Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-13-PB-min.pdf Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 13, 2025 Page 1 of 10 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday, August 13, 2025, Virtual Meeting at 6:00 pm Planning Board members present: Michael Schanbacher, Chair; Melanie Thompson, Vice-Chair; Tina McBride, Clerk; Charles Hornig, Robert Creech; and Michael Leon, associate board member. Also present were: Abby McCabe, 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, August 13, 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 92 Hayden Avenue – Preliminary Subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the meeting on the application of Chris Carr, for a preliminary subdivision at 92 Hayden Avenue. Ms. McCabe stated that the applicant requested to withdraw this application. She explained that it was submitted as a preliminary subdivision but, after it was reviewed, staff determined it did not qualify as a subdivision under the Subdivision Control Law. Staff had posted the application with the Town Clerk’s Office and mailed abutter notifications. She recommended approval of the applicant’s request to withdraw to close out the file. Board Questions and Comments Mr. Hornig emphasized that this was not a subdivision application and would not trigger any sort of zoning freeze. Ms. McCabe explained that the proposal did not qualify as a subdivision under current regulations due to proposing only one buildable lot when at least two buildable lots are required to be a subdivision under the definition of a subdivision. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Thompson moved to accept the Applicant's request dated August 4, 2025 to withdraw the preliminary subdivision application submitted on July 10, 2025 for 92-100 Hayden Avenue. Ms. McBride 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. Ms. Thompson moved to have the Chair sign the draft withdrawal acceptance and make and non- substantive changes. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0. (Roll call: Thompson – yes; McBride – yes; Creech – yes; Hornig – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 13, 2025 Page 2 of 10 125 Hartwell Avenue – Definitive Subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing on the application of Eliot Community Human Services, Inc for a definitive subdivision at 125 Hartwell Avenue. The applicant was represented by David Robinson, civil engineer with Allen & Major Associates, Inc. Mr. Robinson stated that this application is intended to freeze zoning1 on the property. He shared the proposal including 3 lots on a cul-de-sac and confirmed that the proposal meets Lexington subdivision bylaws. Mr. Robinson highlighted the changes to the plans from the preliminary subdivision, notably the removal of driveways on the lots and the addition of site distance triangles. He shared the utility, grading, and drainage plans. Mr. Robinson advised that there are no buildings proposed at this time. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe summarized the staff memo from Mr. Koepper. She acknowledged that the applicant made the requested revisions and that the plans comply with Lexington bylaws and regulations. Ms. McCabe noted that the Conservation Director highlighted wetland resources on the property. Ms. McCabe advised that a condition of approval would include hiring a wetlands specialist to demarcate those areas. She further noted that the applicant requested two waivers to delay submission of soil testing information and a long-term maintenance agreement. Ms. McCabe recommended approval of these waivers and stated that submission of these documents prior to the issuance of any building permits would also be a condition of approval. Board Questions Mr. Creech confirmed the applicant’s business address as 125 Hartwell Avenue with Mr. Robinson. There were no public comments on this application. Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing for the definitive subdivision application for 125 Hartwell Avenue. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Hornig – yes; McBride – yes; Thompson – yes; Creech – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Ms. Thompson moved to accept the two waiver requests to submit the soil surveys, soil test results, and owner maintenance documents to be submitted prior to issuance of any building permits. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Thompson – yes; McBride – yes; Hornig – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Ms. Thompson moved to approve the definitive subdivision for 125 Hartwell Avenue with the 22 conditions of approval as detailed in the draft decision as may be amended this evening. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes; McBride – yes; Creech – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Ms. Thompson moved to have the Chair sign the decision and correct any non-substantive errors. Ms. McBride 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. 1 MBTA Village and Multi-Family Overlay Zoning, as revised through 2024 prior to the March 17, 2025 Special Town Meeting vote Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 13, 2025 Page 3 of 10 952 Waltham Street – Multi-family Site Plan Review Mr. Schanbacher opened the continued public hearing for a Village Overlay multi-family site plan review at 952 Waltham Street. The applicant’s team included: HongSheng Tang, owner and applicant; Fred Gilgun, attorney with Nicholson, Sreter, and Gilgun; Michael Deng, architect with Next Phase Studios; and David Robinson, project engineer with Allen & Major, Inc. Also present were Mollie Scott and Eric Kelley from APEX Companies, LLC on behalf of the Board’s peer reviewer, Dylan O’Donnell. Mr. Gilgun introduced the team and summarized the 8-unit townhouse-style proposal with visitor parking, outdoor amenity space, and a bus stop bench on Waltham Street. He explained that the team explored a redesign to garden-style units based on Board feedback, but will be moving forward with the proposed townhouse-style units. He acknowledged the outstanding items and expressed confidence that all requirements can be met. Mr. Robinson presented the current area and shared updated layout and landscaping plans. Changes included moving the transformer, adding green space to a landscaped island in the parking area, and relocating the short-term bicycle parking. Mr. Robinson advised that there were no changes to the stormwater system and expressed confidence in resolving the outstanding items. Mr. Robinson indicated that the landscaped islands may be swapped to eliminate any conflicts between the transformer and the drainage system. He noted that with no ADA accessible units, they do not intend to provide ADA parking on site. Mr. Robinson confirmed that the Average Natural Grade plans were complete and showed compliance with the 40’ height restriction. Mr. Deng shared updated renderings, including multiple viewpoints, cross sections of surrounding properties and elevations, and unit floor plans. He stated that the backyard decks and protruding staircases were removed to comply with setback requirements. He highlighted landscaping along Waltham Street for buffer and noise reduction. Mr. Deng advised that the garages will be EV capable and that plans were updated to show long-term bicycle storage. He noted that units 4 and 5 have a slightly larger footprint than the other six units. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe summarized the staff memo from Mr. Koepper dated 8/8/25. She shared the ongoing concerns with some grading and elevation differences on the civil and architectural plans. She confirmed that staff met with the applicant to review setback requirements and egress from the back doors. Ms. McCabe noted that the landscape plan shows two species of arborvitae which do not qualify as replanting mitigation under the tree bylaw. She recommended the applicant change these to an approved species for mitigation. She further encouraged the applicant to provide mitigation plantings on site and suggested that the Board could review a new landscaping plan. The applicant may need to provide payment in lieu to the Town’s Tree Fund if they are unable to meet mitigation requirements. Ms. McCabe asked the applicant to revise the proposed Operations and Maintenance plan to include continuous maintenance of plantings. She stated that there is no irrigation proposed on site and advised that irrigation is important for young plantings. Ms. McCabe asked that they confirm there is no light spillage to abutting properties, sidewalks, or streets; to reduce the height of a light pole to 12’; and reminded the applicant that the Fire Department has requested exterior access to sprinkler rooms. Peer Reviewer’s Comments Ms. Scott summarized three outstanding items from the peer review memo dated 8/6/25. She recommended the transformer be moved away from the infiltration basin, but acknowledged that this Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 13, 2025 Page 4 of 10 must be coordinated with the electrical provider. Ms. Scott advised that the Operation and Maintenance plan should be a standalone document signed by the property owner. Ms. Scott summarized discussions on ADA accessibility and if accessible parking spaces would be required on site. She stated that their understanding is that as this is a private residential development with no public amenities, ADA accessible parking is not required. She expressed that the peer review team would defer to the Planning Board’s judgement on this item. Board Questions Ms. McBride emphasized the importance of irrigation and urged the applicant to consider a plan to collect rainwater to reuse on-site for this purpose. She further encouraged plantings from the preferred tree list for mitigation purposes. Mr. Robinson was supportive of revising the proposed plantings and stated that they are talking with a neighbor about the possibility of adding plantings to his property to meet mitigation requirements. Ms. McBride highlighted inconsistencies between the civil and architectural plans and images. She expressed disappointment in the open space provided, citing the lack of accessibility. She suggested the site could be improved with a different layout particularly if the open space area was more accessible and not up such a steep slope. Ms. Thompson echoed Ms. McBride’s displeasure with the open amenity space. She expressed that the space is very small and inaccessible and wondered if there would be any seating. Mr. Robinson advised that there will likely be shared furniture, such as a picnic table. Ms. Thompson confirmed there would be no ADA accessible parking. She stated the layout was extremely tight and centered around a parking lot. Ms. Thompson asked if the renderings were to scale, as it was her opinion that the buildings look much larger than what would fit on the lot. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan promotes green space and walkability and also suggested the site could benefit from a different layout. Mr. Leon reiterated previous comments. He appreciated the elimination of the 9th unit, but expressed concerns with the lack of pedestrian circulation through the site, the relatively inaccessible open space, and the lack of irrigation. Mr. Leon further questioned the larger garage ceiling heights in units 1, 2, and 3. He wondered if the purpose of the elevated ceilings was to allow the first floor to walk out to their private outdoor space. He further questioned what that rear space would entail, noting that there is a substantial retaining wall proposed behind these units. He suggested lowering the garage heights and overall profile of the building. Mr. Leon stated that this design does not accommodate most of the important values the Board expects to see. He further stated that the site seems overcrowded and suggested that the site would be better served with a less dense, more resident-amenity focused design. Mr. Schanbacher questioned why units 4 and 5 were larger than the other units and noted that the additional 180 SF could be used for green space. He confirmed that the terrace behind units 6, 7, and 8 was eliminated. Mr. Schanbacher questioned the required parking and noted that the proposed parking is 2.5x more than is required. He noted that the removal of the excess surface parking would open up significant green or amenity space, although also noted that they would still need to provide access to the garages and sufficient space for emergency response vehicles. He expressed his opinion that this is a missed opportunity for the Board and the applicant. Mr. Schanbacher shared his disappointment that civil and architectural plans were not aligned. Mr. Creech reiterated that the site is overcrowded. He suggested eliminating units 1, 2, and 3 to reduce to five units. He expressed that he felt this project is not safe given the proximity to Waltham Street and Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 13, 2025 Page 5 of 10 lack of space for children to play. Mr. Creech strongly recommended reducing the overall footprint of the buildings. Public Comments Sallye Bleiberg, 960 Waltham Street, Precinct 3 Town Meeting Member, expressed concern with reduced parking. Ms. Bleiberg wondered about light spillage to Brookhaven, if there would be any blasting, and what noise mitigation measures will be implemented for construction. Lin Jensen, 133 Reed Street, Precinct 8 Town Meeting member, questioned the proposed material for the parking lot and suggested the use of pervious stones rather than tar. She further recommended heat mitigation options for parking lot, including additional shade trees on the islands. Applicant’s Response Mr. Robinson advised that there is ledge on-site. He noted that it has been difficult the extent of the ledge, but suggested there would not be blasting due to the residential proximity and that they would likely chip any ledge away as needed. Mr. Gilgun advised that they will take all comments under consideration. He stated that many decisions have been made due to the site and the owner’s desire to remain at 8 units. Ms. McCabe noted that the photometrics plan shows no light spillage onto adjacent properties but this should be checked with an updated photometric plan. Mr. Robinson reminded everyone that they will also lower the light poles to 12 feet. Board Comments Mr. Hornig asked if the applicant would be able to respond to all comments and concerns prior to their next appearance. Mr. Gilgun stated that they would be able to comply with all comments consistent with the bylaws and regulations. Mr. Hornig asked if staff would be able to prepare a draft decision for the September meeting. Ms. McCabe recommended continuing the meeting to Thursday, September 25 with a materials submission deadline of September 8 in order to allow time for a full review and to prepare a draft decision. Mr. Creech clarified that his suggestion to reduce units was not strictly with the intent to eliminate units; his concern is with the safety of the site. Ms. McBride repeated her concerns that this project does not efficiently use the space and emphasized that the green space should be easily accessible. She stated that these issues have been raised at previous meetings and have not been addressed. Mr. Schanbacher agreed with the other Board members and urged the applicant to not let parking dictate the site. Ms. Thompson moved to continue the public hearing for the site plan review application at 952 Waltham Street to Thursday September 25, 2025 at or after 6:00 p.m. on Zoom. Ms. McBride 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. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 13, 2025 Page 6 of 10 Ms. Thompson moved to accept the Applicant's request to extend the final action date for the site plan review application to September 30, 2025. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Thompson – yes; Creech – yes; Hornig – yes; McBride – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. 287 & 295 Waltham Street – Special Residential Development (SRD) Site Plan Review Mr. Schanbacher opened the continued public hearing on the application of Lex Terrace LLC for a Special Residential Development at 287 & 295 Waltham Street. The hearing was continued from April 10, May 28, and June 11, 2025. 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 Board’s peer reviewer, William Maher of Nitsch Engineering, Inc. Mr. Gilgun summarized the proposal for the 15-unit development, consisting of 3 townhouse-style buildings and two garden style buildings with 3 units in each. He advised that the team had reviewed and considered the Lowell Street multi-family project but due to site limitations could not accommodate that style of design. Mr. Gilgun highlighted the redesign of the retaining walls around the open space. Mr. Larson presented revised plans and site renderings, noting that overall site design remains largely unchanged. Updates included widening the driveway to 22’, slight parking reconfigurations to reduce visitor parking and pavement, increased safety features and landscaping, and improved emergency vehicle access. The applicant is proposing 19 total parking spaces including 2 ADA handicap accessible parking spaces. Further revisions include expanded snow storage on-site, a proposed central mail box, short-term bicycle parking, and an area designated for a bench and bus shelter along Waltham Street. Mr. Larson shared that retaining walls, terraces, and walkways have been redesigned to better fit the existing topography. He advised that retaining walls would be approximately 6’ due to elevation changes and that the terraces behind the townhouses will not be handicap accessible. Mr. Larson highlighted a new nature trail proposed to access the wooded area behind the units and a handicap-accessible terrace near Building E. Mr. Larson detailed the proposed landscaping plans, confirmed that all species are from the Lexington preferred planting list, and that the plan is approximately 20 caliper inches short on mitigation requirements. He shared the proposal to meet the mitigation requirements. Mr. Sultan shared the architectural plans. He highlighted revisions to the townhouse buildings including long-term bicycle parking in the garages, reconfigured rear egresses, and updated façade treatments. Mr. Sultan detailed the changes to the garden-style building façades to incorporate a “New England” look using stone, cedar siding, and gabled roofs. He confirmed that there will be solar panels and the buildings are within Gross Floor Area (GFA) and Average Natural Grade (ANG) height requirements. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe summarized the staff memo from Mr. Koepper dated 8/8/25. She stated that staff is still seeking more detailed information before recommending approval, particularly on drainage, stormwater management for Buildings A and B, and utility details. She requested that short-term bicycle racks be added back to the plans and acknowledged that the applicant is working to meet the tree replacement requirements under the by-law. She confirmed that the two required inclusionary units, located in Buildings A and B, comply with minimum size requirements and are in appropriate locations. While supportive of those elements, she emphasized that too many stormwater and utility issues Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 13, 2025 Page 7 of 10 remain unresolved, and the plans must be finalized as construction-ready documents before staff can recommend Planning Board approval. Peer Reviewer’s Comments Mr. Maher explained that the current plans are still lacking critical detail and should be at a construction-level stage before the Planning Board grants approval. He noted inconsistencies between the drainage report and the site plans, especially regarding infiltration system sizes, and said more detail is needed on retaining walls, stone walls, stairs, and perimeter drainage. Additional soil test pits are required to confirm soils and groundwater levels. He stressed that coordination with town departments such as Fire and DPW appears to still be incomplete, particularly for fire service and domestic water line layouts, sewer connections to Waltham Street, and hydrant locations and coverage. Mr. Maher also pointed out missing details for inspection ports, outlet control structures, and overflow designs, as well as discrepancies between drainage notes and actual drawings. He requested pipe sizing calculations for storm drains and a clear snow storage plan so fire access would not be blocked in winter. While the applicant suggested some issues could be addressed later, Mr. Maher strongly recommended resolving them now to avoid future permitting complications, ensuring the project is fully coordinated and construction-ready. Board Questions and Comments Mr. Schanbacher stated that more coordination was needed to ensure all requirements are satisfied. Mr. Creech expressed approval of the footpath to the wooded area and the improved perimeter ramp. He stated that he felt the new design would function well for new residents. Ms. McBride agreed that the outstanding items from the staff and peer review memos should be addressed soon. She confirmed with Mr. Sultan that the solar would be reduced on Buildings D and E due to the gabled roof. She appreciated the reduced heights of the retaining walls, the access path to the forest, and the traffic calming and landscaping revisions. Ms. Thompson appreciated the changes made and expressed concern with the number of outstanding items. She encouraged the applicant to confer with Mr. Maher to resolve these in a timely manner. Mr. Leon echoed Mr. Creech’s appreciation of the trail access provided on site and ADA circulation. He asked Mr. Novak if addressing the stormwater management items would impact the site layout and confirmed proposed pathway materials. Mr. Novak indicated that he would be able to address all outstanding issues and noted that he has adjusted the size of the systems to address groundwater mounding. Mr. Novak stated that he does not expect significant modifications to the site. Mr. Leon repeated other’s request to have all items addressed prior to the next meeting. Mr. Hornig emphasized the need to address all outstanding comments prior to the next meeting and indicated he would like to vote on this project at the next hearing if all concerns have been resolved. He confirmed with Mr. Gilgun that they would be prepared for an October meeting. Mr. Schanbacher agreed with previous comments that the landscape changes are appreciated. There were no public comments on this application. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 13, 2025 Page 8 of 10 Ms. Thompson moved to continue the public hearing to Wednesday, October 22, 2025 at or after 6:00 pm on Zoom to allow time for a complete package be submitted that addresses all outstanding items. Ms. McBride 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. Ms. Thompson moved to accept the Applicant's request to extend the final action deadline to October 31, 2025. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Thompson – yes; McBride – yes; Hornig – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. 131 Hartwell Avenue – Endorsement of Definitive Subdivision Ms. McCabe stated that the Definitive Subdivision for 131 Hartwell Avenue was approved in June2 and the appeal period has concluded. She presented the request to accept the submitted covenant as a performance guarantee and to vote to endorse the approved plans. Staff recommends approval. Ms. McCabe advised that the Board would need to come to the office to sign the documents. There were no comments from the Board or the public on this item. Ms. Thompson moved to accept and sign the covenant submitted by 131 Hartwell LLC for the definitive subdivision approval at 131 Hartwell Avenue. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Hornig – yes; Creech – yes; Thompson – yes; McBride – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Ms. Thompson moved to endorse the Definitive Subdivision plans for 131 Hartwell Avenue. Ms. McBride 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. 475 Bedford Street – Endorsement of Definitive Subdivision Ms. McCabe stated that the Definitive Subdivision for 475 Bedford Street was approved July 16, 2025 and the appeal period has concluded. She summarized the request to accept the covenant as a performance guarantee and to vote to endorse the approved plans. Ms. McCabe noted that there was a missing date in the draft covenant in the packet and advised that it had been corrected on the hard copies to be signed. Staff recommends approval. Ms. McCabe advised that the Board would need to come to the office to sign the documents. There were no comments from the Board or the public on this item. Ms. Thompson moved to accept and sign the covenant from Cresset Lexington, LLC for the definitive subdivision approved at 475 Bedford Street. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Thompson – yes; McBride – yes; Hornig – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Ms. Thompson moved to endorse the Definitive Subdivision Plan for 475 Bedford Street as approved on July 16, 2025. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Thompson – yes; McBride – yes; Hornig – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. 2 Approved at the June 25, 2025 meeting Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 13, 2025 Page 9 of 10 Board Administration Board Member & Staff Updates Mr. Hornig shared that the Housing Partnership Board was asked by the Select Board to develop a housing policy and strategy. He encouraged anyone interested in housing policy to attend the meeting. Ms. McCabe shared stated that Causeway Development received their project eligibility letter from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities for the affordable project on Lowell Street, which allows them to move forward with the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals. Causeway Development is targeting a September submission to the ZBA for a meeting in October. Ms. McCabe further shared that the EOHLC approved the new multi-family zoning approved at Special Town Meeting 2025-1 as being compliant with the MBTA Communities Act. She noted that Attorney General approval of the zoning amendment is still pending. Ms. McCabe advised that the lottery for the affordable unit at The Edgewood at Meriam Hill was open. She stated there was an upcoming information session and that applications would be due mid- September for a late September drawing. Review Draft Annual Report Ms. McCabe advised the Board that the Annual Report is due September 8, 2025. She asked the Board to provide feedback on the distributed draft report. Review of Draft Meeting Minutes: 7/16 Ms. Thompson moved that the Planning Board approve the draft July 16, 2025 meeting minutes as presented. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Thompson – yes; McBride – yes; Hornig – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED Upcoming Meetings: Wednesdays 8/27 and 9/10, Thursday 9/25, Wednesdays 10/8, 10/22, 11/5 (tentative), 11/19, 12/10. Ms. McCabe noted that the 8/27 meeting may be canceled, as there are no applications. She would recommend canceling it, but will wait until Friday 8/22 to make that decision. Adjournment Ms. Thompson moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of August 13, 2025 at 8:20 p.m. Ms. McBride 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 Meeting adjourned at 8:20 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. 92 Hayden Avenue Request to Withdraw, dated 8/4/25 2. 125 Hartwell Avenue Staff Memo, dated 8/8/25 Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 13, 2025 Page 10 of 10 3. 952 Waltham Street Peer Review Memo 3, 8/6/25; Staff Memo, 8/8/25; Final Action Deadline Request, 8/11/25 , revised architectural and civil plans, narrative response to comments 4. 287 & 295 Waltham Street Staff Memo, 8/8/25; Peer Review Nitsch Memo, 8/8/25; Deadline Extension, 8/13/25, revised architectural and civil plans, narrative response to comments 5. 131 Hartwell Avenue Draft Covenant 6. 475 Bedford Street Draft Covenant