Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-04-10-PB-min Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 10, 2025 Page 1 of 14 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Thursday, April 10, 2025, Virtual Meeting at 6:00 pm Planning Board members present: Michael Schanbacher, Chair; Robert Creech, Vice-Chair; Melanie Thompson, Clerk; Charles Hornig, Tina McBride; and Michael Leon, associate board member. Also present were: Abby McCabe, Planning Director; Meghan McNamara, Assistant Planning Director; and Carolyn Morrison, Planning Coordinator. Michael Schanbacher, Chair of the Planning Board, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Thursday, April 10, 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 217, 229, 233, & 241 Massachusetts Avenue – Village Overlay Site Plan Review Ms. McCabe advised the Board that the applicant submitted a written request to continue the public hearing to May 7, 2025 and to extend the final action deadline to May 21, 2025 in order to make further progress with the Conservation Commission. She recommended approval of the request. There were no questions or comments from the Board or the public on this item. Mr. Creech moved to accept the Applicant's request to continue the public hearing for the site plan review proposal at 217, 229, 233, and 241 Massachusetts Avenue to Wednesday, May 7, 2025 at or after 6:00 pm on Zoom and further moved to accept the Applicant's request to extend the final action deadline to May 21, 2025. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: McBride – yes; Creech – yes; Hornig – yes; Thompson – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. 231 Bedford Street – Village Overlay Site Plan Review Mr. Schanbacher re-opened the continued public hearing for a village and multi-family site plan review at 231 Bedford Street. Mr. Schanbacher noted that Ms. McBride would not be a voting member on this application, as the public hearing began before her election to the Board. He reminded participants that matters regarding stormwater and flooding are within the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission and encouraged attendance of their meetings. Representing the applicant’s team was Ricky Beliveau of Volnay Capital. Mr. Beliveau acknowledged the unorthodox approach in requesting a vote from the Planning Board without having closed the Conservation Commission hearing. He informed the Board that they have been working with Conservation but have been unable to complete their requests. Mr. Beliveau advised that the property has been under agreement and due to that timeline and ongoing challenges, the applicant is looking for direction and a vote from the Planning Board. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 10, 2025 Page 2 of 14 Staff Comments Ms. McCabe summarized the past Planning Board meetings and Ms. McNamara’s staff report from April 3, 2025. She advised that the Conservation Commission has stricter regulations regarding stormwater review and performance standards. Ms. McCabe stated that the plans submitted in December 2024 substantially comply with zoning bylaw and the Planning Board’s regulations. She highlighted remaining outstanding issues with the photometrics plan showing light spillage and stairwells included in the architectural plans, but not the civil plans. Ms. McCabe stated these revisions could be conditions of approval and that she would recommend approval. Ms. McCabe reiterated that this proposal has not cleared Conservation review and any outstanding floodplain and stormwater concerns are within their jurisdiction. This project cannot move forward without approval from the Conservation Commission. She advised that the next Conservation meeting on this development is scheduled for April 29, 2025. Ms. McCabe noted that this applicant has asked for one waiver of the tree bylaw. Staff supports this waiver, as one tree is being removed in the front of the property and three new trees will be planted. Board Questions Mr. Leon expressed caution with proceeding without Conservation’s approval first. He warned that Conservation’s requirements may result in modifications to the plans. If such changes are required, the applicant will need to return to the Planning Board for further review and approval. Mr. Leon also expressed concerns with the proposal not having enough parking on-site. He noted that there is one space per unit and asked about visitor parking and deliveries. He stated the importance of not impeding traffic on Bedford Street and highlighted that there is no on-street parking. Mr. Leon suggested the surrounding properties may be amenable to leasing space, but reiterated his concern that there is no plan to accommodate loading, deliveries, or guest parking beyond the single space per unit. He recommended a condition of approval requiring the applicant to provide the Planning Board with a plan to be incorporated into the Site Plan approval demonstrating how these concerns would be addressed. Mr. Creech noted that this is a difficult site. He indicated that he does not support vehicles backing out onto Bedford Street. He raised concerns with flooding from the abutting brook, citing neighbor feedback and noted that it was similar to what has been experienced at Lois Lane from the same brook. Ms. Thompson asked if the applicant would be able to comply with the requests of the Conservation Commission. Mr. Beliveau responded that the 450-acre flood study being requested is not financially feasible, given the size of the development. He stated they are exploring other options to comply. It is his opinion that the proposed development would be an improvement over current flood risk conditions, however they have been unable to prove that. Mr. Beliveau explained the dimensional challenges of the site, which make it difficult to comply with Planning and Conservation regulations and requirements. He expressed that this proposal meets a different niche than other, larger, MBTA projects. Ms. Thompson stated she would prefer to see the applicant meet Conservation requirements before the Planning Board approves the application. Ms. McBride reiterated Mr. Leon’s concern that the Conservation requirements may significantly change the proposal, thus requiring further review and approval from the Planning Board. She suggested the building is too large for the site and would recommend a smaller development should this project move forward. Mr. Beliveau acknowledged that a 3-4-unit development may fit the site better, but that is not something the applicant is able to do. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 10, 2025 Page 3 of 14 Mr. Hornig stated that Conservation would not make a final decision without prior Planning Board approval. He reminded Mr. Beliveau that an approval does not indicate if the Board likes a project or not, but rather if it complies with the zoning bylaw and Planning Board regulations. Mr. Hornig stated that the Board does not deny site plan review applications. They will approve with conditions to ensure continued compliance with bylaws and regulations. He stated one condition is that the development is built in accordance with the submitted plans, which is why they may need to come back to the Board if Conservation requires any modification to those plans. Mr. Schanbacher agrees with Mr. Hornig. It is his opinion that the building is not too large for the site, but it does highlight the challenges faced by smaller lots. Mr. Schanbacher stated that smaller sites are inherently more difficult to develop with real density. He does not oppose the proposal before the Board and stated he believes there are still significant challenges to clear in Conservation. Public Comments Sumitra Sujanani, 29 Ledgelawn Avenue, thanked Ms. McCabe for her explanation of why the Board needed to vote on this project. She noted that residents have suggested a smaller building several times. Ms. Sujanani shared a letter from direct abutter, Lisa Newton, stating concerns with a lack of answers from the developers and repeating several concerns raised by the Board. Ms. Sujanani asked if any study had been done on water displacement, noting that the water table is close to the surface in this area. Peter Saradjian, 259 Bedford Street, echoed Ms. Newton’s concerns and reiterated concerns with minimal parking on-site. He stated that there is no MBTA service to this area on weekends or between 9:00 am- 3:00 pm on weekdays. He expressed a desire for more answers and information regarding Conservation and any flood study. Ruixia Song, 11 Ledgelawn Avenue, shared concerns about flooding and proceeding without Conservation approval. She disagreed with the applicant that their development would reduce flooding on the site. Lin Jensen, 133 Reed Street, Precinct 8 Town Meeting member, Sustainable Lexington Committee, expressed concerns with safety given the size of the development and the lack of space for emergency vehicles. She expressed a preference for a smaller development. Ms. Jensen stated that lots within FEMA flood zones should not have been included in MBTA zoning. Board Deliberation Mr. Schanbacher confirmed with Mr. Beliveau that he had sufficient time to review the draft decision prepared by Planning staff. Ms. McBride repeated her concerns with granting approval on a project that would not be able to be built due to the flood zone and wetlands proximity. It is her opinion that Conservation should not grant any waivers in light of the updated flood maps provided by FEMA. Mr. Hornig asked Ms. McCabe to revise condition 8, noting that the Planning Board bylaw requiring a flood study would not be applicable because the site is under 5 acres. He advised that this would not change or remove any such requirements from the Conservation Commission. Mr. Hornig reiterated that any changes to this project will need to return to the Planning Board for approval. He also reminded participants that the Planning Board does not have the ability to not approve the plan, only approve it with conditions, as the project meets Planning Board regulations and zoning bylaws. He stated that one of the conditions is that they must get and comply with an order of conditions from the Conservation Commission. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 10, 2025 Page 4 of 14 Mr. Leon requested that the Board consider adding an additional condition that the applicant submit a plan showing an appropriate loading area prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Board deliberated on this request. Mr. Creech stated he felt it was a reasonable condition. Mr. Hornig had concerns about the definition of “appropriate” for a development of this size. Mr. Leon suggested that would be up to the developer’s discretion and that regardless of size, the bylaws do require loading to be considered. He reminded everyone that there is no on-street parking available at this location. Mr. Leon expressed concern about not requiring a loading area and setting a precedent that “as-needed” loading would only be needed on large developments. Ms. McCabe suggested that a short-term parking plan for loading and deliveries could be included as a condition of approval. Mr. Hornig asked if this would be for the Board to review or if it would be a condition of future approval. He cautioned against an open-ended condition of approval drafted on the fly. Ms. Thompson suggested that the condition should not have to be drafted in the meeting. She referenced the number of outstanding issues and questions and asked why the applicant had not filed an extension. Mr. Beliveau advised that it would not be feasible to add more parking to the site and they are unable to continue the hearing any further. He advised that they have had preliminary conversations with neighbors about renting spaces on abutting properties. Mr. Hornig suggested an addition to condition 34 that the welcome packet includes instructions on deliveries. Mr. Schanbacher noted that these issues are due to the size of the site. He reminded everyone that deliveries happen every day in denser, urban environments. Mr. Schanbacher stated that he understood Mr. Leon’s request and indicated he would not be opposed to such a condition, but also did not feel it was necessary. It is his opinion that this project will not clear Conservation, however if it does, it will almost certainly need to return to the Board for a modification and this discussion could resume at that time. Mr. Hornig recommended moving forward with the draft decision as prepared by Staff. Ms. McBride reminded everyone of the outstanding questions from residents. She urged the Board to consider loading requirements, as it is her opinion that this will be a more frequent discussion on future multi-family projects. Mr. Creech moved to close the public hearing for the site plan review application for 231 Bedford Street. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Hornig – yes; Creech – yes; Thompson – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Mr. Creech moved to waive the jurisdiction of the Tree Bylaw to the Planning Board because the submitted landscape plan provides the tree mitigation with 3 replacement trees in the front yard of the project site where 1 tree is being removed. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Thompson – yes; Creech – yes; Hornig – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Mr. Creech moved to approve the proposal submitted by 231 Bedford Street LLC with the findings and conditions included in the draft approval decision prepared by staff for major site plan review with the 43 conditions of approval, as may be modified this evening. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 3-1-0 (Roll call: Hornig – yes; Thompson – no; Creech – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Mr. Creech moved to have the Chair sign the decision and correct any non-substantive changes such as grammar, typos, and for consistency. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Hornig – yes; Thompson – yes; Creech – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 10, 2025 Page 5 of 14 419, 429, 433, & 439 Marrett Road – Preliminary Subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public meeting for a preliminary subdivision application at 419, 429, 433, and 439 Marrett Road. Michael Novak of Patriot Engineering and Trina Murphy of DND Homes represented the applicant and owners. Mr. Novak advised that this application is intended as a zoning freeze on the properties. He presented the current state of the lots and summarized the proposed preliminary subdivision. Mr. Novak explained the proposal is for 7 lots and shared preliminary stormwater and utility plans. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe explained the process for a full zoning freeze including a definitive subdivision application within 7 months. She stated that staff does not expect to see this subdivision built as proposed. Ms. McCabe confirmed the application complied with zoning bylaws and Planning Board regulations. Staff has prepared a draft decision of approval with conditions to be included in any forthcoming definitive subdivision application. Ms. McCabe noted that the dwelling at 419 Marrett Road is a historic house on the Historical Commission’s inventory. She encouraged the applicant to preserve the building and incorporate it into any future plans. If the house it not saved, it would be subject to a 21-month demolition delay. Mr. Schanbacher asked if multi-family developments have a reduced demolition delay of 12 months. Ms. McCabe confirmed the 12-month delay begins after Site Plan approval. Board Questions Ms. McBride strongly discouraged the demolition of the historic house. She referenced the development at 89-93 Bedford Street with a historic house and encouraged the applicant to consider options to preserve the house. Public Comments Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, Precinct 6 Town Meeting member, agreed with requests to save the historic house. She informed the Board that this house is one of 24 remaining Witness Houses, built prior to 1775. She wondered if the applicant could redo the subdivision to exclude the Bridge House or preserve it on a single lot. Marilyn Fenollosa, 10 Marshall Road, Lexington Historical Commission member, shared that the Historical Commission had unanimously imposed a 21-month demolition delay on the Joseph Bridge House at their December 2024 meeting. She shared a history of the house and highlighted its significance. Ms. Fenollosa suggested the house could be moved to a different location on the site to accommodate multi-family housing. Wendy Krum, 22 Downing Road, agreed with previous speakers about the importance of the Bridge House. Ms. Krum requested any future development be sensitive to the abutting neighbors. Carol Sacerdote, 15 Loring Road, Precinct 4 Town Meeting member, echoed requests to retain the Bridge house in any future development. Board Comments Mr. Schanbacher emphasized the residents’ clear message about preserving the Bridge house in any future development. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 10, 2025 Page 6 of 14 Mr. Hornig stated that the subdivision applications, preliminary and definitive, do not have an impact on potential demolition and reminded participants that there is a demolition delay in effect until at least September 2026. Mr. Hornig advised that it will take community involvement to come to a solution on the Bridge House, and that the Board cannot require its preservation. He encouraged the applicant and community to begin exploring options so that they are in place when the demolition delay is over. Mr. Leon agreed with Mr. Hornig and the public. He suggested that the record indicate the Board’s strong support for the preservation of the historic structure and any subsequent redevelopment. He stated it’s important that any property owner who seeks to develop this lot under multi-family zoning be aware of the Board’s position. Ms. Thompson agreed with Mr. Leon. She stated that preservation of this historic house is very important. Mr. Creech asked Ms. Murphy if the applicant would be willing to consider submitting a new subdivision application without proposed Lot G. Ms. Murphy stated that they would like to proceed with the existing application and she would share the feedback with the owners. Mr. Hornig suggested that preservation would require support from the community, possibly in the form of land to move the house or grant money for preservation. Mr. Schanbacher stated it is imperative that the building is preserved in some way. He agreed with Mr. Hornig that it will take a large community effort to ensure that. Mr. Creech asked what form this notation would take. Ms. McCabe advised that the historic house is included in the findings of the draft decision and she suggested it could also be included in the conditions. Ms. McBride recommended that any notation indicate it is a Witness House from 1722. Mr. Hornig suggested that applicant should supply a narrative of past attempts and future plans to preserve the house. He suggested this could be added to condition 18 or a separate condition. Mr. Creech moved to approve the preliminary subdivision at 419, 429, 433, and 439 Marrett Road with conditions of items as modified through 4/10/25 to be incorporated into a definitive plan submission. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes; McBride – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. 80 Bedford Street – Preliminary Subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public meeting for a preliminary subdivision application at 80 Bedford Street. Frederick Gilgun, attorney with Nicholson, Sreter, and Gilgun and Michael Novak, engineer with Patriot Engineering, represented the applicant, James ‘Jim’ Johnston. Mr. Gilgun advised that this application is intended to freeze the multi-family zoning on this property as it existed prior to Special Town Meeting (STM) 2025-1. Mr. Novak shared the current state of the property and presented the proposed subdivision, including preliminary stormwater, utilities, and sewer plans. Board Questions Ms. McBride asked about the conditions on the rear of the lot. Mr. Johnston provided some history of the lot and shared that the lot is relatively level and elevated compared to surrounding properties. Ms. McBride encouraged any plans to save as many trees as possible and to be considerate of abutters. Mr. Hornig noted that this lot remained in the Village Overlay (VO) district after STM 2025-1. Mr. Gilgun confirmed that the applicant would like to freeze the zoning as it existed prior to STM 2025-1 and Annual Town Meeting (ATM) 2025. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 10, 2025 Page 7 of 14 Ms. McCabe noted that the house and the barn on the lot are on the Historical Commission’s inventory. She advised that if a multi-family development is proposed in the future, she would encourage preservation of these buildings. Ms. McCabe suggested that moving the house and barn might be a good option, as was done on the development across the street1. Mr. Creech advised that moving a house is not as cost-prohibitive as one might think. Public Comments There were no public comments on this application. Mr. Creech moved to approve the preliminary subdivision plan at 80 Bedford Street with conditions to be included in a definitive subdivision submission. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; McBride – yes; Hornig – yes; Thompson – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. The Board recessed at 7:39 p.m. and reconvened at 7:45 p.m. 287 & 295 Waltham Street – Site Plan Review for Special Residential Development (SRD) Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing for a Special Residential Development Site Plan Review at 287 and 295 Waltham Street. The applicant’s team included: Iqbal Quadir, applicant and property owner; Frederick Gilgun, attorney with Nicholson, Sreter, and Gilgun; Michael Novak, engineer with Patriot Engineering; Javed Sultan, architect with EcoHabitat, Inc; and Gary Larson, landscape architect. Also present was the Planning Board’s peer reviewer, William Maher of Nitsch Engineering, Inc. Mr. Gilgun introduced the applicant’s team and summarized the proposal for a compact neighborhood development. The proposal includes 15 dwelling units in 5 buildings. Three buildings would have 3 townhouse-style units each (Buildings A, B, and C) and two buildings would contain 3 garden-style units each (Buildings D and E). The roofs would be equipped with solar panels. Two units are proposed to be inclusionary, one townhouse and one garden unit. Mr. Gilgun stated that the applicant is aware of the Article 30 amendment before Annual Town Meeting (ATM) 2025 which would alter the inclusionary dwelling requirements in this development if passed. He advised that for this presentation, plans were designed per the current bylaw. Mr. Gilgun stated that the application does not require any waivers. Mr. Novak shared design renderings and civil plans. He explained the GFA calculations and showed the land moving from 9 Bushnell Drive to this development. The development would have one 20’ wide common driveway. The townhouses would have garage parking and parking areas have been designated for the garden-style units. The proposed sidewalk on the interior of the development is proposed to be accessible. Mr. Novak highlighted the significant elevation changes on the properties, with everything sloping towards Waltham Street. He shared the proposed tiered retaining walls surrounding the compact development. The intent is to create a terraced effect, hence the proposed development name “LexTerrace.” Mr. Novak noted that the site does extend beyond the proposed development, however the intent is to minimize site disturbance and preserve the landscape. Mr. Novak shared the proposed drainage layout and advised that roof runoff will be collected and infiltrated through on-site systems under the parking area and between the garden-style buildings and Waltham Street. He shared water and sewer connection plans and advised that there would be fire hydrants on-site. 1 89-93 Bedford Street development Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 10, 2025 Page 8 of 14 Mr. Larson shared the proposed landscape plan. He stated that the majority of plants will be native and selected from the preferred planting list provided by the Tree Committee. Large shade trees are proposed along Waltham Street and the sidewalk in the development, with additional plantings proposed for visual buffering, privacy, and erosion control measures. A bench is proposed near the entrance of the neighborhood for a bus stop. Mr. Sultan stated that the townhouses would be approximately 2,235 SF and contain 3 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms. Plans propose a roof garden or balcony on the townhouses. He reiterated the commitment to solar panels on the roofs of all the buildings. Mr. Sultan confirmed all units would be entirely electric, with no fossil fuels per Lexington bylaws. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe stated that this is the second Special Residential Development application the Board has seen and is a Compact Neighborhood Development. Ms. McCabe summarized the staff memo prepared by Mr. Koepper dated April 4, 2025. She highlighted the outstanding requests from staff, including details on long-term covered bicycle parking, short-term bicycle parking plans, defining the GFA of each unit, and identification of the inclusionary units. Staff agrees with the proposal to have one townhouse-style unit and one garden-style unit designated for inclusionary units. Ms. McCabe reiterated the potential change to inclusionary dwelling GFA requirements pending ATM 2025. Ms. McCabe advised that the building department requested a second means of egress for buildings A, B, and C. She asked the applicant to revise plans to identify 15% of the developable area as common open space. Staff has asked for the applicant’s tree removal calculations to confirm compliance and review the size of trees proposed for removal within the setbacks. Staff has asked for an updated lighting plan because of some light spillage. Ms. McCabe recommended lighting be no taller than 12’. Ms. McCabe stated that the Fire Department has requested sprinkler rooms with direct exterior access. Ms. McCabe stated that previous plans from the DRT meeting had more design details. She requested some of these details be added back in and asked the applicant to consider more windows along the sides of the townhouse-style buildings. Ms. McCabe introduced Bill Maher of Nitsch Engineering as the peer review consultant. Peer Reviewer’s Comments Mr. Maher summarized his peer review memo dated April 4, 2025. He suggested the applicant may need to file a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and recommended the applicant more clearly define the limit of work. Mr. Maher asked the applicant to update their Operation and Maintenance (O&M) plan based on revised stormwater calculations. He recommended they do their due diligence with the test pit results and additional soil testing. Mr. Maher requested revisions to the plans showing proposed pathways for utilities to the buildings and any fire protection services needed. Mr. Maher advised that there were inconsistencies across the plans regarding the sewer connection to Waltham Street and stormwater management. He noted that there is no proposed snow storage. Board Questions Mr. Creech questioned Building’s request for a second egress. Mr. Schanbacher advised that there is only one stairway out from the top floor of the townhouses. Mr. Sultan cited residential construction law indicating that only one egress would be required on these buildings. Mr. Sultan provided additional comments on the Fire Department’s request for direct exterior access to the sprinkler rooms. It is his opinion that the 13R system used for the Buildings D and E will have exterior access, but the 13D systems Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 10, 2025 Page 9 of 14 in Buildings A, B, and C will not require exterior access. Mr. Schanbacher agreed with Mr. Sultan’s comments and suggested the Building Commissioner has not reviewed the revised plans yet. Mr. Creech confirmed the proposed lot lines on the development with Mr. Novak. Mr. Novak advised that some of the land being moved from 9 Bushnell Drive to the proposed development is in order to maintain proper setbacks required by the bylaws. Mr. Creech stated that he did not see any useable open space within the development. Mr. Creech noted that in Buildings D and E, the 2nd and 3rd floor units have balconies, but there is no such outdoor space for the ground floor unit. Mr. Sultan advised that the ground floor units are handicap accessible and therefore have slightly different dimensions. He did not believe an outdoor space would fit into the total area for the ground floor units. Mr. Creech recommended an outdoor patio or similar. Mr. Creech suggested Mr. Gilgun should revise some of the language in the project narrative to align with the language in the bylaws. Mr. Creech expressed approval of the townhouse architecture, but stated he felt buildings D and E were flat. Mr. Sultan agreed that he will make revisions. Mr. Leon questioned the possibility of creating access to the open spaces beyond the retaining walls. He suggested a formal or semi-formal access to a designated play area. Mr. Novak advised that the team is already reviewing possible changes to the plans to allow for more open space within the development. Mr. Leon requested clarification about the groundwater mounting analysis in the Nitsch report. He asked about the geological makeup of the site based on test pits. Mr. Novak committed to having more information on the next plan set and advised that there is visible ledge, which is why they proposed such a compact neighborhood. Mr. Leon asked about rock and ledge removal. Mr. Novak agreed there would need to be some work done, but could not speak to details at this time. Mr. Leon stated his opinion that Buildings D and E have a “very plain institutional style.” He encouraged revisions to include more windows for natural light and increase the relationship with the surrounding properties. Mr. Leon asked if there were elevators in Buildings D and E. Mr. Sultan shared that there was a previous architect who has recused herself from this project. He indicated he has not had much time to update the plans and agreed the garden buildings require some revisions. He advised that many of the windowless areas visible from the exterior are due to bathrooms, stairwells, or utility spaces on the interior. It is his intent to revise the design to have a “New England” feel for the next presentation. Mr. Sultan shared details of potential heat pump systems. Ms. McBride echoed previous comments about the open space. She appreciated the terraced look and suggested the sections of 8’ retaining walls are too steep. She recommended 6’ walls instead. Ms. McBride asked about the proposed composting and greenhouse potential in the basements. Mr. Sultan explained there are skylights to the basement to increase natural lighting and ventilation. Ms. McBride suggested mimicking architectural design elements from Mr. Quadir’s house at 9 Bushnell Drive in revised plans. She further suggested reducing the number of units on the site to allow for more open green space. Mr. Hornig asked if there were any items in the staff or peer review memos for which the applicant believes they would be unable to resolve and would need to seek a waiver. Mr. Gilgun expressed confidence that all items in the memos could be addressed in the next iteration of plans. Mr. Hornig questioned the construction management plan. He wondered if the stormwater runoff during construction would flow to the two temporary detention basins indicated. Mr. Novak confirmed the plan and advised that there would be a more robust plan once peer review comments are addressed. Mr. Hornig asked about construction traffic on Waltham Street and if there would be any traffic concerns, such as blocking the sidewalk. He suggested the applicant work with police if there will be any sidewalk Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 10, 2025 Page 10 of 14 closures, noting that the High School is nearby and the sidewalk is heavily trafficked by students. Mr. Hornig urged them to consider school schedules when planning construction. Ms. Thompson echoed previous comments requesting more design details on future plans. She suggested revisions to the site layout for safety and open space. Ms. Thompson asked for the inclusionary units to be identified and for renderings of the interior building design. She further requested details on trash pickup and snow removal. Ms. Thompson repeated suggestions to review the open space in the rear of the townhouses and wondered if it could be opened up. Mr. Schanbacher asked Mr. Novak if the site corners had been staked out. Mr. Novak advised that the corners have not yet been staked. Mr. Schanbacher asked if the development team had contacted the Affordable Housing Trust and encouraged that they begin that discussion. He questioned the trash removal plan. Mr. Novak advised that the intent is to have individual pickup on site. Mr. Schanbacher asked what the intended path is for energy code compliance. He wondered if they would be Passive House compliant. Mr. Sultan provided some details on the intended systems and advised that there has not been a decision if the buildings would be passive house compliant. Mr., Schanbacher asked if there was direct access from the townhouses to the terraces. Mr. Sultan answered that there is not access at this time. He will review this for the next plan set. Mr. Quadir explained that the retaining walls will not be one continuous wall. The intent is to break up the retaining walls into smaller terraced segments. He suggested the open spaces will have benches and green space accessible via stairs. Public Comments Judy Alexander, 66 Baskin Road, expressed deep concerns with potential blasting and traffic entering and exiting the site to Waltham Street. She suggested a traffic light at the entrance and mitigation efforts to reduce the risk of vehicles sliding into the sidewalk and Waltham Street. Nancy Sofen, 3 Abernathy Road, Tree Committee member, wondered which protected trees would be removed. She questioned the replacement inch calculations and noted that there is a 36” tree on lot 9 that is not included in the landscape plans. Ben Ives, 22 Fair Oaks Terrace, echoed blasting concerns. He advised that recent renovations on his house encountered ledge almost immediately. Carol Sacerdote, 15 Loring Road, Precinct 4 Town Meeting member, appreciated the Board’s comments and Mr. Sultan’s willingness to incorporate their ideas. She suggested safety measures on the retaining walls. Ms. Sacerdote expressed concerns with sight lines of vehicles turning left out of the development and the impact tree removal would have on groundwater. She echoed concerns about blasting. Si Qi Lin, 5 Bushnell Drive, urged the Board to consider the other projects in the area and questioned how the developments would impact traffic, safety, and air quality. Ms. Lin advised that the sidewalk on Waltham Street is used heavily by students. She expressed concerns with the number of trees being removed. Mike Alexander, 66 Baskin Road, stated that there does not seem to be enough parking on site. Mr. Schanbacher confirmed the proposal meets the Board’s parking requirements. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 10, 2025 Page 11 of 14 Lindsay Hardy, 37 Winthrop Road, echoed concerns about site lines of vehicles turning left onto Waltham Street. Ms. Hardy advised that the sidewalk is also busy and has difficult sight lines. She raised concerns about water runoff and suggested that trash pickup should be one Waltham Street only. Staff Response Ms. McNamara responded to Mr. Alexander to advise him that the staff memo includes a chart for required parking compared to what the applicant is providing. Mr. Gilgun suggested that most comments would be addressed in future iterations of the plan set. Ms. McCabe requested that revised plans include all necessary details. She advised that the plan set voted on by the Planning Board should be construction-ready with all details incorporated. Board Comments Ms. McBride reiterated public comments about blasting and tree removal concerns. She stated she is looking forward to the revised retaining walls and terracing design. Mr. Schanbacher suggested the development team review the proposed design for the affordable housing development proposed on Lowell Street. He appreciated the Lowell Street approach to providing parking while minimizing the car-centric appearance of the site. It is his opinion that a revised approach to parking could alleviate some of the open space concerns. Mr. Schanbacher shared concerns with the townhouse articulation and suggested alternate ideas for the design. He requested more clarity on the elevations on the site, utility room access in Buildings D and E, and how the townhouses interact with the retaining walls. He stressed the visibility of the site and the importance of a strong design. Mr. Schanbacher confirmed the applicant would be agreeable to continuing the hearing to May 28, 2025. Mr. Creech moved to continue the Site Plan Review hearing for 287 and 295 Waltham Street to Wednesday, May 28, 2025 at or after 6:00 p.m. on Zoom. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; McBride – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Annual Town Meeting Article 34 Ms. McCabe explained the Select Board’s requested revision to Article 34, part C to revise §135-7.5.9.1. She stated the Select Board wanted to clarify that the 20’ landscape transition screening would apply to buildings over 40’ in height. Article 30 The Board discussed the notice of reconsideration for Article 30 to amend the zoning bylaw §135-6.9.8 regarding inclusionary housing for Special Residential Developments (SRDs). Mr. Schanbacher stated he does not think the Board should take a position on the notice of reconsideration for Article 30. It is his opinion that the Board should take a position on the motion should the reconsideration pass. Ms. McBride stated she felt the Board should take a position on the reconsideration. She shared how this would impact recent SRD applications. Ms. McBride expressed support for the reconsideration. Mr. Hornig stated that he does not believe the motion of reconsideration has presented any new information. He disagreed with Ms. McBride’s calculations and comments. Mr. Hornig shared the difference in inclusionary units for a conventional subdivision versus an SRD. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 10, 2025 Page 12 of 14 Ms. McBride explained her position further. She is in support of increased inclusionary units and space. Mr. Schanbacher restated his opinion that the Board should not take a position on the reconsideration, as it is at the discretion of Town Meeting. He encouraged discussion on the motion itself. Mr. Creech did not have strong opinions about the reconsideration. He is in support of ensuring a minimum of 15% inclusionary. Mr. Hornig shared concerns about feasibility of requiring 17.6%. He shared the work and calculations that went into the original Article 30 motion. Mr. Hornig noted that these calculations had not been run using 2025 data. Mr. Hornig also raised concerns with the lack of public input on the reconsideration. He advised that there was a public hearing2 for Article 30 with public comments, but no one suggested increasing the required inclusionary percentage until Town Meeting. Ms. Thompson shared her opinion that if Town Meeting approves the reconsideration, the Planning Board will need to support the revised motion. She did not feel there needed to be further debate. Mr. Creech advised that he miscalculated when discussing Article 30. Now that it has been brought to his attention, Mr. Creech stated that he thinks it’s fair to increase the inclusionary percentage. Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development, shared more details of the work that went into defining the SRD process and requirements. She also shared concerns about the feasibility of the increased inclusionary requirement. Mr. Hornig emphasized that there has not been a miscalculation. He stated that the requirement has always been 15%; Article 30 seeks to change what figure that 15% is based on. Mr. Daggett’s proposal changes the requirement to 17.6%. Mr. Creech suggested that the increased percentage would not impact SRD applications. It is his opinion that the extra GFA provided by Article 30 is a big advantage to developers. Mr. Schanbacher agreed with Mr. Hornig and Ms. Kowalski’s concerns that this reconsideration had not been thoroughly vetted. He further agreed with Mr. Hornig that there has been no miscalculation. Mr. Schanbacher echoed Ms. Thompson and Mr. Creech that the amendment is not necessary and is unlikely to impact the number of SRD applications. He suggested that the Board that could do some outreach to developers to understand how the increased inclusionary requirement has affected them. Mr. Schanbacher also reminded participants that construction costs are extremely volatile and will also impact developments. Mr. Schanbacher allowed the proponents of the reconsideration to speak. Present were Matt Daggett, Precinct 2; Cindy Arens, Precinct 3; and Lin Jensen, Precinct 8. Mr. Daggett explained the misperception of not meeting the 15% requirement under the original Article 30 motion. He agreed that feasibility should be further studied. Mr. Daggett shared a similar problem in Cambridge and suggested that Lexington could follow their example to amend the bylaw. Ms. Arens stated that it is her opinion that this minor change would have significant benefits including something as small as an additional bedroom up to an extra unit. Ms. Jensen shared the advantages to an SRD versus a conventional subdivision. Ms. Jensen also explained that to increase the inclusionary requirement would take a 2/3 vote in Town Meeting, however it would only take 1/2 vote to reduce the requirement if it proves to be unsustainable. 2 Public Hearing February 12, 2025 Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 10, 2025 Page 13 of 14 Mr. Creech moved to recommend Town Meeting approve the amendment to Article 30 as submitted by Mr. Daggett. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-1- 0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; McBride – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – No; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Board Administration Board Member & Staff Updates Mr. Creech shared his attendance of a Legislative Breakfast held by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) at the Lexington Community Center. Review of Draft Meeting Minutes: March 5, 2025 Mr. Creech moved that the Planning Board approve the draft March 5, 2025 meeting minutes as presented. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5 -0-0 (Roll call: Hornig – yes; Creech – yes; McBride – yes; Thompson – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED Upcoming Meetings: Thursday 4/17, Wednesdays 5/7, 5/28 Proposed Summer Schedule: Wednesdays 6/11, 6/25, 7/16, 8/13, 8/27. Ms. McCabe noted that Ms. Thompson and Ms. McBride will each be away for one meeting this summer. She advised that if a meeting is missed, the Board member would watch the recording and review the material before participating in the next meeting. Adjournment Mr. Creech moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of Thursday April 10, 2025 at 10:10 p.m. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5 -0-0 (Roll call: Hornig – yes; McBride – yes; Creech – yes; Thompson – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 10:10 pm. Lex Media recorded the meeting. Material from the meeting can be found in the Planning Board’s Novus Packet. List of Documents 1. 217-241 Massachusetts Avenue Continuance Request 4.4.25 2. 231 Bedford Street Staff Memo 4.3.25 Peer Review Memo 11.15.24 Draft site plan review approval decision with findings and conditions Public Comments 1. Electronic mail from Lisa Newton to Planning Staff, Subject: 231 Bedford St – for the record, dated 4/9/25 a. Attached letter from Lisa Newton to the Planning Board, dated 4/9/25. 2. Electronic mail from Sumitra Sujanani to Planning Staff, Subject: Question about 231 Bedford St, Thurs 4/10 Planning Board Meeting, dated 4/7/25 Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 10, 2025 Page 14 of 14 3. Electronic mail from Sumitra Sujanani to Planning Staff and Conservation, Subject: Planning Board 4/10 hearing: 231 Bedford St proposed development – concerns, dated 4/10/25. 3. 419-439 Marrett Road Preliminary Subdivision Plan – 419-439 Marrett Road 4. 80 Bedford Street Preliminary Subdivision Plan – 80 Bedford Street 5. 287 & 295 Waltham Street LexTerrace Proposed Plans Staff Memo 4.4.25 Nitsch Peer Review Memo 4.4.25 6. Draft Meeting Minutes DRAFT – 3.5 PB Minutes