Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-12-11-ZBA-min.pdfMeeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom December 11th, 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 Alternate Member: Jeanne K. Krieger, Kathryn A. Roy, Patricia S. Nelson, Scott E. Cooper, and Thomas Shiple Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, Abby McCabe, Planning Director, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Town Counsel: Kuong C. Ly Address: 5 Rindge Avenue (ZBA-25-24) The petitioner is requesting ONE (1) SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4 and 135-8.4.2 to allow a modification to a non-conforming structure to allow a rear yard setback of 4.7 feet instead of the required 15 feet. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans, and Abutter Support Letters. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Select Board, the Planning Director, the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Zoning Administrator, Building Commissioner, and Conservation Director. The Hearing opened at 7:04 p.m. Petitioner: Allison Machado dos Santos on behalf of Leora Tec Mr. Allison Machado dos Santos began his presentation by showing a 3-D photo of the existing house with the proposed attached deck and by detailing the property’s existing and proposed characteristics. Mr. Machado dos Santos explained that he planned to construct a new, approximately 17 feet by 13 feet, deck located at the rear of the home. Mr. Machado dos Santos further explained that he would not enclose the structure, that the deck would have no roof, and that the deck would minimally impact the surrounding area. Mr. Machado dos Santos then stated that the proposed deck would not have stairs and that he would install a new door. Mr. Machado dos Santos then showed the elevations of the house, the second-floor floor plan, and a plot plan that showed the setbacks for the existing porch and proposed deck. Mr. Machado dos Santos then explained that other than the 4.7-foot setback to the Arlington Conservation property line, the deck conforms with all other zoning requirements. Mr. Machado dos Santos continued by explaining that he seeks a special permit since the existing house predates the current setback regulations and stated that the deck would similarly align to the existing structure’s footprint. Mr. Machado dos Santos then explained how the deck meets the special permit criteria and explained how he had considered environmental and stormwater matters. Mr. Machado dos Santos also stated that the deck would improve usability for the homeowner, that abutters had supported deck, and that the deck would not negatively impact the neighborhood. Mr. Machado dos Santos then explained his commitment to respecting Arlington’s Conservation land and stated that the deck will fully remain within the homeowner’s property, that the project will not extend, disturb, or modify Arlington’s land, and that he will discuss reasonable conditions with the Board. Mr. Machado concluded by summarizing his request. Ms. Roy asked if the owner had considered putting the deck over part of the porch with a walkway to the open deck. Mr. Machado dos Santos asked Ms. Roy to clarify what part of the house she had referred to. Ms. Roy clarified that she meant the roof of the porch. Mr. Machado dos Santos explained that that side of the house has rooms and that the proposed deck resides off the living room. Ms. Roy clarified that she meant moving the deck a few feet above the roof of porch and users could walk over both parts of the deck. Mr. Machado dos Santos stated that he would have to talk with the homeowner to see if she would consider it, then asked if reducing the deck could serve as another possibility to achieve a further setback. Mr. Clifford questioned the feasibility of that option, to which Mr. Machado dos Santos stated that he could do it. Mr. Osten noted that the property resides near a pond and asked if the property resided one hundred feet or more away from it. Mr. Machado dos Santos stated that he does not have the answer but would find out and come back to the Board with the answer. Ms. Lawler stated that the proposed deck resides approximately one hundred feet away from the pond and stated that Mr. Machado dos Santos had submitted a Request for Determination of Applicability to the Conservation Commission. Ms. Lawler explained that the Conservation Commission will determine if the deck resides one hundred feet away and if the Conservation Commission has the jurisdiction to review it. Mr. Osten asked if the Board would need to make Conservation Commission approval a condition, which Ms. Lawler confirmed. Mr. Barnert asked when the Conservation Commission will make their determination. Ms. Lawler stated that Mr. Machado dos Santos will go to the Conservation Commission next week if the Board approves his petition this evening. Mr. Cooper asked if the Lexington Conservation Commission or the Arlington Conservation Commission would make the determination. Ms. Lawler stated that the Lexington Conservation Commission would. Mr. Cohen asked if the Town of Arlington abutted the property, which both Mr. Machado dos Santos and Ms. Lawler confirmed. Mr. Cohen then assumed that the Town of Arlington did not write one of the abutter support letters and sought confirmation that the Board had received a letter that questioned the exact location of the property boundary. Mr. Clifford confirmed that the Board had received an email from the Town of Arlington and confirmed that the Board would consider that matter. Mr. Machado dos Santos stated that when he had talked with the Town of Arlington about the deck and that they said that if Lexington approved it, they would have no issue with it. Mr. Machado dos Santos then stated that that changed and that the Town of Arlington would have some issues with the deck after Lexington approved it. Mr. Machado dos Santos stated that he did not have that information before he sent the letters and expressed his willingness to get the Town of Arlington’s approval. Mr. Clifford highlighted that Mr. Machado dos Santos had expressed his willingness to discuss conditions and then explained that typically with conservation land, the Board requires permanent markers along the property line to identify where the wetlands start and stop. Mr. Clifford asked Mr. Machado dos Santos if his client would agree to install those markers to show where the Arlington land starts and stops. Mr. Machado dos Santos expressed his willingness to discuss this condition with his client and stated that while he believed his client would agree to it, he wants his client to make the decision. Mr. Clifford stated that the Board can add that as a condition and that Mr. Machado dos Santos can come back to the Board if needed, or Mr. Machado dos Santos could go through the continuation process. Mr. Clifford then stated that often, projects that take place near wetlands require contractors to protect the wetland area from silt and infiltration. Mr. Clifford then asked if that condition would pose a problem. Mr. Machado dos Santos stated that he would talk to his client but that he does not consider that condition a problem. Mr. Clifford noted that the conditions would remain subject to the Conservation Commission determination. Mr. Clifford continued by stating that the plot plan showed a landing that appears to partially reside on the client’s property and on Arlington’s land, then asked what structure resided there. Mr. Machado dos Santos stated that he thought that the pre-existing landing belong to the neighbor’s house, not his client’s house. Mr. Clifford clarified that the landing belonged to Parcel Id 2019 and that Mr. Machado dos Santos’ client did not have any involvement with it. Mr. Machado dos Santos stated that the client had not requested the landing and that the landing probably existed as a part of the house. Ms. Wilson noted that Mr. Machado had stated that his client might consider modifying the size of the deck and stated that the current proposed deck extends beyond the setback of the existing screen porch. Ms. Wilson asked if the client would consider limiting the deck size to align with the porch setback. Mr. Machado dos Santos stated that the client preferred the larger deck but also expressed his willingness to make changes with the client’s approval. Ms. Wilson asked about the length of the screen porch, to which Mr. Machado dos Santos stated that porch had a length of about fifteen to sixteen feet and an 18.3-foot setback to the rear property line. Ms. Wilson asked Mr. Machado dos Santos if he would need a special permit for the deck if he built it on top of the screen porch, to which Mr. Machado dos Santos stated that if he did that, the deck would have about a nine-foot setback from the rear property line. Mr. Clifford stated that Mr. Machado dos Santos could build the deck by right if he built some of over the screen porch. Mr. Barnert stated that based off the plot plan, the screen porch has a width of nine and a half feet. Mr. Machado then identified some of the setbacks of both the proposed deck and the existing screen porch. Mr. Clifford asked Ms. Lawler to confirm that the screen porch constitutes a legal non-conforming structure, which Ms. Lawler confirmed. No further questions from the Board. No further comments or questions from the Public. Mr. Clifford stated that the project would likely either need a few changes or conditions, and Mr. Machado dos Santos expressed his willingness to discuss this with the Board. Mr. Clifford then recommended that Mr. Machado dos Santos request a continuance since since Mr. Machado dos Santos cannot agree to the various conditions. Mr. Clifford advised Mr. Machado dos Santos to talk to his client about the matters that the Board had raised and then return to the Board. Mr. Clifford informed Mr. Machado dos Santos that the Board could also close the meeting to determine whether Board members supported the special permit. Mr. Clifford suspected that the Board would grant the permit under various conditions. Mr. Machado dos Santos expressed his willingness to continue the meeting and to have his client present at the meeting. Mr. Clifford suggested that Mr. Machado dos Santos continue to January 8th, 2026, and encouraged Mr. Machado dos Santos to have his client present so that his client can give the Board her permission. Mr. Clifford asked Mr. Machado dos Santos if January 8th, 2026, worked for him, which Mr. Machado dos Santos stated that it did. Mr. Machado dos Santos asked if his client could have a lawyer present, to which Mr. Clifford stated that she could. No further questions from the Board. At 7:33 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to grant the continuance to January 8th, 2026. At 7:33 p.m., multiple Board Members second Mr. Clifford. Mr. Barnert asked if the Board should write down the conditions. Mr. Clifford clarified that the Board considered three conditions: the possibility of constructing the deck on top of the screen porch or limiting the deck’s size, marking the property boundaries between the property and Arlington’s land, and protecting the Arlington wetlands during construction. At 7:34 p.m. the Board voted to grant continuance (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jennifer Wilson – Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom December 11th, 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 Alternate Member: Jeanne K. Krieger, Kathryn A. Roy, Patricia S. Nelson, Scott E. Cooper, and Thomas Shiple Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, Abby McCabe, Planning Director, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Town Counsel: 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, Staff Memorandum dated November 5th, 2025, Cover Letter dated November 24th, 2025, Developer Response to Staff Memo dated November 24th, 2025, Revised Traffic Assessment dated November 12th, 2025, Traffic Engineer Response to the Traffic Review dated November 13th, 2025, Planting Plans dated November 24th, 2025, Updated Architectural Materials dated November 24th, 2025, Revised Proposed Site Plan Set dated November 24th, 2025, Revised Stormwater Report dated December 2025, Driveway Sight Distance Sketch dated December 3rd, 2025, Civil Engineer Response to Staff Memo, Civil Review, and Transportation Review dated December 3rd, 2025, Revised Building A Elevation Form, Staff Memo dated December 4th, 2025, and Apex Companies Peer Review Traffic Memorandum Dated December 11th, 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 on November 13th, 2025, and continued to December 11th, 2025. Petitioner: Causeway Development, LLC Before the petitioner began his presentation, Mr. Clifford noted that the Board had not received the stormwater and civil engineer peer review report, and therefore the application cannot conclude tonight and will have to continue. Mr. Clifford then addressed some of the questions that the Board had received through written public comments and stated that everyone who testifies before the Board provides the Board with information for the Board to act. Mr. Clifford then explained that the Board evaluates that testimony and tries to figure out the truth and or circumstances of the application. Mr. Clifford further explained that with a complex file, the Town will hire peer reviewers so that the Board receives adequate information to help them understand the application. Mr. Clifford then addressed some questions about two Associate Board Members who had advocated for this project and stated that those two Associate Board members had filed disclosures of potential conflict of interest with the Select Board. Mr. Clifford then explained that the two Associate Board Members had asserted that they can continue with this matter as they will not vote on the matter and will only ask questions to help the Board understand the project. Mr. Clifford then stated that he believed that no prejudice would occur. Mr. Dave Traggorth, Causeway Development LLC, began his presentation by re-introducing his team and by giving an ariel overview of the parcel. Mr. Traggorth then showed a similar timeline to the one that he had shown previously but had included the deadlines for State funding. Mr. Traggorth reminded the Board that he plans to build forty residential units across four buildings with a total gross floor area of about 48,000 square feet across the four buildings. Mr. Traggorth noted that they did not change the site entrance, re-stated the unit breakdown, and re-stated the site characteristics. Mr. Traggorth then highlighted the changes that he had made, which included a planting plan, revised bicycle parking, height matters, pathway modifications, and responses to Apex’s two peer review memos. Mr. Traggorth stated that he can go over the changes to the site plan knowing that Apex will still need to provide their feedback. Mr. Will Smith, OffShoots, stated that he had put together a planting plan to provide information on tree species and proposed tree layout. Mr. Smith noted that the tree layout had not changed and that he had identified the trees with symbols. Mr. Smith then explained that they sought to provide screening on the northern edge along the fence and included a buffer of layered trees to mimic the native woodland. Mr. Smith then explained that the trees wrap around building A to maintain the woodland feel and to provide some screening in that area. Mr. Smith then noted that he had provided some buffering on the right side. Mr. Smith stated that the plan shows several different hatches and stated that he had just started to pick out species based on the native plantings. Mr. Smith estimated that for 90% of the trees, he will choose native, drought- tolerant trees to mimic the local ecology. Mr. Smith then stated that he will try to connect the trees to the existing wetlands and conservation land. Jamie Pelletier, Merge, addressed the discussion that had taken place at the last meeting on Building A and stated that they reduced the height of Building A from forty-three and a half feet above the finished floor down to forty feet. Mr. Pelletier then explained that he updated the elevation plans to show how buildings relate to Lowell St. and noted that they intend to preserve the existing trees to help screen the buildings from the road. Mr. Pelletier continued by stating that they tried to address the Bicycle Committee’s comments and explained that they had reworked the bike parking entrance and had incorporated fixed and cargo spaces. Mr. Pelletier noted that these changes resulted in the loss of three long-term bike spaces but stated that they had added in some short-term bike spaces and had modified the carport bike racks. Mr. Chirs Cantin, MetroWest Engineering, summarized the civil changes and stated that he had looked at peer review from Apex, which contained mostly technical comments. Mr. Cantin explained that he had addressed the pipe sizing calculations as required by the Lexington Stormwater By-law and that he had provided them in the updated stormwater report. Mr. Cantin stated that he had addressed the site constraints relating to transportation and explained that he had increased the drive width towards the southern portion of the property. Mr. Cantin elaborated that he had changed the parking spaces to have twenty-two feet instead of twenty to allow for enough turning radius. Finally, Mr. Cantin explained that he added the updated walking path from Building A to the intersection, that he had provided dimensions for the walkway, and that he had provided utility profiles as requested by the Engineering Department. Mr. Jeffrey Dirk, Vanessa & Associates, stated that he had updated the Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) in response to comments that he had received from the Town, residents, and Apex. Mr. Dirk elaborated that he had incorporated the comments in Apex’s November 6th, 2025, letter into the revised transportation impact assessment. Mr. Dirk then explained that per Apex’s second review letter, he had closed out the items related to the technical analysis. Mr. Dirk reminded the Board that Apex had confirmed the impact analysis and then stated the project would have a minimal impact on traffic. Mr. Dirk then explained that he had added sight triangles to the site plan that show the minimum areas that will need to remain clear. Mr. Dirk noted that the actual distance that someone can see while exiting the property extends longer than the distances shown in the plan. Mr. Dirk then stated that in Apex’s second review, Apex noted the difference in distance between the transportation assessment and the plan and confirmed that the shorter distance met the minimum while the actual distance extends longer. Mr. Dirk also noted that Apex had recommended providing as much distance as possible, which he agrees with. Mr. Dirk then clarified that he intended for the plan to show the absolute minimum for enforcement purposes. Mr. Dirk then continued by stating that he worked with the Town and Apex to understand the improvement along Lowell St., which include improving the signals at the North St. intersection and at the intersection further south on Lowell St. Mr. Dirk noted that per the comments at the last meeting, a backup of queuing occurs when going through those successive intersections, and then stated that the improvements seek to reduce those backups. Mr. Dirk noted that Apex wanted to ensure that Mr. Dirk highlighted it. Mr. Dirk concluded by stating that while he had focused on the improvements at the North St. intersection, the improvements towards the south will benefit the traffic flow and should mediate the backups. Ms. Roy asked about the location of the front side of the buildings. Mr. Traggorth stated that the front, with the door to the lobby, would face the driveway side. Ms. Roy asked Mr. Traggorth to confirm that Building A would not have parking underneath it, which Mr. Traggorth confirmed. Ms. Roy then noted that the tree plan had included a Tsuga canadensis, a hemlock tree, and questioned if those would serve as the best tree choices because of a disease going around. Mr. Smith stated that he knows of the disease and that his team keeps going back and forth on the matter. Mr. Smith also noted that they picked an Arborvitae that they could substitute. Mr. Barnert asked if Mr. Traggorth could provide the Board with a rendering of the “Do Not Block” sign with its height, size, and to show that it will not impede the site viewing from the people existing. Mr. Traggorth clarified with Mr. Barnert that he meant a rendering of the sign’s location on the street view coming down Lowell St. Mr. Barnert clarified that he wants a rendering of the sign’s location, then assumed that the sign would face the people traveling north on Lowell St. Mr. Barnert reiterated that the rendering should show the sign’s height and size and stated that it should not block the people trying to look left as they leave the site. Mr. Cantin stated that signs usually have a height of six feet or a little higher so that the sign does not block the site distance. Mr. Dirk stated that signs need to have a minimum of seven feet to the bottom and that they can provide the Board with dimensions of what the sign will look like. Mr. Barnert then asked about mitigation on the south side of the site and asked how far away the buildings would reside from the houses in Woburn. Mr. Traggorth estimated that the buildings reside hundreds of feet away from the houses in Woburn but stated that he can get the answer. Mr. Barnert then stated with the parking lot on the Woburn side, cars will drive into it and their headlights will face the Woburn properties. Mr. Barnert then asked Mr. Traggorth if he planned to put a fence along that side. Mr. Traggorth stated that they could consider some plantings along that side and then also stated that he believed that the Woburn houses sit a little higher than the on-site parking. Mr. Traggorth then stated that he believed that the natural landforms would prevent the headlights from reaching the Woburn houses and expressed his willingness to confirm that. Mr. Cantin then stated that land past the town line contains vacant parcels and wooded sites, and that one of the neighboring properties has a four-foot-high retaining wall on their property. Finally, Mr. Barnert asked if Mr. Traggorth had considered putting up an eight-foot fence on the eastern edge of the property instead of a six-foot fence. Mr. Traggorth stated that they would put up the eight-foot fence if the neighbors wanted it, and Mr. Cantin stated that he had already updated the plan to include an eight-foot fence. Mr. Osten asked if Mr. Traggorth planned to put the handicap units on the first floor of the buildings since people need two means of egress. Mr. Pelletier explained that the elevator makes all units Group One accessible and that the building code allows for one means of egress since each floor only has four units in a three-story building. Mr. Traggorth then clarified with Mr. Pelletier that the building code allows for Group Two accessible units on the upper floors of the buildings, which Mr. Pelletier confirmed and reiterated that those units only need a single means of egress. Mr. Osten asked Mr. Traggorth if he had considered putting a divider on the middle of the driveway to the property to indicate where cars should enter and exit. Mr. Dirk answered that they would need to have a divider flush to the road due to the firetruck turning maneuvers. Mr. Osten then asked how much of the parking lights will remain on overnight. Mr. Traggorth stated that he will submit a photometric plan prior to the building permit and stated that a dimly lit emergency light will always stay on. Mr. Traggorth then stated that the lights will dim in the middle of the night and will comply all Dark Sky standards. Mr. Osten then asked about the width between the parking spots and Building B, C, and D. Mr. Cantin stated that the Building C resides about twenty-five feet away from the parking spaces, that Building D resides about twenty-nine feet away from the parking spaces, and that Building B resides about 25 feet away from the parking spaces. Mr. Osten asked about the smoking policy for the site, to which Mr. Traggorth stated that the site does not permit smoking. Mr. Shiple thanked Mr. Traggorth for the changes that he had made to make the bike-parking entrance. Mr. Shiple then recommended that the door to the bike parking has a width of forty inches to accommodate both a bike and a person. Mr. Shiple then recommended installing some lower bike racks with trays for wider tire bikes. Mr. Shipe then noted that the plans had included installing a one-hour firewall in the bike parking area and asked Mr. Traggorth if he planned on installing electrical outlets in the bike room and carports. Mr. Traggorth stated that they plan to install electrical outlets in the bike room and stated that while he cannot commit to installing electrical outlets in each carport, he expressed his willingness to try to put a few in each building. Mr. Pelletier stated that they do not have a problem with a wider door. Mr. Cooper stated that he had read a public comment that stated that Building A’s original design entailed a community building without residential units and then asked Mr. Traggorth to explain Building A’s design evolution and whether he had considered putting those units in the other buildings. Mr. Traggorth stated they originally designed the site to have five buildings with ten units in four of the buildings and a single-story community building. Mr. Traggorth then explained that after more work with stormwater, wetland, grading, and firetruck factors, they developed the plan to put four residential units above the community room. Mr. Traggorth further explained that this design reduced impervious surface and allowed them to preserve more trees. Mr. Traggorth stated that they went through many benefits as a part of that change in the community process and with the Select Board regarding their Land Disposition Agreement. Mr. Traggorth explained that once the Select Board approved the design change, then he applied to the Zoning Board. Mr. Cooper noted that some concerns had arisen over the height of Building A and then noted that Mr. Traggorth had reduced the height of that building. Mr. Cooper assumed that Mr. Traggorth could not reduce the height down any further, which Mr. Traggorth confirmed. Mr. Pelletier stated that to make Building A’s configuration work, they could only reduce it to the amended height. Mr. Pelletier also noted that the forty-foot height aligns with the zoning regulations and that they had reduced the height of the building by three and half feet. Ms. Wilson asked for a review of planting plan along eight-foot fence and asked about the expected height of the trees relative to the buildings’ heights. Mr. Smith explained that they had a mix of large oaks and maples. Mr. Smith also explained that the white pines will grow to about one hundred feet tall and that the hemlocks, or the arborvitae substitute, will grow to about sixty feet tall. Mr. Smith stated that all the trees that they selected to put along the edge of the property will grow far beyond the forty-foot height of the buildings. Mr. Cohen asked if residents would have to bring their trash from Buildings B, C, and D to Building A, which Mr. Traggorth confirmed. Mr. Traggorth explained that with the concealed nature of the on-site trash room, residents will have to take their trash to Building A. Mr. Traggorth then explained that if residents need assistance, the property management staff can assist them. Mr. Cohen then asked if the property management company would monitor the trash room, which Mr. Traggorth confirmed. Mr. Cohen then asked where the snow will go, to which Mr. Cantin identified the designated snow storage areas on a plan. Mr. Cohen then asked if the property manager would manage the snow, which Mr. Traggorth confirmed. Mr. Osten asked Mr. Traggorth what provisions he had made for mail and deliveries. Mr. Traggorth responded that he will have to work that out with the post office. Mr. Clifford acknowledged that Ms. Patricia Nelson, Zoning Board of Appeals Associate Member, and Mrs. Abby McCabe, Lexington Planning Director, were in attendance. Mr. Clifford then asked about the actual sight distance versus the minimum sight distance, to which Mr. Dirk responded that when looking toward the North St. intersection, that area will have a sight distance of greater than five hundred feet. Mr. Dirk then explained that looking toward the south, vegetation trimming would need to occur within the public right-of-way. Mr. Dirk stated that the plan included the areas that need trimming and that after that trimming occurs, the sight distance to the south would also exceed five hundred feet. Mr. Clifford asked Mr. Dirk if he could produce a rendering of that, to which Mr. Dirk explained that typically for sight-distance plans, they provide a plan like the one Mr. Cantin showed, and then they provide a profile, or a section, of what one would see. Mr. Dirk then stated that they would render something that showed the vegetation trimming. Mr. Clifford then asked if the stakes marking the driveway still resided on the property, which Mr. Cantin stated that they did. Mr. Clifford then asked about the calculations for the trees that they plan to remove compared to the trees that they plan to add. Mr. Smith explained that they plan to add a mixture of 1-, 2-, and 3-inch caliper trees based off the conversations that he had had with the tree committee and in conjunction with the requirements for bonus credits. Mr. Clifford reiterated his interest in the calculations for the trees that they plan to remove compared to the trees that they plan to add. Mr. Clifford then asked about the possibility of preserving the farmer’s stone wall by adding it to the landscaping. Mr. Smith stated that he can think about a way to creatively repurpose it but that the wall cannot stay where it currently resides. Mr. Clifford asked that the proposed landscape plan show the wall. Mr. Clifford then asked about the income qualifications for the different units. While Mr. Traggorth pulled up the Area Medium Income for the Boston Area, Mr. Cantin stated that they will remove 25 protected trees. Mr. Traggorth stated that the site will contain anywhere from 30% Area Medium Income units to 80% Area Medium Income units. Mr. Traggorth then stated that a typical 30% Area Medium Income household would make less than $40,000 annually, a 60% Area Medium Income household would make less than $80,000, and a 80% Area Medium Income household would make less than $109,000. Mr. Traggorth noted that typically, those numbers increase every year, and that the Boston metro area has a high Area Medium Income. Mr. Clifford clarified that with the reduced height, Building A no longer needed a waiver, and that Buildings B, C, and D only require the waiver. Ms. Lawler stated that Building A would still need the waiver as Lexington measures from average natural grade. Ms. Roy expressed her concern about time to apply for State financing. Mr. Traggorth expressed his willingness to talk about schedule going forward and stated that he had already submitted a pre-application for funding. Mr. Traggorth also stated that they will have to submit the full application in March. Mr. Traggorth further stated that they will need to make good progress in January and acknowledged that while Apex needed time to review the civil material, Mr. Traggorth expressed his confidence that they had met Apex’s requirements. Mr. Clifford stated that the application only had a few minor issues to resolve before the Board can discuss approving the comprehensive permit and expressed his preference to vote on the January 8th, 2026, Hearing. Mr. Clifford stated that once the Board votes, the decision will take a while to draft, and that once it’s drafted, the Board will vote to approve it. Mr. Clifford asked what date Mr. Traggorth will need the decision by, to which Mr. Traggorth responded that he would like to conclude any appeal period as soon as possible. Mr. Traggorth stated that if they go through the appeal process while applying for the funding, the appeal processes will make the funding application difficult. Mr. Traggorth then expressed his commitment to respecting the appeal process and stated that he will work to respond quickly. Mr. Traggorth stated that making progress in January would put him in a good position. Mr. Osten noted the list of staff recommendations on the conditions and asked if the Board should go through some of those as a part of this meeting or a later one. No further questions from the Board. Mr. Mark Lang, 2 Opi Cir., stated that his property shares wetlands with 591 Lowell St. and expressed his concern for the project’s scale as he believed that the project would flood his property. Mr. Lang then stated that he had previously expressed his belief that the site should have a more realistic scale. Mr. Clifford stated that the Board has not received the civil engineering report yet, and therefore the Board does not know what the engineers’ feedback on stormwater. Mr. Clifford then stated that Mr. Lang should speak on stormwater once the Board has the report. Mr. Lang continued by stating that he believed that the Select Board had decided on forty units to hit a financial target, with no prior feasibility study. Mr. Lang then stated that after the Select Board decided this, he believed that no work had occurred to verify if the site could accommodate forty units. Mr. Lang further stated that as a result, the developers who submitted proposals selected forty units to meet the Requests for Proposals (RFP). Mr. Lang continued by explaining that he believed that Causeway had redesigned the site after the two community meetings because they could not work out stormwater. Mr. Lang also explained that he believed that Causeway had fired their original engineer because the engineer could not produce a plan. Mr. Lang further explained that he believed that the second engineer also could not produce a plan, so Causeway changed the community-approved site design. Mr. Lang stated that Causeway had changed the building near the intersection of Lowell St. and North St. from a one-story building to a forty-foot building and then stated that he believed that the design does not fit the neighborhood. Mr. Lang then explained that in the RFP and the vote for Article 33, the Select Board promised that the design would respect the community, neighborhood architecture, and fit the residential zoning. Mr. Lang further explained that residential houses have a limit of two and a half stories and forty feet, and that 591 Lowell St. will have three story buildings with heights that exceed forty feet. Mr. Lang expressed his disappointment that the Select Board did not follow through on their promise and asked for the Board to consider that. Mr. Lang reiterated that he believed that the site cannot support the project size and will only do so by breaking regulations. Mr. Lang stated that he does not oppose affordable housing on this site and stated that he wanted the developer, the Affordable Housing Trust, Town Meeting, and the Select Board to consider fitting a reasonable project on the site for the people that already live in the area. Mr. Lang also stated that he lives in the area and will continue to do so, and that he already experiences traffic difficulties. Mr. Lang further stated that he believed that the traffic had become unbearable and that while the Town changed the lights, he believed that the change made the traffic worse. Mr. Lang explained that he believed that the improvements, and by extension the traffic report, have their bases in something theoretical. Mrs. Nancy Sofen, 3 Abernathy Rd., Tree Committee Member, spoke on behalf of the Tree Committee and stated that the Tree Committee had voted unanimously to inform the Board of their comments. Mrs. Sofen explained that the Tree Committee loved the landscape plan that included native, deciduous, and evergreen trees, that would provide a pleasant environment for the project’s residents and screening for neighbors. Mrs. Sofen then explained that the Tree Committee agreed with the staff’s preference that the applicant mitigate the 268 inches of removed trees entirely by replanting. Mrs. Sofen further explained that the Tree By-law only credits three inch or larger caliper trees towards mitigation, with some nuances to the calculations, and noted that the plan may achieve full mitigation, but that she cannot assure that. Mrs. Sofen continued by stating that the Tree Committee supports waiving the three-inch caliper minimum so that smaller caliper trees would also count towards mitigation and explained that should smaller trees count towards mitigation, the plan will offer 369 inches of mitigation. Mrs. Sofen stated that the Tree Committee remains open to having more trees planted than currently discussed. Finally, Mrs. Sofen stated that the Tree Committee had discussed the hemlock issue and stated that the Tree Committee looks forward to future conversation with the staff and applicant as the applicant finalizes the landscape plan. Ms. Ravneet Grewal, 23 Bennington Rd., Housing Partnership Board Member, spoke on her own behalf and thanked the Board for their service to the community and their time. Ms. Grewal expressed her approval for the care that she believed had occurred to minimize the project’s impact on the neighboring properties and for the design that she believed had incorporated leading planning and resilience practices. Mrs. Grewal stated that she believed that the site suits the project and that the site falls outside of the projected climate-related hazards. Ms. Grewal then thanked the team for preserving every urban tree possible and for minimizing the impermeable surfaces. Ms. Grewal expressed her approval for the design and expressed her willingness to live next to it. Ms. Grewal concluded by encouraging the Board to ensure that the project has everything that it needs to get its application to the State. No further comments or questions from the Public. Ms. Jane David, Traffic Project Manager at Apex, summarized Apex’s second traffic review and stated that the applicant’s team had addressed most of Apex’s comments. Regarding the TIA, Ms. Davis stated that they had several comments related to minor inconsistencies that the revised TIA had resolved. Ms. Davis stated that the more significant comments focused on the poor operations along the North St. westbound approach. Ms. Davis explained that the signal timings for the future conditions analysis came from the proposed plans for the intersection and explained that those timings did not get transcribed currently. Ms. Davis then explained that through the peer review process, Mr. Dirk and Vanessa & Associates updated the analysis to accurately reflect the signal timings and the plans. Ms. Davis stated that the analysis now shows the improved operations at the intersection with all movements expected to operate acceptably under both the future no build and future build conditions. Ms. Davide continued by stating that the poor operations at the intersection result from backups at other intersections along Lowell St. and not from the study intersection. Ms. Davis explained that the analysis results show acceptable operations with the current traffic volumes and stated that she hopes that the improvements along Lowell St. will reduce or eliminate some of the queues or delays. Ms. Davis then explained that the applicant’s team had addressed the discrepancy that showed a significant increase in traffic volumes between February and April by collecting new data in October. Ms. Davis explained that the October data showed higher traffic volumes and that the applicant’s team used the October data in the revised analysis. Ms. Davis continued by stating that Apex had closed out their minor comments on the site plans and that the applicant’s team had made the minor updates that Apex requested. Ms. Davis stated that the main outstanding comment concerned the on-site pedestrian curb ramps. Ms. Davis explained that a different set of standards govern private developments than those on public rights-of-way and that these standards do not require detectable warning panels. Ms. Davis stated that Apex had continued to recommend that the applicant install the ramps with detectable warning panels since Apex considers this best practice. Ms. Davis concluded by explaining her comments to the Town. Ms. Wilson noted that some of the safety concerns exceed the project scope and that those issues would fall on the Town to address, not the applicant. No further questions from the Board. Mr. Bob Pressman, 22 Locust Ave., asked if the project will improve the vegetation near the corner of the community building, which Mr. Traggorth confirmed. Mr. Pressman then stated that six qualified developers had submitted responses to the RFP and explained that he believed that the committee could determine from those submissions that the developers had studied the site. Mr. Pressman further explained that the developers had suggested between forty and forty- seven, which indicates that the site can support that number of units. Mr. Traggorth touched on the size and density of the project and stated that with every unit that they build, they can provide another family with an opportunity for affordable housing. Mr. Traggorth also stated that they will make the corner of the site attractive as shown on the planting and building plans. Mr. Traggorth stated that he believed that he and his team have done their due diligence to show that they have fully designed the plan. Mr. Traggorth asked that the Board list any conditions that they have. Mr. Clifford asked the staff if they had a proposal ready. Ms. Lawler stated that they did not. Mr. Clifford recommended that the staff draft the proposal and distribute it as soon as possible. At 9:03 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to continue the Hearing. At 9:03 p.m., Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford. At 9:03 p.m., the Board voted to continue the Hearing (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jennifer L. Wilson – Yes). No further discussion from the Board. Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom December 11th, 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 Alternate Member: Jeanne K. Krieger, Kathryn A. Roy, Patricia S. Nelson, Scott E. Cooper, and Thomas Shiple Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, Abby McCabe, Planning Director, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Town Counsel: Kuong C. Ly Other Business: 1. Minutes from the November 13th, 2025, Meeting At 9:04 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to approve the minutes. At 9:04 p.m., multiple Board Members second Mr. Clifford. The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to approve the minutes from November 13th, 2025, Hearing (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jennifer Wilson – Yes). At 9:05 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to adjourn the Hearing. At 9:05 p.m., multiple Board Members second Mr. Clifford. At 9:05 p.m., the Board voted to Adjourn (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jennifer L. Wilson – Yes).