Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-07-PB-minMinutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday, May 7, 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; 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, May 7, 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 — Continued public hearing for a Limited Site Plan Review Mr. Schanbacher opened the continued public hearing on the application of Isam Hijazi for a Limited Site Plan review at 166 Spring Street. Also present from the applicant's team was Mohamed Miled, President of the Muslim American Community Center of Lexington, MA (MACCLM) and David Sperduto, wetlands specialist. Mr. Miled summarized the requests and findings from discussions with the Conservation Director. He stated that Conservation identified four (4) sites in and around the property for further testing. Two locations were identified on-site, one on abutting property at 164 Spring Street, and one at 580 Concord Avenue. Mr. Miled stated that after testing, no wetlands were found on their property. He suggested minor revisions may be required for the Concord Avenue curb cut because the southeast corner of the property is within the 100' buffer zone of the wetlands across Concord Avenue. He explained that they have tested the 580 Concord Avenue property, but have not received permission from the property owners at 164 Spring Street. The wetlands specialist could not visually confirm any wetland vegetation on 164 Spring Street within 25' of the property border. Mr. Miled stated that they have shared the testing results with Conservation and requested an informal meeting to discuss further steps and restoration landscaping plans. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe confirmed the site visit meeting between planning staff, Conservation, and the applicant in April. She urged the applicant to continue working with their wetlands scientist to submit necessary applications to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Miled advised that they intend to file within the next week. Ms. McCabe summarized the process with Conservation and advised that they would review the stormwater and drainage plans in depth. Ms. McCabe indicated that the latest plans show the applicant has addressed all Planning Board comments and repeated that the applicant still needs to clear a Conservation review. She noted that there is a possibility that the Conservation Commission would require changes to the proposed plans. In that case, the applicant would be required to return to the Board for a modification of plans. Ms. McCabe stated that the applicant would like to move forward with a vote. Staff prepared a draft decision of approval for the Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 7, 2025 Page 1 of 17 Board. She highlighted the waiver request to allow for four parking spaces within 25' of Spring Street. Staff supports the waiver and encouraged robust landscaping as screening for those spaces. Ms. McCabe noted that there had been previous comments about pedestrian safety at the Spring Street and Concord Avenue intersection. She advised that the Transportation Safety Group is reviewing the intersection and updated signage. Board Questions Mr. Hornig advised that the Conservation Commission would want the Planning Board to close their hearing prior to theirs. He asked the applicant to summarize any changes made to the site plans since the February 26 meeting. Mr. Hijazi explained the modifications to the leaching area and some landscaping. He confirmed there were no changes to the plans for parking, building renovations, or bicycle parking. Ms. McBride urged the applicant to file with Conservation and noted that there are significant wetlands across Concord Avenue on property owned by the Town of Lexington. She encouraged additional plantings in the southeast corner of the property to aid with groundwater and stormwater management. Ms. McBride further encouraged a robust landscape screening plan along the border of 164 Spring Street. Mr. Creech requested clarity on condition 3 in the draft decision of approval. He wondered how mitigation requirements would be determined, given that the lot was largely cleared prior to October 19, 2024. Ms. McCabe advised that the Conservation Commission would make that determination. She reminded Mr. Creech about the scope of a limited site plan review and suggested that the tree bylaw would apply to any tree removal within the setbacks of the property. Mr. Creech reiterated his previous request that the applicant consider exceeding the minimum required plantings between their property and abutters. Mr. Miled asserted that no trees were removed between 164 and 166 Spring Street. Mr. Creech disagreed based on the aerial views provided in the staff memo and repeated his suggestion for extra landscaping. Ms. Thompson asked if any improvements had been made to the parking plan and wondered what off-site parking accommodations were available. She noted that there is not sufficient parking at MACCLM's current location on Lowell Street. Mr. Hijazi confirmed there were no adjustments to the plan for 48 parking spaces, with double parking during special occasions. He advised that they intend to work with neighboring properties to use their parking lots if needed as overflow. Ms. Thompson asked if there would be space for a children's play area. Mr. Hijazi suggested space in the parking lot. Mr. Hornig stated his belief that this application would not trigger Tree Bylaw requirements, as the building footprint is not increasing by more than 15%. He stated that paving does not constitute a structure nor would it be considered major construction by definition'. Ms. McNamara advised that plans indicate a future expansion and that staff cannot confidently define the increase at this time based on submitted plans. She agreed with Mr. Hornig that the parking lot would not be subject to the Tree Bylaw. Mr. Hornig recommended removing condition 3 from the draft approval. Mr. Schanbacher echoed Mr. Hornig's comments about closing the hearing prior to Conservation review but encouraged the applicant to follow the Conservation Commission's requirements to keep the project moving. Public Comments Tom Shiple, 18 Phinney Road, Precinct 9 Town Meeting member, Bicycle Advisory Committee, asked about the proposed bicycle rack and encouraged the use of an inverted U design. ' §120-3 Definition of Malor Construction Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 7, 2025 Page 2 of 17 Board Comments Mr. Hornig reiterated that stormwater management would be reviewed by the Conservation Commission. He indicated that he was comfortable moving the application forward with a vote, provided condition 3 was removed from the decision. The remaining Board members supported removing condition 3. Mr. Creech, Ms. McBride, and Ms. Thompson reiterated the request to provide extra landscaping beyond the minimum requirements as a "good neighbor" gesture to abutters and for their own members. Mr. Schanbacher confirmed that applicant reviewed the draft decision and agreed to the conditions therein. He noted that Ms. McBride would not be a voting member on this application because the hearing began prior to her tenure on the Board. Mr. Creech moved to close the public hearing on the limited site plan review application for 166 Spring Street. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Creech — yes; Hornig — yes; Thompson — yes; Schanbacher — yes). MOTION PASSED. Mr. Creech moved to approve the limited site plan review application with the conditions' of approval in the draft prepared by staff and as modified this evening. 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 have the Chair sign the decision and make any non -substantive corrections as necessary. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Creech — yes; Thompson — yes; Hornig — yes; Schanbacher — yes). MOTION PASSED. 217, 229, 233, 241 Massachusetts Avenue — Continued public hearing for a Village Overlay Site Plan Review Mr. Schanbacher opened the continued public hearing on the application of North Shore Residential Development, Inc. for site plan review at 217, 229, 233, 241 Massachusetts Avenue. He noted that Ms. McBride would not be a voting member on this application as the hearing began before her tenure on the Board. The applicant's team included: Ron Lopez of North Shore Residential Development, Inc.; Jack Sullivan of Sullivan Engineering Group, LLC; Mark Vaughan of Riemer and Braunstein; Jeff Thoma of J. Thoma Land Design Studios; and Scott Melching of Scott Melching Architects, LLC. Also present was the Board's peer reviewer, Tony Ma of GCG Associates. Mr. Vaughan presented the site, zoning, and current state of the lots. He summarized the proposal for a 44 - unit mixed-use multi -family development. Mr. Vaughan explained that there have been minimal revisions to the building design and that the applicant has been working closely with Conservation on adjustments to the rear of the property and off-site wetlands remediation on property owned by the Town of Arlington'. Mr. Melching explained the architecture and landscape changes since the last meeting. A stairway was moved to address a structural concern and feedback from the Lexington Fire Department. The change resulted in one (1) one -bedroom unit being converted to a two-bedroom unit, added approximately 465 SF on the roof area, and allowed for direct exterior access to the sprinkler room. Landscaping revisions included updated renderings of the former fire lane, a revision to the parking lot, and material updates to the play space in the rear of the building. The former fire lane on the West side of the building was redesigned as a plaza space with a fenced off area encompassing an emergency generator and commercial trash bins. A path from the z Five (5) conditions of approval; Condition #3 in the draft approval was removed during the meeting. s Sections of land located within Assessor's Map 13, Lot 383. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 7, 2025 Page 3 of 17 accessible parking space to the sidewalk was added per the Building Commissioner's request for increased safety traversing the parking lot. Mr. Melching advised that they met with the Commission on Disability and the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board to update the pathway material to permeable pavers to ensure accessibility. He explained the easement to the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway, which would be available to the public from dawn until dusk and would connect to a gated, private play space for the tenants. Mr. Melching stated that the transformer pad at the rear of the parking lot was approved by Eversource and they are in the initial design phase. Mr. Sullivan summarized the ongoing work with the Conservation Commission. He stated that there were minor revisions to the off-site wetland mitigation plan. Mr. Sullivan further advised that the peer reviewer had requested minor changes. Mr. Sullivan expressed confidence that he can implement these suggestions and would receive an approval letter in the near future. He confirmed the formal public access easement from the Minuteman Bikeway to Massachusetts Avenue. Mr. Melching shared his appreciation for the Planning Board and Staff throughout this approval process. Staff Comments Ms. McNamara summarized staff memo dated 5/1/2025. She highlighted that the applicant has agreed to build a bump out on the crosswalk in front of the property on his side of Massachusetts Avenue, to grant the public easement connection to the Bike Path, and to provide new tenants with reduced -price Lexpress passes. She further shared the commercial vitality the project will bring and that the applicant is proposing to plant 14 native trees. Ms. McNamara stated that there are 6 inclusionary units proposed, 76 bicycle parking spaces, and that the building will be all -electric. She noted that the development will reduce the number of curb cuts by 3 and that, if parking is purchased separately from the units, parking will be provided to the inclusionary units at a discounted rate. Ms. McNamara detailed the waivers and special permits requested by the applicant. The applicant is requesting waivers on the number of commercial parking spaces required; relief on parking dimensions and setbacks due to proximity to garage walls, architectural support columns, and the street line; landscaping relief along the street line; waivers for bicycle parking regarding interior storage dimensions and above -grade, lifted storage; and a partial waiver of the Tree Bylaw. Ms. McNamara advised that staff recommends approval of all requested waivers. She noted that the applicant will be responsible for filing with the Tree Warden for removal of any trees within the right of way. Peer Reviewer's Comments Mr. Ma summarized the peer review memo dated 4/23/2025. He advised that the plans meet Massachusetts and Lexington stormwater requirements and with the Conservation Commission's performance standards. Mr. Ma recommended minor revisions to the chamber system for the roof for ease of access and maintenance which the applicant has agreed to update for the Conservation Commission's hearing next week. Board Questions Mr. Creech questioned the schedule for trash pickup and "no parking during service hours" signage. He noted that trash pickup is generally encouraged during the day and mid -week to minimize disturbances. Mr. Creech suggested signage with set hours for no parking, rather than "during service". Mr. Melching advised that they will work with the retail tenant to set the trash pick up schedule in alignment with their retail hours and needs. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 7, 2025 Page 4 of 17 Mr. Leon asked if the applicant felt the retail trash area was sufficient for a restaurant use. He also advised that Massachusetts has reduced the threshold for organic waste. Mr. Melching advised that there would be separate plans for the retail and the residential trash removal and that the retail waste removal would be discussed with the future tenant. Mr. Leon requested details on the residential trash storage, potential for composting, and building management. Mr. Melching responded that there are trash chutes on every floor that lead to a compactor, there will be on-site management responsible for transporting trash from the compactor to the dumpster, and that they intend to offer composting space in the dumpster area. Mr. Leon confirmed the snow removal plan with Mr. Melching who stated that it would be hauled off-site whenever accumulation reached a certain depth as defined in their agreement with the snow removal company. Mr. Leon asked if there would be any improvements to the connection to the Minuteman Bikeway from the site. Mr. Vaughan advised that the improvements were no longer being proposed, but the connection would be maintained. The landscaping presented was approved by the Conservation Commission. Ms. McBride applauded the additional trees and landscaping in the former fire lane. She questioned the protection plan for the existing shade tree along Massachusetts Avenue. Mr. Melching confirmed there is a protection plan in place in the landscaping plans for that tree and trees in the rear of the property. He further advised that they will work closely with the Tree Warden if there are any changes to the plans. Ms. McBride emphasized the importance of retaining the mature trees. Ms. McBride asked If there would be "no idling' signs in the parking lot. Mr. Melching stated that it was not in the plans, but agreed it would be a worthwhile addition. Ms. McBride suggested revisions to the fence line around the private playground which might allow for more play area. She further encouraged additional landscape screening between the dumpster enclosure and the playground. Ms. Thompson appreciated the collaboration with the applicant through the process. She questioned the fencing surrounding the playground. Mr. Melching advised that it was a transparent security fence. It would not be a privacy fence, but would fully enclose the area with a locking gate. Ms. Thompson further asked about the strategy for the retail space. Mr. Melching stated that they have been working with 2 commercial brokers and explained the steps they have taken to secure a retail tenant. Public Comments Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, Precinct 1 Town Meeting member, expressed excitement for the development and appreciation for the public easement and cross walk bump out. Jeff Howry, 5 Bennett Avenue, Precinct 2 Town Meeting member asked if the mitigation areas had been flagged and suggested that prehistoric sites have been uncovered in Lexington along the brook. Lin Jensen, 133 Reed Street, Precinct 8 Town Meeting member, appreciated the efforts to save the trees. She expressed concerns about the amount of parking on-site and wondered if it would be enough for retail customers and residential visitors. Ms. Jensen suggested collaboration with neighboring businesses for overflow parking. Susan Barrett, Transportation Manager for the Town of Lexington, suggested that the more parking built, the more cars will come. Ms. Barrett advised that East Lexington has a lot of street parking. Board Comments Mr. Hornig expressed excitement about this development. He noted that there were a few items in the draft decision to be discussed. He asked the applicant if there were any items that raised concerns. Mr. Hornig would like to remove the references to the Board's stormwater management review because it falls under the Conservation Commission. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 7, 2025 Page 5 of 17 Mr. Leon suggested that the $10,000/month donation to the Affordable Housing Trust in the event the retail space is not occupied is fair to be included as a condition of approval. Mr. Leon encouraged pre -leasing options and expressed confidence that the space will be leased quickly. Mr. Vaughan shared his opinions and calculations to arrive at their suggested $5,000 monthly donation based on the smaller project size than a recent larger project before the Board. Mr. Schanbacher stated that this is the exact kind of project he envisioned for the MBTA zoning in East Lexington. He acknowledged that there were significant challenges to overcome and he appreciated collaboration with the applicant team. Mr. Hornig requested the removal of references to Stormwater Regulations in the draft decision. He advised that this project would be under the Wetlands Protection Act. He suggested removing the sentence at the top of page 2 of the draft decision which stated that the project "incorporates stormwater management pursuant to §181...", in finding 13, and condition 4. Mr. Vaughan agreed to Mr. Hornig's proposed changes on behalf of the applicant. Ms. McCabe requested all the Board members clarify their position about condition #45 related relative to the final residential occupancy if the majority of the commercial space isn't occupied before the final residential units are occupied. Mr. Creech moved to close the public hearing on the site plan review and special permit application from North Shore Residential Development for 217-241 Massachusetts Avenue. 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. The Board engaged in deliberation over the monthly donation amount should the retail space not be leased prior to 80% residential occupancy. Ms. McBride, Mr. Creech, Ms. Thompson, and Mr. Leon expressed a preference to leave the amount at $10,000; Mr. Schanbacher and Mr. Hornig indicated they would accept $5,000. Mr. Leon suggested that the Board could revisit this condition if the amount proves to be a significant hardship in practice. It is his opinion that they will have no issues leasing the space prior to 80% occupancy. The applicant agreed to a $10,000 monthly contribution into the Affordable Housing Trust in the event the commercial space is not at least 55% leased or sold by the final residential unit's occupancy. Mr. Creech moved to waive the total number of parking spaces for the commercial use to grant relief of 11 spaces based on the requirement for a restaurant use. The Board finds that location along public transit, nearby on -street parking on both sides of Massachusetts Avenue, and the Minuteman Bikeway reduce the need for 19 parking spaces for a restaurant use. 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. Mr. Creech moved to grant a special permit to grant relief from the parking dimensional and design standards to allow two spaces to be less than 12 ft. in width; to allow the accessible aisle for the accessible space to be within 10 ft. of the street line; to allow garage columns to be within to be within 3 ft. of drive aisle; and to allow the landscaping along front lot line to be less than 6 ft. in height. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Creech —yes; Hornig — yes; Thompson — yes; Schanbacher — yes). MOTION PASSED. Mr. Creech moved to waive the Board's bicycle parking regulations to allow the lift assisted bicycle parking spaces to lifted above ground level and less than 2 ft. in width. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 7, 2025 Page 6 of 17 Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Thompson — yes; Hornig — yes; Creech — yes; Schanbacher —yes). MOTION PASSED. Mr. Creech moved to grant a partial Tree Bylaw waiver accepting the proposed landscape plan for the property as on-site mitigation as meeting the Tree Bylaw. This approval does not waive the Tree Bylaw for removal of any of the trees within the Town's right of way. 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 approve the site plan review and special permit application from North Shore Residential for 217, 229, 233 & 241 Massachusetts Avenue with the 70 conditions4 of approval as modified this evening. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Creech — yes; Thompson — yes; Hornig — yes; Schanbacher — yes). MOTION PASSED. 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. The Board recessed at 8:05 p.m. and reconvened at 8:10 p.m. 952 Waltham Street — Public hearing for a Village Overlay Site Plan Review Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing on the application of HongSheng Tang at 952 Waltham Street. The applicant's team included: HongSheng Tang and Limei Wang, property owners; Frederick Gilgun, attorney with Nicholson, Sreter, and Gilgun; David Robinson, project manager with Allen & Major Associates, Inc; and Michael Deng of Next Phase Studios. Also present was the Board's peer reviewer, Dylan O'Donnell of Apex Companies. Mr. Gilgun summarized the eight (8) townhouse proposal. He explained that the application was submitted prior to the Special Town Meeting (STM) 2025-1 vote and that language in the motion allowed the project to proceed under Village Overlay zoning. Mr. Gilgun shared that the project was submitted for 9 units and was reduced through a series of informal conversations with the peer reviewer and Planning staff. Mr. Gilgun asserted that the project is in compliance with bylaws and meets the development objectives of the Village and Multi -Family overlay districts. He advised that the applicant is not seeking any waivers. Mr. Robinson shared details about the site locus and proposed plans. He noted that each unit has approximately 750-850 SF footprints with 2000 SF living space, 3-4 bedrooms, and a 2 -car private garage. The development also proposes 5 visitor parking spaces, a small communal green space for residents, a bench on Waltham Street near existing bus stop, and a communal mailbox. Mr. Robinson shared existing conditions of the site and surrounding commercial and residential buildings. He presented the proposed site layout, landscaping plan, and drainage and utilities plan. He advised that they intend to save as many mature trees as possible. Mr. Robinson noted that there are some pending comments with the Lexington Fire Department regarding site navigation which they intend to address before the next presentation. Mr. Robinson stated that the site proposes a large subsurface drainage system and he advised that they have begun vetting the system with the peer reviewer. He confirmed the site will be all -electric in accordance with Lexington's fossil fuel free bylaw. He noted that the utility poles providing service to 354 Concord Avenue would be slightly 4 Includes $10,000 contribution to the Affordable Housing Trust. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 7, 2025 Page 7 of 17 relocated, but service would not be interrupted. Mr. Robinson shared a cross-section of the proposed grading and elevation changes from the street line to the rear of the site. Mr. Deng shared the challenges of site regarding the grading. He explained the building layout was designed to maximize southern sunlight. Mr. Deng noted the accessible parking space between the building containing units 4 and 5 and the building containing units 6, 7, and 8. He highlighted the proposed fire access lane and suggested it could be landscaped for regular usage outside of EMS needs. Mr. Deng showed the proposed private backyard space for each unit and the landscape screening between the yards of units 6, 7, and 8 from Waltham Street. Mr. Deng presented the proposed interior layout of each unit. He explained the garage ceiling heights will vary between the buildings due to average natural grade (ANG) calculations, from 16.8' in units 1, 2, and 3 to 8.5' in units 6, 7, and 8. He asserted that all buildings are under 40' tall. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe summarized the staff memo prepared by Mr. Koepper dated 5/1/2025. She advised that while this was the first public hearing on this application, this is the second staff memo. She noted that staff had the opportunity to review earlier plans in February. Ms. McCabe explained that the motions passed at STM 2025-1 included language allowing this project to proceed under the 2024 bylaws but the VO zoning no longer exists on this property. Ms. McCabe highlighted the outstanding issues and questions for the applicant. She asked that they prepare revised plans and answers for the next meeting. She shared concerns with the heights of the buildings exceeding 40' as the ANG forms were missing some data. Ms. McCabe encouraged additional landscaping and recommended attempting to meet the tree removal mitigation requirements with more on-site plantings. Ms. McCabe shared comments from the Engineering department that the sewer and water mains should be increased to 8" and the hydrant may need to be moved. She asked the applicant to show long- term bicycle storage in the garages on updated plans. Ms. McCabe stated that staff had received several public comments which were shared with the applicant. She further stated that the Transportation Advisory Committee requested an annual contribution to the Town's Transportation Demand Management Fund and they suggested providing $20 Lexpress passes to each initial household. Ms. McCabe introduced the Board's peer reviewer, Dylan O'Donnell from Apex Companies. Peer Reviewer's Comments Mr. O'Donnell summarized the peer review process to date, including an initial peer review letter, a meeting with town staff and the applicant, a site visit, and a second peer review letter. He advised that many comments have already been addressed. Mr. O'Donnell stated that the outstanding items include recommendations for conditions in the draft approval, some zoning -related items under the Board's purview, and technical items to be addressed in revised plans. Mr. O'Donnell indicated that he is working with the applicant on these outstanding technical items and expressed his confidence that they will be resolved. Mr. O'Donnell highlighted his recommendation to conduct mounding analysis under the proposed stormwater recharge systems. He noted that the applicant had verbally agreed to this testing. Board Questions Ms. McBride appreciated that the proposal was reduced from 9 units to 8, but disagreed with the applicant that the site can accommodate that number. She stated that the grading and drainage seem to be open issues. Ms. McBride highlighted that the play area is small and only available via many stairs. She indicated that may be a challenge for families with young children. Ms. McBride appreciated the proposed pervious Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 7, 2025 Page 8 of 17 surface for the fire lane. She raised concerns about damage to tree roots with the proposed retaining walls and encouraged the applicant to ensure there is a protection plan in place during construction. Ms. Thompson questioned the scale on the renderings. It is her opinion that the drawings show a larger lot than the actual site. She stated her opinion that there is not enough space for the 8 units proposed and suggested the applicant reduce the number of units to 6 or 7. Ms. Thompson questioned the lack of accessibility of the townhouses as 4 -story walkups. She asked if they had considered elevators. Ms. Thompson encouraged more landscaping, more trees, and more open green space. Mr. Leon agreed with Ms. Thompson and Ms. McBride's comments. He reiterated that this is a challenging site with the grade changes and existing retaining walls. It is his opinion that the proposed green space is largely unusable given the stairs required to access it. Mr. Leon suggested that with 4 bedrooms, it is likely these units will be family-oriented. He stated that as family-oriented units he would expect an attractive play area for children. Mr. Leon repeated the suggestion to reduce the number of units. Mr. Leon questioned the location of the accessible parking space. He suggested that if the accessible space were included in the middle parking area, then that space could be used as at -grade green space. Mr. Leon further questioned the varying ceiling heights of the garages and the usability of the private yard spaces between units 6, 7, 8 and Waltham Street. Mr. Leon advised that the challenges of the site call for a different design approach with better amenities for residents. Mr. Creech agreed with all previous comments. He highlighted that Waltham Street is a busy street. He insisted the project calls for more landscaping and a play space. He suggested that the applicant remove units 4 and 5 from the middle and turn that space into a play area at grade. Mr. Creech expressed his approval of the architectural design. Mr. Schanbacher asked if the applicant had connected with the Affordable Housing Trust regarding the potential buy down of any units. Mr. Gilgun confirmed they have not. Mr. Schanbacher asked about the trash removal plan. Mr. Gilgun advised that trash will be in individual barrels brought to Waltham Street for collection. Mr. Schanbacher wondered if the project would pursue Passive House compliance or another path for energy code compliance. Mr. Deng stated that they are considering Passive House standards and will use energy efficient materials. Mr. Schanbacher asked what material was proposed for the private backyard space. Mr. Deng suggested it would be grass or pavers. Mr. Schanbacher highlighted the retaining walls next to the driveways of units 4 and 5 and wondered how they would prevent cars from driving over the walls. Mr. Schanbacher asked if the applicant considered any other housing typology besides townhouses. Mr. Deng advised that they have investigated townhouses the most for this site. Mr. Hornig echoed Mr. Schanbacher's comments. He stated that this project is different than other MBTA projects the Board has considered. He noted that it is the lowest density proposal and asked why the applicant chose to propose fewer, larger units rather than the smaller, higher density approach other MBTA projects have taken. Mr. Deng advised that the decision for townhouses was based on market research and a desire to minimize the impact on the community and allow each family to have more space. Mr. Hornig confirmed that they are allowed to build the style units they want. He expressed a desire to understand the townhouse approach and compared the site to 185 Bedford Street, which recently had a Site Plan Review approved for 25 units with elevators on a similarly sized lot. Public Comments Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, Precinct 1 Town Meeting member, echoed the Board members' comments. He wondered about the attractiveness of 4 -bedroom units with no outdoor space for children. He reiterated Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 7, 2025 Page 9 of 17 accessibility concerns. Mr. Luker suggested removing the garages and to provide ground -floor accessible units. Nicholas Cannalonga, 942 Waltham Street, expressed concerns with the size and density of the proposal. He appreciated all the comments from the Board. He suggested that 4-6 units would be more appropriate for the lot and requested additional landscaping between his property and this site. Nancy Sofen, 3 Abernathy Road, Tree Committee, echoed the requests for more usable green space. She encouraged additional tree plantings on-site. Ms. Sofen noted that there are two types of arborvitae listed on the landscape mitigation plan, but only one variety counts towards mitigation calculations. Ruth Super, 354 Concord Avenue, agreed with previous comments and raised concerns about the overall height of the buildings and accessibility of the units. She noted that the plan sets do not agree and questioned the proposed garage heights and open space. Dr. Michael Super, 354 Concord Avenue, expressed concerns with construction noise and ledge removal. He requested a noise mitigation plan for construction. Dr. Super suggested the renderings and plans do not accurately reflect the location of their house. He advised that they would not allow construction vehicle access via their property. Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, Precinct 6 Town Meeting member, echoed previous concerns. She stated the height is exacerbated by the garages. Ms. McKenna spoke to her realtor experience and advised that the units as proposed would not have a high return on investment. Rena Maliszewski, 310 Concord Avenue, South Lexington Civic Association (SLCA), repeated concerns about accessibility, affordability, and density. She further expressed concerns about the impact on abutting properties and requested accurate scale renderings of the proposed buildings in relation to existing neighbors. She agreed with Mr. Leon's and Mr. Creech's comments and urged the applicant to reconsider their plans. Ruth Super, repeated the request for a scale cross section of the site including abutting residences. It is her opinion the renderings are not to accurate scale. Ms. Super questioned the snow removal and landscaped area at the entrance to the site. She highlighted that trash removal via the sidewalk would render the sidewalk inaccessible. Lin Jensen, 133 Reed Street, Precinct 8 Town Meeting member, expressed disapproval of 16' garage ceiling heights and encouraged careful ANG calculations. She echoed requests for renderings with abutting properties. Ms. Jensen agreed with the suggestion to remove units 4 and 5 to allow more at -grade open space. She encouraged the applicant to review their design with the Disability Commission. Board Comments Mr. Hornig responded to public comments suggesting this application was inconsistent with the residential neighborhood. He reminded everyone that this is a residential neighborhood and residential buildings are being proposed. Mr. Creech clarified that his suggestion to remove units 4 and 5 was in the interest of creating more open space on the site, not to reduce the number of units. He stated that it is a mistake to have a development of this size with no open green area. Ms. McBride agreed with previous comments and strongly encouraged the applicant to explore options for more green space. She acknowledged that a 40' height is allowed and cautioned the applicant to not exceed Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 7, 2025 Page 10 of 17 that height. She noted that some of the drawings look very close to that limit. Ms. McBride encouraged a robust landscape plan to allow for additional privacy and screening. Mr. Schanbacher requested updated plans and renderings that are consistent with each other, particularly regarding the chain link fence on the south side of the property. He stated concerns with the accessibility of the van parking space. It is his opinion that the pole light would be vulnerable to being hit. Mr. Schanbacher expressed displeasure with the amount of pavement proposed. He suggested that townhouses might not be the best typology for the site and that other designs might fit better. He stated that townhouses work best when constructed around shared space intended to foster community, rather than a parking lot. He reminded everyone that the more parking built, the more cars there will be. Mr. Creech moved to continue the public hearing for a Village and Multi -Family Overlay Site Plan Review of 952 Waltham Street to Wednesday, June 25, 2025 at or after 6:00 p.m. on Zoom to allow the applicant time to respond to the staff memo, the peer review memo, and comments raised at the public hearing. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech — yes; Hornig — yes; McBride — yes; Thompson — yes; Schanbacher — yes). MOTION PASSED. 407 Waltham Street — Preliminary Subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing on the application for a preliminary subdivision at 407 Waltham Street. Jonathan Silverstein, of Blatman, Bobrowski, Haverty & Silverstein, LLC, represented the applicant. Mr. Silverstein presented the proposed preliminary subdivision plan to divide the site into two lots. He advised that one lot would have frontage on Waltham Street and the other lot would be accessed via an internal access easement. Mr. Silverstein explained that the village and multi -family overlay district allows for no frontage on lots with existing structures. He further explained that there are no subdivision roadways or infrastructure needed. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe stated that staff prepared a draft decision of approval. It is her opinion that this application is intended as a zoning freeze and would not be built as proposed. Board Questions Mr. Leon confirmed the applicant is not seeking an ANR approval because this is not a traditional subdivision proposal. He asked if there was precedent for an 8 -year zoning freeze on lots with zero frontage. Mr. Leon questioned why the applicant did not configure a classic subdivision plan. He discussed the laws with Mr. Silverstein. Mr. Silverstein explained that not many zoning provisions allow for zero lot frontage. Mr. Silverstein further explained how the laws surrounding ANR and subdivision requirements support this application. He confirmed Ms. McCabe's suggestion that this application is intended as a zoning freeze. Ms. McBride stated that she has heard concerns from neighbors regarding any potential development on the site. She called out wetlands, possible height, light, and noise. She encouraged the developer to minimize the impact to neighbors when designing the future development. Public Comments Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, asked when the application was submitted and wondered if this would be a zoning freeze related to STM 2025-1 Article 2 and ATM 2025 Article 34. Mr. Silverstein and Ms. McCabe confirmed the application was submitted prior to Town Meeting. Ms. McKenna urged the Board to not approve a subdivision that might not be allowable with zero frontage. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 7, 2025 Page 11 of 17 Board Comments Mr. Creech asked Ms. McCabe if she verified this approach with Town Counsel. Ms. McCabe advised that she has not spoken with Town Counsel, but she did re -read the subdivision control laws and she believes this complies. She noted that this is a unique proposal in her experience because the VO did not have minimum frontage or lot area requirements. Mr. Hornig noted that there will be several unusual subdivision applications with less than 20' frontage. He suggested these will be approvable as subdivisions provided they meet zoning regulations. Mr. Creech moved to approve the preliminary subdivision application for 407 Waltham Street with the conditions in the draft decision as recommendations to be included in the Definitive Subdivision application. 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. 162 Bedford Street & 5 Reed Street — Preliminary Subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing for a preliminary subdivision application at 162 Bedford Street and 5 Reed Street. Jonathan Silverstein and Bruce Ringwall, GPR Engineering, represented the applicant. Mr. Ringwall shared the preliminary plans including existing conditions and the proposed subdivision. He advised that no new roadway or drainage is being proposed and all lots will have frontage, although Lot 2 does not have 20' of frontage. Public Comments Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, wondered why Town Counsel was not consulted prior to approving the preliminary subdivisions. Mr. Schanbacher reminded Ms. McKenna that these are preliminary applications and will require further review at the Definitive Subdivision stage. Ms. McKenna encouraged coordination with Town Counsel before approving additional applications of this nature. Board Comments Mr. Leon suggested it would be beneficial to confer with Town Counsel and to continue the hearing if possible. He noted that a disapproval does not preclude the submission of a definitive subdivision. Mr. Hornig noted that the final action deadline has passed for this application and that the applicant had agreed to extend that deadline. He recommended reviewing these questions for the definitive subdivision. Ms. McCabe agreed with Mr. Leon about a disapproval not impacting the submission of a definitive subdivision application. She advised that a preliminary subdivision must be acted on within 45 days of receipt by the Town Clerk. She suggested further questions can be addressed at the definitive hearing. Mr. Creech moved to approve the preliminary subdivision application for 162 Bedford Street and 5 Reed Street with the conditions in the draft decision as recommendations to be included in the Definitive Subdivision application. 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. 450 Marrett Road — Preliminary Subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing for the preliminary subdivision application at 450 Marrett Road. Mr. Silverstein and Mr. Ringwall represented the applicant. Mr. Ringwall presented the current conditions of the lot and the proposed subdivision. As with the two prior applications on the agenda, there is no new roadway or drainage proposed for this lot. There were no staff or Board comments on this application. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 7, 2025 Page 12 of 17 Public Comments Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, repeated her objections to the Board approval without guidance from Town Counsel. Mr. Creech moved to approve the preliminary subdivision application for 450 Marrett Road with the conditions in the draft decision as recommendations to be included in the Definitive Subdivision application. 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. 5-7 Piper Road — Preliminary Subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing on the application fora preliminary subdivision at 5-7 Piper Road. Michael Novak, Patriot Engineering, and Phil Porter, Porter Builders, represented the applicant team. Mr. Novak shared the current conditions of the site and advised that the application is intended as a zoning freeze of the MBTA Village and Multi -Family Overlay zoning. Mr. Novak reminded the Board of the utilities around the site and presented the proposed lots and stormwater management. Board Questions Mr. Hornig asked if the applicant expects to move towards a building permit in the near future. Mr. Novak confirmed that intent, however noted that there are ongoing challenges with the sewer connection and could not commit to a timeline. Mr. Hornig confirmed the appeal on the site plan review was dismissed; Mr. Novak agreed. Mr. Leon asked for further information regarding the appeal settlement and a proposed turnaround adjacent to this property. Mr. Novak clarified that they are in discussions with Temple Emunah regarding the design prior to coming to the Town. He stated they would be proposing a defined entrance to the Temple's land and advised that it would likely not look like a traditional cul-de-sac. Ms. Thompson requested clarification on the location of the Temple and originally proposed building. Mr. Novak provided orientation and advised this application is intended as a zoning freeze. He stated the applicant intends to build the site plan approved project. Mr. Schanbacher noted that the original Planning Board site visit was almost a year ago on 5/17/2024. There were no public comments on this application. Mr. Creech moved to approve the preliminary subdivision application for 5-7 Piper Road with the conditions in the draft decision as recommendations to be included in the Definitive Subdivision application. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech—yes; Hornig—yes; Thompson—yes; McBride—yes; Schanbacher—yes). MOTION PASSED. 7-9 and 11-13 Muzzey Street, and 1834-1840 Massachusetts Avenue — Preliminary Subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing for a preliminary subdivision at 7-9 and 11-13 Muzzey Street and 1834-1840 Massachusetts Avenue. The applicant's team was represented by Michael Novak, Patriot Engineering, and Todd Cataldo, Sheldon Corp. Mr. Novak shared the current state of the lots and presented the proposed subdivision. He noted that the applicant has requested a waiver to reduce the interior drive aisle radius to 15' from the required 25'. Mr. Novak stated that utilities are readily available on site and shared the proposed stormwater management. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 7, 2025 Page 13 of 17 Staff Comments Ms. McCabe noted that these properties are located in the Battle Green Historic District. She advised that any external renovations would require Historic Districts Commission (HDC) approval. Ms. McCabe discussed the requested waiver. She suggested the Board has not waived this requirement before, however she supports the waiver provided the applicant can show adequate sight lines and visibility. Mr. Novak advised that the waiver is due to the size and geometric limitations of the site. It is his opinion that the smaller radius would not present any problems given the relatively low speed limit and flatness of Muzzey Street. Board Comments Ms. Thompson asked what businesses are currently located on these properties and requested clarification on where the cul-de-sac was proposed. Mr. Novak provided additional details. Mr. Leon agreed with Ms. McCabe and Mr. Novak's statements about the requested waiver. He noted that Muzzey Street is also a one-way road with a low speed limit and that there are other roads nearby with 90' intersections. Ms. McBride wondered about the parking lot access for 1844 Massachusetts Avenue. She noted that the subdivision proposal would remove access to the parking lot from that side. Mr. Novak advised that there is no development plan yet. Ms. McBride encouraged Mr. Cataldo to preserve a similar scale to the existing buildings along the street when designing the development. Public Comments Dora Braun, 20 Muzzey Street, questioned the underlying district and if any development would be mixed- use. She wondered about the dimensional restrictions of a development. Mr. Novak repeated that there are no plans for development at this time. Ms. McCabe stated that if the applicant completes the zoning freeze process, they will be allowed to develop according to the Multi -Family Overlay (MFO) zoning as it existed prior to STM 2025-1. She confirmed mixed-use would be required. Mr. Creech moved to approve the requested waiver for a reduced intersection radius and the preliminary subdivision application for 7-9 and 11-13 Muzzey Street and 1834-1840 Massachusetts Avenue with the conditions in the draft decision as recommendations to be included in the Definitive Subdivision application. 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. Board Administration Board Reorganization: The Board discussed the reorganization of positions. Mr. Schanbacher suggested that the newest Board member is traditionally nominated as the Clerk and asked Ms. McBride to consider being the Clerk. Ms. McBride asked Ms. Thompson if she was interested in resigning from the position. Mr. Hornig nominated Mr. Schanbacher for Chair. Mr. Schanbacher accepted the nomination. The Board voted unanimously in favor of Mr. Schanbacher as the Chair. (Roll call: Creech —yes; McBride—yes; Thompson — yes; Hornig — yes; Schanbacher — yes). Mr. Hornig nominated Ms. Thompson for Vice Chair. Ms. Thompson asked Mr. Creech's opinion. Mr. Creech supported Ms. Thompson's nomination and indicated that he would also continue as Vice Chair if he were nominated. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 7, 2025 Page 14 of 17 Mr. Hornig nominated Ms. McBride for Clerk. Ms. McBride accepted the nomination. The Board voted unanimously in favor of Ms. McBride as the Clerk (Roll call: Hornig — yes; Creech — yes; Thompson — yes; McBride — yes; Schanbacher — yes). Ms. Thompson accepted the nomination for Vice Chair. The Board voted unanimously in favor of Ms. Thompson as the Vice Chair (Roll call: Hornig — yes; Creech — yes; McBride — yes; Schanbacher — yes; Thompson — yes). The Board discussed Liaison assignments to other Boards and Committees. Mr. Schanbacher noted that there were vacancies in the Vision for Lexington Committee, Bicycle Advisory Committee, and Sustainable Lexington Committee left by Mr. Robert Peters' resignation. Mr. Schanbacher stated that he would like to keep the assignments he currently has and suggested himself to fill the vacancy on the Vision for Lexington Committee. He stated he felt strongly about keeping the School Master Plan Advisory Committee. Mr. Hornig stated that he would like to remain on the Housing Partnership Board, but would like to reduce his total assignments to 4 boards and committees. Ms. Thompson noted that she would like to have fewer than 4 assignments and would be interested in swapping Transportation Advisory Committee for something different. Mr. Creech indicated he would like to offload Historic Districts Commission. Ms. Thompson agreed to be the liaison to the Bicycle Advisory Committee and Historic Commission. Ms. McBride agreed to be the liaison to the Transportation Advisory Committee, Lexington Center Committee, and Historic Districts Committee. Mr. Creech agreed to be the liaison to Sustainable Lexington Committee, and Greenways Corridor Committee. Ms. McCabe reminded the Board that they are not obligated to attend every meeting. Board Member & Staff Updates Mr. Hornig reminded the Board of a social event in June and requested everyone RSVP. Mr. Schanbacher noted that a member of the community would like a working group to review the GFA table and definitions, with a request to eliminate porches and basements from GFA calculations. Mr. Schanbacher recommended working with Ms. McCabe to advertise to residents. Mr. Hornig noted that if the group is appointed by the Board it would qualify as a subcommittee. He recommended the working group be appointed by Ms. McCabe or Mr. Tom Shiple, the citizen requesting the review. Mr. Jay Luker encouraged the group to review the floor area percentage for a half -story. Ms. Dawn McKenna suggested this be put on a future agenda, since discussing working groups was not on the agenda for this meeting. Mr. Creech shared updates from a recent MAGIC meeting. He stated that there is a lot happening in more rural areas. One takeaway was that Route 2 and Route 2A present barriers to trail connectivity. Review of Draft Meeting Minutes: April 10 and April 17, 2025 Mr. Creech moved that the Planning Board approve the draft April 10 and April 17, 2025 meeting minutes as presented. 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 Upcoming Meetings: Wednesdays 5/28, 6/11, 6/25, 7/16 Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 7, 2025 Page 15 of 17 Adjournment Mr. Creech moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of Wednesday May 7, 2025 at 10:48 p.m. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: McBride — yes; Hornig — yes; Creech — yes; Thompson — yes; Schanbacher — yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 10:48 p.m. Lex Media recorded the meeting. Material from the meeting can be found in the Planning Board's Novus Packet. List of Documents 1. 166 Spring Street Rev Plan Set, dated 2.24.25; Applicant's Response to Staff Memo, dated 2.23.25; Stormwater Report, dated 2.23.25; Staff Memo, dated 5.1.25; Engineering Memo, dated 5.1.25, draft approval decision with findings and conditions 2. 217, 229, 233, 241 Massachusetts Avenue 217-241 Mass Ave Plan Set, dated 4.14.25; Peer Review Memo #5, dated 4.23.25; Staff Memo #4, dated 4.30.25. Draft approval decision with findings and conditions of approval Public Comments 1. Electronic mail from Frank McCarthy, subject: Re 271-241 Mass Ave., dated 4.30.25 2. Electronic communication from Robin Kutner to Planning, dated 1.30.25 3. Electronic mail from Ezra Hale to Planning, subject: Comments on 217, 229, 233, 241 Massachusetts Avenue- Village & Multi -Family Site Plan Review, dated 2.4.25 4. Electronic mail from Frank McCarthy to Planning, subject: Re The zoning plans for 217-241 Mass Ave —WHY?, dated 3.15.25 5. Memo from the Tree Committee to Planning staff, dated 1.29.25 6. Memo from the Transportation Advisory Committee to Planning Board and Staff, subject: 217-241 Massachusetts Avenue Transportation Comments, dated 4.15.25 3. 952 Waltham Street Staff Memo, dated 5.1.25; Peer Review Civil Memo, dated 5.2.25; Engineering Staff Memo, dated 5.6.25; Plan Set 952 Waltham St, dated 4.18.25. Public Comments 1. Letter from Nicholas Cannalonga to Planning Board, dated 5.1.25 2. Electronic mail from Ruth Super to Planning Staff, Subject: Abutter concerns—March 27th Site Plan Review of 952 Waltham St, dated 3.26.25 a. Attachment to email, title: RS—Letter to Planning_Site Review 952 Waltham St..pdf, dated 3.26.25 3. Electronic mail from Nancy Cannalonga to Planning, Subject: 952 Waltham Street, dated 3.5.25 4. Notes from a meeting between SLCA (South Lexington Civic Association) and Planning Staff 4.15.25 5. Memo from the Transportation Advisory Committee to Planning Board and Staff, subject: 952 Waltham Street Transportation Comments, dated 4.15.25 4. 407 Waltham Street Plan Set 407 Waltham St, dated 1.17.25, draft approval decision Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 7, 2025 Page 16 of 17 5. 162 Bedford Street and 5 Reed Street Plan Set 162 Bedford St, dated 3.6.25, draft approval decision 6. 450 Marrett Road Plan Set 450 Marrett Rd, dated 3.6.25, draft approval decision 7. 5-7 Piper Road Plan Set 5-7 Piper Rd, dated 3.16.25, draft approval decision 8. 7-9 Muzzey Street, 11-13 Muzzey Street, and 1834-1840 Massachusetts Avenue Plan Set 9 Muzzey St, dated 3.16.25, draft approval decision Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 7, 2025 Page 17 of 17