Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-02-12-PB-min (2) Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 12, 2025 Page 1 of 17 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday February 12, 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 board member. Also present were: Abby McCabe, Planning Director; Meghan McNamara, Assistant Planning Director; Aaron Koepper, Planner; and Carolyn Morrison, Planning Coordinator. Michael Schanbacher, Chair of the Planning Board, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday February 12, 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. Mr. Schanbacher provided an overview of the zoning freeze items on the agenda and described the differences between a subdivision plan and an ANR as they relate to the existing Village and Multi-Family Overlay Zoning Districts. Development Administration 17 Hartwell Avenue – Public hearing for a definitive subdivision and to rescind a previous definitive subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing for BP 17 Hartwell LLC’s application for a definitive subdivision at 17 Hartwell Avenue. He simultaneously opened the public hearing to rescind approval of a definitive subdivision at 17 Hartwell Avenue which was approved by the Planning Board on June 29, 2022. Rick DeAngelis, attorney for BP 17 Hartwell LLC, summarized the request to submit a definitive subdivision plan and rescind the previously approved Definitive Subdivision. Ms. McCabe summarized the draft decision of approval with conditions. She noted that many conditions are related to construction of the definitive subdivision, which will need to be completed if this ever goes to construction. Public Comments Elaine Tung, Affordable Housing Trust Chair, questioned the possibility of the Affordable Housing Trust buying down some units in the development. Mr. DeAngelis agreed to connect with Ms. Tung or other member of the Affordable Housing Trust at a later date. Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing for the Definitive Subdivision for 17 Hartwell Avenue. Mr. Hornig seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Thompson, Hornig, Creech, Schanbacher). MOTION PASSED. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 12, 2025 Page 2 of 17 Ms. Thompson moved approve the Definitive Subdivision for 17 Hartwell Avenue with the conditions of approval in the draft decision. Mr. Hornig seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Creech, Thompson, Hornig, Schanbacher). MOTION PASSED. Ms. Thompson moved to have the Chair sign the decision and correct for any non-substantive changes such as grammar, typos, and consistency. Mr. Hornig seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Creech, Thompson, Hornig, Schanbacher). MOTION PASSED. Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing to rescind the Definitive Subdivision approval granted by the Planning Board on June 29, 2022. Mr. Hornig seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Creech, Thompson, Hornig, Schanbacher). MOTION PASSED. Ms. Thompson moved to rescind the 2022 Definitive Subdivision approval for 17 Hartwell Avenue after the expiration of the appeal period for the Definitive Subdivision granted on February 12, 2025 without an appeal. Mr. Hornig seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Thompson, Hornig, Creech, Schanbacher). MOTION PASSED. 3-4-5 Militia Drive – Public meeting for a preliminary subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public meeting for the application for a preliminary subdivision at 3, 4, and 5 Militia Drive. Ms. McCabe explained the difference between a preliminary subdivision and a definitive subdivision for the public. It is her belief that this application is intended as a zoning freeze and is unlikely to be constructed as written. She noted that building permits cannot be issued on a preliminary subdivision. Frederick Gilgun, of Nicholson, Sreter, and Gilgun, attorney for the applicant confirmed that the intent of the application is to freeze zoning to continue to pursue an existing application for a Village and Multi- Family Village Overlay Site Plan Review. He introduced Kristen LaBrie of Howard, Stein, and Hudson. Ms. LaBrie summarized the subdivision application and confirmed compliance with all zoning and Town bylaws. Ms. Thompson moved to approve the preliminary subdivision application for 3, 4, & 5 Militia Drive with the conditions in the draft decision as recommendations to be included in the Definitive Subdivision application. Mr. Hornig seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Thompson, Creech, Hornig, Schanbacher). MOTION PASSED. 217, 229, 233, & 241 Massachusetts Avenue – Approval Not Required (ANR) plan Mr. Schanbacher opened the public meeting for the application of an Approval Not Required (ANR) plan for 217, 229, 233, and 241 Massachusetts Avenue. Ms. McCabe summarized the ANR plan which combines the four properties into one lot. She reminded the Board there is an existing application for a Site Plan Review under Village and Multi-Family Overlay zoning. Ms. McCabe recommended endorsement of the plan. She noted that if the Board endorses the ANR, they will need to present themselves in person to sign the plans. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 12, 2025 Page 3 of 17 Board Questions and Comments Mr. Leon asked Mark Vaughan, attorney for the applicant, for case citation of the lot size for the subdivision proposal. He noted that the overlay zoning has no minimum requirements on lot size, but that the underlying zoning requires 15,500 SF. Mr. Vaughan responded that the preliminary subdivision application for these properties is scheduled for a subsequent Planning Board meeting. He committed to researching the question and addressing when the application for the preliminary subdivision is before the Board. There were no public comments on this hearing. Ms. Thompson moved to endorse the ANR plan submitted by North Shore Residential Development, Inc. for 217, 229, 233, & 241 Massachusetts Avenue. Mr. Hornig seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Thompson, Hornig, Creech, Schanbacher). MOTION PASSED. 75 Outlook Drive (Effie Place) – Performance guarantee change Ms. McCabe summarized the development at 75 Outlook Drive and explained that the tri-partite agreement approved by the Board on January 15, 2025 did not work out. The applicant is requesting the work be insured by a bond instead of the tri-partite agreement. Ms. McCabe noted that the signed and sealed bond would need to be in the possession of the Town of Lexington Treasurer’s Office prior to releasing the lots. She recommended endorsement. Ms. Thompson moved to accept the performance bond from Western Surety Company in the amount of $71,000.00 to ensure completion of the remaining construction of the roadway and the municipal services serving 2, 3, & 5 Effie Place (formerly known as 75 Outlook Drive) on the signed and sealed copy of the bond is provided. Mr. Hornig seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Creech, Thompson, Hornig, Schanbacher). MOTION PASSED. Mr. Schanbacher noted that the Board members will need to come into the Planning Office to sign paperwork for this performance bond. Articles for Special Town Meeting and Annual Town Meeting STM Article 2/ATM Article 34 to reduce Multi-Family Dwelling Unit Capacity in the Village & Multi-Family Overlay Districts Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing for Special Town Meeting Article 2 and Annual Town Meeting Article 34 to amend §7.5 to reduce multi-family dwelling unit capacity in the Village and Multi-Family Overlay Districts. He provided an agenda for this item and requested that all participants remain civil. The petitioner team included: Carol Sacerdote, John Bartenstein, Alan Levine, and Dawn McKenna. Ms. Sacerdote presented the origins of the proposal. She noted that a Greater Boston Interfaith Organization meeting highlighted the lack of housing as the number one issue to be addressed in Boston and Greater Boston. Ms. Sacerdote stated that Massachusetts legislature attempted to improve this issue with the MBTA Communities Act, passed in 2023. Lexington was asked to increase housing by 10% and Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 12, 2025 Page 4 of 17 1,231 multi-family dwellings. She stated that Lexington zoned 253 acres for multi-family dwellings and placed no limit on number of housing units per acre. Ms. Sacerdote stated she believes this zoning will unduly strain Lexington resources and infrastructure. She acknowledged the existing projects before the Planning Board as a success of the Village Overlay Zoning. Ms. Sacerdote explained that there is no moratorium in the petition, and that this petition is intended to pause development to allow Lexington time to assess the impact to resources. She noted that further zoning changes will be necessary in the future to refine zoning as more is learned about the impact of this multi-family growth in Lexington. Ms. Sacerdote reiterated her commitment to ensuring Lexington remains in compliance with the MBTA Communities Act. Mr. Bartenstein provided an overview of the MBTA Communities Act and Lexington Zoning Bylaw §135- 7.5. He also summarized the current state of the zoning and developments in Lexington. Mr. Bartenstein shared that the goal of the MBTA Communities Act was to address the housing shortage in the region while increasing capacity for multi-family housing in 177 MBTA Communities. He detailed the requirements of the MBTA Communities Act for all communities and specifically for Lexington. Mr. Bartenstein noted that Lexington was required to define a minimum of 50 acres of land, with a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre, and be zoned to provide capacity for 1,231 additional dwelling units. He stated that the legal requirement was to produce zoning for these units, not necessarily to build 1,231 units. Mr. Bartenstein presented an overview of Annual Town Meeting 2023 Article 34 which amended the Zoning maps and created §7.5 in the Lexington Zoning Bylaws. Mr. Bartenstein outlined the differences between previously existing zoning bylaws and the village overlay districts, specifically highlighting the building size restrictions and setback requirements. Mr. Bartenstein summarized the approval process of Article 34 at the 2023 Annual Town Meeting and the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) certification of Lexington’s compliance with the MBTA Communities Act. Mr. Bartenstein noted that development has been proposed at a significantly higher rate than anticipated and summarized existing Site Plan Review proposals before the Planning Board. He briefly touched on current requirements for inclusionary housing within these multi-family developments. Mr. Levine reiterated figures presented by Ms. Sacerdote and Mr. Bartenstein. He highlighted that the certified capacity of Lexington’s Village Overlay zoning would allow for the number of dwelling units in Lexington to double if all built out. Mr. Levine stated his concerns about this growth, citing increased population resulting in heavier traffic congestion and a strain on Lexington’s resources and infrastructure. It is his belief that several capital improvement projects would be necessary to accommodate the increased population. Mr. Levine presented his financial analysis of the consequences of ATM 2023 Article 34. He noted that under his analysis, new tax revenue will not cover the increased costs or capital projects and Lexington will lose commercial tax revenue. Mr. Levine summarized the goals of STM 2025-1 Article 2. He reiterated the petitioners’ desire to remain compliant with the MBTA Communities Act and promote a process to reevaluate and manage growth. He stated that Article 2 proposes to maintain the existing projects before the Planning Board and preserve two of the existing Village & Multi-Family Overlay districts. He clarified the density proposal for new developments. Mr. Levine stated that the proposed zoning of STM 2025-1 Article 2 meets or exceeds the state requirements for Lexington. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 12, 2025 Page 5 of 17 Ms. McKenna discussed the resolution of STM 2025-1 Article 2. She stated that it is a call to reexamine goals, methods, and impacts of zoning. Ms. McKenna asserted that citizens believe §7.5 was an overreach and put Lexington in an unstable financial situation. She noted the number of participants on the Zoom meeting as an indication of citizens’ concerns. Ms. McKenna presented the resolution as non-binding. She summarized the resolution as calling for the Planning Board to review items under their purview and allowing the Select Board, staff, committees, residents, and other stakeholders to study financial impacts, infrastructure sustainability, and provide outreach. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe presented where we are today and what is under review before the Board. She provided maps of the districts adopted in 2023 based on EOHLC’s guidelines regarding public transit (MBTA, Lexpress, Bikeway). Ms. McCabe detailed the current projects that have been approved and ones in process before the Board. She provided a breakdown of units being proposed within the current projects and the benefits to the Town (TDM funds, bus shelters, retail) thus far. In Ms. McCabe’s presentation of the current state of development she noted that only one building permit has been issued to date, although we expect more in the spring. Ms. McCabe highlighted the increased bicycle parking at all the proposed developments and the promotion of fewer cars by separating parking from rental or purchase costs. Ms. McCabe could not confirm that the petitioners’ proposal would comply with the EOHLC requirements, as MA guidelines state districts must not be less than 5 acres and must be more than one lot to qualify as a “district.” She expressed concern that the approximately 7 acres of land with existing development proposals would not be accepted as compliant. Ms. McCabe recommended adding 5-12 contiguous acres to the zoning and/or increasing the density limit to 17 units per acre to increase confidence in compliance with MA guidelines. Board Questions and Comments Mr. Hornig questioned compliance with EOHLC regulations and wondered if they have completed the full EOHLC package with calculations required to confirm compliance. Ms. McKenna indicated Ms. McCabe intended to submit preliminary packet to EOHLC. Mr. Levine did not believe there was need to do full model exercise. It is his opinion that the existing projects clearly comply. Mr. Hornig called out the nuance of compliance and requested further clarity on the petitioners’ absolute certainty their proposal would continue to comply. Mr. Hornig asked what outreach had been done by team and for a summary of the feedback. Ms. McKenna replied they have had informal conversations and that many owners are largely concerned about impact. Mr. Hornig questioned the use of a density cap to control population growth rather than building size. Ms. McKenna believes it is a complicated issue and a density cap was the simplest method to pause development. He wondered if the density cap would still allow for 15% affordability. Ms. McKenna does not believe it would hinder inclusionary housing and noted there is already a number of inclusionary units approved or proposed with existing development proposals. Mr. Hornig questioned the choice to retain the Concord Avenue/Waltham Street VO district, when it is the only VO district without a direct bus line route. Ms. McKenna stated this was in response to public Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 12, 2025 Page 6 of 17 concern about traffic congestion around Lexington Center, while the Concord Avenue/Waltham Street district has easy access to multiple highways and the addition of East Lexington VO district contained a bus line. Mr. Hornig reviewed the language of the resolution and wondered what consequences specifically concerned the petitioners. Ms. McKenna responded the main concerns are the costs of the projects and the cost of the infrastructure needed. Mr. Hornig noted that many of the concerns cited mention the schools and reminded Ms. McKenna that per MGL c. 151B, the Planning Board cannot make decisions that would discriminate against families with children. Mr. Hornig asked to see financial analysis referenced by Mr. Levine. Mr. Levine stated the analysis was done by the Appropriations Committee, and he expected their memo to be published shortly after this meeting. Mr. Hornig wanted to know how the petitioners’ requested financial study differs from the study that the Select Board is currently analyzing. Ms. McKenna believes 8 weeks is not enough time to study full impacts. Mr. Bartenstein noted that the ongoing financial study does not consider capital expenditures. He also noted that Article 2 does not prohibit the Planning Board from bringing forth amendments to future Town Meetings. Mr. Hornig stated the resolution appears to be a request for the Planning Board to re-do their work from 2023 for Annual Town Meeting 2023 Article 34. Ms. McKenna suggested the Planning Board and the Select Board connect after Town Meeting to collaborate on a plan for Lexington’s future. Mr. Creech reviewed the resolution of the motion and questioned the importance of the petitioners’ wording. Ms. McKenna felt very strongly about including language to the community and all Town Boards to highlight the need for full involvement and consideration on all major changes such as this. Ms. Thompson noted that the number of people participating in the meeting does not reflect the number of people in support of the petition. Ms. McKenna agreed, she meant to call out how vested the town is in this question on both sides. Ms. Thompson still troubled by resolution and asked to review language again. She asked to clarify a few points: She asked what a “broadly representative process” would mean and how it would differ from the exercises led by the Board in 2023. Ms. McKenna stated that she believes people are seeing the actual impact of the zoning granted by Article 34 in 2023 and perhaps had not been aware of the process before. Ms. Thompson clarified she is wondering how the petitioners would engage the public differently and what steps their proposed process would contain. Ms. Thompson further questioned what “engaging the whole community” would entail and what the petitioners’ definition of success would be. Ms. Thompson asked the petitioners to define “prudent and responsible growth.” She asked for clarification on specific goals, timeframes, and what concerns have not been addressed in any of the other public meetings. Public Comments Owen Curtin, 451 Marrett Road, is opposed to the petition. He believes that the Town has the information needed to evaluate zoning and that Article 2 would not slow growth as intended. Alexandra Worden, resident, is in support of the motion. She expressed support of more affordable housing. Ms. Worden noted concerns about tree cover, climate change, and wildlife habitat destruction. She is opposed to high level of rental units and would prefer to see more ownership opportunities. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 12, 2025 Page 7 of 17 Margaret Heitz, 335 Marrett Road, is opposed to Article 2. She cautioned that the petition is attempting to make decisions without input from elected boards or the public. Ms. Heitz would like to keep the Marrett Road/Waltham Street overlay district due to existing MBTA routes. Carsten Hochmuth, 450 Marrett Road, is opposed to petition. He believes we are in a housing crisis and should not delay any development. He states that denser housing along public transit is environmentally responsible and sustainable. Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, Precinct 1 Town Meeting Member, Transportation Advisory Committee Member, is opposed to Article 2. He clarified that 12,000 units is simply a measurement of the capacity. Mr. Luker called out the environmental benefits of housing over maintained tree cover. He expressed concern about the proposed density limit and wondered if the petitioners would be open to discussing alternative ways to limit growth and development. Alex Xia, 367 Concord Avenue, is opposed to the article. He would like to see the burden of development shared amongst Lexington communities. He commended the work of the petitioners and would like to see the zoning revised. Nanette Byrnes, 6 Sherburne Road, Housing Partnership Board Member, is opposed to Article 2. She noted that there is no language in the motion to make it a “pause.” She is concerned with the lack of public process regarding Article 2 and the impact to accessible units if it is passed. Jonathan Silverstein, 80 Reed Street, Lexington Housing Assistance Board Member, is opposed to the motion. He expressed pride in the work that defined ATM 2023 Article 34 and believes the proposed zoning is exclusionary. He echoed Ms. Byrnes sentiment that Article 2 is written as a stop in development. Mr. Silverstein questioned the financial concerns of the petitioners, noting that Lexington is one of the most affluent communities in the state, if not the country. Steve Kaufman, 116 East Emerson Road, Precinct 5 Town Meeting Member, supports petition. He expressed concern about the inaccurate growth predictions in 2023. He is in support of pausing development and growth to reevaluate infrastructure. Bill Erickson, 31 Sherman Street, is opposed to Article 2. He noted that proposals do not equal units built and expressed support of Lexington’s robust zoning. Mr. Erickson expressed concern over continued high cost of living in Lexington, and in New England. Catherine Fahy, 6 Todd Road, is in support of Article 2. She believes residents were not informed about the motion in 2023. She supports slower growth with financial analysis. Mr. Schanbacher noted that the Planning Board will make a recommendation, however Town Meeting will be the voting body on this motion. Harriett Cohen, 29 Fairland Street, Housing Partnership Board Member, is opposed to Article 2 but supports a review of current zoning. She echoed previous concerns that Article 2 is an indefinite stop on development and that compliance has not been verified. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 12, 2025 Page 8 of 17 Ravneet Grewal, 23 Bennington Road, co-founder of Planners Network Greater Boston, noted that acreage does not guarantee compliance per the EOHLC model and would like to see the petitioner’s analyses. Helen Yang, 1 Solomon Pierce Road, supports Article 2. She expressed support of the MBTA Communities Act and believes Lexington has gone too far above and beyond. She questioned how developers can bear some of the financial burdens of this growth. Gil Benghiat, 5 Sunny Knoll Terrace, supports Article 2. He supports development in Lexington at a controlled and understood pace. He believes Article 2 is a pause, because the Town can rezone more acreage in the future if desired. Kunal Botla, 40 Grapevine Avenue, Precinct 4 Town Meeting Member, Transportation Advisory Committee Chair, opposes Article 2. He believes the zoning is exclusionary and would worsen the housing crisis. He reminded participants that not a single unit has been built to date. Wendy Manz, 3 Captain Parker Arms, Precinct 4 Town Meeting Member, Chair of Housing Partnership Board, is opposed to the amendment. She applauded the Planning Board and Town Meeting’s work in 2023. Ms. Manz believes Article 2 promotes exclusionary housing and will limit the number of affordable units. She encouraged the Board to approach changes carefully. Steve Wilson, 33 Hill Street, is supportive of Article 2. He is opposed to Zoom meetings and believes all ongoing development should be stopped to reevaluate. He also is in support of removing MBTA bus service to Lexington. Michael Boudett, 39 Prospect Hill Road, Precinct 4 Town Meeting Member, echoed sentiments opposed to Article 2. He questioned the removal of Lexington Center as a Multi-Family Overlay district and asked for clarification. Mr. Schanbacher responded citing parking minimum for residential and non-residential uses. At the time, state guidelines did not allow for required mixed use space. Ms. McCabe clarified that Lexington Center would qualify if bylaws were amended to remove minimum parking requirements for non-residential uses. Amy Griffin, 576 Marrett Road, opposes Article 2. She highlighted the thriving use of the existing Marrett Road/Spring Street district and noted that it is easily accessible by highway. Ms. Griffin commended the Board’s previous work to define the districts and engage the community in the process. Maxwell Shortsleeve, 75 Westview Street, opposes Article 2. He expressed concern about a pending project and requested a way forward for developments that have not yet been submitted to the Planning Board. Christina Lin, 2 Eustis Street, is opposed to article 2. She hoped the petitioners would provide more answers in regards to concerns about affordable housing if Article 2 passes. David Russell, 37 Paul Revere Road, is conflicted but has concerns about rate of growth. He would like to see financial and project analyses done by the Planning Board and/or Select Board. Mr. Russell encouraged petitioners to include language making Article 2 a true “pause” instead of a stop on development. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 12, 2025 Page 9 of 17 Ji-Young Kim, 198 Mass Avenue, is appreciative of the collaborative process on this Article. Ms. Kim expressed concern over maintaining levels of service within Lexington if the population grows as expected. Avram Baskin, 43 Carville Avenue, Precinct 2 Town Meeting Member, is opposed to Article 2. He echoed several comments made by previous residents. He noted that Lexington still provides a quality education even with larger class sizes. Denise Landrigan, 1965 Massachusetts Avenue, felt uninformed and questioned the downside to slowing development down. She appears to be in support of Article 2. The Board recessed at 8:43 p.m. and reconvened at 8:48 p.m. Pam Hoffman, 4 Rangeway, Precinct 7 Town Meeting Member, is in support of Article 2. She encouraged the Board to review the Appropriation Committee’s analysis of ATM 2023 Article 34. She is in support of a pause in development to reevaluate zoning in a careful way. Ms. Hoffman expressed displeasure at Zoom webinar format for such discussions. Dora Braun, 20 Muzzey Street, is opposed to Article 2. She believes the density limit would impede necessary development. Arnold Clickstein, 19 Drummer Boy Way, expressed a need for more affordable housing in Lexington and fiscal concerns about the development in the Town. Carol Marine, 18 Oakmount Circle, Vision for Lexington Committee Member, is opposed to Article 2. Ms. Marine expressed concerns about the density limit and the type of development it would encourage. She cited a need to review the compliance model to confirm any proposed amendments are compliant. Hong Zhao, 19 Middleby Road, supports Article 2. She agrees the Town needs to pause development and reevaluate Lexington’s ability to support future development. Ms. Zhao is particularly concerned about school capacity. Meng Yang, 60 Ivan Street, supports Article 2. She felt communication was lacking when Article 34 was proposed in 2023. Ms. Yang is concerned with the volume of development and existing conditions of the schools. Clifford Haas, 4 Charles Street, expressed concerns with the 217-241 Massachusetts Ave development and irregularity of the MBTA buses. He encouraged development of condos and townhouses. Theresa Modoono, 336 Marrett Road, is opposed to Article 2. She is in support of retaining the Marrett Road/Waltham Street district. Tamar Finan, 8 Piper Road, supports Article 2. She echoed sentiments wishing for more communication on ATM 2023 Article 34 and developments going forward. Ms. Finan is strongly opposed to the 5-7 Piper Road development. Linda Prosnitz, 3 Demar Road, Affordable Housing Trust Member, is opposed to Article 2. She is concerned Article 2 has not been vetted and is in support of the mix of housing options being developed. She echoed concerns about the risk to affordable housing inventory if there is a density limit. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 12, 2025 Page 10 of 17 Betsey Weiss, 8 Dover Lane, Housing Partnership Board Member, is opposed to Article 2. She questioned figures presented by the petitioners. Sumitra Sujanani, 29 Ledgelawn Avenue, supports Article 2. She echoed previous comments about residents being sufficiently contacted and questioned if every property in the overlay districts had been evaluated for buildability. Mr. Schanbacher noted for the record that Mr. Creech had to leave the meeting at 9:22 p.m. Jerry Michelson, 3 Clyde Place, Lexington Center Committee, confirmed with Mr. Schanbacher that this article will require a 2/3 Town Meeting vote in order to pass. He is opposed to the removal of Lexington Center from Multi-Family Overlay zoning and encouraged collaboration with the petitioners to revise their proposal. Sarah Morrison, 22 Fair Oaks Terrace, Executive Director of LexHab, is opposed to Article 2. Ms. Morrison noted that there is a severe lack of housing, both market-rate and affordable, and essential workers cannot find housing. She applauded the Board’s efforts in 2023. Jia Liu, 20 Heritage Drive, supports Article 2. She cited concerns about rapid growth to the school systems and the impact that will have on education. Shubhra Chandra, 10 Childs Road, supports Article 2. She is concerned about lack of information about the impact to residents. Shailesh Chandra, 10 Childs Road, Precinct 8 Town Meeting Member, supports Article 2. Mr. Chandra’s opinion is that Lexington is more attractive to families with children than young individuals. Genevieve Wang, 1 Patriots Drive, supports Article 2. She expressed concern about the number of units proposed versus the estimated growth in 2023. She is in support of new housing in a fiscally responsible manner. Caroline Fitzgerald, 55 Gleason Road, supports Article 2. She provided a professional opinion as an engineer on the speed of growth. Ms. Fitzgerald does not support the 3-5 Militia Drive development. Lisa Newton 15 Ledgelawn Avenue, supports Article 2. She expressed concerns about tax increases due to growth across the town. Ms. Newton encouraged the Town to send notice to all residents prior to any zoning changes. Peter Saradjian, 259 Bedford Street, is in support of Article 2. He called out the unreliability of the MBTA busses and the limited schedule. He suspects the busses would not be able to maintain service levels if the population increases. Stephanie Hsu, 9 Locke Lane, is opposed to Article 2, echoing sentiments of previous speakers and highlighting the reactionary nature of the proposal. She emphasized her support for the Planning Board and the communications regarding the meetings and zoning amendments. Mark Swartz, 35 Meriam Street, supports Article 2. He cited concerns about the burden on schools and the Lexington Public School budget freeze. He questioned if this could be put to a town-wide vote on a future ballot to ensure town-wide engagement. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 12, 2025 Page 11 of 17 Irena Fayngold supports Article 2. She echoed Mr. Swartz’s proposal to put this to a town-wide vote. Ms. Fayngold feels the growth is irresponsible and Lexington should not shoulder the burden of the housing crisis. Fang Liu, 9 Ellison Road, supports Article 2. She cautioned that if the population doubles, Lexington may not be the town we love. Diane Pursley, 21 Turning Mill Road, supports Article 2. She echoed concerns about the rapid growth and impact of the proposed developments. She emphasized fiscal responsibility. Lily Yan, 46 Courtyard Place, Precinct 5 Town Meeting Member, Appropriation Committee Member, supports Article 2. She echoed concerns about Lexington’s infrastructure, class sizes, and traffic congestion. She disagrees with the claims Article 2 promotes exclusionary zoning and believes if development continues, it could destroy Lexington. Mike Reamer, 34 Parker Street, supports Article 2. He is in support of more affordable housing, but expressed concerns with how ATM Article 34 has been implemented. He echoed financial concerns and requested a credible financial analysis. He echoed support for a town-wide vote on this matter. Robin Kutner, 70 Paul Revere Road, is opposed to Article 2. She commended the outreach by the Planning Board in 2023. Ms. Kutner highlighted that Lexington is ahead of our peers and encouraged the other MBTA Communities need to catch up. She supports affordable housing and more MBTA presence. Nancy Sofen, 3 Abernathy Road, opposes Article 2. She supports more housing and specifically more dense, sustainable housing. Archan Basu, 34 Harding Road, expressed surprise at the wide divide in the comments of participants. He encouraged a more collaborative conversation. Lin Jensen, 133 Reed Street, Precinct 8 Town Meeting Member, supports Article 2. She is not opposed to dense, multi-family housing, but does not support using the MBTA Communities Act to pursue it. Ms. Jensen supports the Town having more oversight over development and growth. Susan Barrett, Transportation Manager for the Town of Lexington, highlighted alternative transportation options for the Concord Avenue/Waltham Street district. She noted that more dense housing promotes a more robust public transit line. Sanjay Padaki, 46 Ward Street, Precinct 8 Town Meeting Member, Appropriation Committee Vice-Chair, supports Article 2. He echoed financial concerns. He is in support of pausing development to reevaluate. Olga Guttag, 273 Emerson Road, supports Article 2. She supports the MBTA Communities Act and believes Lexington should meet those requirements, not exceed them. Ms. Guttag expressed concerned about delivering sufficient inclusionary housing. Applicant’s Response Ms. McKenna addressed the “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) claims, noting that while many citizens they have spoken with do live in the Village Overlay Districts, they were all informed that Article 2 would not stop any existing developments. She highlighted that the goal of the MBTA Communities Act was to Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 12, 2025 Page 12 of 17 produce more housing, not necessarily affordable housing. Ms. McKenna applauded Lexington for the affordable housing development on Lowell Street. She encouraged the Planning Board to consider the implications, consequences, and financial impact of the growth to date. She noted that this is the only motion in progress designed to slow down development and it is her opinion this is the only opportunity to address ATM 2023 Article 34 at this time. Ms. McKenna disagreed with the idea that Subsidized Housing Inventory will drop below 10% with the 161 affordable units currently proposed in projects before the Planning Board. Ms. Sacerdote noted idealistic tendencies of herself and much of the public. She cautioned restraint and cautious consideration of the financial implications of shared ideals. Staff Response Ms. McCabe encouraged all participants to sign up for Planning Board notifications in order to stay informed on this article and other items before the Board. She addressed infrastructure concerns, noting that projects of a certain size are required to provide funding for the town to hire a peer consultant to review water and sewer capacity analysis. If any upgrades are needed, the applicant must pay for those upgrades. She also noted that the Town has contracted with a consultant to review the impacts of the ongoing development and address many concerns noted by the residents. Ms. McCabe informed the participants that a zoning amendment is permanent, so Article 2 would not be a pause as it is written. She agreed that another amendment could be proposed in the future, but it is not guaranteed to occur. She also noted that zoning amendments require a tremendous amount of time to be written and implemented. It is her opinion that it is not realistic to expect a new zoning amendment proposal in time for a Fall Town Meeting. Ms. McCabe recommended the Board continue this public hearing to their next meeting on February 26, 2025 at or after 6 p.m. on Zoom. Board Comments Mr. Schanbacher expressed his support of the initial zoning from Annual Town Meeting in 2023. He recognized the community’s concerns and confirmed he is in support of revising the zoning to ensure responsible growth. Mr. Schanbacher committed to the work needed to revise Article 34, and clarified he would expect a robust community involvement similar to 2023. Mr. Schanbacher echoed Ms. McCabe’s statements on the unexpected volume of applications under the Village & Multi-Family District zoning, and he noted that the Board has much more information at this time on the buildability of lots within the zoning. He cited challenges at several properties, which have served as an impediment to buildability. It is his opinion that Article 2 would have been rejected as out of compliance if it had been submitted as currently written in 2023 to the EOHLC. Mr. Schanbacher stressed that he does not want Lexington to fall out of compliance with the MBTA Communities Act. He summarized his concerns with the dwelling counts under the petitioners’ proposal, noting that the numbers fell significantly short of the Lexington’s state-mandated count. He also highlighted the fact that of the proposals approved by and before the Planning Board, only one has a building permit at the time of the meeting. He recommended the petitioners add more acreage to their proposal, such as Lexington Center, and advised the Planning Board could review the parking requirements in order to bring that district in compliance. Mr. Schanbacher requested the petitioners remove the resolution in their proposal, noting Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 12, 2025 Page 13 of 17 his commitment to revising the zoning and citing past exclusionary zoning practices employed by Lexington and other communities which significantly contributed to today’s housing crisis. The Board recessed at 10:31 p.m. and reconvened at 10:36 p.m. Mr. Hornig requested the slides presented by the petitioner team be sent to the Planning Office for the records of the meeting. Mr. Hornig acknowledged the concerns of the community, and echoed Mr. Schanbacher’s call for a through public review on a change of this magnitude. He expressed concerns with the proposal and believes the motion requires a more thoughtful and comprehensive review than can be accomplished prior to the Special Town Meeting or Annual Town Meeting. Mr. Hornig expressed that Article 2 seems to be inconsistent with several aspects of Lexington’s Comprehensive Plan, which he noted was written after 5 years effort and enormous public input. Mr. Hornig noted that the primary mechanism to slow development is the 15 unit per acre density limit. He expressed concern that such a density limit would encourage the development of similarly sized buildings with larger dwelling units, resulting in fewer units. He noted that fewer units and smaller developments would effectively eliminate inclusionary unit requirements and overall higher prices. He encouraged the petitioners to consider building size restrictions rather than a density cap to promote housing diversity and density. Mr. Hornig cautioned that removing the Village Overlay districts would result in more large single-family houses. Mr. Hornig called out a Supreme Court decision stating it is not appropriate to use zoning bylaws to restrict population growth. He expressed concern over the number of comments citing school finances as a concern, and reminded participants that there is precedent to not make housing decisions based on school resources. Mr. Hornig urged the petitioners to remove the resolution from Article 2, as it could be seen as overstepping the scope of zoning bylaws per the courts. Mr. Hornig noted that while Lexington Town Meeting endorsed Article 34 in April 2023, the EOHLC did not define unit capacity until August 2023. Mr. Hornig expressed strong concerns regarding the 19 specific lots called out in Article 2. He noted that Lexington has never deliberately designated a single lot as a district and wondered if it would be permitted under MGL c.40A §4. Mr. Hornig stated he has run preliminary EOHLC compliance models and has found that Article 2 does not comply. He reiterated his desire to see the applicant’s proof of compliance. He strongly emphasized the necessity of keeping Lexington in compliance with all regulations. Mr. Hornig suggested the applicants reconsider the districts to remain under Article 2, noting his preference for Bedford Street/Worthen Road. He observed the districts are similarly sized and summarized the transit and retail options of the area. Mr. Hornig insisted Lexington Center must be kept as a Multi-Family Overlay district. He reiterated the comments of the Lexington Center Committee urging the petitioners to keep the overlay district zoning. Mr. Leon disagreed with Mr. Hornig’s assessments of risk to falling out of compliance. It is his opinion that Lexington will have sufficient units permitted by the end of the year to appease State requirements. Mr. Leon recognized the complexity of the issue. He agreed with Mr. Hornig’s suggestion that any amendments to the existing zoning would require far more public input and time than is allowed before Special Town Meeting. Mr. Leon also echoed Mr. Hornig’s concerns about retaining the Waltham Street/Concord Avenue district, noting that it has largely been built. He suggested the Lexington Center Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 12, 2025 Page 14 of 17 or Bedford Street/Worthen Road might be more appropriate to retain in Article 2. Mr. Leon noted the number of applications the Planning Board has received for subdivisions in order to freeze zoning. It is his opinion that regardless of the outcome of Article 2, many properties will still be permitted to develop under Village & Multi-Family Overlay zoning. He echoed Mr. Schanbacher’s comments about the impediments to realizing construction. Mr. Schanbacher added his support to the recommendation to retain the Bedford Street/Worthen Road district. Ms. McCabe provided more details on the process mentioned by Mr. Leon to freeze zoning for development. She clarified that regardless of the outcome of Article 2, these properties would lock in the existing Village or Multi-Family overlay zoning for up to eight years. Ms. McCabe stated the Planning staff received seven new zoning freeze applications that week, and only one applicant had preemptively contacted staff in the 2 years prior. Ms. Thompson moved to continue the public hearing for Special Town Meeting Article 2 & Annual Town Meeting Article 34 to Wednesday, February 26, 2025 at or after 6:00 pm on Zoom to allow time for the applicant to consider any changes in response to this evening’s hearing . Mr. Hornig seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 3-0-0 (Roll call: Thompson, Hornig, Schanbacher). MOTION PASSED. Mr. Bartenstein requested clarification on process for the next meeting. Mr. Schanbacher confirmed the Board would ask for a short presentation highlighting any changes, followed by another round of Board and public comment. ATM Article 33 to amend zoning bylaw accessory use Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing for Annual Town Meeting Article 33 to amend zoning bylaw for accessory use. Mr. Hornig summarized the proposed change to §3.2.1. The proposal will remove text from §3.2.1 requiring enforcement of General bylaws and state laws which do not pertain to zoning. It is his position that the bylaws should be enforced by the entities they designate. Board Questions Mr. Leon confirmed the mechanics of the bylaw in practice. He wondered who makes the determination if a use or structure is “customary and incidental.” Mr. Hornig confirmed it would be the Building Commissioner or the Zoning Board of Appeals. Public Comments Ralph Clifford, Zoning Board of Appeals Chair, advised the Board this bylaw frequently comes up on minor special permits, such as for decks. He explained the issues faced by the Zoning Board of Appeals with this bylaw. Board Comments Mr. Schanbacher expressed full support of this amendment. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 12, 2025 Page 15 of 17 Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing for Annual Town Meeting Article 33. Mr. Hornig seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 3-0-0 (Roll call: Hornig, Thompson, Schanbacher). MOTION PASSED. Ms. Thompson moved to recommend passage of Annual Town Meeting Article 33 to amend zoning bylaw accessory uses. Mr. Hornig seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 3-0-0 (Roll call: Thompson, Hornig, Schanbacher). MOTION PASSED. ATM Article 30 to amend required calculations of Inclusionary Housing for Special Residential Developments (SRDs) Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing for Annual Town Meeting Article 30 on Inclusionary Housing. Mr. Hornig summarized proposed change to amend the calculations for inclusionary housing to be based on the gross floor area of the proposed dwelling units, rather than the maximum possible gross floor area permitted by lot size. He also noted a technical correction to update DHCD to EOHLC in the text. Public Comments Elaine Tung, Affordable Housing Trust Chair, questioned if the Board will set a payment per square foot to the Affordable Housing Trust as they have in the past. She wondered if the inclusionary units will be a certain number of units or a certain percentage of floor area. Staff Response Mr. Hornig responded that §6.9.8.6 only applies to small special residential developments of 6 units or fewer. He was unable to comment on the payment to the Affordable Housing Trust, noting that it is a different discussion. Mr. Hornig confirmed that the inclusionary unit(s) are based on gross floor area, so as to allow more discretion in size and number of inclusionary units rather than incentivizing small inclusionary units. Board Comments Mr. Schanbacher stated that he is in support of this amendment and would recommend passage. Mr. Hornig and Ms. Thompson agreed with Mr. Schanbacher. Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing and make a positive recommendation to Town Meeting. Mr. Hornig seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 3-0-0 (Roll call: Thompson, Hornig, Schanbacher). MOTION PASSED. ATM Article 29 to amend zoning bylaw for bicycle parking Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing for ATM Article 29 to amend zoning bylaw for bicycle parking. Ms. McCabe encouraged the Board to recommend Article 29 be referred back to the Planning Board. She reminded the Board that they had discussed collaborating with the Bicycle Advisory Committee to define a more comprehensive zoning amendment. Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing and make a recommendation to Town Meeting to refer Article 29 back to the Planning Board. Mr. Hornig seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 3-0-0 (Roll call: Thompson, Hornig, Schanbacher). MOTION PASSED. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 12, 2025 Page 16 of 17 ATM Article 32 to amend zoning bylaw for technical corrections Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing for ATM Article 32 to amend zoning bylaw for technical corrections. Ms. McCabe summarized the technical corrections proposed noting that the special permits referenced are no longer used. Board Comments Mr. Schanbacher stated that he is in support of this amendment and recommending passage to Town Meeting. Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing and vote to make a favorable recommendation to Town Meeting. Mr. Hornig seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 3-0- 0 (Roll call: Thompson, Hornig, Schanbacher). MOTION PASSED. Board Administration Board Member & Staff Updates Ms. McCabe introduced the new Planner, Aaron Koepper. Ms. McCabe announced the Citizen Planner Training Collaborative annual conference will occur Saturday March 15, 2025. Review of Draft Meeting Minutes: 1/30/25 Ms. Thompson moved that the Planning Board approve the draft January 30, 2025 meeting minutes as presented. Mr. Hornig seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 3-0-0 (Roll call: Thompson, Hornig, Schanbacher). MOTION PASSED. Upcoming Meetings: Wednesday 2/26, 3/5, 3/12. Adjournment Ms. Thompson moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of February 12, 2025 at 11:24 pm. Mr. Hornig seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 3-0-0 (Roll call: Thompson, Hornig, Schanbacher). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 11:24 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) 17 Hartwell Avenue 1) Definitive Subdivision Plans dated 12/30/24; Application Cover Letter dated 12/30/24; Subdivision Drainage Memo dated 12/30/24; Geotechnical Report by Langan Engineering dated 4/21/22; Stormwater Management System Manual received 12/31/24; 17 Hartwell Definitive Subdivision Narrative dated 12/30/24; 17 Hartwell Covenant draft received 12/31/24; Form B Application for approval of Definitive Subdivision Plan dated 12/31/24; Comment Response Letter dated 12/30/24. 2) Draft decision memo dated 2/12/25 Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 12, 2025 Page 17 of 17 2) 3-4-5 Militia Drive 1) 3-5 Militia Preliminary Subdivision Project Narrative dated 1/7/25; Plans for Preliminary Subdivision dated 1/3/25. 2) Draft decision memo dated 2/12/25 3) 217-229-233-241 Massachusetts Avenue 1) 217-241 Massachusetts Ave Stamped ANR plot plans dated 1/26/25; Mass Ave ANR Cover Letter dated 1/30/25 4) 75 Outlook Drive 1) Cost Estimate dated 1/9/25 2) Performance Bond dated 1/30/25 3) DRAFT PB Bond Agreement dated 2/12/25 5) Special Town Meeting Article 2/Annual Town Meeting Article 34 1) Proposed Amendment Motion Language (text) dated 1/22/25 2) Proposed map visuals dated 1/22/25 3) Public Comments: a) Electronic mail from Margo Reder to Planning Board, Planning Director, and Select Boards, Subject: Proposed Developments on Piper Road, and Concord Ave, dated January 15, 2025 b) Electronic mail from Sheree Pollock to Planning Director, Subject: Remove Village Overlay: Amend Section 7.5: Spring St/Marrett Rd., dated February 7, 2025 (i) Electronic mail from Sheree Pollock to Planning Director, dated February 7, 2025 c) Electronic mail from Stephen Perkins to Planning Staff, Subject: Public Comments on citizen proposal to amend Section 7.5, dated February 8, 2025 d) Memo from the Housing Partnership Board to the Planning Board and Planning Staff, subject: Housing Partnership Board's Position on Article #2 (motion as proposed 1/22/25), dated February 10, 2025 6) Annual Town Meeting Article 33 1) Draft Article 33 Motion dated 1/7/25 7) Annual Town Meeting Article 30 1) Draft Article 30 Motion dated 1/3/25 8) Annual Town Meeting Article 29 1) Draft Article 29 Bicycle Parking Motion dated 1/15/25 9) Annual Town Meeting Article 32 1) Draft Article 32 Motion Technical Corrections dated 1/14/25