Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-11-13-ZBA-min.pdfMeeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom November 13th, 2025, 7:00 p.m. Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Associate Member Jennifer L. Wilson Associate Members: Jeanne K. Krieger, Kathryn A. Roy, Scott E. Cooper, and Thomas Shiple Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, Abby McCabe, Planning Director, and Kiruthika Ramakrishnan, LUHD Office Manager Town Counsel: Mina S. Makarious and Kuong C. Ly Other Business: 1. Minutes from the October 23rd, 2025 Meeting At 7:05 p.m. Mr. Clifford moved to approve the minutes. At 7:06 p.m. Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford. At 7:06 the Board approved the minutes. The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to approve the minutes from the October 23rd, 2025 Hearing (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jennifer L. Wilson – Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom November 13th, 2025, 7:00 p.m. Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Associate Member Jennifer L. Wilson Associate Members: Jeanne K. Krieger, Kathryn A. Roy, Scott E. Cooper, and Thomas Shiple Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, Abby McCabe, Planning Director, and Kiruthika Ramakrishnan, LUHD Office Manager Town Counsel: Mina S. Makarious and Kuong C. Ly Address: 591 Lowell Street (ZBA-25-23) The petitioner is requesting ONE (1) COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.2.2(4) and MGL C.40B Sections 20-23 to allow construction of forty (40) dwelling units with a mix of 1-, 2-, and 3- bedrooms, across four (4) buildings of moderate, low, and very low income housing restricted to 30%, 50%, 60%, and 80% Area Medium Income (AMI). The proposal includes parking, landscaping, and stormwater management improvements. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Topographic Plan, Plot Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans, Photographs, Project Narrative and Executive Summary, Existing Conditions Site Plan, Project Eligibility Letter dated August 6th, 2025, Select Board Support Letter dated April 9th, 2025, Affordable Housing Trust Support Letter dated May 21st, 2025, Land Disposition Agreement dated February 5th, 2025, Traffic Study Report and Traffic Volume Comparison, Fire Truck Turn Analysis, Causeway Corporation Document Identifying Authorized Individual, Aerial View Maps, Height Calculation Forms, Average Natural Grade Forms and Spot Locations, Proposed Renderings, Building Tabulation, Gross Floor Area Calculation Form, Bicycle Parking Plans, Stormwater Report, Pre- Development Watershed Delineation Plan, Post-Development Watershed Delineation Plan, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Proposed Layout Site Plan, Proposed Grading Plan, Proposed Drainage Plan, Proposed Utility Plan, Waiver Request List, Apex Companies Peer Review Civil Memorandum, Apex Companies Peer Review Traffic Memorandum, and Staff Memorandum dated November 5th, 2025. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Director, Town Engineer, Select Board, Planning Director, Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, Fire Department, Police Department, Transportation Manager, Sustainability and Resiliency Officer, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Land Use, Housing, and Development Department, Building Commissioner, Conservation Director, Health Department, Fire Department, Transportation Manager, and Sustainability and Resiliency Officer. The Hearing opened at 7:06 p.m. Petitioner: Causeway Development, LLC Before the petitioner began his presentation, Mr. Clifford noted that Lexington complies with one of the safe harbor provisions under Chapter 40B, as Lexington’s current subsidized housing inventory (SHI) sits at over 10%. Mr. Clifford also noted that should the need for the safe harbor arise in the future of this 40B application process, the Board must formally acknowledge that Lexington complies with the safe harbor provisions. At 7:09 p.m. Mr. Clifford moved to acknowledge that Lexington currently complies with one of the safe harbor provisions under Chapter 40B. At 7:09 p.m. multiple Board Members second Mr. Clifford. At 7:09 p.m. the Board formally acknowledged that Lexington currently complies with one of the safe harbor provisions under Chapter 40B. The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to formally acknowledged that Lexington currently complies with one of the safe harbor provisions under Chapter 40B (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jennifer L. Wilson – Yes). Mr. Dave Traggorth, representative of Causeway Development LLC, began his presentation by introducing his team for the project, and then showed an aerial view of the site and explained some of the property’s characteristics. Mr. Traggorth continued by showing a timeline of the process that occurred leading to the ZBA meeting. Mr. Traggorth noted that 100% affordable housing projects require state and federal funding, and that the pre-application process for the funding will begin in early December. Mr. Traggorth then explained that if invited, Causeway will have an opportunity to submit a full application in March. Mr. Traggorth also noted that his stage in the permitting process can affect his opportunity to submit a full application. Mr. Traggorth continued by explaining that the project will consist of forty units, across four buildings, comprised of fourteen one-bedroom units, eighteen two-bedroom units, and eight three-bedroom units. Ms. Beth Whittaker, founding principal at Merge Architects, explained that the site will have three 12,000 square foot buildings and will have another building located towards the left corner. Ms. Whittaker further explained that the site will have one in and out located towards the north and will also have a two-way single lane. Ms. Whittaker stated that the buildings will face a communal front yard and that the buildings will not reside near the wetland buffer. Ms. Whittaker also stated that the communal front yard will have a playscape, paths, vegetation, and a community canopy space. Ms. Whittaker then explained that the community building will contain the community room, management office, long-term parking, and four housing units. Ms. Whittaker then showed some landscaping idea photos and stated that while they do not have a landscape design yet, they plan to keep as much of the woodland site as possible. Ms. Whittaker then explained that Lowell St. sits a little higher than the site, so the buildings will sit nestled down from Lowell St. Ms. Whittaker also stated that the vegetation and trees will provide a buffer between the buildings and Lowell St. Ms. Whittaker then continued by explaining that all of the buildings slope south to accommodate a photovoltaics array, which would supply power for heating and cooling, and therefore make the units more affordable. Ms. Whittaker then explained that each building will have ten spaces located underneath it and stated that the rest of the car parking will reside throughout the site. Ms. Whittaker then showed more photos of the proposed site and further explained the buildings’ characteristics. After Ms. Whittaker concluded, Mr. Jaime Pelletier, Merge Architects, explained that the site will have two types of buildings, three twelve-unit residential buildings, with parking underneath, and one community building with four housing units. Mr. Pelletier explained the unit breakdown in each building and then further explained that each building will have a single staircase and elevator. Mr. Pelletier then showed the elevations of the buildings with the sloped roofs, photovoltaic arrays, and wood cladding. Mr. Pelletier then explained that the community building will have a community room, some long-term bike storage, trash and recycling, various other service spaces, and four living units above it. Mr. Pelletier noted that each unit will have its own outdoor space, that the elevator in the buildings makes all units accessible, and that they fulfill the 5% Group Two accessibility unit requirement. Mr. Pelletier noted that the community building resides closer to grade at Lowell St., but that the other buildings will sit further down. After Mr. Pelletier concluded, Mr. Chris Cantin, MetroWest Engineering, the project engineer, began his presentation by showing the pre-development watershed delineation plan and by explaining some of the property’s characteristics. Mr. Cantin noted that the property has vegetated wetlands to the east side and that an unnamed, perennial stream that resides offsite to the northeast. Mr. Cantin then highlighted the 200-ft riverfront buffer and the 100-ft wetland buffer that the Lexington Conservation Commission confirmed through an ANRAD. Mr. Cantin further explained some of the grade characteristics of the property, and noted a low spot located in the northern part of the property. Mr. Cantin then explained a plan that showed the drainage to that low depression area, which would prevent any runoff from escaping the property. Mr. Cantin continued by stating that they had designed a stormwater management system that complies with the Massachusetts Stormwater handbook. Mr. Cantin explained that the proposal included three subsurface infiltration systems; one located underneath the parking lot and two underneath the green space area. Mr. Cantin noted that the property has a low spot towards the east that acts as a small retention area. Mr. Cantin explained that the system seeks to mimic the natural, low depression that exists on the site and stated that the system will retain stormwater. Finally, Mr. Cantin stated that they conducted additional soil testing to confirm the soil in the areas where the infiltration systems will reside and that he can provide those results. After Mr. Cantin concluded, Mr. Jeffrey Dirk, Vanasse & Associates Inc, the traffic consultant for the project, summarized the transportation analysis. Before giving his presentation, Mr. Dirk stated that he provided a response to the peer review, which he will submit to the Board. Mr. Dirk also noted that the peer review had resulted in some refinements of the transportation analysis. Mr. Dirk continued by stating that they had prepared their study in consultation with the staff in Lexington, Burlington, and Woburn, and by following the guidelines set by the Department of Transportation (DOT). Mr. Dirk further explained that the transportation analysis included automobile trips, pedestrians, bicycles, and public transport. Mr. Dirk stated that during any one-hour period of the day, the project will not produce more than about forty vehicle trips, going both in and out of the site. Mr. Dirk then explained that they added that traffic to Lowell St. and up to the North St. intersection and found that the project would not significantly impact delays or queueing. Mr. Dirk further stated that while traffic will concentrate at the driveway, some of the traffic will go north or south, and some of the traffic will come in or out. Mr. Dirk also noted that those numbers get smaller as the traffic moves away from the site. Mr. Dirk clarified that no significant increase meant that the delay did not increase by any more than five seconds and that the queue did not increase by any more than by one vehicle. Mr. Dirk then explained that the driveway to the site resides about a couple hundred feet down from the signal and that the Town Engineer had suggested putting “do not block” markings at the driveway. Mr. Dirk further elaborated on the queueing and stated that they seek to ensure that a fire truck or ambulance can still get onto the site, even with vehicles on the driveway. Mr. Dirk continued by explaining how they analyzed safety for the project. Mr. Dirk explained that they looked at the motor vehicle crash history on Lowell St. and at the North St. intersection and compared that to the state average. Mr. Dirk stated that they found that the site had no high crash locations. Regarding the sightlines, Mr. Dirk stated that they found a need to trim some of the vegetation. Mr. Dirk then showed a graph about on-site pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and then highlighted the existing sidewalks and crosswalks near the site. Mr. Dirk explained that the project planning had included connecting the site to the existing crosswalks. Mr. Dirk noted that while Lowell St. does not have bicycle lanes, it does have sufficient width to have a shared travel way configuration since the DOT considers a lane a shared travel way if the center line and the edge of the roadway have a width of at least fourteen feet. Mr. Dirk then showed a chart with the project’s traffic characteristics and explained that they expect the project to produce about 332 vehicle trips, both entering and exiting, over a twenty-four-hour period. Mr. Dirk clarified that that number included any services that would serve a multi-family home. Mr. Dirk then explained that the chart also contained the peak morning and evening hours, during which the project would produce around thirty-five and thirty-eight vehicles on top of the existing traffic, respectively. Mr. Dirk clarified that these numbers included vehicles both entering and exiting. Mr. Dirk continued by explaining that after they had calculated those numbers, they then analyzed the trip dispersal. Mr. Dirk noted that once the traffic leaves the site, the numbers get smaller. Mr. Dirk stated that 55% of the traffic will go north of the site, and, once at the North St. intersection, 7% will head towards Woburn and 3% will stay in Lexington. Mr. Dirk further stated that 45% of the trips will go south of the side. Mr. Dirk concluded by summarizing their recommendations, by stating that Mr. Cantin had incorporated all their recommendations, and by noting that the peer review recommended showing the site triangles. After Mr. Dirk concluded, Mr. Traggorth explained that he had met with various Town Departments to ensure that Lexington’s largest fire truck could get in and out of the site. Mr. Traggorth concluded by explaining his waiver requests. Mr. Cohen asked if the property would operate as a rental property, which Mr. Traggorth said it would. Mr. Cohen then asked who would manage the property, to which Mr. Traggorth responded that while Causeway will own the property, they will hire a property management company, Peabody Properties, who have expertise in affordable housing, to manage the property. Mr. Cohen asked if Mr. Traggorth would address the list of recommendations, to which Mr. Traggorth responded that he had incorporated all the recommendations into the design. Mr. Barnert expressed his approval for the “do not block” lines, however, also expressed concern as the lines would reside on Town land. Mr. Barnert stated that Mr. Traggorth would need to get Select Board and Traffic Safety Commission approval, then asked Mr. Traggorth if he had talked with the Traffic Safety Commission. Mr. Traggorth stated that he had incorporated the lines into their plan and expressed his willingness to get the necessary approvals. Mr. Osten noted that some cars may exceed or come close to the length and width of the 9x19 parking spaces. Mr. Osten then asked Mr. Traggorth if he could restrict the size of a vehicle allowed on site or provide some larger parking spaces. Mr. Traggorth responded he could restrict car sizes and noted that they have other parking spaces outside of the carports. Mr. Traggorth noted that typically, they do not see residents owning large trucks while living in an apartment. Mr. Traggorth also noted that the site will have sufficient parking spaces for the residents, visitors, and some extra. Mr. Traggorth stated that he could work with the Town to extend on-site parking and noted that he will balance asphalt and green space. Mr. Traggorth highlighted that they have proposed wider and longer parallel parking spaces for larger vehicles and stated that they could restrict residents from parking under the carport. Mr. Osten asked about what would happen to the snow and ice on the pavement. Mr. Osten also noted that he thinks that the property has a 2% grade, which would result in runoff on most of the paved area. Mr. Cantin responded that a 2% grade constitutes the preferred slope to direct water runoff to the designated low spots and the stormwater management system. Mr. Cantin then explained that the MassDEP looks for on-site snow storage and highlighted that the proposed site plan included a few snow storage areas. Mr. Osten then asked Mr. Traggorth to clarify what the Group Two accessible units will entail. Mr. Traggorth explained that they will build 5% of the units to accommodate a wheelchair user. Finally, Mr. Osten asked about the capacity of the rooftop solar panels. Mr. Traggorth responded that he thinks that the rooftop solar panels will have a size of about 400 kilowatt hours and explained that the solar panels will connect to the common area electricity, which will provide partial heating and cooling for the units. Ms. Wilson expressed her approval of the project. Ms. Wilson then asked Mr. Traggorth to elaborate on the community engagement for the project. Mr. Traggorth explained that he had held two meetings and that he had extended an invitation to anyone who wanted to walk through the property. Regarding the feedback, Mr. Traggorth stated that many people had stormwater concerns and concerns about Causeway respecting regulations. Mr. Traggorth also stated that he does not have any stormwater waivers and noted that concerns had arisen about the stormwater design working long-term. Mr. Traggorth also noted that neighbors had traffic and pedestrian concerns and stated that he observed the traffic with neighbors to understand it. Mr. Traggorth further stated that he had also received a tremendous amount of support from the Lexington community and that he had tried to address the various concerns. Ms. Wilson noted that Mr. Traggorth had requested a waiver for the height limitations and then asked about the buildings’ height relative to the nearby single-family homes. Mr. Traggorth explained that the roofs slope south to help with the photovoltaics and stated that the neighbors will see the side of the buildings. Ms. Wilson noted that the neighbors would see the buildings’ full height, to which Mr. Traggorth responded that the neighbors would see between thirty-three- to forty-three-foot- high buildings. Mr. Traggorth also noted that the site will have a tree buffer between the buildings and the neighbors. Ms. Wilson noted that the photos show deciduous trees and asked Mr. Traggorth if he had a plan for when those trees would not provide a buffer. Mr. Cantin stated that they plan to install a six-foot fence and plant some plantings, and Mr. Traggorth noted that the neighbors had requested the fence. Ms. Wilson asked what kind of trees they would plant, to which Mr. Will Smith, Offshoots, explained that they will work with the Tree Committee on the plantings. Ms. Wilson then commented that Causeway had done projects in more urban places and noted that the site does not reside in an urban area. Ms. Wilson then asked Mr. Traggorth if he had done a project in a similar area, to which Mr. Traggorth stated that they currently have a project in Williamstown. Ms. Wilson asked Mr. Traggorth if he had applied any lessons of that project to the Lowell St. project, to which Mr. Traggorth noted that both projects have a carport, similar design components, and a central stair and elevator in each building. Ms. Roy clarified with Mr. Traggorth that he planned to meet with the Tree Committee, to which Mr. Traggorth responded that he already had. Ms. Roy stated that the Tree Committee had several suggestions, and Mr. Traggorth stated that they will develop a planting plan later. Ms. Roy noted that the Bike Committee also had several suggestions, to which Mr. Traggorth responded that they had not met with the Bike Committee but had seen the suggestions. Ms. Roy then asked if the building closest to the gas station would have the same roof dimensions as the other roofs, which Mr. Traggorth affirmed. Ms. Roy clarified that that building would sit higher, which Mr. Traggorth also affirmed. Ms. Roy then stated that she thinks about 27% of the total roof area would sit above forty feet and asked Mr. Traggorth how lowering the roof would affect the solar levels. Mr. Traggorth responded that they could lower the roof, and Ms. Whittaker stated that they strongly prefer the sloped roof since it will allow the solar arrays to efficiently face south and due to its similarity to single-family homes. Ms. Whittaker further stated that while they could lower the roof a little, the current design has the optimal angel for solar power and the right proportion for the building clusters. Ms. Roy then asked how much of the heating and cooling the solar would account for. Mr. Traggorth stated that they do not have the exact number and that they would need to calculate it. Mr. Traggorth also stated that they will have a full energy model for the building permit and that the landlord will pay the energy bills, some of which the solar panels will offset. Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Traggorth to clarify that only the roof does not comply with the zoning height regulations. Mr. Traggorth affirmed this and stated that natural grade factors into the height. Mr. Cooper then asked how much over the height regulation the roof would sit, to which Mr. Cantin stated that the roof would sit about four to eight feet above the zoning height regulations. Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Traggorth to confirm that the buildings will have no gas, which Mr. Traggorth affirmed. Mr. Cooper then asked Mr. Traggorth if he planned to place the fence on the property line or set back from the property line, to which Mr. Traggorth stated that he plans to place the fence set back a little from the property line. Mr. Cooper asked about the height of the fence, to which Mr. Cantin stated that they plan to install a six-foot fence. Mr. Shiple, also a Bicycle Advisory Committee Member, asked Mr. Traggorth if he could put the door to the bike storage directly off the building rather than in a location which would require residents to make two ninety-degree turns. Mr. Shiple also asked if Mr. Traggorth could provide outlets in the bike room and or carports for residents who may have e-bikes. Mr. Shiple then asked Mr. Traggorth if he could add some windows to some of the units. Finally, Mr. Shiple asked Mr. Dirk about the possibility of painting a white line on Lowell St. to indicate the eleven- foot space for drivers and the three-foot space for bikers. Mr. Dirk stated that they could paint a white line and clarified that the fourteen-foot width indicates that a car and a biker can ride parallel down a road without the car needing to cross over the center line. Mr. Clifford asked Mr. Traggorth if Causeway Development was a public agency, a limited dividend, or a non-profit organization, to which Mr. Traggorth responded that they are none of those entities. Mr. Clifford stated that as he understands it, being a public agency, a limited dividend, or a non-profit organization is a requisite of Chapter 40B. Ms. Lawler clarified that the Town still owns the property and that per Lexington’s regulations, the applicant or the owner of land can apply for a comprehensive permit. Mr. Clifford clarified that the Town would be a public agency, and Ms. Valerie Moore, Nutter, clarified that since Causeway had applied for a friendly 40B, the regulations differ slightly. Mr. Clifford noted that he did not see wastewater on the stormwater management plan and clarified with Mr. Traggorth that they would use Town sewer, which Mr. Traggorth affirmed. Mr. Cantin stated that he had included that in the proposed utility plan. Mr. Clifford then asked if Mr. Dirk would consider Lowell St. an arterial or collector street, to which Mr. Dirk stated that Lowell St. functions as a minor arterial roadway. Mr. Clifford then noted that per a Lexington ordinance, the maximum number of subsided dwelling units within a one-fourth mile radius cannot exceed two hundred units, to which Ms. Lawler confirmed that only six subsidized units reside within a one-fourth mile radius of the property. Mr. Clifford expressed his traffic concerns and noted that traffic backs up on Lowell St. Mr. Clifford then asked Mr. Dirk if he had incorporated holiday traffic into the study. Mr. Dirk stated that while he had not incorporated holiday traffic into the study, he noted that the Town has improvement plans to address the peak traffic flow. Mr. Clifford asked if the project would significantly affect the peak traffic flow, to which Mr. Dirk stated that the project would not significantly affect the peak traffic flow. Mr. Clifford then asked if Mr. Dirk had done a study at the East St. intersection. Mr. Dirk responded that vehicles will not concentration at the East St. intersection and that the project will not significantly increase the traffic at that intersection. Mr. Dirk noted that the peer review also concluded that the project will not significantly increase the traffic at that intersection and reiterated that the Town has improvement plans. Mr. Clifford then noted that the Bike Committee recommended installing one-hour firewalls and asked Mr. Traggorth if that could happen, to which Mr. Traggorth stated that it could. Mr. Clifford stated that the Board would need to see a preliminary landscaping plan, to which Mr. Traggorth stated that they had already started preparing one. Mr. Clifford then asked about the old farmer’s wall on the site and stated that while it cannot stay where it currently resides, he does not want to lose that part of Lexington’s history. Mr. Clifford asked if Mr. Traggorth could preserve the wall, to which Mr. Traggorth stated that they could. Mr. Clifford then stated that Lexington’s ordinances allow for fences greater than six feet in height in appropriate circumstances, so if a taller fence would make a difference to the neighbors, then Mr. Traggorth can incorporate that into his plan. Finally, Mr. Clifford asked where the excess solar would get stored, to which Mr. Traggorth stated that all solar would connect to heating and cooling, and that he does not think that excess will occur. No further questions from the Board. After the Board asked their questions, the peer review consultants gave their presentation. Mr. Dylan O’Donnell, Apex Companies, the stormwater peer review engineer, explained that with their review, they checked for compliance with both local and state stormwater standards, and stated that Causeway had prepared a good initial package that demonstrated that compliance. Mr. O’Donnell clarified that he had provided mostly technical clarifications and that he plans to work directly with Mr. Traggorth’s engineer. Mr. O’Donnell noted that the proposed site grading and disturbance extends up to the limits of the wetland buffer. Mr. O’Donnell also noted that while Causeway had not proposed any alterations to the resource area, the proximity to the wetlands makes proper erosion and sedimentation control critical to prevent temporary impacts during construction. Mr. O’Donnell also noted that he spoke with Ms. Karen Mullins, Lexington’s Conservation Director, who also acknowledged that no changes would occur to the resource area, but that the stormwater from the site will get discharged into the adjacent wetlands. Mr. O’Donnell stated that Ms. Mullins had requested that Mr. Traggorth demonstrate compliance with section 5-2 of Lexington’s Wetland Protection Rules, a provision that essentially stipulates that a project shall not increase the total volume of surface runoff for the one-year design storm. Mr. O’Donnell recommended that Mr. Traggorth submit hydrologic calculations that will demonstrate compliance and stated that Apex will review those calculations. After Mr. O’Donnell concluded, Ms. Jane Davis, Project Manager in Apex’s Traffic Department, stated that they had made some minor comments on the traffic study that they think will not significantly impact its findings, and further stated that they will review the updates to the analysis. Ms. Davis then explained that their major comment focused on the future conditions of the improvement plans as those plans may affect their recommendations. Ms. Davis noted that the project will have a minimal impact on the traffic but also noted that a degradation from a level service C to a level service F had occurred on the North St. westbound approach, independent of the project. Mrs. Davis stated that adding more vehicles to a failing service level will worsen the situation but noted that retiming the signals could provide mitigation. Ms. Davis stated that during their site visit, they noticed more queueing along Lowell St. southbound than the analysis showed, however, also noticed that the intersection did not cause the queueing. Ms. Davis stated that they want to know if this occurs regularly or not, although she suspected that it does occurs regularly, and noted that the delay in the queueing shown in the report does not reflect backups from external factors. Ms. Davis stated that Mr. Traggorth had provided them with the emergency vehicle turning template that they had requested. Ms. Davis further stated they wanted verification that Mr. Traggorth will provide pedestrian access to the North St. intersection and verification that the improvement plans will update the pedestrian ramps to comply with accessibility requirements. Ms. Davis addressed Mr. Clifford’s concern about the site’s driveway and stated that their engineer could not tell if the site driveway had adequate distance to the south. Ms. Davis also noted that Mr. Dirk had recommended vegetation trimming and that Apex further requests that Mr. Traggorth add site triangles to plan to show what vegetation will get removed. Lastly, Ms. Davis noted that Mr. Traggorth had included a document in their application regarding the traffic volumes of a typical weekday and a Saturday that Apex did not review. Ms. Davis explained that the document provided data from April which showed an increase of 5,000 vehicles on Lowell St. and requested that Mr. Traggorth address that discrepancy from the February data. Ms. Davis concluded by stating that they will review the responses from Dr. Dirk and expressed her willingness to work with him. Mr. Clifford echoed his concerns about the East St. intersection. Ms. Wilson asked Ms. Davis to clarify what the degradation of level service C to a level service F meant. Ms. Davis explained that a level service C means that an area has acceptable traffic conditions and that the analysis showed a level service C for existing conditions. Ms. Davis further explained that when the future conditions get added in, the level service drops to an F, which means that the area has unacceptable traffic conditions. Ms. Davis reiterated that a rebalancing of the timings could mitigate the situation. Ms. Wilson asked what would happen if the retiming did not resolve the level service F, to which Mr. Dirk stated that the traffic analysis contained an error as he did not have the right plans from the Town. Mr. Dirk stated that the Town had since provided those plans, and that he had provided those plans to Apex. Mr. Dirk noted that with these plans, the degradation does not occur. No further questions from the Board Ms. Elaine Tung, AHT Chair, stated that robust community outreach had taken place from the start of the project. This included holding meetings with abutters and Town Meeting Members, opportunities for public comment at other Lexington Board and Committee meetings, outreach to eleven affinity and community groups, consideration of public comment for the Request for Proposals, ensuring that the public could view all proposals, and having opportunities for public comment during Causeway’s selection process. Ms. Tung further stated that Causeway had held two meetings to gather community input, with notices both posted online and sent to abutters and Town Meeting Members. Ms. Tung further noted that the public had the opportunity to reply directly to the Select Board prior to the State’s issuance of the Project Eligibility Letter, had the opportunity for public comment at Select Board meetings when Causeway revised their plans, and currently have the opportunity for public comment at this meeting. Ms. Tung concluded by stating that the AHT supports the Board’s approval of Causeway’s application. Ms. Wendy Manz, Housing Partnership Board Chair, expressed her approval of the project and the presentation, and stated that the project provides an opportunity to increase the number of affordable units in Lexington at a convenient location. Ms. Manz also noted that Causeway had developed the design with input from Lexington residents and in compliance with state standards. Ms. Manz urged the Board to approve the project. Mr. Michael Schanbacher, Planning Board Chair, stated that Ms. Abby McCabe, Lexington’s Planning Director, wrote a support letter on the Planning Board’s behalf. Mr. Schanbacher also stated that the project remains consistent with the housing goals laid out in the 2022 Lexington Next Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Schanbacher noted that not all MBTA developments will get built and additionally noted that the two current MBTA developments will only include 158 affordable units at a higher Area Medium Income level than this proposed project. Mr. Schanbacher also noted that while Lexington currently sits above the required 10% SHI threshold, this percentage also included market rate units. Mr. Schanbacher further noted that of the 1,356 affordable units only 689 are deed restricted affordable. Mr. Schanbacher then highlighted some of the benefits of the project and concluded by stating that the Planning Board supports this project. Ms. Pat Moyer, 3 Ellen Dana Court, Tree Committee Chair, stated that the Tree Committee met with Causeway and that the Tree Committee supports the project and the Tree By-law waivers. Ms. Moyer also stated that when the Tree Committee met with Mr. Traggorth and Mr. Smith, Mr. Smith impressed the Tree Committee with his expertise and commitment to the site’s ecological health, the restoration of the tree canopy, and his willingness to work with the Tree Committee. Ms. Moyer further stated that the Tree By-law waivers would place oversight of the tree removal and landscaping under the ZBA’s jurisdiction. Ms. Moyer concluded by stating that the Tree Committee would prefer to see as much mitigation as possible on native trees. No further comments from Lexington Boards and Committees. Ms. McCabe, Lexington Planning Director, stated that the staff had provided the Board with a memo that contained comments from various Town departments. Ms. McCabe requested that the applicant provide a written response to the staff memo, the peer review memo, and the comments raised by Board and Committee Members. Ms. McCabe expressed her approval for the parking waivers. Ms. McCabe then requested that the applicant provide a preliminary planting plan, ideally from the Town-approved list, and then gave her own planting recommendations. Ms. McCabe noted that the applicant did not provide a lighting plan and asked if the Board could make requiring one a condition of the comprehensive permit. Ms. McCabe concluded by stating that the Transportation Safety Group recommended that Causeway add two-speed bumps to the site. No further comments from Town Staff. Ms. Gabrielle Glick, 659 Lowell St., asked about the sidewalk that would go on North St. that would give residents access to the Middlesex Commons and noted the unsafe nature of that section of North St. Ms. Glick also commented on the traffic pattern and noted that the intersection of Lowell St. and North St. can get backed up. Ms. Glick asked about the possibility of further assessment based on weekends, holiday times, and school drop-offs due to the dangerous nature of the intersection and the increase in people using that intersection. Mr. Jeff Starr, 20 Grant St., Woburn, noted that he did not see anyone address the impact on the wildlife and stated that he believes that the project will have a negative impact on the wildlife. Mr. Starr also noted that the traffic on Lowell St. can get bad and stated that although the traffic analysis concluded that the project will have a minimal impact on the traffic, any impact to the traffic would make it worse. Mr. Starr concluded by stating that he opposes the project. Ms. Melinda Walker, 14 Larchmont Lane urged the Board to keep in mind the people looking to join the Town of Lexington as neighbors and noted that projects like these can take years to complete. Ms. Walker urged the ZBA to approve this project as soon as possible. Mr. Paul Linton, 22 Grove St., stated that he thought that the project presented a rare opportunity to create affordable housing on Town-owned land. Mr. Linton stated that he thought that the design team incorporated feedback and noted that the design team had incorporated forty units and two- and three-bedroom units. Mr. Linton concluded by stating that he thought that Lexington needed more affordable housing and expressed his support for the project. Ms. Cindy Ahrens, 7 Kitson Park Drive, Sustainable Lexington Committee Chair, spoke on her own behalf and expressed her support for the project and the By-law waivers. Ms. Ahrens noted that building code requires that 20% of parking spots have wiring for Level Two EV charging and assumed that the carports would have those spots. Mrs. Ahrens then asked Mr. Traggorth to consider putting 110-volt, 15-amp circuits in the other carport spots for Level One EV charging. Finally, Ms. Ahrens asked if the trash and recycling room could also accommodate composting. Mr. Andrei Golesteanu, 4 Northgate Cir., expressed his concern about the scale, height, and density of the project. Mr. Golesteanu noted that in addition to the comments already made about his property, he also has flooding concerns as Mr. O’Donnell stated that the overflow will go into the neighboring properties. Mr. Golesteanu also echoed traffic and pedestrian concerns as North St. does not have sidewalks and peak traffic hours make crossing Lowell St. difficult. Mr. Mark Lang, 2 Opi Cir., stated that while he thinks the property serves as a good site for affordable housing, he thought that the hearing focused on a large-scale project, on a complex site, that requires over ten variances related to its size. Mr. Lang also stated that neighbors had raised concerns about the large scale and that he believes that Causeway had not incorporated his feedback. Mr. Lang continued by stating that while the site could support twenty-five units, forty units compromises safety and stormwater management. Mr. Lang explained that he requested records from the Police Department, which showed instances of direct enforcement, red light citations, and failure to stop citations. Mr. Lang noted that he raised traffic concerns in May and hired an independent traffic reviewer to review the traffic study. Mr. Lang stated that he sent those findings to the traffic engineer, who did not change his report, and stated that he believes that the traffic engineer withheld information from the peer reviewer. Ms. Tara Mizrahi, 43 Hillcrest Ave., LexHAB Member, expressed her support for the project and location. Ms. Mizrahi stated that as a housing developer herself, she understood the process that Causeway must go through and stated that while Causeway needs to work out some things, Causeway can work these things out in the timeframe that they need. Ms. Mizrahi noted that Mr. Traggorth will need to submit for the next funding cycle in March, a critical opportunity for this project, and noted that he will need to get the Board’s approval before then. Ms. Mizrahi concluded by urging everyone to work towards that date. Ms. Carol Marine, 18 Oakmount Cir., Vision for Lexington Committee Member, spoke on her own behalf and expressed her support for the project. Ms. Marine noted that the Lexington Next Comprehensive Plan contains a goal of offering a wider range of housing options, changing old dynamics that tolerated economic barriers, and welcoming those who did not have an opportunity to live in Lexington. Ms. Marine stated that she thought that this project would help reach that goal and expressed her approval for the work that both the AHT and the Town had done. Ms. Marine also expressed her approval for the design that Causeway created. Finally, Ms. Marine stated that she thought that Lexington would still need affordable developments despite MBTA zoning, accessory dwelling units, and Lexington’s status on the SHI. Mr. Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Ave., Precinct One Town Meeting Member and Transportation Committee Member, spoke on his own behalf and expressed his support for the project as he had done at other meetings. Mr. Luker agreed with the points in favor of housing advocacy and noted that generally, affordable housing projects have received much support. Mr. Luker stated that he thought that the other meetings had amplified voices who perceive that the project will have certain impacts. Mr. Luker stated he thought that the broader benefits of the project do not provide people who support affordable housing with the same motivation to participate. Mr. Luker concluded by stating that his support for the project comes from recognizing the wider benefits and acting for the broader public good, and not from the most immediate interests. Mr. Paul Ryan, 21 Grant St., Woburn, echoed some of the earlier concerns. Mr. Ryan stated that he thought that the traffic on Lowell St. had compounded over time and that this project will only add to it. Mr. Ryan also stated that he thought that the project would impact the traffic by adding another driveway for vehicles to enter and exist. Mr. Ryan noted that he thought that the project did not consider the wildlife and further noted that the area has a lot of water in it, including water that encroaches on his property. Mr. Ryan expressed his concern for the water runoff and asked if someone could show him the water mitigation plans with assurance that this project will not affect his property. Finally, Mr. Ryan asked for the exact dates and times of the traffic study. Ms. Betsy Weiss, 8 Dover Lane, Prescient Two Town Meeting Member and Housing Partnership Board Member, expressed her support for the project. Regarding the traffic concerns, Ms. Weiss stated that with the construction of Avalon Hills, a 387-unit site, people had the same traffic concerns. Mrs. Weiss further stated that as someone who lives close by, she has not experienced any traffic from the site. Ms. Weiss explained that this project has forty units so that Causeway can apply for state and federal tax credits, and to make the project economically feasible. Echoing Mr. Schanbacher, Ms. Weiss stated that while Lexington has an 11% SHI, only about half of the SHI units are truly affordable and that Lexington would need to add six hundred affordable units to reach a true 10% SHI. Ms. Weiss noted that affordable housing projects have long wait lists and urged the ZBA to approve the comprehensive permit and waivers. Ms. Linda Prosnitz, 3 Demar Rd., AHT Member, spoke on her own behalf. Ms. Prosnitz expressed her approval for the design and stated that she thought that this project would give people an opportunity to live in Lexington who would otherwise not have an opportunity. Ms. Prosnitz noted that she thought that the project’s design would create a community among the residents. Finally, Ms. Prosnitz noted that this project will target households with lower incomes, while the affordable units in other projects target incomes at 80% Area Medium Income. Ms. Daniela Lang, 2 Opi Cir., noted that North St. does not have side walks and that she does not feel comfortable with her children walking or biking in that area. Ms. Lang shared that she witnessed a traffic incident at the intersection and stated that she thought that the new light at the intersection had not improved the area. Ms. Lang also shared that she has seen cars run through the red light and emphasized the importance of pedestrian safety for both the residents that would live in the development and the residents already living in the area. Ms. Margaret Heitz, 335 Marrett Rd., Housing Partnership Board Member, expressed her support for the affordable housing project and how this project will build more units for people dependent on housing. Ms. Heitz noted that she thought that an increase in people living near where they work would result in reduced traffic and noted the importance of both housing and transportation for those that contribute to the Lexington community. Ms. Christina Lin, 2 Eustis St., Lexington Human Rights Committee Chair, spoke on her own behalf and expressed her support for the project. Ms. Lin noted the importance of the traffic concerns and stated she thought that as people move in the area, traffic becomes inevitable. Ms. Lin also noted that she thought that the traffic concerns should not outweigh the need for shelter and stated that traffic mitigation can occur without not building the units. Ms. Lin concluded by expressing her approval for the project design. Mr. William Erickson, 31 Sherman St., talked about the traffic report and the third-party review of the traffic report. Mr. Erickson stated that in both cases, the traffic analysis examined current conditions, a no-build future, and a build-out future, and both analyses concluded that no significant impact occurs in the build-out situation. Mr. Erickson expressed his approval for the traffic consultants and for the Town Engineers who had already tried to address the problem. Mr. Erickson also noted that traffic will happen regardless of the project, but that he thought that the project presents an opportunity to try to solve the traffic concerns. Ms. Melissa Morganstein, 1 Opi Cir., expressed her discontent about the process that had occurred. Ms. Morganstein stated that she thought that the process did not include the community, did not listen to their questions, and did not provide them with information. Ms. Morganstein further expressed her discontent with how the Town runs and that she thought that the process ignored the community. No further comments or questions from the Public. Mr. Clifford asked Mr. Traggorth to respond to the public’s comments, specifically the question about when the traffic study occurred. Regarding further outreach, Mr. Traggorth stated that Causeway has a website for the project, LowellStreetLexington.com. Mr. Traggorth also stated that residents can email Causeway directly at Lexington@causewaydevelopment.com. Mr. Dirk stated that they updated the traffic counts based on community input and to address the peer review report. Mr. Dirk then stated that the traffic study had occurred on October 15th and 16th. Mr. Traggorth stated that as developers, they try to balance the interests of the neighbors, the Town, and their ability to finance the project, and stated that they had made changes to their project because of neighbors’ feedback. Mr. Traggorth stated that while the changes may not satisfy everyone, they had done their best to balance all interests. Mr. Traggorth further stated that they had respected the wildlife by not building in the wetland buffer. Mr. Traggorth also stated that they will respond to the traffic and pedestrian concerns more thoroughly in their written comments and future meetings. Mr. Traggorth explained that when they move into a community, they have advocated with the neighbors on various issues, and he expects that the residents and himself will join the neighbors to advocate for the needs of the neighborhood. Ms. McCabe stated that next year’s budget included a crosswalk to go across North St. and a sidewalk along North St. Mrs. McCabe explained that the sidewalk will extend to the north side of Lowell St. and connect to the Cycle Loft, the Lock Village properties, and the Middlesex Commons. Ms. McCabe noted that the Town had upgraded the traffic signals at the intersection and further down Lowell St. so that the Town can easily make signal timing changes in the future. Mr. Clifford asked if the sidewalk would go to Market Basket. Ms. McCabe stated that it would not go all the way and that the sidewalk would go along Lowell St. and then cross over to the Lock Village properties. Mr. Clifford asked about the sidewalk’s exact location, to which Ms. McCabe stated that the sidewalk remains in its early design stages. Ms. McCabe noted that the Town would need some time to engage in a previously discussed formal easement process. Mr. Shiple stated that he looked at the sidewalk capital request submission and stated that the sidewalk would go on the east side of Lowell St. Mr. Barnert requested that Mr. Traggorth upload the slideshow presentation to the application’s OpenGov page, which Mr. Traggorth agreed to do. Mr. Cohen stated that the Town should start negotiations for the easement and should not count on the easement until they legally have it. Mr. Clifford noted that while some of the concerns exceed the scope of the project, Mr. Traggorth should address the site-specific concerns. Mr. Clifford then asked Mr. Traggorth if he had enough feedback to revise his proposal. Mr. Clifford also asked Mr. Traggorth what Hearing date he would like to continue to. Mr. Traggorth stated that he has enough feedback and stated that he had already started to develop a response. Mr. Traggorth also stated that he will add some of the comments from the Hearing and stated that he will continue the Hearing to December. Mr. Traggorth asked when he should submit his comments by. Mr. Clifford told him to work with the staff but noted that the Board would need at least a week. Mr. Traggorth stated that he will work with Apex and then submit something to the Board. No further questions from the Board. At 10:23 p.m. Mr. Clifford moved to continue the Hearing to the December 11th, 2025, meeting. At 10:23 p.m. Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford. At 10:23 p.m. the Board voted to continue the Hearing to the December 11th, 2025, meeting (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jennifer L. Wilson – Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom November 13th, 2025, 7:00 p.m. Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Associate Member Jennifer L. Wilson Associate Members: Jeanne K. Krieger, Kathryn A. Roy, Scott E. Cooper, and Thomas Shiple Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, Abby McCabe, Planning Director, and Kiruthika Ramakrishnan, LUHD Office Manager Town Counsel: Mina S. Makarious and Kuong C. Ly Other Business: 1. Adjourn At 10:23 p.m. Mr. Clifford moved to adjourn. At 10:24 p.m. Mr. Cohen second Mr. Clifford. The Board adjourned at 10:24 p.m. (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jennifer L. Wilson – Yes).