Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-11-19-PB-min.pdf Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 19, 2025 Page 1 of 14 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday, November 19, 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 Carolyn Morrison, Planning Coordinator. Michael Schanbacher, Chair of the Planning Board, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, November 19, 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 16 Clarke Street – Definitive Subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing on the application of North Shore Residential Development for a definitive subdivision at 16 Clarke Street. He reminded all participants that the public hearing would only address the proposed definitive subdivision application, not the multi-family development being reviewed by the Historic Districts Commission (HDC), as that project has not yet been submitted to the Board. The applicant’s team included: Ron Lopez, principal with North Shore Residential Development; Mark Vaughan, attorney with Riemer and Braunstein; and Jack Sullivan, civil engineer with Sullivan Engineering Group. Mr. Vaughan stated that the intent of the subdivision is to freeze the 2024 Multi-Family Overlay (MFO) zoning and that there is no intent to build the subdivision as presented. He summarized the plan showing three (3) lots with a new street connecting to Raymond Street. Mr. Vaughan advised that they are requesting waivers related to deferred submission of construction documents, as has been customary with other zoning freeze plans. Mr. Sullivan provided an overview of plans showing the street off Raymond Street, 3 conforming lots, a utility plan, and landscaping. He stated that the landscaped island in the middle of the cul-de-sac would house the drainage infrastructure for the subdivision. His stormwater analysis shows a reduction in peak rates and runoff volume if the subdivision were to be constructed. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe reiterated that the property is in a historic district and that any exterior alterations would require HDC approval. She expects the multi-family proposal currently under review with the HDC to be submitted to the Planning Board in the future. Staff supported the requested waivers and prepared a draft decision. Ms. McCabe advised that many comments, largely related to the multi-family development, were received from the public and shared with the Board. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 19, 2025 Page 2 of 14 Public Comments Mr. Schanbacher repeated that off-topic comments, including those about the multi-family proposal, would be abbreviated. Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, Precinct 6 Town Meeting member, clarified the difference between the HDC and the Historical Commission (HC). She stated the multi-family proposal is before the HDC. Board Comments Mr. Creech encouraged the developer to review the last few submitted public comments which include things that residents would accept and for residents to consider suggesting what they would like to see as opposed to what they do not want in this location. Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing for the Definitive Subdivision at 16 Clarke Street. 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 administrative waivers to waive the wetland delineation documentation because there are no jurisdictional wetlands and submission of hard copies. 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 request for three waivers to allow for the submission of soil surveys and tests, maintenance documents, and construction phasing plans as conditions of approval prior to any site work. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Hornig – yes; McBride – yes; Thompson – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Ms. Thompson moved to approve the Definitive Subdivision for 16 Clarke Street with the 22 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: Hornig – yes; Thompson – 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; Thompson – yes; McBride – yes; Creech – yes; Schanbacher - yes). MOTION PASSED. 217-219, 229, 233, and 241 Massachusetts Avenue – Definitive Subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing for a definitive subdivision at 217-241 Massachusetts Avenue. The applicant’s team included Ron Lopez, principal with North Shore Residential Development; Mark Vaughan, attorney with Riemer and Braunstein; and Jack Sullivan, civil engineer with Sullivan Engineering Group. Mr. Vaughan reminded the Board that these properties have an approved site plan for a mixed-use, multi- family development. He advised that this subdivision plan is intended to freeze those zoning rights. Mr. Sullivan shared the plans showing three (3) conforming lots, a landscaped island over drainage systems, and a street aligned with Bowker Street across Massachusetts Avenue. He noted that if the subdivision were ever constructed, they would need to file with the Conservation Commission due to the Mill Brook riverfront buffer area. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 19, 2025 Page 3 of 14 Staff Comments Ms. McCabe echoed Mr. Vaughan’s comments regarding the approved multi-family site plan and explained the zoning freeze via subdivision is additional security of those zoning rights. The multi-family development will continue to move forward; the subdivision is not proposed to be constructed. Staff recommended approval of the subdivision and minor waivers and prepared a draft decision. There were no Board or public comments on this application. Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing for the Definitive Subdivision for 217 -219, 229, 233, and 241 Massachusetts Avenue. 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 approve the five (5) requested waivers to allow submission of test pits, construction phasing documents, wetland delineation, sight lines for driveway intersections, and maintenance documents prior to any site work. 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 Definitive Subdivision for 217-241 Massachusetts Avenue with the 24 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: Hornig – yes; Creech – yes; Thompson – 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; Hornig – yes; McBride – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. 429 and 433 Marrett Road – Definitive Subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing on the application of Marrett Realty LLC for a definitive subdivision at 429 and 433 Marrett Road. The applicant’s team included: Frederick Gilgun, attorney with Nicholson, Sreter, and Gilgun; and Michael Novak, engineer with Patriot Engineering. Mr. Gilgun introduced the two (2) lot proposal and stated the intent is to preserve the 2024 Village Overlay (VO) zoning and is not planned to be built. He summarized the requested waivers pertaining to construction and maintenance documents and noted that they would submit these documents if the subdivision ever were to be constructed. Mr. Novak shared the proposed plans and noted that the preliminary subdivision had included adjacent properties at 419 and 439 Marrett Road. The proposed subdivision includes a cul-de-sac roadway, two conforming lots with frontage on the new ROW, stormwater managements, and landscaping. The subdivision would connect to utilities in Marrett Road. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe confirmed the proposed plans comply with Lexington and Board bylaws and regulations. Staff prepared a draft decision with standard conditions, and conditions that the waived materials be submitted prior to any site work if construction moves forward. There were no Board or public comments on this application. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 19, 2025 Page 4 of 14 Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing for the Definitive Subdivision for 429 & 433 Marrett Road. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; McBride – yes; Hornig – yes; Thompson – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Ms. Thompson moved to approve the two requested waivers to allow for the submission of construction phasing and maintenance documents to be conditions of approval due prior to any construction. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5 -0- 0 (Roll call: Hornig – yes; Thompson – yes; McBride – yes; Creech – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Ms. Thompson moved to approve the Definitive Subdivision for 429 and 433 Marrett 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: Horning – yes; Creech – yes; McBride – Yes; Thompson – 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: Thompson – yes; McBride – yes; Creech – yes; Hornig – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. 80 Bedford Street – Definitive Subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing on the application of the James C. Johnson Trust for a definitive subdivision at 80 Bedford Street. The applicant’s team included: Jim and Mary Johnson, property owners and trustees; Frederick Gilgun, attorney with Nicholson, Sreter, and Gilgun; and Michael Novak, engineer with Patriot Engineering Mr. Gilgun shared an overview of the two (2) lot subdivision proposal and advised that the intent is to freeze the 2023 VO zoning on the property; it is not intended to be constructed as presented. He stated that they are seeking two waivers related to deferred submission of construction and maintenance documents. Mr. Gilgun agreed to the submission of these documents as conditions of approval should this ever proceed to construction. Mr. Novak presented the plans, noting that the new street was centered opposite Lois Lane. The plans include two conforming lots, an infiltration system, and landscaping. Utilities are available on Bedford Street for a connection. There were no staff or Board comments on this application. Public Comments Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, Precinct 6 Town Meeting member, questioned if one lot would maintain the existing historic house, reminded the applicants that a Historical Commission (HC) review would be required, and strongly encouraged the preservation of the house. Mr. Gilgun responded that the applicant’s goal is to preserve the house as part of a multi-family development, however they are still exploring options and have started a demolition delay through the Historic Commission. Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing for the Definitive Subdivision for 80 Bedford Street . Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes; McBride – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 19, 2025 Page 5 of 14 Ms. Thompson moved to approve the requested waivers to allow for the submission of construction phasing and owner maintenance documents as a condition of approval due prior to any construction. 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 Definitive Subdivision for 80 Bedford Street 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: Creech – yes; Hornig – yes; Thompson – 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. 407 Waltham Street – Definitive Subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing on the application of 407 Waltham Street LLC for a definitive subdivision at 407 Waltham Street. The applicant was represented by Jonathan Silverstein, attorney with Blatman, Bobrowski, Haverty & Silverstein. Mr. Silverstein presented the proposed two (2) lot subdivision and advised that it is intended to complete a zoning freeze of the 2024 Village Overlay bylaws. He stated that the subdivision does not propose any new roadways, drainage infrastructure, or landscaping. The rear lot would be accessed via an easement. Mr. Silverstein summarized the number of waivers requested, largely pertaining to submittal documents which do not apply to this subdivision, as it is not planned to be constructed and does not propose new roadways or drainage. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe explained how the plans qualify as a subdivision in accordance with Village Overlay zoning and advised this was confirmed by Town Counsel. She stated that staff prepared a draft decision including a condition to coordinate with the Conservation Commission should any construction move forward, as the rear of the lot is under Conservation jurisdiction due to wetlands. Board Questions Ms. McBride confirmed that there were abutting wetlands and that Conservation would need to be consulted prior to any construction. Public Comments Mark Magid, 55 Winthrop Road, wondered if there was any information about future developments on the lot. Ms. McCabe advised that once the zoning freeze is completed, the applicant will have eight (8) years to develop their property under the 2024 bylaws. If the applicant does pursue further development, it would require a separate application, additional public hearings, and a thorough review of those plans. Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing for the Definitive Subdivision for 407 Waltham Street. 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. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 19, 2025 Page 6 of 14 Ms. Thompson moved to approve the requested waivers to allow submission of hydrologic and drainage analysis, soil surveys and testing, maintenance documents, construction phasing documents prior to any site work. 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 requested waiver from various plan sheet submittals. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Hornig – yes; Thompson – yes; McBride – yes; Creech – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Ms. Thompson moved to approve the Definitive Subdivision for 407 Waltham Street with the 2 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; McBride – yes; Hornig – 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; Hornig – yes; McBride – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Accept Performance Guarantees and Endorse Definitive Subdivision Plans Ms. McCabe explained that these definitive subdivisions had been approved at the Board’s October 8 and October 22 meetings. As the 20-day appeal period has passed, the Board must vote to accept the performance guarantees or covenants and come to the office to sign the plans. These signatures start the 8-year zoning freeze. There were no Board or public comments on this item. Ms. Thompson moved to accept and sign the covenants submitted by the Applicants for definitive subdivisions at 3 Maguire Road, 10 Maguire Road, 11 Larchmont Lane, 242 Bedford Street, 251 -301 Massachusetts Avenue, 419 Marrett Road, and 439 Marrett Road. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; McBride – yes; Hornig – yes; Thompson – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Ms. Thompson moved to endorse the Definitive Subdivision plans for 3 Maguire Road, 10 Maguire Road, 11 Larchmont Lane, 242 Bedford Street, 251-301 Massachusetts Avenue, 419 Marrett Road, and 439 Marrett 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. Board Administration Potential Zoning Amendments for Annual Town Meeting 2026 Ms. McCabe stated that the Select Board set Annual Town Meeting 2026 (ATM 2026) to begin Monday, March 30, 2026, and that the warrant has been opened, with article requests due by December 19, 2025. She recommended that the Board use the current meeting to discuss potential zoning articles and plan to vote on which articles to submit at the December 10 meeting. Ms. McCabe reminded the Board that they have approved 17 subdivision zoning freezes and advised that she expects some applicants to submit site plan review applications within the next few months. She cautioned the Board to be mindful of their workload when considering potential zoning amendments. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 19, 2025 Page 7 of 14 Staff recommend considering an article for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Ms. McCabe recommended minimal revisions to ensure compliance with new state laws, including removing provisions requiring special permits, as the State now prohibits special permits for ADUs with less than 900 SF gross floor area (GFA). Ms. McCabe also suggested an article to revise the VO inclusionary dwelling section which would require applicants to round to the nearest whole number instead of down. She noted that the EOHLC would likely require an updated economic feasibility study. Mr. Hornig agreed with the importance of revisions to ADU bylaws, noting that he has worked on them for 20 years. He stated that he has worked with staff and other residents and committees to draft a motion and description of his proposed revisions. Mr. Hornig was not supportive of adjusting the inclusionary dwelling unit rounding for ATM 2026, although noted it could be discussed for a future town meeting. His objections included feasibility issues for smaller projects, the lack of interest in multi-family development since the VO bylaws were revised earlier in 2025, and that projects that may come forward in 2026 would likely be on properties which have already secured a zoning freeze of the 2024 bylaws. Ms. Thompson expressed support for revising ADU regulations to align with state laws. She requested clarification on the size allowed, as the state allows up to 900 SF and Lexington has allowed up to 1100 or 1200 SF with a special permit. She stated that reviewing the inclusionary rounding would be beneficial and that she had not considered the impact on smaller developments. Ms. McBride confirmed how many ADUs have been permitted in the last five years and suggested that the Board could wait another year before bringing ADU revisions to Town Meeting. She stated her opinion that rounding up inclusionary units would not be a dealbreaker for most developments and expressed support for including it as an article. Mr. Creech acknowledged the amount of work the zoning freezes required of staff. He stated that he would follow staff’s recommendation on the inclusionary rounding and that he supported revising ADU bylaws. He highlighted specific concerns he would like included in the revisions, including language around parking on arterial streets, short-term rentals, and absentee landlords. Mr. Leon supported bringing ADU revisions to ATM over inclusionary rounding, although he stated that both are appropriate to address. He noted that the Building Department is required to issue permits which comply with state law, even if they do not fully comply with Lexington’s bylaws, which shifts the administrative burden to staff. He expressed doubt about the urgency of revising ADU bylaws given the number of applications. Mr. Leon stated that the state’s one-size-fits-all ADU standards present challenges for communities seeking more oversight of the process. He concluded by noting that staff demands to revise the bylaws may require outside contractor work or additional part-time staff. Mr. Leon expressed that the question of inclusionary rounding would require a balancing act, although he disagreed with Mr. Hornig’s assertion that it would prohibit smaller developments. He noted that additional inclusionary units is one of the Board’s goals and that financial feasibility varies and is difficult to predict. Mr. Schanbacher stated his support for ADU revisions. He noted that Mr. Hornig already spent significant time working with Town staff to draft the motion and article, although he acknowledged that further refinement was needed. He also acknowledged the balance needed in the inclusionary unit discussion, noting that “16% of 0 units is worse than 15% of 20 units.” It was his opinion that the drafted motion is simple, but the actual discussion would be more complex. He believed the Board and staff could discuss the nuances prior to ATM. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 19, 2025 Page 8 of 14 Mr. Hornig emphasized Mr. Leon’s statement and further clarified that the burden is placed on staff and residents as the aspects of the laws are contradictory and difficult to interpret. Mr. Schanbacher also noted that the state’s calculations for GFA are overly complex and often require professional calculations, whereas Lexington’s calculations are simpler. Public Comments Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, Precinct 6 Town Meeting Member, expressed a preference for fewer and simpler articles, noting that the Planning Board had a number of accomplishments over the last year. She opposed an article for rounding inclusionary units but supported refining ADU bylaws to be in alignment with state laws and provide clarity for citizens. Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, Precinct 1 Town Meeting Member, agreed with Ms. McKenna on both proposed articles. He expressed his belief that the Board would see applicants manipulating the number of market-rate units in order to justify rounding down on inclusionary units. Mr. Luker supported ADU revisions, highlighting the benefits to the Town’s lower-cost housing inventory. Bob Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue, shared that LexHAB had recently identified 15 properties which would be appropriate for ADUs. He encouraged the Board to define regulations soon. Elaine Tung, 5 Franklin Road, Chair Affordable Housing Trust, expressed displeasure at the Board’s lack of interest in pursuing rounding inclusionary units up. She shared that many surrounding towns require rounding up or payment to the Affordable Housing Trust for partial units. She feels the additional inclusionary units justify the change. Other potential future Zoning Amendments Special Residential Developments (SRDs) Ms. McBride requested that the Board consider sponsoring an article to amend Special Residential Development (SRD) bylaws [Ch. 135 §6.9]. She explained that many of her suggestions come from resident feedback. Ms. McBride’s proposed revisions largely focused on aligning bylaws across similar project types and included: • A 28% site coverage restriction, which matches Village and Multi-Family Overlay District [§7.5] requirements. Ms. McBride noted that one approved SRD has 34% site coverage, and she encouraged alignment across bylaws. • Align the GFA table for SRDs with the standard dimensional controls for residential GFA in §4.4. • Additional 5’ of landscaped buffer between SRDs and single-family residences for a total of 20’ of transition area. Ms. McBride noted that this is similar to the transition requirements of Village Overlay zoning. • A maximum unit dwelling size of 2,000 SF. Ms. McBride’s intent is to decrease overall unit sizes to reduce rental or ownership costs and diversify housing. • Regulations to ensure open spaces in the SRD are readily accessible to residents. Ms. McBride referenced a recent VO project in which the open space was only accessible via many stairs. Board Comments The Board largely supported Ms. McBride’s proposed revisions, but suggested this be discussed further at a future Town Meeting and not at the 2026 Town Meeting. It was noted that since the current bylaws were enacted in 2023, there have only been 2 SRD applications, with one built and one recently approved Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 19, 2025 Page 9 of 14 at the previous Planning Board meeting. They recommended further discussion and development of the proposal to bring to a future Town Meeting. Mr. Leon appreciated the consistency with the Village Overlay bylaws and the intent to address shortcomings of the approved SRDs. He suggested that smaller units would remain costly in Lexington and that they are largely serving downsizers, not expanding lower-priced ownership opportunities. Mr. Hornig expressed concern about bringing a likely contentious topic to Town Meeting. He noted that the 2023 bylaws took over 3 years to develop, with the intent to relax zoning. He was reluctant to support stricter regulations at this time. Mr. Hornig objected to site coverage restrictions and transition areas if they were not also applied to single-family residences. He noted that site coverage would likely reduce visitor parking and wondered why a 30’ height would trigger a landscape transition area where all residential districts allows for 40’ without such a requirement. Mr. Hornig stated further concern with the unit size restriction, noting that it would essentially eliminate the ability for Site-Sensitive Developments (SSDs), leaving only Compact Neighborhood Developments (CNDs). He questioned the ambiguity of the open space accessibility requirement and whether it would require full ADA compliance or would apply to all open space in the development. Ms. Thompson expressed her support for diversified housing in Lexington and requested more time to review Ms. McBride’s proposal. Mr. Creech requested clarification on what the revisions would attempt to accomplish. Mr. Schanbacher highlighted the small sample size of SRDs under the 2023 bylaws. He recommended allowing the approved SRDs time to be constructed so the Town can properly grasp their impact. Ms. McBride appreciated the feedback. She agreed that there has been a small number of SRD projects but felt that the items she would like to address have already come up in those projects, making the changes justified at this time. She supported Mr. Hornig’s recommendation to remove ambiguity related to accessibility, noting that her proposal would not require ADA compliance. She encouraged the Board to review the full proposal, as she anticipates resident support, despite concerns about Town Meeting’s response. Public Comment Lisa Newton, 15 Ledgelawn Avenue, Precinct 8 Town Meeting Member, expressed support for bringing an SRD article to ATM 2026. She noted that the bylaws adopted in 2023 were always planned to be reviewed and updated. Ms. Newton encouraged revisions prior to an influx of SRD applications. Carol Sacerdote, 15 Loring Road, Precinct 4 Town Meeting Member, expressed support for SRD amendments and consistency with other bylaws. Lin Jensen, 133 Reed Street, Precinct 8 Town Meeting Member, encouraged the Board to listen to the residents’ feedback. Her opinion is that the proposed changes are incremental and should not be contentious at ATM. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe reiterated that the SRD bylaws were only adopted in 2023 with 2 projects submitted since implementation. Her opinion is that it is beneficial to see the final project once completed, noting that the Board recently toured the Meriam Street SRD and 287 Waltham Street has not begun construction yet. She cautioned that changes to the bylaws could trigger another rush of zoning freeze plans, which dominated staff’s workload in 2025. Ms. McCabe expressed general support for many of the revisions, including the transition landscape buffers, open space improvements, and site coverage, but recommended continuing to review the proposal and continuing the discussion on December 10. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 19, 2025 Page 10 of 14 Bicycle Requirements Ms. McCabe summarized the background of this request, noting that the Board brought Article 29 to ATM 2025, with the recommendation that it be referred back to the Planning Board for further development. The Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) has requested that the Board sponsor an article for ATM 2026 to expand on the uses and bicycle parking requirements in the zoning bylaw. She noted that the Board has been regulating bicycle parking through their zoning regulations [Ch. 176 of Lexington Code]. Mr. Schanbacher wondered how many projects and developments in the Town have not come to the Board for Site Plan Review. Ms. McCabe advised that there were a small number of projects and expansions which required Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) review. Mr. Hornig suggested the Board also needs to review vehicle parking requirements and raised concerns about timing and having accurate information to define the parking needs in different zoning districts and commercial uses. Mr. Creech wondered if the bicycle parking in Lexington Center is sufficient. Public Comment Tom Shiple, 18 Phinney Road, Precinct 9 Town Meeting member, Bicycle Advisory Committee, confirmed that the BAC is not looking to regulate parking in single-family homes, but they wish to apply bicycle parking standards to property that changes use or other smaller-scale developments which may not come to the Planning Board. He asked if there were steps the BAC could take to further the discussion, even if it is not an article on the 2026 warrant. Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, Precinct 1 Town Meeting member, Transportation Advisory Committee, expressed displeasure with the bicycle parking in Lexington Center. It is his opinion that a lack of parking leads to increased numbers of riders on the sidewalks. He would be supportive of additional bike racks throughout the Center. Board Comment Ms. McBride confirmed with Mr. Luker where he would suggest additional bicycle racks, notably at either end of the Center on Massachusetts Avenue and near the Minuteman Bikeway. Mr. Leon suggested the Bikeway is an alternative to riding on Massachusetts Avenue or the sidewalks. He stated that it seemed unreasonable to impose the bike parking obligations on private property owners when this is a community issue to address. Mr. Schanbacher agreed that bicycle parking is an important discussion and may exceed the authority of the Planning Board in some regards. Mr. Shiple noted that the discussion revolved around the Center but advised that the BAC recommendation has provisions for all areas of Lexington, including commercial areas. Residential Gross Floor Area (GFA) Definition Ms. McCabe advised that the Board has discussed the definition of Residential GFA previously, including Article 40 from ATM 2023. She has met with Mr. Creech to discuss if porches and basements should be included in the GFA calculation. Ms. McCabe stated that the challenge is defining how GFA is calculated and what impact there would be on maximum GFA limits. She recommended allowing additional time to review the impacts of the 2023 zoning prior to sponsoring an article at ATM. Mr. Creech and Mr. Schanbacher agreed with Ms. McCabe and stated their belief that it is a worthwhile discussion but expressed concerns with sponsoring an article at ATM 2026. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 19, 2025 Page 11 of 14 Comments for ZBA Ms. McCabe summarized the ZBA meeting from November 13 on the Lowell Street affordable housing project, which was recorded by LexMedia and continued to December 11. She asked the Board for any additional comments. Staff have reviewed the waivers and requested a landscaping plan. She anticipates receiving materials within the next week. Mr. Creech commented on the detailed and thoughtful staff memo. He expressed surprise at the number of waivers requested but agreed that they are logical waivers with merit for the project. He fully supported staff’s comments on the project. Mr. Hornig stated he had no objections to the waivers but expressed doubt that waiving §4.4 was necessary. He wondered if there are any significant changes requested by staff or the peer reviewer. Ms. McCabe advised that the largest request was a landscape plan; no other requests would significantly alter the project. The Board decided to let their original letter of support stand with no additional comments. Board Member Committee Positions and Liaison Assignments Mr. Hornig expressed his intent to resign from the Hanscom Area Towns Committee (HATS) and the Housing Partnership Board (HPB). He stated he would be willing to take on a liaison position to another committee in exchange. Mr. Schanbacher expressed interest in the HPB role and noted that Ms. Thompson is already a member of that committee. Ms. McBride also expressed interest in the HPB position. Mr. Hornig nominated Mr. Schanbacher to represent the Planning Board on the Housing Partnership Board and to forward that recommendation to the Select Board. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Hornig – yes; Thompson – yes; McBride – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED Mr. Hornig provided an explanation of the HATS committee, responsibilities, general meeting schedule, and recent topics of discussion. Mr. Hornig nominated Mr. Creech to represent the Planning Board on the HATS committee. Mr. Creech declined, citing Community Preservation Committee obligations. Ms. Thompson nominated Mr. Schanbacher to represent the Planning Board on the Hanscom Area Towns Committee. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Hornig – yes; Creech – yes; Thompson – yes; McBride – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED Mr. Hornig volunteered to take liaison responsibilities from Mr. Schanbacher for the Tree Committee. Board Member & Staff Updates Ms. McCabe advised that the moderate-income unit at Linc Cole Lane has been marketed. The lottery application is open until January 20, 2026 and details are available on the website. Review of Draft Meeting Minutes: none Upcoming Meetings: 12/10. Confirmed January 7, 21, February 4, 25. Adjournment Ms. Thompson moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of November 19, 2025 at 8:44 PM. 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 8:44. Lex Media recorded the meeting. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 19, 2025 Page 12 of 14 Material from the meeting can be found in the Planning Board’s Novus Packet. List of Documents 1. 16 Clarke Street Staff Memo, dated 11/10/25, Draft Subdivision Approval Decision Public Comments: 1. Electronic mail from anonymous to Planning and Siqing Pan; dated 11/6/25; subject: Objection to 16 Clarke St Redevelopment in Historic District 2. Electronic mail from Arthur Wealthren to Planning and Siqing Pan; dated 11/6/25; subject: Please Don’t Let This Project Destroy What We Love About Lexington 3. Letter from Beverly Kelley, received 10/23/25 by Planning staff; titled Development at 16 Clarke Street 4. Electronic mail from Beverly Kelley to Planning, Select Board, and Siqing Pan; dated 11/10/25; subject: 16 Clarke Street a. Attachment titled: History vs. Housing.docx 5. Letter from Beverly Kelley, received 11/12/25 by Planning Staff; titled History vs. Housing 6. Electronic mail from Christina King to Planning; dated 11/1/25; subject: 16 Clarke Street, Map 49, Lot 79 in the CB 7. Electronic mail from Christel McCarthy to Planning, Select Board, Siqing Pan, and LexObserver; dated 11/17/25; subject: Proposed Clarke Street Development 8. Electronic mail from Dr. Eliza Adams to Planning; dated 11/4/25; subject: 16 Clarke St development 9. Electronic mail from H-P to Planning and Siqing Pan; dated 11/6/25; subject: Disagree with the Proposed Development at 16 Clarke St 10. Electronic mail from Ilhan Gundogan to Planning; dated 11/11/25; subject: 16 Clarke Street project 11. Electronic mail from Irene Wang to Planning and Siqing Pan; dated 11/5/25; subject: Opposition to Proposed Development at 16 Clarke Street 12. Electronic mail from Jonah Anderson to Planning and Siqing Pan; dated 11/6/25; subject: Protect the Battle Green Historic District from Incompatible Development 13. Electronic mail from Julie Caouette to Planning, Siqing Pan, LexObserver, Select Board, and Beverly Kelley; dated 11/15/25; subject: 16 Clarke St. Redevelopment a. Letter attachment from Barry Caouette; dated 11/15/25; titled 16 Clarke St. Redevelopment 14. Electronic mail from John Du to Siqing Pan, forwarded to Planning; dated 11/7/25; subject: Opposition to Proposed Four-Story Building at 16 Clarke Street 15. Electronic mail from Jaden Mitchell to Planning and Siqing Pan; dated 11/6/25; subject: 16 Clarke Street Proposal Conflicts with Historic District Goals Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 19, 2025 Page 13 of 14 16. Electronic mail from Jasper Williams to Planning and Siqing Pan; dated 11/6/25; subject: Clarke Street Project Will Make a Bad Traffic Situation Worse 17. Electronic mail from Lili Ge to Planning and Siqing Pan; dated 11/5/25; subject: object plan for 16 Clarke Street 18. Electronic mail from Lex Wealthy to Planning and Siqing Pan; dated 11/6/25; subject: Strong Objection to 16 Clarke Street Redevelopment Proposal 19. Electronic mail from Li Zhang to Planning; dated 11/5/25; subject: Opposition to Proposed Redevelopment at 16 Clarke Street 20. Electronic mail from Ron Chen to Planning and Siqing Pan; dated 11/6/25; subject: 16 Clarke Street 21. Electronic mail from Rajini Srikanth to Planning; dated 11/12/25; subject: Proposed Development at 16 Clarke Street 22. Electronic mail from Susan Eustis to Planning, Peter Kelley, Select Board, Siqing Pan, LexObserver, and Ruth Thomas; dated 10/30/25; subject: 16 Clarke Negatively impacts historic district of minuteman statue and Belfry Hill a. Image attachment titled IMG_3742.jpeg b. Image attachment titled IMG_3743.jpeg c. Image attachment titled IMG_3745.jpeg d. Image attachment titled IMG_3746.jpeg 23. Electronic mail from Susan Eustis to Planning, Peter Kelley, Select Board, LexObserver, Susie Eustis, and Ruth Thomas; dated 10/31/25; subject: 16 Clarke Planning Board Meeting November 19, 2025 24. Electronic mail from Susan Eustis to Peter Kelley, Select Board, and Susie Eustis; dated 11/2/25; subject: 16 Clarke 25. Electronic mail from Susan Eustis to Planning, Select Board, Siqing Pan, LexObserver, and Peter Kelley; dated 11/4/25; subject: 16 Clarke Street New Building 26. Electronic mail from Susan Eustis to Planning, Ruth Thomas, Select Board, and Beverly Kelley; dated 11/13/25; subject: 16 Clarke 27. Electronic mail from Susan Eustis to Planning; dated 11/13/25; subject: 16 Clarke St 28. Electronic mail from Susan Eustis to Planning; dated 11/13/25; subject: 16 Clarke 29. Electronic mail from Susan Eustis to Planning and Abigail McCabe; dated 11/13/25; subject: Re: 16 Clarke St 30. Electronic mail from Susan Eustis to Planning, Ruth Thomas, Select Board, LexObserver and Beverly Kelley; dated 11/17/25; subject: Scam 16clarke 31. Electronic mail from Susan Eustis to Planning, Ruth Thomas, Select Board, LexObserver and Beverly Kelley; dated 11/17/25; subject: 16 Clarke 32. Electronic mail from Sophie Fu to Planning; dated 11/7/25; subject: Concerns regarding project within the Battle Green HD 33. Electronic mail from Selina Zhu to Planning, Siqing Pan, LexObserver, and Select Board; dated 11/13/25; subject: Community Petition Opposing the 51-Foot Development at 16 Clarke Street (146 Signatures) Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 19, 2025 Page 14 of 14 34. Online petition at change.org; https://c.org/vJwNb99Tvr; titled: Stop the 51- Foot, 52-Unit Building at 16 Clarke Street; screenshot dated 11/14/25 35. Electronic mail from Tom Fleming to Planning; dated 11/2/25; subject: 16 Clarke Street… 36. Electronic mail from Tamar Myers to Planning; dated 10/30/25; subject: 16 Clarke Street 37. Electronic mail from Win to Planning and Siqing Pan; dated 11/6/25; subject: I Strongly Oppose the 16 Clarke St Redevelopment Plan 38. Electronic mail from June Danielson Hatfield to Planning; dated 11/18/25; subject: 16 Clarke St. 2. 217-241 Massachusetts Avenue, Draft Subdivision Approval Decision Staff memo, dated 11/10/25 3. 429 & 433 Marrett Road, Draft Subdivision Approval Decision Staff memo, dated 11/4/25 4. 80 Bedford Street, Draft Subdivision Approval Decision Staff memo, dated 11/5/25 5. 407 Waltham Street, Draft Subdivision Approval Decision Staff memo, dated 11/12/25 6. Performance Guarantees and Covenants Draft Covenant for 3 Maguire Road; Draft Covenant for 10 Maguire Road; Draft Covenant for 242 Bedford Street; Draft Covenant for 11 Larchmont Lane; Draft Covenant for 251-301 Massachusetts Avenue and Fottler Avenue; Draft Covenant for 419 Marrett Road; Draft Covenant for 439 Marrett Road 7. Zoning Amendments Letter from Bicycle Advisory Committee to Planning Board and Abby McCabe; dated 11/14/25; subject: Bicycle Parking Zoning Bylaw DRAFT SRD Dimensional Standard Changes dated October 24, 2025 DRAFT ADU article description motion, dated November 5, 2025 and draft presentation slides 8. Comments for ZBA Staff memo; dated 11/5/25; subject: 591 Lowell Street (Lexington Woods) ZBA Application Review Comments Letter from Planning Board to Zoning Board of Appeals; dated 11/4/25; subject: Planning Board Comments on 591 Lowell Street Proposal 9. Draft Meeting Minutes