Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-10-08-PB-min.pdf Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 8, 2025 Page 1 of 9 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday, October 8, 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 and Aaron Koepper, Planner. Michael Schanbacher, Chair of the Planning Board, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, October 8, 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 331 Concord Avenue – Modification to approved Site Plan Review Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing on the application of Cabot, Cabot, and Forbes for a modification to an approved Site Plan Review. The applicant’s team included: Quinlan Locke, project manager with Cabot, Cabot, and Forbes; Allison Desbonnet, landscape architect with Copley & Wolff; and Steve Prestejohn, architect with Cube 3. Mr. Locke provided an overview of the project approved in November 2024. He explained that the modifications are a result of continuing the design process with engineers, marketing research, construction feedback, and sustainability needs. Mr. Locke stated the project is moving towards Passive House certification. He confirmed the modified plans continue to meet Lexington regulations and bylaws. Mr. Locke shared the applicant’s desired timeline of receiving permits in early 2026 with a spring 2026 groundbreaking. Ms. Desbonnet shared changes to the exterior and landscape of the project. The 3 courtyards were combined into two larger courtyards. She explained that this allowed them to add a pool to one courtyard, which is intended to be the more active and engaging courtyard. The other courtyard will be focused on landscaping and passive use for a quieter and greener experience. Other changes included updated electrical equipment, a slightly reduced dog park area, the addition of an egress walkway connecting to the perimeter walkway, and a privacy screen fence for a unit overlooking a busy area. Mr. Prestejohn presented the proposed modifications to the interior of the building and building façade. He stated that the overall unit count was reduced to 187 from the approved 200. This resulted in a reduction of inclusionary units to 28 from 30, and long-term bicycle parking spaces reduced to 281 from 300. Mr. Prestejohn stated that no changes were made to other metrics, such as building height, vehicle parking, or short-term bicycle parking. He explained that the modification allowed the team to refine the layout of the lobby and bicycle parking areas. Mr. Prestejohn further explained the intention of the modification is to maximize space for the future residents, both within their unit and outside. The unit reduction allowed for an increase in the average size of the units, and the unit mix was adjusted to include more 2-bedroom units and reduce the number of 1-bedroom units. Mr. Prestejohn detailed revisions to the exterior treatment of the building. He advised that bays or projections from the Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 8, 2025 Page 2 of 9 windows were added, which increased unit size and added to the residential feel of the exterior. He also highlighted the refined color palette, façade materials, and window groupings. These changes are intended to soften the roof line, create scale groupings, and break up the façade and massing of the structure. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe summarized the staff memo from Assistant Planning Director, Meghan Roche. She explained that the Board is being asked to accept the revised plan set in place of the plans approved in 2024. Ms. McCabe repeated the major changes presented by the applicant. She noted that the number of units has decreased while the overall size of each unit increased. The building footprint is largely unchanged. Ms. McCabe advised that the modified plans are in compliance with the zoning by-laws and regulations. She further advised that all the original findings and conditions of the 2024 approval would apply to the modified plans. Ms. McCabe stated that the Town Engineering Department reviewed the existing stormwater proposal and supplemental information. They confirmed that the stormwater management system maintains compliance. Ms. McCabe advised that the applicant would need to file a modification with the Conservation Commission for the updated drainage connection. Staff recommends approval of the proposed modification with all original conditions plus the addition of a condition to coordinate with the Fire Department on bicycle storage room access. Board Questions Ms. McBride asked which inclusionary units were removed and questioned the removal of balconies along the south side of the building. Mr. Locke responded that the inclusionary units removed were in proportion to the market rate units, likely one 1-bedroom and one 2-bedroom. He noted that they would like to keep 10% of the inclusionary units as 3-bedroom units. Mr. Prestejohn explained the balconies were removed to improve the street-facing façade. Ms. McBride appreciated the effort to create texture and reduce the massing. She wondered if the revisions would complicate Passive House certifications. Mr. Prestejohn agreed that the revisions would present challenges but expressed his confidence in their ability to resolve them. He and Mr. Locke shared some options they are considering with input from a Passive House consultant. Ms. McBride questioned the material of the privacy screen fence and encouraged living wall spaces, although she acknowledged the challenge of keeping it consistent throughout all seasons. She also asked if any changes had been made to the pedestrian walkways. Ms. Desbonnet responded that the privacy fence would be a 6’ screen panel to provide privacy for one unit which faces a high-traffic area and advised that the only walkway change was the addition of the egress path. Mr. Creech asked for the rationale behind adding a pool. He stated that he had a favorable view of the project before and expressed his approval of the modifications. Ms. Desbonnet advised that the applicant is looking at the development as a family-oriented site and that a pool is often a sought-after amenity. It had been impossible to include the pool in the 3-courtyard layout, but the two larger courtyards can accommodate it. Ms. Thompson also approved of the revisions to the appearance and massing. She asked for the rationale behind reducing courtyard space and requested visual renderings of the front of the building and from Concord Avenue. Ms. Desbonnet advised that the overall courtyard space had increased by approximately 2,200 SF. Mr. Locke and Mr. Prestejohn reviewed the site layout and abutting properties with Ms. Thompson. Mr. Schanbacher asked the reasoning behind increasing unit size. He further wondered if the unit mix changed as well. Mr. Locke and Mr. Prestejohn explained that the revision came from market feedback and demand for larger units which provide more flexibility with the layout. This also resulted in the Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 8, 2025 Page 3 of 9 increase in 2-bedroom units. Mr. Schanbacher confirmed the units will be rental, not ownership. He asked if rents would increase with the larger units. Mr. Locke advised that the gross rent will likely increase, but he did not expect a significant change to rent per square foot. Ms. McBride expressed concern with the unit mix change and urged Mr. Locke to reconsider for the benefit of working professionals. Mr. Locke noted that at 1400 SF, the 3-bed units are still smaller than the average residence in Lexington. Ms. McBride discussed the deciduous trees, particularly those in front of the building, and suggested additional evergreens be planted to provide consistent, year-round screening. She suggested additional locations for evergreen plantings. Ms. Desbonnet shared details about the proposed evergreens and agreed to consider Ms. McBride’s suggestions. Public Comments Rena Maliszewski, 310 Concord Avenue, South Lexington Civic Association (SLCA), stated that she is glad that the balconies were removed, but expressed concerns about the size of the building and disappointment in the reduction of inclusionary units. She requested additional evergreen screening and asked for more information about the pool. Ms. Maliszewski wondered about a plan for blasting and pre-blasting inspections. Applicant’s Response Ms. Desbonnet provided additional details on the 4’ deep exercise pool. Mr. Locke stated that the pre-blasting inspections would be performed by a 3rd party inspector and would likely occur a few weeks prior to construction. He further advised that the inclusionary units still make up 15% of the development and reminded Ms. Maliszewski that they cannot control the demographics of the future tenants. Board Comments Mr. Hornig stated that he had no objections to the proposed changes. He advised that one goal of §135- 7.5 is to create family housing and that he was pleased with the mix of dwelling units. Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing for the modification to the Site Plan Review approval for 331 Concord Avenue, submitted by Cabot, Cabot, and Forbes. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; McBride – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Ms. Thompson moved to approve the modified site plan review approval as shown in the plans modified through September 5, 2025 with the condition of approval that the applicant submit plans to the fire department for the ingress and egress to the bicycle storage room and that al l the conditions in the November 20, 2024 approval remain in effect. 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 have the Chair sign the board's decision and allow for non-substantive corrections. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Thompson – yes; Creech – yes; McBride – yes; Hornig – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. 3 Maguire Road – Definitive Subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing for a definitive subdivision at 3 Maguire Road. The applicant’s team included: Teri Ford MacEachern from Greatland Realty Partners and Nick Skoly from VHB. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 8, 2025 Page 4 of 9 Ms. MacEachern advised that she would be speaking to both 3 Maguire Road and the next item on the agenda, 10 Maguire Road, concurrently. She stated that the intent of both applications is to freeze the multi-family zoning as it existed on the lots prior to the 2024 Special Town Meeting vote. Ms. MacEachern explained the zoning freeze options permitted by Massachusetts state law and confirmed preliminary subdivision applications were submitted prior to the Town Meeting vote. She noted that they are seeking waivers to defer submission of certain materials and testing, with the condition that all waived items would be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits. Ms. MacEachern emphasized that they do not expect to ever pull building permits for this subdivision as it is for a zoning freeze. Ms. MacEachern further noted that the applicant has invested significant resources in the development of 10 Maguire Road with lab and office space. This commercial base is preserved in the proposed subdivision plans and will be retained in any future development proposals. Mr. Skoly shared the proposed subdivision plan showing 3 lots on a private cul-de-sac. He noted that there had not been significant changes from the preliminary subdivision. Mr. Skoly highlighted the revisions including the addition of boundary lines and existing easements to the plans, revising the outside turn radius of the cul-de-sac to 50’, and an updated landscaping plan with species from the preferred planting list. He clarified the waiver requests to delay submission of test pit data and soil analysis and acknowledged these materials would be required as conditions of approval if construction were to go forward. Mr. Skoly noted that they have submitted a stormwater report and propose connection to Town drainage. He acknowledged that it would require a Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) application and peer review with the Conservation Commission, which the applicant has also asked to defer as a condition of approval. Mr. Skoly finished by confirming the curb cut for 3 Maguire Road lines up with the curb cut at 10 Maguire Road per Town bylaws. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe agreed with the applicant’s summary of the zoning freeze process. She confirmed the preliminary subdivision was submitted prior to the Town Meeting vote in order to preserve VHO (Village High-Rise Overlay) zoning on the lots. Ms. McCabe further confirmed that both applications comply with the Planning Board’s Subdivision Regulations. She acknowledged the requested waiver to defer submission of soil test pit data. Ms. McCabe summarized the conditions included in the draft decision, including the submission of waived materials and standard conditions related to the Conservation Commission. She noted that there are wetlands at 10 Maguire Road. Staff recommends approval. Public Comments There were no public comments on this item. Board Comments Mr. Schanbacher encouraged the applicant to explore mixed-use developments for any residential proposal they may submit in the future. Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing for the Definitive Subdivision for 3 Maguire Road. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Hornig – yes; Thompson – yes; Creech – yes; McBride – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Ms. Thompson moved to approve the request for the waiver to allow the submission of soil surveys, test pits, and test borings prior to construction. 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. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 8, 2025 Page 5 of 9 Ms. Thompson moved to approve the Definitive Subdivision for 3 Maguire Road with the 21 conditions of approval in the draft decision. 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 for any non-substantive changes such as grammar, typos, and consistency. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; McBride – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. 10 Maguire Road – Definitive Subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing for the definitive subdivision at 10 Maguire Road. The applicant team included Teri Ford MacEachern from Greatland Realty Partners and Nick Skoly from VHB. As Ms. MacEachern already spoke about 10 Maguire Road during the previous hearing, Mr. Schanbacher invited Mr. Skoly to present. Mr. Skoly shared the proposed subdivision for 10 Maguire Road. He emphasized that the existing life science building would be preserved if the subdivision were to be constructed and reiterated that there is no plan for construction. Mr. Skoly noted that there are wetlands in the rear of the property and that they would need to file Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Conservation Commission to do work within the resource area as well as an RDA for the drainage connection. Board Questions Mr. Leon asked about if potential development plans would include retaining the lot as one parcel or separating the lot into two lots for the residential development and the life science building. Ms. MacEachern suggested they would be inclined to split the lot. Mr. Leon cautioned against creating zoning violations if the lot is subdivided. Mr. Skoly advised that if they pursue a lot split, it would likely be through an ANR (Approval Not Required) Plan and noted that the proposed right of way in the subdivision allows them to keep the existing building without any violations. He explained their preference for an ANR to mitigate the need to keep the ROW in the middle of the lot. He suggested that if an ANR is pursued, there may be one driveway for both parcels with an easement for access. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing for the Definitive Subdivision for 10 Maguire Road. 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 approve the request for the waiver to allow the submission of soil surveys, test pits, and test borings prior to construction. 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. Ms. Thompson moved to approve the Definitive Subdivision for 10 Maguire Road with the 21 conditions of approval in the draft decision. 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. Ms. Thompson moved to have the Chair sign the decision and correct for any non-substantive changes such as grammar, typos, and consistency. 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. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 8, 2025 Page 6 of 9 11 Larchmont Lane – Definitive Subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing on the application of Tropeano Realty Company for a definitive subdivision at 11 Larchmont Lane. The applicant’s team included: Frederick Gilgun, attorney with Nicholson, Sreter, and Gilgun; Mike Novak, engineer with Patriot Engineering; and Jeff Thoma, landscape architect with J. Thoma Land Design Studios. Mr. Gilgun introduced the applicant team and summarized the request for a 4-lot definitive subdivision. He advised that this application follows a preliminary subdivision approved March 5, 2025. Mr. Gilgun stated that the motivation behind the application is to preserve development rights on the lot under 2024 Zoning Bylaws, specifically §7.5 regarding multi-family zoning. He explained they are seeking one waiver regarding sight lines on driveways and expressed that the applicant has no objection to including a condition of approval requiring updated plans be submitted if construction were to move forward. Mr. Novak shared existing conditions, including several buildings, vegetative wetlands, and riverfront with an off-site bank. He advised that the wetlands have been located and flagged. Mr. Novak presented the proposed 4-lot subdivision plans including utilities, grading, drainage, and construction management. He highlighted the proposed looped water line to Revere Street in response to preliminary comments and confirmed that soil testing had been completed. Mr. Novak shared a landscape plan, as Mr. Thoma was unable to attend the hearing. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe summarized the staff memo from Assistant Planning Director, Meghan Roche. She confirmed the proposal meets the Planning Board subdivision regulations and reiterated that it is not intended to be constructed. She confirmed the application qualifies for a zoning freeze, noting that the preliminary subdivision was submitted prior to the Town Meeting vote. Ms. McCabe advised that due to the wetlands on the property and the presence of a Zone A flood plain, there would be a condition of approval that the applicant file with the Conservation Commission prior to any site work. She expressed support for the requested waiver regarding sight lines and advised that the submission of updated plans prior to any development would also be included as a condition of approval. Ms. McCabe prepared a draft decision including these conditions and several standard conditions for review by the applicant and Board members. Board Questions Mr. Leon asked Mr. Hornig if §175-7.2C would apply to this subdivision and if there was need to maintain a possible connection to Revere Street. Mr. Hornig advised that §7.2C applied to adjoining land, not adjoining streets. Mr. Leon and Mr. Hornig discussed the hypothetical construction of the proposed subdivision and connection to Revere Street. Mr. Novak advised that they had not pursued any connection to Revere Street because of insufficient frontage. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing for the Definitive Subdivision for 11 Larchmont Lane. Ms. McBride 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. Ms. Thompson moved to approve the request for the waiver to allow the sight lines for the driveway intersections to be provided prior to any building permits. Ms. McBride 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. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 8, 2025 Page 7 of 9 Ms. Thompson moved to approve the Definitive Subdivision for 11 Larchmont Lane with the 26 conditions of approval in the draft decision. 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 for any non-substantive changes such as grammar, typos, and consistency. 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 Amendments to Planning Board’s Subdivision Regulations Mr. Schanbacher continued the public hearing to discuss amendments to the Planning Board’s Subdivision Regulations (Ch. 175 of Lexington Code). The hearing was continued from September 25, 2025. Ms. McCabe presented the main revisions since September 25th, which included the addition of a definition of “Shoulder” and further language added to the proposed 10’ buffer between the right of way (ROW) and adjoining lots. Ms. McCabe explained the language added to §7.2 allowed for flexibility to waive the 10’ buffer requirement in cases where there would be no risk to public safety, there are physical constraints, such as topography or geological conditions, which would prohibit a 10’ buffer, or if the ROW is presented on a proof plan not intended for construction. Board Questions Mr. Schanbacher stated his approval of the revisions. Mr. Hornig suggested two additional revisions after a discussion with Mr. Leon. He recommended adding “other than those required by §7.2C” after “New rights-of-way” in §7.2(B)4. This language is intended to remove any conflict in the regulations where an easement might be both required and prohibited under the existing language. Mr. Hornig advised that §7.2C easements are not common. His second suggestion was to add “except as provided in §7.2B4” to the table in §7.2E to eliminate any conflict in the text. Mr. Leon acknowledged the long-standing debate in Massachusetts over whether subdivision streets should connect to adjacent properties or remain separate. He noted that current regulations reference easements rather than separate roadway parcels. In conversation with Mr. Hornig, both agreed that subdivision roads are typically easements rather than distinct parcels. Mr. Leon acknowledged that while reserving areas for future connections can promote safety and connectivity, such situations are increasingly rare in Lexington. He concluded that maintaining the reservation language in Section 7.2C was acceptable, even if it may have limited practical application going forward. Mr. Creech expressed support for Ms. McCabe’s revisions but stated his reluctance to vote on the regulations in light of the discussion between Mr. Hornig and Mr. Leon and possible further revisions. Ms. McBride agreed that there should not be a vote if the regulations are amended further. She stated that the language seemed overly complicated if it is not a necessity and also a very rare occurrence. Ms. McBride questioned the purpose of the language surrounding proof plans. Ms. McCabe explained that proof plans are submitted for Special Residential Developments (SRDs). These proof plans are used to determine the number of dwelling units permitted in the SRD and may not show the final site layout. She clarified that the language would allow the Board to approve proof plans showing a less than 10’ buffer if the plans are not intended to be built. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 8, 2025 Page 8 of 9 Mr. Leon referenced the Fairland Street project1 as an example of a steeply graded development where flexibility in the subdivision entrance placement could improve safety. He explained that exceptions to the 10’ buffer may be justified when topographic or site-specific conditions warrant a different design, provided public safety remains the priority. He noted that proximity to nearby driveways or high-traffic properties such as schools or churches could create potential safety risks, and that waivers should be considered only when no such hazards exist. Mr. Hornig added that in the Fairland Street case, the common driveway was located opposite Gafford Avenue to align intersections for safety, which outweighed concerns about its closeness to an adjacent driveway. Both agreed that waiver decisions should be made case by case, balancing public safety and neighborhood impacts. Mr. Hornig suggested that §7.2.B4 could be rewritten for clarity to better reflect its purpose and Mr. Leon supported revising the language to help applicants and board members more clearly understand the criteria for granting waivers. Ms. Thompson stated that she finds the language clumsy and encouraged rewriting the regulation for clarity and to promote public safety. Mr. Creech noted that the necessity of a 10’ buffer is dependent on circumstances and public safety. He noted that the developers at Fairland Street brought in 8,000 cubic yards of fill to address the grading concerns. Mr. Schanbacher stated he would like to vote on the regulations at the next meeting and urged the Board to provide clear directions to Ms. McCabe for revisions. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Thompson moved to continue the public hearing on the amendments to the Board’s Subdivision Regulations until October 22, 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; Hornig – yes; Thompson – yes; McBride – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Board Member & Staff Updates Mr. Creech and Mr. Hornig shared details from an information session presented by the Department of Energy Resources (DOER) on proposed energy storage by-law. The new by-laws stem from the 2024 Climate Act, which includes direction to the DOER to create a more consistent, streamlined process for permitting energy projects. The proposal would require towns to establish a consolidated permitting process that covers zoning, wetlands, stormwater, and other reviews, producing a single decision within one year and a single state-level appeal process. Ms. McCabe advised that this would be similar to a Comprehensive Permit with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Hornig noted that the bylaws would apply broadly to energy generation, storage, and transmission projects. Mr. Creech advised that it includes guidelines on preferred sites for energy storage facilities including rooftops, brownfields, and landfills, with standards emphasizing minimal land clearing, fire safety, erosion control, and reduced impacts on abutting properties. Projects will be evaluated using a “site suitability scoring” system that may ease requirements for highly suitable locations. The bylaw also aims to encourage the use of previously developed land and minimize forest clearing. DOER plans to release final regulations by December 1, 2026, followed by a nine-month transition period. Written comments on the proposal are due by November 14, 2025. Mr. Hornig recommended that the Board and staff review the proposal and determine how to best proceed. He advised that municipalities can either adopt their own local bylaw consistent with the state framework or default to state-administered rules. Ms. McBride wondered if the proposed fuel cell on Waltham Street would qualify under the bylaws. Ms. McCabe advised that fuel 1 Also known as Common Court; Map 42, Lot 205 Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 8, 2025 Page 9 of 9 cells did not count as clean energy and would not be considered transmission. She confirmed this with Town Council. Mr. Hornig shared that the Housing Partnership Board would be discussing housing policy at their October 9, 2025 meeting. Mr. Hornig and Ms. Thompson plan to attend. Mr. Hornig recommended adding housing policy to an upcoming Planning Board agenda to discuss their stance. Ms. McCabe stated that new zoning bylaw booklets (Ch. 135) had been printed and copies were available for the Board members in the Planning office. Review of Draft Meeting Minutes: n/a Upcoming Meetings: Wednesdays October 22, November 19, and December 10. Mr. Schanbacher confirmed the Board is holding 11/5 available. Ms. McCabe suggested the meeting will likely not be needed and she would officially cancel by Friday 10/31. Adjournment Ms. Thompson moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of Wednesday, October 8, 2025 at 8:04 p.m. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5 -0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; McBride – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Meeting adjourned at 8:04 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. 331 Concord Avenue Proposed Plan Modifications; Cover Letter Narrative; 2024 Planning Board Approval Decision; Staff Memo Application portal 2. 3 Maguire Road Plan set dated 8/22/25; Staff Memo, Application portal 3. 10 Maguire Road Plan set dated 8/22/25; Staff Memo, Application portal 4. 11 Larchmont Lane Plan set dated 8/20/25; Staff Memo, Application portal 5. Planning Board Subdivision Regulations Proposed Draft Sub Regs Amendments; Sub Regs with Proposed Amendments; Presentation Slide deck