenance materials. He asked the applicant to provide more detail on vegetative screening panels on the garage and how that will be implemented at the next Planning Board meeting. Mr. Schanbacher questioned discrepancies between the plans filed and the plans presented, citing the East building and lofted ground floor units. He confirmed with Mr. Buckens that mass timber is no longer being considered as a construction material. Mr. Schanbacher questioned if parking will be unbundled from unit costs. Mr. Siegel confirmed parking will be unbundled. Mr. Schanbacher advised that the Regional Housing Services Office recommends a 60% discount on parking spots for Inclusionary units. The Board recessed at 8:03 p.m. and reconvened at 8:08 p.m. Public Comments Shinu Singh, Robinson Hill, stated her surprise at receiving unsolicited email from the developer after the November 6, 2024 Planning Board meeting. She requested to not be contacted or have her contact information shared. Ms. Singh expressed her concerns about the duration of the demolition and construction, impacts to traffic, noise, and air quality for abutters and wildlife. She believes the changes mentioned are not obvious to a layperson. Tom Shiple, 18 Phinney Road, on behalf of the Bicycle Advisory Committee, stated they have not seen formal response to the letter submitted for the November 6, 2024 public hearing. He notes there is movement in the correct direction, but asks for a formal response. Mark D, Stratham Road, expressed his overall support of site upgrades. He expressed concerns about the tree canopy due to planned tree removal around the boundary of the site, noting several useful walking paths that would be impacted. He supports the staff recommendation to not waive the tree bylaw. Lisa Newton, 15 Ledgelawn Avenue, shared Ms. Singh’s concerns about sharing personal information. Ms. Newton observed that there may be more room to adjust the site if it were not so densely developed. She expressed confusion regarding the parking bylaws and expressed Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 15, 2025 Page 8 of 14 opposition to allowing Grace Chapel to have parking on-site in addition to the residential parking. Ms. Newton is skeptical of the traffic study. She is appreciative of the plans to re-time the lights to mitigate traffic impacts. Ms. Newton is still concerned with the height of the buildings and the shadows they will cast on the state-funded building at Greeley Village. Steve Wilson, Hill Street, noted there are multiple projects in the area and asked if they had been considered in the traffic and impact studies. He expressed doubt of the traffic study results. He encouraged a more robust natural barrier between this site and Greeley Village. Mr. Wilson does not support the size of the project. Jay Luker, Precinct 1 Town Meeting Member and Transportation Advisory Committee member, questioned if sewer capacity was something for the applicant to address and requested clarity. He spoke to the need to encourage alternative transportation and noted that minimizing traffic impacts should not be the main focus in developing a robust active transportation plan. He approves of the project and location. Sumitra Sujanani, 29 Ledgelawn Avenue, questioned how changes will impact residents of Greeley Village. She spoke to shadow studies and light spillage concerns. Ms. Sujanani questioned the true overall height of the buildings and stormwater operating capacity. She requested the applicant consider owner occupation and architectural design. Robin Kutner, 70 Paul Revere Road, echoed Mr. Luker’s comments and highlighted the importance of additional housing in an ideal location. She questions if the garage could be open to minimize its monolithic appearance. John Bernhard, Robinson Hill, supports comments made by Ms. Newton and Mr. Wilson. He supports unbundled parking and promoting the active transportation narrative. Caileen Foley, Executive Director of the Lexington Housing Authority, is appreciative of Mr. Siegel’s prompt and attentive responses to previous concerns. She would like to see additional renderings of the project from the view of Greeley Village. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe responded to public concerns about emails, stating that messages sent regarding a specific project become part of the public record. Applicant’s Response Mr. Siegel responded that the majority of trees being removed are hazardous. He confirmed the distance to the nearest abutting building was 64’ and they intend to install a dense landscape buffer to screen any equipment between the bui ldings and neighbors. He spoke to preventative Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 15, 2025 Page 9 of 14 measures against light spillage onto adjacent lots, and will look to provide more views and studies of the proposed buildings in relation to their surroundings. Additional Staff Comments Ms. McNamara confirmed that the engineering department would need to approve any proposed utility connections and any necessary upgrades would be the responsibility of the applicant. She confirmed with Mr. Siegel the proposed parking agreement with Grace Chapel during their services. Board Comments Mr. Creech expressed his support of the color and material changes. He noted that in his 8 years on the Planning Board, he has never seen a traffic study that had warned of bad consequences . Mr. Creech confirmed with Ms. McCabe that the Select Board has retained a consultant to review community-wide impacts of these developments, not only this project. Mr. Leon appreciates the proposed screening surrounding mechanical equipment. He recommends the applicant consider additional stormwater management measures to mitigate stress on the sub basin which would receive the discharge. Mr. Schanbacher stated the design is moving in a positive directio n. He recommends breaks in materials to separate massing and add depth. He revisited the question of the commercial space and requested clarity on the exact commercial space being proposed and potential future tenants. Mr. Schanbacher highlighted the difference in the expectations of the Planning Board compared to the applicants about the use of the commercial space. He wants to ensure it is fully activated in the spirit of the MBTA zoning and there is no overlap between commercial space and resident amenities. Mr. Hornig questioned how long the applicant team will need to make revisions and be prepared to present updated plans to the Board. Ms. McCabe recommended continuing the hearing to the March 5, 2025 meeting. Applicant is agreeable to this deadline . MOTIONS Mr. Creech moved to continue the public hearing for 3, 4, 5 Militia Drive to Wednesday, March 5, 2025 at or after 6 p.m. on Zoom. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes; Leon – yes; Schanbacher – yes) MOTION PASSED. Mr. Creech moved to accept the applicant’s request to extend the final action deadline to March 14, 2025. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Leon – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes; Schanbacher – yes) MOTION PASSED. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 15, 2025 Page 10 of 14 25 Somerset Road – Approval Not Required (ANR) plan Ms. McCabe summarized the ANR plan for 25 Somerset Road, noting the front lot will have frontage on Somerset Road and the rear lot will have frontage on Hancock Street. She noted the rear lot is not buildable due to not meeting lot regularity requirements. She recommends endorsement of the plan. Board Comments Mr. Hornig confirmed the applicant is aware the rear lot is not buildable. Mr. Schanbacher stated the Planning Board members will need to present themselves in person to sign the ANR plans if endorsed. MOTION Mr. Creech moved to endorse the ANR plan for 25 Somerset Road. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Hornig – yes; Thompson – yes; Creech – yes; Schanbacher – yes) MOTION PASSED. Board Administration Zoning Amendment Articles for Annual Town Meeting and Special Town Meeting Citizens’ Petition to Amend §7.5 and Zoning Map for Village & Multi -Family Overlay Districts (Submitted for Special Town Meeting and Annual Town Meeting) Ms. McCabe explained the timelines and public hearing process related to the Citizens’ Petitions received December 23, 2024. She noted that the Select Board will call a Special Town Meeting for February 3, 2025 and they will make a motion to recess until after the Planning Board’s February 12, 2025 meeting. Mr. Schanbacher introduced the petitioners, Carol Sacerdote of 15 Loring Road and John Bartenstein, Precinct 1 Town Meeting Member and Appropriation Committee Member. Ms. Sacerdote detailed the rationale behind the petition, applauding the Planning Board’s commitment to the growth of Lexington and adherence to the MBTA Communities Act (MGL c. 40A §3A), while also expressing concern with the volume and speed at which new developments are being submitted and approved. Ms. Sacerdote explained the purpose of the petition is to allow Lexington to slow down and review the impact such growth will have on the Town and its resources and infrastructure. Mr. Bartenstein provided more details on the petition, Article 34, the EOHLC requirements, and Lexington’s compliance. He stated their goals with the petitions were to continue to ensure compliance with §3A, to preserve the developments that have been submitted to date, and to slow growth down, if not completely pause it, in order to more deeply study the evidence and impact to the Town. He identified the districts proposed for removal from the Village and Multi - Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 15, 2025 Page 11 of 14 Family Overlay Districts and the density limit proposed on remaining Village and Multi-Family Overlay Districts. Board Comments Mr. Hornig asked if the petition is intended to limit the population in Lexington and questions the consequences of an increase in population. Mr. Hornig asked how the petition furthers the goals of Lexington’s Comprehensive Plan, specifically objective 1.1 related to removing barriers to living in Lexington. He noted the studies the petition calls for were largely undertaken as part of Comprehensive Plan preparation. Mr. Hornig requested clarification from the petitioners on which locations were chosen to remain and why. He is concerned the remaining districts are on the outskirts of Lexington and believes that works against the goals of the Village Overlay districts. He further questioned the removal of the Lexington Center district, as that was strongly supported by the Lexington Center Committee with the intention of revitalizing the area. Mr. Bartenstein indicated the petitioners are willing to speak with the Planning Board and revise the districts, as this was the petitioners’ good faith effort to comply with §3A while slowing the immediate growth of Lexington. Ms. Sacerdote noted the Lexington Center district does not comply with §3A due to parking limitations. Mr. Hornig requested the petitioners consider the impact to Inclusionary and senior housing. He notes the density limit would effectively eliminate any opportunity for the mixed-use increased 60’ height limit. Mr. Schanbacher noted the next meeting on this petition would be the public hearing on February 12, 2025. He clarified that the intention of this meeting was to review the petition jointly prior to the public hearing and collaborate on revisions. Mr. Hornig noted that the petition is not in compliance with MGL c. 40A §4. He requested petitioners consider including an integration clause in the motion to ensure the final motion approved by the Attorney General meets MBTA guidelines and Massachusetts zoning law. Mr. Schanbacher emphasized the necessity of compliance with §3A. He is not in support of a motion which is not in compliance. Mr. Bartenstein and Ms. Sacerdote expressed their commitment to compliance. Ms. Thompson appreciates the efforts of the petitioners and also cannot support a motion that does not comply with §3A. She confirmed the petitioners are looking to retain all developments in the pipeline and only the VO Districts at Waltham Street/Concord Ave nue and Hartwell Avenue/Westview Street. She cautioned against retaining the two districts at the edges of Lexington. She suggested it seems exclusionary and urged the petitioners to reconsider which districts remain per their petition. Ms. Thompson stated the last paragraph in the petition seems as though the petitioners want to replace the Planning Board with the citizens and Select Board. She strongly recommended the petitioners revise the language of that section. Ms. McCabe reminded the petitioners that nothing discussed tonight needs to be acted on tonight. The meeting is to hear the Planning Board’s concerns and take those into consideration for the Town Meetings and the February 12 Planning Board Meeting. Mr. Schanbacher recommended the petitioners nominate one person to present and speak at the Public Hearing. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 15, 2025 Page 12 of 14 Mr. Leon noted Lexington is attractive for multi-family development. He stated Massachusetts Law allows for rate of growth control moratoriums. Mr. Leon is cognizant of the impact such rapid growth could have on other areas of Lexington infrastructure. He is concerned about the timeline as it relates to the petition. He feels this is a process that should take more than a few weeks to address. Mr. Creech is in favor of the petitioners attempts to simplify the Overlay District zoning, but noted it is a difficult and complicated process. He urges the petitioners to reconsider including Lexington Center with some level of density restriction. Mr. Hornig questioned the development expectations of the remaining VO & VHO Districts. He wondered when we will have enough information to determine action, as most current proposals would not be occupied until 2028. Mr. Hornig asked for details of the outreach with the community and property owners within the Overlay Districts. Mr. Hornig reiterated his concerns the petition will not comply with §3A and §4 as written. Mr. Schanbacher seconded Mr. Hornig’s concerns about compliance with MBTA Communities Act (§3A). He reiterated the timeline concerns mentioned by Mr. Leon and Mr. Hornig. Mr. Schanbacher stated similar concerns as Ms. Thompson about the location of the proposed Overlay Districts on the outskirts of Lexington. Public Comment Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock St and member of the petition team, expressed her hope for the petition team and the Planning Board to come to agreement on a motion in the best interests of all of Lexington. She reiterated the sentiments expressed by Mr. Bartenstein and Ms. Sacerdote of wanting to ensure compliance while protecting Lexington’s resources and infrastructure. Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Ave and Precinct 1 Town Meeting Member, disagrees with Ms. McKenna. He does not believe there is new evidence being presented, only concerns of residents. He wonders whether the petitioners would withdraw their petitions if the financial analysis shows this growth as being fiscally a net positive for the Town. Board Comments Ms. Thompson, Mr. Schanbacher, Ms. McCabe, and Mr. Hornig agreed to schedule a future meeting with no more than 2 Planning Board members, Ms. McCabe, and the petitioners to discuss further amendments and modifications to their proposal. §5.1.8 to require bicycle parking facilities for new developments Ms. McCabe summarized the objective of the motion. Public Comments Tom Shiple, on behalf of the Bicycle Advisory Committee, advised the Bicycle Advisory Committee has not had the opportunity to review this amendment. He proposed a comprehensive table relative to the size and use of the development. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 15, 2025 Page 13 of 14 Board Comments Mr. Schanbacher proposed delaying this amendment and discussion until a later date. The Planning Board agreed. §6.9 Special Residential Developments Board reviewed proposed language and had no revisions. §7.1 National Flood Insurance (NFI) District Ms. McCabe explained the need for new zoning to match new FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Mr. Hornig expressed this amendment need to be revised and he hopes to discuss this prior to the February 26, 2025 meeting. Mr. Creech questioned which areas of Lexington are affected by the maps. §3.2.1 Accessory Uses Ms. McCabe summarized the objective of the motion. Board Comments Mr. Creech requested clarification if this applies to commercial properties, or commercial and residential spaces. He questioned if the second change is a significant change or a technical correction. Mr. Hornig and Mr. Leon supported the need to revise th e language of the amendment and clarified it is more significant than a technical correction. Technical Corrections Ms. McCabe summarized the proposed corrections. The Planning Board had no comments. Board Member and Staff Updates Ms. McCabe introduced the new Planning Coordinator, Carolyn Morrison, to the Board members. Ms. McCabe announced a new Planner, Aaron Koepper. He is expected to start January 27, 2025 and will be in attendance at the next Planning Board meeting. Ms. McNamara provided an update on the Bedford Hartwell Complete Streets project. Review of Draft Meeting Minutes – 12/11/24 and 12/23/24 Mr. Creech moved that the Planning Board approve the draft December 11, 2024 and draft December 23, 2024 meeting minutes as presented. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – Yes; Thompson – Yes; Hornig – Yes; Schanbacher – Yes). MOTION PASSED Upcoming Meetings: Thursday 1/30/25, Wednesday 2/12, 2/26, 3/5, and 3/12. Ms. McCabe announced the addition of a Planning Board meeting on Wednesday March 5, 2025. Adjournment Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 15, 2025 Page 14 of 14 Mr. Creech moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of January 15, 2025 at 11:25 pm. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4- 0-0 (Roll call: Hornig – Yes; Thompson – Yes; Creech – Yes; Schanbacher – Yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 11:25 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. 231 Bedford St Public Comments 1. Electronic Mail from Lisa Newton to Planning Staff, Subject: 231 Bedford Street - Follow-up after 2nd PB Meeting on 11/20/24, dated November 24, 2024. i. PDF File attachment from Lisa Newton to Planning Staff, Subject: Concerns for 2nd Planning Board Hearing - 231 Bedford Street, dated November 20, 2024, received November 24, 2024. 2. Electronic Mail from Sanjay Padaki to Planning Staff and Conservation Commission, Subject: Re: Planned 231 Bedford Street development, dated November 26, 2024. 2. 3-4-5 Militia Drive Public Comments 1. Electronic Mail from Caileen Foley to Planning Director and Planning Staff, Subject: 3-5 Militia Drive, Lexington MA - Lexington Housing Authority, dated November 7, 2024 2. Electronic Mail from Gillian Epstein to Planning Staff, Subject: Concerns about development on 5-7 Militia Drive, dated November 10, 2024 3. Electronic Mail from Elizabeth Fray to Planning Staff, Subject: Concerns about development on 5-7 Militia Drive, dated November 20, 2024 4. Electronic Mail from Edie Hill to Planning Staff, Subject: 3,4,5 Militia Drive, Lexington, dated December 6, 2024 5. Electronic Mail from Lisa Newton to Planning Staff, Subject: 3 -4-5 Militia Drive, dated December 1, 2024 6. Letter from resident of Greeley Village sent to Planning Board and Planning Director, Subject: Re: Proposed Militia Drive Building Site and Concerned Greeley Village Resident, dated January 3, 2025, received January 6, 2025. 7. Memo from the Design Advisory Committee regarding their November 19, 2024 Meeting. Received December 6, 2024 by Planning Staff. 8. Electronic Mail from John Bertucci to Planning Staff, Subject: Fwd: Your letter dated December 11, 2024 (received 12/24/24), dated January 9, 2025 9. Electronic Mail from Kristine Hill to Planning Staff, Subject: Militia Drive Project, dated January 10, 2025