Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-02-26-PB-min Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 26, 2025 Page 1 of 20 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday February 26, 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 26, 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. Development Administration 166 Spring Street – Public hearing for a Limited Site Plan Review to convert the existing dwelling to the Muslim American Community Center Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing on the application of Isam Hijazi for a Limited Site Plan Review at 166 Spring Street. Ms. McCabe explained that due to the religious use of the site, the application qualifies for Limited Site Plan Review under to MGL c. 40A §3, commonly known as the “Dover Amendment.” She reminded the Board that they are restricted to regulating height, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking, building coverage, and stormwater management. The applicant, Isam Hijazi, summarized the proposed development. Mr. Hijazi noted that the Muslim American Community Center is moving to this location from their existing center at 344 Lowell Street. The application includes increased parking, building upgrades (including an ADA accessible entry and egress), an additional entrance to the site from Concord Avenue, and stormwater drainage updates. Mr. Hijazi acknowledged the Board would need to grant relief for the parking spaces in front of the dwelling as they do not comply with §135-5.11.1.3b. Mr. Hijazi referenced additional future improvements to the site and building, including plans for an expansion of the existing building and renovations of the garage for office or storage space. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe clarified the parking relief needed by the applicant. She noted that it would typically require a special permit but, due to the protected nature of the site, it falls within Board purvey as a relief under Site Plan Review. Ms. McCabe summarized the staff memo from Mr. Koepper. She requested extra Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 26, 2025 Page 2 of 20 landscaping to screen the parking area. She noted that the Engineering department had not completed their review yet. Ms. McCabe questioned the plan for trash removal, and asked if the site would require a dumpster. Mr. Hijazi confirmed the dumpster would be behind the existing garage building. Ms. McCabe requested it be screened and in an enclosure. Ms. McCabe advised this project would require submission to the Conservation Commission for review. Ms. McCabe recommended continuing the public hearing to a later Planning Board meeting to allow the applicant time to review feedback and make revisions as needed. Ms. McCabe noted that Planning Staff received one public comment from a neighbor on Concord Avenue with traffic concerns and questions about events at the site. She advised that traffic is not something the Board can regulate under Limited Site Plan Review. Mr. Hijazi advised that a wetlands scientist had reviewed the site and did not find any wetlands on the property. It is his opinion that Conservation Commission review is not needed. Ms. McNamara asked if applicant could provide details on phased construction. Mr. Hijazi replied that he is only looking at parking, lighting, and landscaping first, followed by building revisions, with expansion expected in 2-3 years. Board Questions Mr. Hornig questioned if the applicant has had any conversations with Conservation staff. Mr. Hijazi confirmed he has not spoken with Conservation staff, noting that they advised there might be wetlands on the property. He stated that due to his wetlands scientist’s review, is his opinion that Conservation Commission review is not needed. Mr. Hornig confirmed that nothing on the site is within a 100’ buffer of the nearby wetlands. Mr. Hornig verified that Mr. Hijazi had seen the staff memo and wondered if there were any comments they would not be able to address before the next meeting. Mr. Hijazi expressed confidence that they would address any outstanding issues. Mr. Hornig confirmed the only relief needed was for the four parking spaces in front of the dwelling. Mr. Hornig expressed initial approval of the project, pending stormwater review by the Engineering department. Ms. Thompson questioned how many parking spaces are at the current Lowell Street location and if there will be enough parking on site at 166 Spring Street. Mr. Hijazi responded there are about 50 spaces at the current location. He informed Ms. Thompson that the Center would double park cars in the lot for any major events and is committed to working with Police if needed. Mr. Creech wondered if the proposed curb cut on Concord Avenue would be for entrance and exiting the property. He recommended having it one-way entering onto the lot and cautioned against vehicles exiting to Concord Avenue. Mr. Hijazi agreed. Mr. Creech clarified the name for the Center. The president of the organization, Mr. Mohamed Miled, confirmed the name is the Muslim American Community Center at Lexington, Massachusetts (MACCLM). Ms. McCabe urged the applicant to follow up with the Conservation Director after the Planning Board meeting, as she had some questions about where the nearby wetlands were. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 26, 2025 Page 3 of 20 Public Comments Mat Gauvin, 580 Concord Avenue, expressed support for the project. He raised questions and concerns about stormwater management, noting an existing drain pipe issue. Mr. Gauvin encouraged the Board and the applicant to consider crosswalk upgrades at this intersection for safety. Mr. Schanbacher encouraged Mr. Gauvin to participate in the Conservation Commission meetings when those occur. Ms. McNamara confirmed that abutters within 100’ would be notified prior to those meetings. Suni George, 157 Old Spring Street, questioned overflow parking needs of the site and requested clarification of proposed construction on the existing building. Mr. Hijazi confirmed that given the size of the current community overflow parking is not likely to be needed. He clarified the changes to the building will be to bring it into ADA compliance and utility upgrades. Ms. George expressed support for the project. Dimitri Papathanasiou, 575 Concord Avenue, requested the applicant provide details on landscaping for shading and to minimize light pollution. Board Comments Mr. Creech suggested Mr. Hijazi consider robust landscaping for privacy. Mr. Hijazi informed the Board he hired a registered landscape architect to confirm compliance. Mr. Creech appreciated their compliance and urged them to go beyond minimum requirements. Mr. Hornig encouraged the applicant to foster good neighborhood relationships. Mr. Schanbacher welcomed Mr. Hijazi and MACCLM to the neighborhood. He echoed Mr. Creech’s suggestion of additional landscape screening. He agreed that the new curb cut should be a one-way driveway into the property. He suggested additional signage on the entrance, noting that drivers coming off Route 2 may attempt a U-turn on their property. Ms. McCabe advised that the Conservation Director, Karen Mullins, was present at the meeting and confirmed that the wetlands need to be verified. She noted that based on public comments, it seems there are wetlands in the area and the project will require Conservation Commission review. Ms. McCabe cautioned that wetlands could alter the proposed parking layout. Mr. Hijazi reiterated his wetlands specialist review confirming there are no wetlands on the property. Ms. McCabe cautioned against measuring wetlands in February; she recommended reviewing them in the spring. Mr. Schanbacher confirmed that the applicant will be ready to return on March 27, 2025. Ms. Thompson moved to recommend the public hearing for the limited site plan review for 166 Spring Street be continued to Thursday, March 27, 2025 at or after 6:00 pm on Zoom. 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. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 26, 2025 Page 4 of 20 Annual Town Meeting Article 31 to Amend Zoning Bylaw for National Flood Insurance (NFI) District Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing for Annual Town Meeting Article 31 to amend the zoning bylaw for the National Flood Insurance (NFI) District to update the Zoning Map to reference updated FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), update §10.0 of Zoning Bylaw for Definitions, and update various sections of §7.1 to comply with FEMA’s Standards and Regulations, including permit requirements and to reference the updated FEMA maps going into effect July 8, 2025. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe presented Article 31 to amend §7.1. She informed participants that FEMA has provided a state model bylaw, which communities should adopt, and has recommended updated municipal regulations and standards. Ms. McCabe summarized the changes proposed by Article 31, including removing references to outdated maps, additional reports and notifications, new prohibitions regarding new construction, and adding some permit requirements. Ms. McCabe provided details to participants on how to check their properties on the maps. Board Questions Mr. Hornig raised concerns with §7.1.8-7.1.9 regarding permits. He requested clarification on which permits are required and if determinations of applicability that are not specifically called “permits” would meet the requirements. Nadia Madden, Flood Hazard Management program at the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, clarified there is no one specific permit required by FEMA. She advised that the language is intentionally written to encompass a wide variety of documented review processes. Mr. Hornig suggested additional language to provide guidance to citizens. Ms. Madden requested the definitions not be changed. She cautioned that what may seem like a small change can significantly alter the meaning and intent of the FEMA provided regulations. Karen Mullins, Conservation Director for the Town of Lexington, confirmed there are permits that can be used for all floodplain and wetland reviews. Mr. Hornig noted that definitions pertaining to the National Flood Insurance District defined in §135-10.0 that should be moved into §135-7.1, specifically the definitions for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); Structure (National Flood Insurance District); Zone A (National Flood Insurance District); Zone A1-30 and Zone AE (for new and revised maps) (National Flood Insurance District); and Zones B, C, and X (for new and revised maps) (National Flood Insurance District). Mr. Leon appreciated Mr. Hornig’s questions and Ms. Mullins’ reply about all potential development requiring some sort of permit review, even if it doesn’t necessarily fall under Zoning. He asked if there is any portion of the new maps that include lands that would not be subject to the Conservation Commission’s jurisdiction. Ms. Mullins confirmed that the requirements for the National Flood Insurance are synonymous with bordering lands subject to flooding, which is a resource governed by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Leon wondered if the Conservation Commission should update their bylaw Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 26, 2025 Page 5 of 20 and regulation language to ensure clarity in §7.1.9 that proponents may also be required to obtain federal and state approvals. Public Comments Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, Precinct 1 Town Meeting Member, questioned if the updated FEMA flood maps would be incorporated into GIS reference layers. He noted that there are properties in the MBTA Village Overlay zoning with flood concerns that were not noted in existing GIS layers as sensitive land. Ms. McCabe responded that maps were updated with data from the state in 2023 for MBTA zoning. She noted that it might not be as up-to-date and accurate as current flood maps. Ms. Madden confirmed that preliminary maps are available for public download and that her department is working with the EOHLC to update maps for the MBTA zoning. She recommended any questions on specific property regarding MBTA zoning and floodplains should work with the EOHLC to ensure continued compliance. Board Comments Mr. Schanbacher supported Mr. Hornig’s request to move definitions from §10.0 to §7.1.9. Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing on Annual Town Meeting Article 31 relative to the National Flood Insurance District amendments. 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 recommend approval of the proposed zoning and favorable action by Town Meeting as updated during the course of the meeting on February 26, 2025. 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. STM Article 2/ATM Article 34 to reduce Multi-Family Dwelling Unit Capacity in the Village & Multi-Family Overlay Districts Mr. Schanbacher re-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. Mr. Schanbacher advised he would make every effort to prioritize public comments from those who have not yet spoken to the Board. He noted for the record that there were 230 participants in the Zoom meeting. The petitioner team included: Carol Sacerdote, John Bartenstein, Alan Levine, and Dawn McKenna. Ms. Sacerdote noted that the technical section of the motion remained unchanged from previous meeting. She then summarized changes to the resolution of the proposal. She reiterated the goals of Article 2 to remain compliant with stated requirements, while also slowing down rapid development. Mr. Bartenstein reminded participants of the EOHLC and MBTA Communities Act requirements in general and those specific to Lexington. Mr. Bartenstein defined districts and subdistricts per the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC). Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 26, 2025 Page 6 of 20 Mr. Levine explained the proponents’ motion and detailed their compliance. He repeated the goals presented by Ms. Sacerdote. He noted that the proponents had included exceptions for nine (9) properties with applications before the Planning Board at the request of Ms. McCabe. Mr. Levine discussed the proposed changes to the zoning map, highlighting the removal of MFO (Multi-Family Overlay) districts entirely, and reducing the VO (Village Overlay) and VHO (Village High-Rise Overlay) districts, both in size and quantity. Mr. Levine asserted that the proponents had run the compliance model for the EOHLC and were confident in their compliance. He explained the land area selections for the VO/VHO districts and the sub-districts and highlighted the benefits to each area being included in multi-family zoning. Mr. Levine noted that the Bedford Street/Worthen Road district was not included due to the large size of the district and the risk posed to the current tenants of 36 Bedford Street (Stop & Shop) and 60 Bedford Street (Walgreens) by housing development. He explained how the proponents’ 15 units per acre density limit was calculated and noted that the exempt properties would not be restricted by a density limit. Mr. Levine suggested that different controls might be proposed at a future Town Meeting. Mr. Bartenstein addressed concerns about “spot zoning” and the Attorney General rejecting the proposal on that basis. It was his opinion that it is not spot zoning to recognize the already protected status of the 9 exempt projects. He noted that 3 properties could be at risk of being considered “spot zoning” since they have not submitted zoning freeze applications yet. Mr. Bartenstein spoke to feedback about affordable housing concerns. He reminded participants that the MBTA Communities Act was not implemented to maximize affordable housing, merely to increase multi-family housing, and imposes limits on the inclusionary units that can be required by the Town. Mr. Bartenstein presented alternative options for affordable housing such as 40R, 40S, or Friendly 40Bs. Mr. Bartenstein highlighted financial concerns raised by the Appropriations Committee. He urged that time is of the essence in revising §7.5 Zoning. Ms. McKenna responded to previous questions by Ms. Thompson regarding the proponents’ desired public engagement process. Ms. McKenna shared preliminary discussions by the Select Board on appointing an ad hoc committee to review community services, financial implications, organizational impacts, and to identify grants which may be impacted by the MBTA zoning. She noted that the Select Board recommended changing the language of the resolution surrounding community involvement. Ms. McKenna suggested the Planning Board review their process and consider appropriate modifications for future zoning amendments. She reiterated concerns with Annual Town Meeting 2023 Article 34. Ms. Sacerdote highlighted the urgency in calling a Special Town Meeting. She presented the proponents’ interpretation of what a ‘yes’ vote at Special Town Meeting would mean, and reiterated the potential ramifications of a ‘no’ vote. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe gave a presentation. Ms. McCabe summarized the current development applications before the Planning Board, noting that of the 10 projects that have been submitted, 5 have been approved by the Board and 5 are still going through the approximately 5- to 6- month review process with the Board. She provided an overview of the inclusionary dwelling selection process and shared current rental and sale caps and the 80% Average Median Income (AMI) figure used to determine eligibility. Ms. McCabe Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 26, 2025 Page 7 of 20 shared the unit size and breakdown of proposed projects and endorsed the variety of units. She noted that the majority (60%) are studio or 1-bedroom units. Ms. McCabe stated this supports Lexington’s Comprehensive Plan and commitment to housing diversity. Ms. McCabe explained the types of zoning freezes available and their protections under Massachusetts state laws. She summarized the timeline for the Zoning Amendment process and highlighted where the process is at the meeting. She noted that she expects the Board to be able to vote on a recommendation to Town Meeting at their March 12 meeting. Ms. McCabe reminded participants that Town Meeting Members will be the voting body on this article and that the Planning Board must give a recommendation to Town Meeting prior to that vote. She presented the options the Planning Board has for recommendations: Approval, Disapproval, Referral back to Planning Board, or present an Alternate Motion. Ms. McCabe presented an alternative proposal drafted with input from Mr. Hornig. The alternate proposal removes 7 of the original 12 Overlay districts and suggests a site coverage limit rather than a density limit to restrict development size. Ms. McCabe explained how this proposal would reduce the acres under MBTA zoning from 228 to 99 and total unit capacity from 12,546 to 1,697. She noted that this would ensure compliance with state regulations and would ask for language to protect existing development proposals. Ms. McCabe detailed the differences between the petitioners proposed maps and the alternate proposal. Mr. Hornig informed the participants that many of the suggestions in the alternate proposal were raised at previous Planning Board meetings but were dismissed by the petitioners. He and Ms. McCabe felt they needed to move forward with an alternative that did encompass the concerns of the Board and the public, while also meeting the proponents’ and citizens’ goals to slow growth immediately. Mr. Hornig explained the district choices and highlighted the simplicity of 5 larger districts over 3 districts plus scattered properties. He noted that the proponents’ proposal for the existing projects would freeze MBTA zoning on those lots permanently. He suggested in the alternative proposal that the existing projects be allowed to continue under the current MBTA zoning, but if a new project is proposed on the exempt lots, the land itself would be held to the zoning bylaws of the time, not 2023 MBTA Zoning. Mr. Hornig explained the appeal of the smaller districts anchored by existing retail spaces. Mr. Hornig detailed the site coverage restrictions. He reiterated the downsides to using a density limit to control development growth. Mr. Hornig cited the application for 952 Waltham Street, noting that it is nearly compliant with the proponents’ motion at 16 units per acre, and the units are 3,000 SF and 4 bedrooms each. He emphasized the need for diversity in dwelling sizes and reiterated the Board’s approval of the smaller units proposed in other developments. Mr. Hornig provided the definition of the site coverage limit as the ratio of the gross footprint of the building to the overall size of the lot. He explained how this would reduce building size and unit capacity for future multi-family projects. Mr. Hornig detailed his concerns with Article 2’s compliance as written by the petitioners, and explained how the alternate proposal is fully compliant with state regulations. He further noted the risks of falling out of compliance with the state. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 26, 2025 Page 8 of 20 Board and Applicant Questions Mr. Creech was glad to see alternative motion. He noted that he has expressed preference in the past to keep the Bedford Street/Worthen Road district over the Concord Avenue/Waltham Street district. Mr. Creech questioned the proponents’ reaction to Lexington Center Committee memo. Mr. Creech indicated initial support of Article 2 for many reasons, including fiscal responsibility, but questioned the exclusion of Lexington Center in the proponents’ motion. Ms. McKenna advised that the proponents have had informal meetings with the chair of the Lexington Center Committee, Jerry Michelson. She further advised that the proponents were scheduled to attend the next Lexington Center Committee meeting. Ms. McKenna continued to have concerns about the parking requirements for Lexington Center as a Multi- Family Overlay (MFO) district and did not believe Lexington Center should be included in any multi-family zoning tied to the MBTA Communities Act. Mr. Leon appreciated the work done by Mr. Hornig and Ms. McCabe. He requested clarification from Mr. Hornig about the protections proposed for existing projects. He suggested Mr. Hornig add language to the alternate motion to exempt the existing projects from zoning changes while not exempting the land or lot itself should a new project be proposed. Mr. Leon also requested clarification on the lot coverage restriction and how it would work with the MBTA and EOHLC requirements. Mr. Hornig explained that the lot coverage does factor into the EOHLC’s calculations for unit capacity. He further explained that it was chosen to encourage development on small lots. Mr. Leon questioned the height revisions in the alternate proposal. Mr. Hornig explained how the height restriction and mixed-use bonus would work with the site coverage restriction. Mr. Leon wondered what protections were proposed to protect existing Site Plan Review developments on Village Overlay or Village High-Rise Overlay districts. Mr. Hornig advised that the preferred proposal would include language akin to a special permit freeze for those projects, and recommended legal counsel advise on the matter. Ms. Thompson wondered if the reduction in acres was connected to the site coverage restriction and if there was an impact to mixed-use. Mr. Hornig confirmed they are two separate pieces of the proposal and that mixed-use is still permitted and encouraged where the underlying district is commercial. Ms. Thompson questioned the impact to inclusionary units. Mr. Hornig confirmed that fewer dwelling units would result in fewer inclusionary units being required. He cautioned that lowering the number of units would also likely result in the need to lower the inclusionary requirement from 15% to 10% pending a feasibility study. Mr. Levine expressed interest in the proposal. He suggested a meeting between the proponents, Mr. Hornig, and Ms. McCabe. Mr. Levine disagreed with Mr. Hornig’s calculations and assessment of compliance. He wondered if Lexington Center and the existing pipeline projects were included in the alternate motion. Mr. Hornig confirmed that Lexington Center and the pipeline projects were not included in the motion or his calculations. Ms. McKenna questioned Mr. Hornig’s assertion that larger units would be the result of a density cap. Mr. Hornig cited a proposal at 952 Waltham Street which almost complies with the proponents’ density cap at 16 units per acre; the units are 3,000 SF with 4+ bedroom. Ms. McKenna confirmed no other Board Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 26, 2025 Page 9 of 20 members worked on the proposal. She wondered at Mr. Hornig’s certainty that their motion was not compliant. Mr. Hornig advised that the EOHLC could rescind the determination of compliance. He reminded Ms. McKenna that the EOHLC has indicated that they are concerned with zoning compliance, not the units actually built. Ms. McKenna disagreed with his assessment. Mr. Hornig wondered if the proponents had submitted any preliminary work to the EOHLC to determine compliance. Mr. Bartenstein advised that they worked with Ms. McCabe to submit a pre-adoption review. Ms. McCabe confirmed she sent the motion and revised motion to the EOHLC, but advised that it could take up to 90 days to receive a response. She noted that the process might be simplified if the proponents shared their compliance model. Ms. McCabe highlighted concern about the scattered sites proposed by the proponents. She was not certain those would count towards compliance. Mr. Bartenstein echoed Mr. Levine’s suggestion of a meeting between Planning staff and the proponents. Mr. Creech suggested multi-family developments Lexington Center could be addressed by special permits. He echoed proponents’ concerns about the Stop & Shop lot [36 Bedford Street] being residentially developed. He requested calculations on site coverage of existing pipeline projects and what those projects would look like if compliant under the alternate motion. Mr. Bartenstein confirmed the calculations with Mr. Hornig and reiterated that his numbers do not include the pipeline projects. Mr. Hornig clarified that his calculations include unit capacity for the proposed zones to determine compliance. Ms. Thompson wondered if the proponents felt the alternate motion addressed their concerns. Ms. McKenna stated her surprise at the alternate motion. She shared concerns about the process surrounding the alternate motion. Mr. Schanbacher noted the short timeline prior to Special Town Meeting and reminded participants that Ms. McCabe outlined the options, including an amended motion, at the outset of her presentation. Ms. McCabe advised that the alternate motion was drafted when the proponents did not submit substantial changes to their proposal to address the questions and concerns of the Planning Board. She felt it was important to present an option that met the goals of the petitioners while also meeting the requests of the Board. Mr. Schanbacher responded to accusations that the Board rushed their proposal for Article 34 in 2023 and wondered what the proponents would consider adequate time to draft a zoning change. Ms. McKenna reiterated the urgency to amend the zoning and suggested some amendments could be made within a few months and more complex amendments could be brought to Town Meeting in 2026. Mr. Schanbacher wondered about the process of the proposed Select Board ad hoc committee. He questioned if the ad hoc committee and the proponents would be amenable to reinstating all of the by-right Village Overlay multi- family zoning if financial analysis supported it. Mr. Bartenstein and Ms. McKenna indicated that if there was financial evidence to support the growth, they would consider additional by-right multi-family zoning, provided there was additional oversight and restrictions in the bylaw. Mr. Hornig questioned if there is interest in the landowner community to pursue 40B or 40R given the discretionary nature or Town Meeting requirements of the permits. He requested clarification on the Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 26, 2025 Page 10 of 20 “bleeding” the proponents referenced and clarified that the concern is for future impacts to the Town; there is no “bleeding” currently occurring. Board recessed at 9:31 p.m. and reconvened at 9:36 p.m. Public Comments Doris Wong, 12 Drummer Boy Way, expressed concern about the alternative proposal being presented without prior knowledge. She urged the Board to continue the hearing to allow the public more time to review or support Article 2 as written by the proponents. Yi Yang, 56 Grant Street, expressed support for Article 2. She voiced concerns that the alternative proposal was rushed and if it needed more rigorous review. Ms. Yang also questioned why a proposal was not presented by the Board sooner. Janet Kern, 72 Lowell Street, Precinct 1 Town Meeting Member, echoed concerns of previous speakers about the alternative proposal. She expressed displeasure at the process and the wait to speak. Ms. Kern supports slowing growth and development by supporting Article 2, under whichever iteration is presented to Town Meeting. Al Solomon, 15 Ledgelawn Avenue, expressed concerns about population growth and impact to Town resources and accessible parking. He encouraged support of Article 2 and additional handicap parking. Mark Ligor, 385 Marrett Road, echoed the surprise of previous speakers. He urged the Board to support Article 2 to pause growth. Mr. Ligor has concerns about traffic and safety. Teresa Wright, 35 Reed Street, supports Article 2. She is concerned by the report from the Appropriation Committee. Taylor Singh, 40 Hancock Street, Precinct 6 Town Meeting Member, suggested a meeting to compare compliance models. She highlighted concerns with aspects of the alternative proposal, but sees it as a compromise. She supports slowing growth. Mike Wise, 19 Hill Street, reiterated concerns based on the Appropriation Committee report; Mr. Wise supports Article 2. He raised concerns with the alternative proposal. Anne MacDonald-Broun, 50 Hancock Street, supported Article 2. She echoed financial and infrastructure concerns. Ms. MacDonald-Broun recommended a more cautious approach to future zoning. Tim Wright, supported Article 2 and is concerned with the Board presenting a proposal at this time. He stated the Board wildly miscalculated and believes that it hurt the Board’s credibility. Steven Singer, 44 York Street, speaking on behalf of Chris Herbert, 366 Marrett Road, opposed Article 2 as written. He believes it needs greater input from Planning Board and public. Mr. Herbert strongly supports the Marrett Road/Waltham Street overlay district. He raised concerns about limited housing diversity. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 26, 2025 Page 11 of 20 Elaine Tung, Chair of the Affordable Housing Trust, opposed Article 2 in its current form. Ms. Tung recognized valid concerns of the public and noted the extremely high cost of living in Lexington. She encouraged smaller building sizes and more affordable housing. She raised concerns about affordable housing inventory under the proponents’ density limits. Helen Theodosiou, 38 Drummer Boy Way, expressed surprised at the alternative proposal. She felt public concerns were ignored in 2023. Ms. Theodosiou supports Article 2. Tina McBride, 45 Turning Mill Road, Precinct 7 Town Meeting Member, Candidate for Planning Board, expressed support for Article 2. She agreed that revisions would be needed and reiterated the concerns of the public. Ms. McBride recommended exploring the other options presented by Mr. Bartenstein for affordable housing. Kate Colburn, 49 Forest Street, Precinct 4 Town Meeting Member, former member of the School Committee, the Appropriation Committee, and the Permanent Building Committee, voiced concerned about Lexington’s ability to support development. She supports Article 2. Ms. Colburn felt misled by the alternative proposal not including existing projects and Lexington Center in the calculations. She raised concerns about retaining the Worthen Road/Bedford Street district. Mark Lang, 2 Opi Circle, expressed displeasure with existing zoning and support for Article 2. Richard Canale, 29 Shade Street, Precinct 9 Town Meeting Member, former Planning Board member, spoke in support of Article 2. Mr. Canale recognized that Lexington needs more housing. He said there are better tools to provide more housing and more affordable housing. Gil Benghiat, 5 Sunny Knoll Avenue, supported Article 2 as presented by the proponents. He is in support of more housing, but wants to ensure it is done in a financially responsible manner. Melinda Walker, 14 Larchmont Lane, opposes Article 2 in current form. Ms. Walker stated that housing production has not kept up with demand. She reminded participants of the serious crisis many homeless families face. Tom Shiple, 18 Phinney Road, Precinct 9 Town Meeting Member, Bicycle Advisory Committee Member, Planning Board candidate, supported slowing growth and wondered if it would be possible to add a density limit to the Board’s alternate motion in addition to the proposed site coverage restrictions. Mr. Shiple questioned if the alternate proposal would consider parking structures in the site coverage calculations and requested site coverage calculations on the 9 exempt properties. Lingnan Zhang, 2 Manor Terrace, shared results of a recent poll of Lexington’s Chinese community with 94% opposing Annual Town Meeting Article 34. Ms. Zhang reiterated concerns about schools and traffic. She expressed support for Article 2. David Corcoran, 5 Franklin Road, appreciated alternative proposal and options presented to limit development. Mr. Corcoran wondered if there is a third option and encouraged the petitioners, Planning Board, and Select Board all work together prior to Special Town Meeting. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 26, 2025 Page 12 of 20 Michaela Barnes, 14 Diana Lane, disliked the alternate proposal and felt it was unprofessional to “spring” it on the public and Board. She urged Board to care for the residents and support slow, measured growth. Kathryn Roy, 382 Marrett Road, Precinct 4 Town Meeting Member, supported the alternate proposal. Ms. Roy had concerns about proponents’ density limit and disagreed with their assessment of 40B and 40R opportunities in Lexington. She thought it was odd the proponents raised concerns about Stop & Shop and Walgreens. Kunal Botla, 40 Grapevine Avenue, Precinct 4 Town Meeting Member, Chair of the Transport Advisory Committee, opposed Article 2. Mr. Botla emphasized that many of the speakers already own their homes and raised concerns over Lexington turning into an exclusive, exclusionary community, particularly towards Gen Z. He reminded participants that zero units have been built at the time of the meeting. Mr. Botla encouraged the proponents to write language making Article 2 a pause, as it currently is written as a repeal. Lisa Newton, 15 Ledgelawn Avenue, raised concerns about health and function of the Planning Board in regards to the alternate presentation. She has concerns about lack of review or planning with Bedford Street. Ms. Newton does not support additional multi-family housing on Bedford Street. She supports Article 2 as written by the proponents. Mr. Schanbacher clarified that alternate proposal was presented as it was due to the Open Meeting Law. He noted that only 2 Planning Board members can meet outside of a public meeting. Mr. Hornig noted that the alternate proposal could not have been presented before this evening’s meeting due to the Open Meeting Law and that it was a result of the first hearing two weeks ago. Ms. McCabe added that she and Mr. Hornig prepared the alternate proposal concepts presented tonight in the last two days when it became apparent the proponents would not consider incorporating any of the Board or public feedback into their motion. Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, Precinct 1 Town Meeting Member, appreciated Mr. Schanbacher’s clarification and supported the Board sharing the alternate proposal at this meeting. Mr. Luker supports slowing growth, and had concerns with Article 2. It was his hope that there would be a middle ground between current zoning and the proponents’ motion. He approved of the alternate proposal, and wished that it preserved more of the Village Overlay zoning map. Sumitra Sujanani, 29 Ledgelawn Avenue, supported Article 2. Ms. Sujanani expressed concern for bicycle and pedestrian safety with increased population. She also questioned the impact to emergency vehicle response times. Sylvia Fohlin, 10 Cherry Street, echoed previous comments about development moving too fast, and felt there was a lack of transparency in the 2023 process. Ms. Fohlin believes neighborhoods are not being treated equally, with East Lexington carrying a heavier burden than other districts. She strongly supports more affordable housing and noted that projects are very different across the proposals. Mr. Schanbacher noted for the record that Mr. Creech left the meeting at 10:47 p.m. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 26, 2025 Page 13 of 20 Todd Rhodes, 482 Marrett Road, echoed Mr. Luker’s and others’ comments. Mr. Rhodes expressed support for alternative motion. He felt it met the proponents’ goals while addressing the concerns raised by the Board at previous meetings. Carol Coleman, 63 Fifer Lane, supported the intention of Article 2 and slowing down growth. Ms. Coleman encouraged the Planning Board and the proponents to collaborate on a third option that would please everyone. Lily Yan, 46 Courtyard Place, Precinct 5 Town Meeting Member, supported Article 2 as written by the proponents. Ms. Yan felt the Planning Board misled Town Meeting in 2023 and called for all Board members involved to resign. Michael Boudett, 39 Prospect Hill Road, Precinct 4 Town Meeting Member, Capital Expenditures Committee member, spoke against Article 2 at the last meeting. He appreciated the alternate motion addressing concerns he raised. Mr. Boudett stated his support for the alternate motion for Article 2 and urged the proponents to support the alternative proposal. Minmin Yang, 165 Lincoln Street, supported Article 2. Ms. Yang raised concerns about schools, green space, and traffic impacts. Edna Luther, 28 Eldred Street, supported Article 2. She asserted that Lexington needs to slow down development and conduct a financial review. Ms. Luther echoed concerns about infrastructure, particularly related to the schools, emergency services, and utilities. She expressed a preference for ownership units rather than rentals in the multi-family developments. Brendan Maher, 66 Winter Street, expressed full support of Article 2 and is supportive of alternative motion. He questioned parking in Lexington Center in the alternate motion. Mr. Maher expressed concern about the community buy-in of the alternate motion. Nani McDonnell, 22 Forest Street, noted that while the Planning Board’s estimate was miscalculated, this is not a blame game. Ms. McDonnell stated it is vital to slow down to ensure the best decisions are made for the Town. She supported Article 2 as written by the proponents. Ravneet Grewal, 23 Bennington Road, founding member of the Lexington Food Cooperative, supported the Planning Board in their alternate presentation. Ms. Grewal supports more housing and noted that the Lexington Food Cooperative would not be a feasible endeavor under the proponents’ Article 2 motion. She opposed Article 2. Genevieve Wang, 1 Patriots Drive, supported Article 2. Ms. Wang questioned why the Planning Board did not present a motion when development started coming in at higher levels than anticipated. She expressed distrust of the Board’s proposal and does not support the alternate motion. Ms. McCabe clarified that the Planning Department started receiving applications in Summer 2024, but did not see the growth until the fall. Due to the timing of the Annual Town Meeting warrant deadlines, the Open Meeting Law, and significantly reduced staffing in the Planning Office at that time, there was not sufficient time to prepare a zoning amendment for Annual Town Meeting 2025. She reminded Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 26, 2025 Page 14 of 20 participants that the proponents are not held to the same rigorous laws surrounding public meetings and that it takes time to build a suitable proposal. Carol Marine, 18 Oakmount Circle, Vision for Lexington Committee, called for balanced responsible budgeting. She recommended several resources to help the public understand the economic impacts of multi-family housing. She echoed Mr. Luker’s comments supporting the Board and Planning staff in the alternate motion. Ms. Marine encouraged a collaboration between the Board and the proponents to come to a cohesive joint motion. Owen Curtin, 451 Marrett Road, opposed Article 2. Mr. Curtin expressed interest in the alternate proposal. He questioned how a third option would work for recommendation to Town Meeting. Mr. Hornig said that he would work with the proponents to try to reach a compromise. If such a compromise is reached, that would be recommended by the Board at Town Meeting. If no such compromise can be reached, the Planning Board would vote to recommend approval or disapproval of Article 2 as it stands to Town Meeting. The Board’s alternate motion could be presented as a floor amendment to be voted on at Town Meeting. Andreas Theodosiou, 38 Drummer Boy Way, supported Article 2. Mr. Theodosiou also supported collaboration between the proponents and the Board. Linda Prosnitz, 3 Demar Road, Affordable Housing Trust Member, supported the alternative motion. She appreciated the compliance and that it addressed concerns raised in previous meetings. Ms. Prosnitz supported the mix of unit sizes in proposed developments and emphasized the need for variety in dwelling units. She reported that she has seen studies showing a positive fiscal impact of multi-family housing. Nanette Byrnes, 6 Sherburne Road, Housing Partnership Board Member, expressed support and appreciation for the hard work of the Planning Board and staff. She is optimistic about the smaller units drawing younger residents to Lexington. Ms. Byrnes stated that the reports produced by the Superintendent of Lexington Public Schools shows that the school system will be able to absorb the increased residents under the MBTA zoning. She further noted that studies in nearby communities have shown a net positive fiscal impact on the Towns’ budgets. Vida Baterina, 175 Grove Street, favored prompt rollback of zoning to State mandated minimums. Ms. Baterina did not feel the Planning Board adequately considered the economic burden to the Town. Lin Jensen, 133 Reed Street, Precinct 8 Town Meeting Member, recognized the housing crisis in the state. She felt Lexington has already covered the entire needs of the state and that Article 2 as written by the proponents would allow for sufficient future development. Ms. Jensen did not support adding Lexington Center and Bedford Street/Worthen Road districts to the MBTA zoning districts. Tony Galaitsis, 7 Burroughs Road, Precinct 5 Town Meeting Member, supported Article 2. He agreed with previous comments about the proposed development size and speed. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 26, 2025 Page 15 of 20 Shubhra Chandra, 10 Childs Road, supported Article 2 as written by the proponents. Ms. Chandra felt it was unprofessional to bring a new motion at this time. She disapproved of the alternate motion, specifically calling out the number of acres proposed for multi-family zoning. Olga Guttag, 273 Emerson Road, corrected a previous speaker about school analysis of potential incoming students. Ms. Guttag stated there is no precedent for this population growth and she did not have confidence Lexington Schools could support it. Benjamin Lees, 57 Gleason Road, Precinct 7 Town Meeting Member, expressed concerns about the proponents’ density limit. He appreciated the alternate proposal and expressed his preference to see the alternate motion before Town Meeting. Board and Proponent Comments Mr. Hornig wondered what the next steps would be. He supported a collaborative meeting between Board members, Planning staff, and the proponents. Mr. Schanbacher agreed with Mr. Hornig and reminded participants that the Special Town Meeting cannot vote without a recommendation from the Planning Board. Ms. McKenna also wondered what the next steps would be. She expressed disappointment with the Planning Board and staff for not sharing a draft alternate motion earlier. Ms. Sacerdote noted that she came forward with petition because the Planning Board had not made such a motion. She was pleased another proposal has come forward, but wished it had been on the posted agenda. Ms. Sacerdote committed to working with staff and the Board to come to a collaborative resolution, inclusive of feedback from the upcoming meeting with the Lexington Center Committee. Ms. McCabe noted for the record that Mr. Creech emailed her that he is in support of Article 2. Mr. Hornig reminded the proponents that every item in the alternate motion was discussed at a previous meeting and that the proponents were encouraged to adopt the suggestions earlier. Mr. Leon recognized the challenges of Open Meeting Law and the tremendous work done by Planning staff and the proponents. He empathized with the proponents’ frustration. He questioned the correlation between building size restrictions and the dwelling unit count and size. Mr. Bartenstein stated interest in the proposed site plan coverage restrictions. He raised concerns about calculations. He committed to collaboration with the Board on a joint motion. Mr. Schanbacher emphasized the need to come to a resolution prior to Special Town Meeting. He took a straw vote which showed Board support for Article 2 overall, with a slight preference for Mr. Hornig and Ms. McCabe’s alternate motion. Ms. Thompson would like to see a revised third option which is a compromise of the two motions. Ms. McCabe recommended keeping the public hearing open if changes would be forthcoming on petitioners’ motion. She advised that if the Board wanted to consider a third option, the public hearing Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 26, 2025 Page 16 of 20 should be closed. Ms. Thompson requested time for the Board, the proponents, and the public to review the alternate motion and provide feedback. Mr. Schanbacher agreed, and reminded participants of the timeline before Special Town Meeting. Mr. Hornig suggested leaving the hearing open and collaborating with the proponents on a revised motion. Mr. Levine expressed willingness to work on a collaborative motion and suggested the proponents come back before the Board on March 5, 2025. Ms. McKenna supported Mr. Levine’s suggestion. She recommended that the hearing remain open and that the Board plan to vote at the March 5th meeting. Ms. Thompson agreed with Ms. McKenna’s suggestion. Ms. McCabe noted that two applicants scheduled for March 5th requested extensions, so the Board could likely accommodate adding the proponents to the agenda. Mr. Bartenstein suggested a meeting on Tuesday, March 4th with no more that two members of the Board, the proponents, and Ms. McCabe. Ms. Thompson and Mr. Hornig agreed to participate in that meeting. Mr. Schanbacher reminded participants that a decision must be made on the 5th. Ms. Thompson moved to continue the public hearing on the citizen petition Special Town Meeting Article 2 and Annual Town Meeting Article 34 to amend the Village & Multi-Family Overlay zoning until March 5, 2025 at or after 6:00 p.m. on Zoom. Mr. Hornig seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 3-0-0 (Roll call: Thompson, Hornig, Schanbacher). MOTION PASSED. 217-219, 229, 233, & 241 Massachusetts Avenue – Public meeting for a preliminary subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing on the application of North Shore Residential Development, Inc for a preliminary subdivision at 217-241 Massachusetts Avenue. Mark Vaughan, of Riemer Bronstein, Attorney for Applicant, introduced the engineer, Jack Sullivan, of Sullivan Engineering Group. Mr. Vaughan presented the application for a preliminary subdivision with three (3) lots on a cul-de-sac. He answered a previous question from Mr. Leon and confirmed the use of the overlay district in the preliminary subdivision. Mr. Vaughan confirmed the purpose of the subdivision application was to freeze the Village Overlay zoning and there is currently no intent to build out the road. Board Questions and Comments Mr. Leon thanked Mr. Vaughan for his response. Public Comments There were no public comments on this application. Ms. Thompson moved to approve the preliminary subdivision application for 217-219, 229, 233, 241 Massachusetts Ave. 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 3-0-0 (Roll call: Thompson, Hornig, Schanbacher). MOTION PASSED. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 26, 2025 Page 17 of 20 336 Marrett Road – Approval Not Required (ANR) Plan Mr. Schanbacher opened the public meeting on the application of Michael Modoono for an Approval Not Required (ANR) plan at 336 Marrett Road. The plan creates a 2nd lot at 336 Marrett Road. Ms. McCabe summarized the application. She recommends endorsement. Ms. Thompson moved to endorse the ANR plan for 336 Marrett Road. Mr. Hornig seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 3-0-0 (Roll call: Hornig, Thompson, Schanbacher). MOTION PASSED. Review draft recommendation reports for Articles 29, 30, 32, and 33 and presentation assignments Ms. McCabe noted staff has not drafted recommendations yet and recommended continuing this item to March, 5. Due to Mr. Creech’s absence, the Board agreed to discuss this at the March 5, 2025 meeting. Board Administration Review of Draft Meeting Minutes: February 12, 2025 Ms. Thompson moved that the Planning Board approve the draft February 12, 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 3/5, 3/12; Thursday 3/27, 4/10 Adjournment Ms. Thompson moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of February 26, 2025 at 12:22 a.m. on February 27, 2025. 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 12:22 a.m. on Thursday February 27, 2025. Lex Media recorded the meeting. Material from the meeting can be found in the Planning Board’s Novus Packet. List of Documents 1. 166 Spring Street Proposed plan set 166 Spring St dated 1/17/25; Planning Staff Memo dated 2/20/25; Engineering Memo dated 2/12/25 Public Comments 1. Electronic mail from Alexis Papathanasiou (Zallas) to Planning Staff and Planning Boar d, Subject: 166 Spring Street Cpmments, dated 2/20/25 2. Annual Town Meeting Article 31 FEMA Notification Letter dated 1/8/25; Proposed Zoning Amendment Motion dated 2/21/25; Staff Presentation Slides dated 2/24/25; FEMA National Flood Insurance Program Map Numbers Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 26, 2025 Page 18 of 20 25017C0402F, 25017C0401F, 25017C0392F, 25017C0384G, 25017C0382G, 25017C0416F, 25017C0414F, 25017C0412F, 25017C0411F, 25017C0408F dated 6/8/23 and Map Number 25017C0403F dated 8/13/21 3. Special Town Meeting Article 2/Annual Town Meeting Article 34 Petitioner Presentation 2.12.25; Staff Presentation 2.12.25; Proposed Zoning Motion 02.24.2025 Public Comments 1. Electronic contact form from Don Schomer to Planning dated 2/12/25 2. Electronic contact form from Meg Muckenhoupt to Planning dated 2/12/25 3. Electronic contact form from Chase Brownell to Planning dated 2/13/25 4. Electronic contact form from Lori Giterman to Planning dated 2/13/25 5. Electronic contact form from Tara Mizrahi to Planning dated 2/13/25 6. Electronic contact form from Roman Klovski to Planning dated 2/13/25 7. Electronic mail from Margaret Heitz to Planning, subject: My statement opposing STM Warrant Article 2, dated 2/12/25 8. Electronic contact form from Ellen Hillsinger to Planning dated 2/13/25 9. Electronic mail from Abirami Thesayi to Planning, subject: Article 2 (Amending zoning bylaw) – please vote yes, dated 2/16/25 10. Electronic contact form from Mike Kelly to Planning dated 2/14/25 11. Electronic mail from Theresa Modoono to Planning Board, subject: Proposed Amend Section 7.5 of the Zoning Bylaw to Reduce Multi-Family Dwelling Unit Capacity – Marrett Road and Waltham Street, dated 2/17/25 12. Electronic contact form from Richard Fried to Planning dated 2/17/25 13. Electronic mail from Gil Benghiat to Planning Board, subject: Article 2 questions, dated 2/19/25 14. Memo from the Lexington Housing Partnership to Planning and Board, subject: Lexington MBTA-C Overlays, dated 2/21/25 15. Electronic mail from Matthew Littlewood to Planning Board, subject: Support for Article 2, dated 2/23/25 16. Electronic contact form from Mauro Tedeschi to Planning dated 2/24/25 17. Electronic contact form from Metin Celebi to Planning dated 2/23/25 18. Electronic contact form from Roblee Hoffman to Planning dated 2/22/25 19. Electronic mail from Rachel Frankenfield to Planning, subject: Support of Article 2, dated 2/23/25 20. Electronic mail from Dina Yoo to Planning, subject: Article 2, dated 2/24/25 21. Electronic mail from Sanjay Padaki to Planning, subject: STM 2025-1 Article 2, dated 2/23/25 22. Electronic mail from Cary Pfeffer to Planning, subject: To Planning Board, dated 2/23/25 23. Electronic mail from Cheng Zhu to Planning, subject: Support for Article 2, dated 2/23/25 24. Electronic mail from Jian Wang to Planning, subject: Letter of Support for Article 2 Amendment of the MBTA Community Act, dated 2/23/25 25. Electronic mail from Arthur Wealthren to Planning, subject: I strongly support passage of Article 2 and urge the Planning Board to support the proposed motion, dated 2/23/25 26. Electronic mail from Mark Swartz to Planning, subject: Article 2 Support, dated 2/23/25 27. Electronic mail from Dan Murray to Planning, subject: 2/26 Planning Board Hearing, Resident Support For Passage of Article 2, dated 2/23/25 28. Electronic mail from Miranda Cohen to Planning, subject: Support of Article 2, dated 2/23/25 29. Memorandum from the Affordable Housing Trust to the Planning Board and the Select Board, subject: Position Statement on 2025 Special Town Meeting Article 2, dated 2/21/25 30. Electronic mail from Susan Amsel to Planning, subject: Support for Article 2, dated 2/24/25 31. Electronic mail from Jim Meehan to Planning, subject: Please pass Article 2, dated 2/24/25 Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 26, 2025 Page 19 of 20 32. Electronic mail from Mike Wise to Planning, subject: Urging Support for Article 2 – A Responsible Approach to Development, dated 2/24/25 33. Electronic contact form from Hong Zhao to Planning dated 2/24/25 34. Electronic mail from Jonathan Fleischmann to Planning, subject: Support for Article 2, dated 2/24/25 35. Electronic mail from Cerise Jalelian to Planning Director, subject: ARTICLE 2, dated 2/24/25 36. Electronic mail from Lisa Newton to Planning, subject: Letter in Support of Article 2, dated 2/23/25 37. Electronic mail from Susan Reynolds to Planning, subject: Article 2, dated 2/24/25 38. Electronic mail from June Hsiao to Planning, subject: Support for Article 2, dated 2/23/25 39. Electronic mail from Brinda Gupta to Planning, subject: Article 2, dated 2/23/25 40. Electronic mail from Al Solomon to Planning, subject: Support Article 2, dated 2/23/25 41. Electronic mail from Kathy Scott to Planning, subject: Vote on for Article 2 please, dated 2/22/25 42. Electronic mail from Kris Spriano to Planning, subject: I support Article 2, dated 2/23/25 43. Electronic mail from Neil Weiser to Planning, subject: Article 2, dated 2/23/25 44. Electronic contact form from Tim Wright to Planning dated 2/24/25 45. Electronic contact form from Claudia Quigley to Planning dated 2/25/25 46. Electronic mail from Nancy Bartlett to Planning, subject: Support of Article 2, dated 2/25/25 47. Electronic contact form from Chet Webster to Planning dated 2/25/25 48. Electronic contact form from Philip Mattson to Planning dated 2/24/25 49. Electronic mail from Ellen Hilsinger and Brendan Magauran to Planning, subject: Article 2, dated 2/24/25 50. Electronic contact form from Sylvia Fohlin to Planning, subject: MBTA Community Act, dated 2/24/25 51. Electronic contact form from Bill Wellman to Planning dated 2/24/25 52. Electronic mail from Curtiss Barnes to Planning, subject: Article 2, dated 2/24/25 53. Electronic contact form from Anne MacDonald-Broun to Planning dated 2/24/25 54. Electronic contact form from Linda and Mark Adler to Planning dated 2/24/25 55. Electronic contact form from Genevieve Wang to Planning dated 2/24/25 56. Electronic mail from Gil Benghiat to Planning, subject: Support of Article 2, dated 2/25/25 57. Electronic mail from Daphne Ritzakis to Planning, subject: Support for Article 2, dated 2/24/25 58. Electronic mail from Laura Musikant-Weiser to Planning, subject: Article 2, dated 2/25/25 59. Electronic contact form from Krista Lane to Planning dated 2/25/25 60. Electronic contact form from Mary Hamilton to Planning dated 2/25/25 61. Electronic contact form from Jiaying Xiao to Planning dated 2/25/25 62. Electronic contact form from Doris Wong to Planning dated 2/25/25 63. Electronic contact form from Hongmei Zhang to Planning dated 2/25/25 64. Electronic contact form from Stephen Wood to Planning dated 2/25/25 65. Electronic contact form from Pisha Chen to Planning dated 2/25/25 66. Electronic contact form from Elaine Adler to Planning dated 2/25/25 67. Electronic mail from Teresa Wright to Planning, subject: Yes on Article 2, dated 2/25/25 68. Electronic mail from Jennifer McKinley to Planning, subject: Support for Article 2, dated 2/25/25 69. Electronic mail from Carrie Klemovitch to Planning, subject: Support for Article 2, dated 2/25/25 70. Electronic mail from Mitchell Kase to Planning, subject: Article 2, dated 2/25/25 71. Electronic mail from Katie Blauer to Planning, subject: Please Support Article 2, dated 2/25/25 72. Electronic mail from Stephen Kaye to Planning, subject: Article 2, dated 2/26/25 Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 26, 2025 Page 20 of 20 73. Electronic mail from Sara Lacy to Planning, subject: Article 2, dated 2/25/25 74. Electronic mail from Christopher Barnett to Planning, subject: Planning Board Meeting of February 26, 2025 – letter of SUPPORT for Article 2, dated 2/25/25 a. Letter from Christopher Barnett to Lexington Planning Board, subject: RE: Lexington Town Meeting Article 2 – AMEND ZONING BYLAW AND MAP MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING FOR MBTA COMMUNITIES (Citizen Petition), dated 2/25/25 75. Electronic mail from Pratip Banerji to Planning, subject: Support for Article 2, dated 2/25/25 76. Electronic contact form from Mary Ann Fusi to Planning dated 2/25/25 77. Electronic mail from Sumitra Sujanani to Planning, subject: Article 2: Strong support for Article 2, dated 2/25/25 78. Electronic contact form from P Lane to Planning dated 2/25/25 79. Electronic contact form from Mark Andersen to Planning dated 2/26/25 80. Electronic contact form from John and Enid Reddick to Planning dated 2/25/25 81. Electronic contact form from Wendy and Robert Reasenberg to Planning, subject: Article 2, dated 2/25/25 82. Electronic mail from Heidi Pasternak to Planning, subject: Article 2, dated 2/26/25 83. Letter from Peter Saradjian to Planning Board and Planning Director, subject: Support for Article 2 to Amend the Town Zoning Bylaw for the MBTA Communities Act, dated 2/25/25 84. Letter from Christopher Herbert to Planning, subject: Statement for Lexington Planning Board Meeting, dated 2/26/25 a. Letter from Christopher Herbert to Planning Board and Select Board dated 2/26/25 85. Electronic contact form from Edna Luther to Planning, subject: Support article 2, dated 2/26/25 86. Electronic contact form from Elisabeth Piquet to Planning dated 2/26/25 87. Electronic contact form from Ray Yang to Planning, subject: Ssupport Article 2, dated 2/26/25 88. Electronic mail from Susan Vernick to Planning, subject: Article 2, dated 2/26/25 89. Electronic mail from Larry Vernick to Planning, subject: Article 2, dated 2/26/25 90. Electronic mail from the Hom Family to Planning, subject: Article 2- Special Town Meeting 2025-1: Amend Zoning Bylaw and Map, Multi-family Housing for MBTA Communities (Citizen Petition), dated 2/26/25 4. 217-241 Massachusetts Avenue Preliminary Subdivision Proposal – 217-241 Mass Ave dated 1/26/25 5. 336 Marrett Road 336 Marrett Rd ANR proposal dated 2/14/25 6. Annual Town Meeting Articles 29, 30, 32, 33