Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-09-25-PB-min.pdf Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 25, 2025 Page 1 of 8 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Thursday, September 25, 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 Thursday, September 25, 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 952 Waltham Street – Village Overlay Site Plan Review Mr. Schanbacher opened the continued public hearing on the application of HongSheng Tang for a Village Overlay multi-family site plan review at 952 Waltham Street. The applicant’s team included: HongSheng Tang, owner and applicant; Frederick Gilgun, attorney with Nicholson, Sreter, and Gilgun; Michael Deng, architect with Next Phase Studios; David Robinson, project engineer with Allen & Major Associates. Also present was the Board’s peer review consultant, Dylan O’Donnell with APEX Companies, LLC. Mr. Gilgun introduce the applicant’s team. He highlighted changes to the site plan since the August 13 meeting, including reducing the amount of surface parking, moving the buildings further from the setbacks, decreasing the number of stairs to the common outdoor space, and the addition of interior stair cases. Mr. Gilgun stated that the proposal has addressed all comments from the peer reviewer and complies with Lexington’s bylaws and regulations. Mr. Robinson shared the revised plans and detailed the changes Mr. Gilgun highlighted. Units 1, 2, and 3 were moved 6.5’ forward to increase the buffer at the rear of the site and reduce the amount of ledge work needed. Two exterior parking spaces were eliminated to accommodate this change. Mr. Robinson stated that area for open space was increased and they removed a couple of stairs required to access that area. Mr. Robinson addressed peer review comments to move the transformer outside of the drainage system footprint and to relocate drainage chambers. He shared that some arborvitae species were changed in order to count towards mitigation. Photometric plans were updated to eliminate all light spillage and additional trees were added in the middle of the parking lot and along the perimeter of the lot. Mr. Robinson suggested they would be amenable to using a blasting method for ledge removal and stated that they would comply with all noise bylaws. He advised that they would have more information once a geotechnical evaluation was completed. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 25, 2025 Page 2 of 8 Mr. Deng repeated that setbacks were increased on all buildings, particularly units 1, 2, and 3. He confirmed that all buildings have a maximum height of 39.5’. Mr. Deng stated that an interior staircase was added to lead to the private back yard areas. This eliminated any potential encroachment in setbacks. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe summarized the staff memo prepared by Mr. Koepper. She stated that all requested items have been addressed and staff confirmed compliance with Lexington bylaws and regulations. Ms. McCabe advised that the proposed landscaping plan does not meet the full mitigation requirements. It is 40.5” short. She recommended that the Board accept the submitted landscape plan and waive the tree bylaw with a condition that the remaining 40.5” be a contribution to the tree fund at $200 per caliper inch. Ms. McCabe stated that the Board received a letter from the Noise Advisory Committee recommending a geotechnical report and a noise mitigation study be submitted, and further recommending blasting for ledge removal over hammering. She explained the benefits of blasting. Ms. McCabe summarized a letter received from abutters expressing concern with the overall height and size of the project. She advised that there is also a memo from the peer reviewer. Ms. McCabe stated that staff recommends approval and that a draft decision has been prepared which includes a number of conditions. She detailed some of the conditions, including the recommendations from the Noise Advisory Committee, the donation of Lexpress passes to all new initial owners, and standard conditions related to construction, timing, and required documentation. Peer Reviewer’s Comments Mr. O’Donnell summarized the fourth peer review memo, dated 9/16/25. He advised that earlier outstanding comments from the last meeting were all addressed with this submission and there were 3 new comments on the revised submitted materials, but that the applicant had addressed all items quickly over the last several days. He reported that the review from Apex was a thorough review process and Mr. Robinson’s collaboration and responsiveness was appreciated. All utility and stormwater concerns have been addressed and Mr. O’Donnell had no further comments. Board Questions Ms. McBride expressed that she was encouraged by many of the changes presented. She asked if there were still 32-34 steps required to access the open area and if there was any walkway from the lower area of the lot. She reiterated that the open space is still relatively inaccessible, noting challenges for residents with strollers, small children, or bad knees even with the reduction of two steps. She also asked that there be some attempt made to create a walkway from the lower parking lot to the open space through a landscaped path on the left side of the property. Mr. Leon questioned if the increased open area behind units 1, 2, and 3 would be limited common area or dedicated to each unit and if there would be any separation between the private yard space (I.e. landscaping or fencing). Mr. Leon confirmed there is no access to the common area besides exiting the rear of units 1, 2, and 3 or the stairs. Ms. Thompson stated she continued to have concerns with the size of the buildings and the number of units. She requested visuals showing the comparison before and after the parking reduction and setback increase. She also asked for renderings including the interior stair cases added. Ms. Thompson repeated others’ concerns with the size and accessibility of the open space and reiterated her opinion that it is too tight on the site. She suggested that the site would not be as challenging with 7 units instead of 8. Ms. Thompson asked about the approximate size of the private yards for units 6, 7, and 8. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 25, 2025 Page 3 of 8 Public Comments Barbara Katzenberg, 37 Moon Hill Road, Precinct 2 Town Meeting member, Chair of the Noise Advisory Committee, summarized the recommendations in the letter from the Noise Advisory Committee, encouraged the retention of a noise mitigation specialist, and requested equipment with white noise back up alarms. Nick Cannalonga, 942 Waltham Street, expressed concerns with the size and density of the site and believed it would devalue his property. He objected to deciduous arborvitae which would remove screening several months per year. Mr. Cannalonga further expressed concerns that there was not enough parking. Sallye Bleiberg, 960 Waltham Street, Precinct 3 Town Meeting member, reiterated Mr. Cannalonga and Ms. Thompson’s concerns. She shared that Brookhaven is very concerned with overflow parking in their lot and urged the applicant to reduce the number of units. Board Comments Mr. Creech emphasized that he does not think this project is in anyone’s best interests and expressed a wish for a better proposal. He asked for more information on the vegetative swales and if the grass dies. Mr. Robinson and Mr. O’Donnell explained the selections and back up runoff management. Mr. Creech echoed concerns with the number of stairs both in the units and to access the outdoor space. He stated he would support this project in a smaller form and that it was the toughest project he has seen under MBTA zoning. Mr. Leon agreed with Mr. Creech’s concerns and expressed disappointment with the project’s design. He acknowledged that as a by-right development, the Board has limited authority to regulate the project. He stated that the project lacks sensitivity to abutting properties, topography, and scale. Mr. Leon criticized the absence of meaningful open space for residents and stated that the project provides little benefit to future residents or the neighborhood. Mr. Leon urged future applicants to design projects with greater consideration for abutters and site context. Mr. Hornig asked if Mr. Gilgun and the applicant were comfortable with the draft decision and conditions prepared by Planning staff. He noted that this is the least dense of all the multi-family developments both in building mass and units per acre. He acknowledged he had some issues with the proposed design, but stated that it is not an outlier as far as multi-family developments are concerned. Ms. McBride repeated the requests for fewer units on the site. She stated her opinion that many of the challenges of the site could be addressed with fewer units. She encouraged the inclusion of both evergreen and deciduous trees, agreeing with Mr. Cannalonga’s concerns about privacy screening. Ms. Thompson stated that this is one of 2 MBTA projects that she wishes were designed differently to make a better product for potential residents. She acknowledged that it complies. She reiterated concerns about the lack of open space. Mr. Schanbacher added his disappointment with the project. He noted that this is a walkable site, with many amenities in Waltham, but the project remains car-centric with little change from the first meeting. Mr. Schanbacher then acknowledged the need to build more housing to address affordability. He explained that larger, denser projects can create more units, increase choice, and help stabilize prices. He pointed to the lack of recent large-scale development as a factor in the current housing crisis and stressed the importance of supporting new housing, even if imperfect, to meet both local and regional needs. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 25, 2025 Page 4 of 8 Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing for the site plan review and stormwater permit application for 952 Waltham Street. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-1 (Roll call: Thompson – yes; McBride – yes; Creech – Abstain; Hornig – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Ms. Thompson moved to waive the Tree Bylaw because the project's tree removal on the property is best mitigated with the proposed landscape planting plan with 48 new trees (324.5 caliper inches) with a condition that the applicant mitigate the remaining 40.5 caliper inches with a contribution into the Town's Tree Fund or other allowable form of mitigation per section 120-8, and submit a tree protection plan prepared by a certified arborist. 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 proposal submitted by Hongsheng Tang at 952 Waltham Street with the findings and conditions included in the draft approval decision prepared by staff and the 46 conditions of approval as may be modified this evening. The Planning Board voted on the motion 2-1-2 (Roll call: Thompson – No; McBride – Abstain; Creech – Abstain; Hornig – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION DID NOT CARRY. Mr. Gilgun asked the Board members for justification of their abstention. Mr. Creech responded that he could not approve the project as proposed as it was not in the best interests of the current and future residents, the Town, or the applicant. Mr. Gilgun reminded him that it is a by-right project which fully complies with all State and Town bylaws and regulations. He suggested that an abstention is in violation of the bylaws and would be pursued in land court. Ms. Thompson asked if the board could vote again after hearing Mr. Gilgun’s response. Ms. McBride explained that the applicant has repeatedly heard the same concerns from the Board and neighbors, but there was a lack of significant change in response to these concerns. She stated that one fewer unit would have made a difference and expressed frustration that a different approach was not considered. Mr. Gilgun acknowledged Ms. McBride’s frustration but reminded her that this is based on bylaws that were approved by Town Meeting and it is the Board’s duty to uphold the bylaws and approve the project. Mr. Hornig reminded the Board that they recently adopted updated site plan review regulations where they reiterated the instances for a disapproval and there are no grounds to disapprove this application per the Board’s own Regulations. Ms. Thompson moved again to approve the proposal submitted by Hongsheng Tang at 952 Waltham Street with the findings and conditions included in the draft approval decision prepared by staff and the 46 conditions of approval as may be modified this evening. Mr. Hornig seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-1-0 (Roll call: Hornig – yes; Creech – yes; McBride – yes; Thompson – No; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Ms. Thompson moved to have the Chair sign the decision and correct any non-substantive changes such as grammar, typos, and for consistency. 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. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 25, 2025 Page 5 of 8 Public Hearing for Amendments to Planning Board’s Subdivision Regulations Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing to discuss amendments to the Planning Board’s Subdivision Regulations (Ch. 175 of Lexington Code). Ms. McCabe presented the proposed revisions, highlighting changes that came out of the public meeting on September 10, 2025. She explained state law regarding subdivision control law and clarified the scope of the Planning Board Subdivision regulations, advising that the regulations control the division of the property, roadways, and infrastructure, and not the details of the development of each lot. Ms. McCabe further advised that any properties that initiated a zoning freeze prior to Special Town Meeting 2025-1 would be able to submit their definitive subdivision applications under the existing regulations and would not be held to these amendments per MGL c. 41 §81Q. § 7.2 Streets and Rights-of-Way: Ms. McCabe presented several proposed amendments to § 7.2. These included: o 7.2.E(1) or 7.2.E(7): Ms. McCabe suggested the addition of a 10’ buffer between the right-of-way in a subdivision and lot lines of abutting properties. She presented multiple options for the wording and location of this amendment based on feedback from the Board members. Ms. McCabe shared examples of some recently approved subdivisions and explained how this amendment would or would not have modified their proposals. o 7.2.E(7): Ms. McCabe proposed the addition of a minimum roadway length of 150’. She stated that this revision is intended to increase safety. 150’ was determined after reviewing several small roadways and cul-de-sacs, particularly on East Emerson Road. o 7.2.E(13): Ms. McCabe proposed language urging applicants to consider future sidewalk connections when designing landscaping hardscaping, utilities, and other site appurtenances. § 2.1 Definitions: Ms. McCabe suggested a definition for Right-of-Way, which includes paper streets and easements. § 7.1.B Site Design – Lots; Property Rights: Ms. McCabe recommended adding language requiring the proof circle on all buildable lots. She advised that this is intended to reference Lexington’s Zoning Bylaw (Ch. 135) requirements and would not change those bylaws. § 3.4 Fees: Ms. McCabe proposed increasing administrative fees and clarifying peer review fees. § 3.3 Applications [General Regulations]; § 5.3 Submission [Preliminary Subdivision Plans]; and § 6.1 Submission [Definitive Subdivision Plans]: Ms. McCabe recommended revised language promoting electronic submission except where hard copies are necessary for filing purposes. Her proposal also included electronic submission to the Town Clerk and Board of Health to reflect current processes through the OpenGov portal. § 7.6 Trees and Landscaping: Ms. McCabe suggested amendments reflecting a preference for plantings from the Planning Board’s Preferred Planting List and the addition of language requiring soil profile rebuilding prior to landscaping. Board Questions Mr. Leon asked if there was an existing definition for a “shoulder” and provided his understanding of the definition. Ms. McCabe advised that there is not an existing definition for shoulder, but suggested it could be added to the Right-of-Way (ROW) definition. Mr. Hornig advised that the shoulder is the space between the travel lane and the curbing. He recommended referencing the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) terminology if the Board includes a definition for shoulder. Ms. McBride stated that she views these proposals as positive change. She supported the 10’ buffer between the ROW and abutting lots due to light spillage and increased safety. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 25, 2025 Page 6 of 8 Mr. Creech, Mr. Hornig, and Mr. Leon engaged in a discussion surrounding the proposed 10-foot buffer. Mr. Creech requested clarification or examples when the 10-foot buffer may need to be waived. Ms. McCabe noted that the language did allow for exceptions when physical constraints or design standards require it, but agreed that the language was vague. Mr. Hornig provided examples of previous subdivisions and road extensions where a 10-foot buffer between the ROW and abutting lots would have been impossible. He stated that he would prefer to retain the ability to waive or be flexible on this requirement and highlighted that waivers cannot be granted on proof plans. Mr. Creech wondered how the Board would determine when an exception applies and whether the Board could require other concessions as part of the waiver, such as additional landscaping. Mr. Hornig indicated it would be clear from site conditions, and that the language would encourage the 10-foot buffer. His intent is to allow flexibility only when no other layout is possible and the application would otherwise be disapproved. Mr. Leon expressed his preference to make the 10’ buffer a requirement and stated that the applicants could seek a waiver if necessary. He raised concerns about overly tight spacing between subdivision ROWs and driveways, particularly commercial sites or schools, as they connect to public ways. He believes this could create public safety issues. Mr. Leon suggested that the regulations could explicitly allow for flexibility for proof plans, however if the road will be built, then the regulations would apply. He referenced past litigation where there was a question if the paved area was a subdivision ROW or a shared driveway. He agreed that applicants should demonstrate why no alternative layout is possible, and the Board must consider impacts on abutters, traffic, and safety, consistent with past projects. Mr. Hornig and Mr. Leon approved of language requiring an explicit finding from the Planning Board in cases requesting a waiver. Public Comments Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, Precinct 1 Town Meeting member, asked if the Board considered a future with smaller minimum lot sizes when discussing these regulations. He advised that the State House is considering legislation that would prohibit requiring minimum lot sizes greater than 5,000 SF. Mr. Luker is generally opposed to subdivisions and cul-de-sacs. He recommended a special permit review for other housing typologies. Board Comments Mr. Schanbacher responded to Mr. Luker and advised that if minimum lot size requirements were eliminated, the Board can adjust their regulations at that time. Mr. Schanbacher then recommended the hearing continue one more meeting to further discuss the 10’ buffer and shoulder definition. He polled the Board for their general preference on the 10’ buffer language. Mr. Creech would like to have the 10- foot standard buffer and the ability to waive the requirement. Mr. Leon would like the Board to have a specific role in making a formal determination on any waiver. Mr. Hornig would like to consider if language can be drafted to prohibit proof plans from blocking special residential developments. Mr. Schanbacher stated that he does not have a strong preference, so long as the Board has the ability to adjust based on actual projects if needed. Ms. McBride agreed further review was needed, and expressed a preference for the first option Ms. McCabe presented. Ms. Thompson moved to continue the public hearing to amend the Planning Board's Subdivision Regulations Chapter 175 of the Code of Lexington to review further changes as discussed during the hearing to Wednesday, October 8, 2025 at or after 6:00 pm 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 September 25, 2025 Page 7 of 8 Follen Road – Approval Not Required (ANR) Mr. Schanbacher opened the public meeting on the application of Charles Wyman for an Approval Not Required (ANR) plan at 0 Follen Road, also known as Map 22, Lot 140. Ms. McCabe explained the ANR was submitted on behalf of the Town of Lexington and Conservation Commission. The ANR is intended to divide the property into one buildable lot and a non-buildable parcel for an ACROSS Lexington Trail connection. She stated that staff recommends approval and advised the Board that they would need to come to the Planning Office to endorse the plans. Board Comments Ms. McBride expressed support for connecting more areas of Lexington, particularly with the intent to promote walkability and increased green space. She thanked the proponents for their actions to make a better Lexington. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Schanbacher reminded the Board they would need to come to the office to endorse the ANR plans. Ms. Thompson moved to approve and endorse the Approval Not Required Plan submitted for Follen Road at Map 22, Lot 140. 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. Board Administration Board Member & Staff Updates Mr. Hornig shared that the Housing Partnership Board is developing a presentation for the Select Board to address housing priorities and goal strategies. There is a meeting on October 9, 2025 to refine the presentation. Mr. Creech stated that the Community Preservation Committee met and re-elected their officers. Mr. Schanbacher shared that there is a Board and Committee Boot Camp on Saturday October 4, 2025 at 8:00 a.m. He advised that he would be attending and representing the Planning Board. He encouraged other members to attend if they wish and to connect with Ms. McCabe if they had not received the registration email. Ms. McCabe informed the Board that the Attorney General approved Article 2 from Special Town Meeting 2025-1 and Article 34 from Annual Town Meeting 2025 related to the Village and Multi-family Overlay district zoning. She advised that staff is working to update the e-code with the new bylaws and will order new Zoning bylaw (Ch. 135) books. She further shared that the lottery application process for the inclusionary unit in The Edgewood at Meriam Hill has closed. Ms. McCabe stated that there was a large number of applicants, over double the number anticipated. The lottery drawing will occur on September 30, 2025. Mr. Schanbacher expressed appreciation for Ms. Liz Rust, Director of the Regional Housing Services Office, for her guidance on the 4- bed unit and suggested that more 4-bed affordable units are needed, given the number of applicants. Review of Draft Meeting Minutes: 9/10 Ms. Morrison shared revised meeting minutes for approval which incorporated Mr. Hornig’s edits. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 25, 2025 Page 8 of 8 Ms. Thompson moved that the Planning Board approve the draft September 10, 2025 meeting minutes as presented. 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. Upcoming Meetings: Wednesdays 10/8, 10/22, 11/19, 12/10. Mr. Schanbacher asked if Board members should continue to hold 11/5 available if needed during Special Town Meeting. Ms. McCabe confirmed that is a tentative date that has not been published and asked the Board to remain available if the extra meeting was needed. Adjournment Ms. Thompson moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of Thursday September 25, 2025 at 7:51 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; McBride – yes; Hornig – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 7:52 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. 952 Waltham Street Peer Review Civil Letter Apex 9.16.25 Staff Memo 09.19.25 Public Comments: 1. Letter from Nancy Cannalonga to Planning Board, dated and received 9.22.25 2. Statement from the Noise Advisory Committee to Planning Board, dated 9.4.25 2. Subdivision Regulation Amendments Proposed Amendments Rev. 9.25.25 Proposed Amendments in full Sub Regs 9.24.25 Presentation Slides, dated 9.25.25 3. Follen Road (Map 22, Lot 140) Cover Letter, dated 9.22.25 ANR Plan, dated 9.22.25