Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-12-10-PB-min.pdfMinutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday, December 10, 2025, Virtual Meeting at 6:00 PM Planning Board members present: Michael Schanbacher, Chair; Melanie Thompson, Vice -Chair; Tina McBride, Clerk; Charles Hornig; Robert Creech; and Michael Leon, associate board member. Also present were Abby McCabe, Planning Director; Aaron Koepper, Planner; and Carolyn Morrison, Planning Coordinator. Michael Schanbacher, Chair of the Planning Board, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, December 10, 2025 at 6:00 PM. 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 1834-1840 Massachusetts Avenue and 7-9, 11-13 Muzzey Street — Definitive Subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing for a definitive subdivision at 1834-1840 Massachusetts Avenue and 7-9 and 11-13 Muzzey Street. The applicant's team included: Todd Cataldo of Sheldon Corporation and Michael Novak of Patriot Engineering. Mr. Novak introduced the applicant's team and presented the 3 -lot subdivision proposal. He stated that the intent of the plan is to freeze the 2024 Multi -Family Overlay (MFO) zoning rights on the properties. A preliminary subdivision was filed March 17, 2025. Mr. Novak shared the proposed drainage and utility connections and landscaping plans. He reiterated that there is no plan to construct the subdivision as presented. He noted that they are requesting a waiver to reduce the rounding of the right-of-way that intersects Muzzey Street and that they are providing an access easement due to proximity to the property lines. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe noted that the properties are within the Battle Green Historic District and any exterior changes, whether through this subdivision or another development, would require Historic Districts Commission approval. She discussed the requested waivers and advised that many are addressed as conditions of approval, including the waiver regarding the reduced radius and waivers delaying submission of construction and long-term operations and maintenance documents. Permanent structures obscuring the view from the ROW will be prohibited and construction and maintenance documents must be submitted prior to any construction work if the subdivision did move forward. Staff recommended approval. There were no Board or public comments on this item. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 10, 2025 Page 1 of 11 Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing for the Definitive Subdivision for 1834-1840 Massachusetts Avenue and 7-9 and 11-13 Muzzey Street. 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 approve the request for 3 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 and to approve the 2 waivers requesting relief from the intersection rounding and dead- end -termination radius requirements. 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 Definitive Subdivision for 1834-1840 Massachusetts Avenue and 7-9 and 11-13 Muzzey Street with the 23 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; McBride — yes; Hornig — 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 typos, grammar, and consistency. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Hornig — yes; McBride — yes; Creech — yes; Thompson — yes; Schanbacher —yes). MOTION PASSED. 329 Massachusetts Avenue — Definitive Subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing on the application of M&E Realty, LLC, for a definitive subdivision at 329 Massachusetts Avenue The applicant's team included: Frederick Gilgun of Nicholson, Sreter, and Gilgun; and Michael Novak of Patriot Engineering. Mr. Gilgun summarized the preliminary subdivision submitted in February 2025 which was disapproved by the Board due to safety concerns with the proposed layout. He advised that the definitive subdivision proposes a different layout which meets Board regulations. Mr. Gilgun also stated that the subdivision is not planned to be constructed; it is intended to complete a zoning freeze preserving the 2024 Village Overlay (VO) bylaws on the property. He advised that the applicant is seeking waivers typically associated with zoning freeze plans, such as relief from providing construction phasing, long-term operations and maintenance, and soil testing documentation. Mr. Novak shared the revised 2 -lot subdivision. He explained that the subdivision proposes no new roadway and splits the lot into two conforming triangular lots, one with frontage on Massachusetts Avenue and the other fronting on Fottler Avenue. No changes to utility or drainage connections are proposed. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe stated that the requested waivers have been included as conditions of approval should the subdivision ever proceed to construction. Board Questions Mr. Leon asked why the applicant did not pursue an ANR (Approval Not Required) plan to split the lot where the lots have legal frontage on two different streets. Mr. Gilgun advised that the plans do not comply with ANR frontage requirements; they are using the ability to apply the VO frontage requirements to the lots. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 10, 2025 Page 2 of 11 Ms. Thompson clarified the revisions from the preliminary subdivision to the definitive subdivision plans. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing for the Definitive Subdivision for 329 Massachusetts Avenue. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Hornig — yes; Creech — yes; McBride — yes; Thompson — yes; Schanbacher — yes). MOTION PASSED. Ms. Thompson moved to approve the 4 requested waivers pertaining to the submission of drainage analysis, test pits, construction phasing documents, and maintenance documents as no building, impervious surface, or construction is proposed. 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 approve the Definitive Subdivision for 329 Massachusetts Avenue 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: 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 typos, grammar, 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. 162 Bedford Street and 5 Reed Street — Definitive Subdivision Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision at 162 Bedford Street and 5 Reed Street. The applicant's team included: Robert Phelan, property owner, and Bruce Ringwall of GPR, Inc. Mr. Ringwall explained the application is intended to complete a zoning freeze which began March 6, 2025 when the preliminary subdivision was filed. He shared existing conditions of the lots and summarized the 3 -lot proposal with one lot containing the existing garage, one containing the existing residential dwelling, and the third containing the existing commercial building. Mr. Ringwall stated that they are not proposing any new roadway and have requested waivers to defer submission of drainage testing, soil analysis, construction phasing, and operation and maintenance documents. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe confirmed the waivers are consistent with other zoning freeze projects and that staff recommended approval. She noted that there is a condition of approval in the draft decision which requires submission of the documents if the subdivision ever proceeds to construction. There were no Board or public comments on this item. Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing for the Definitive Subdivision for 162 Bedford Street and 5 Reed Street. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Hornig — yes; Creech — yes; McBride — yes; Thompson —yes; Schanbacher — yes). MOTION PASSED. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 10, 2025 Page 3 of 11 Ms. Thompson moved to approve the 4 requested waivers pertaining to the submission of drainage analysis, test pits, construction phasing documents, and maintenance documents as no building, impervious surface, or construction is proposed. 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 162 Bedford Street and 5 Reed 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: Hornig - 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 typos, grammar, and consistency. 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. Board Administration Zoning Amendment Warrant Article Discussion Mr. Schanbacher opened the discussion on potential Zoning Amendment Warrant Articles for Annual Town Meeting (ATM) 2026. Ms. McCabe informed the Board that ATM 2026 is scheduled to start Monday, March 30, 2026 and that the Select Board opened the warrant, with all warrant article requests due by December 19, 2025. She summarized the expected timeline, with the Board discussing and voting at this meeting on which articles they would like to sponsor. She noted that details of the motion would not need to be prepared until January or February when the hearings begin. The four topics Ms. McCabe recommended discussing were: amendments to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), amendments to Special Residential Developments (SRDs), amendments to rounding on fractional inclusionary dwelling units in the Village Overlay (VO) district, and amendments for technical corrections. She noted that staff is now recommending delaying the inclusionary rounding article until a later date, as most projects expected in 2026 have already secured a zoning freeze of the 2024 bylaws and would not be held to any changes from ATM 2026. She further encouraged using 2026 for development review, rather than significant zoning amendments. Mr. Schanbacher encouraged a high-level discussion about which articles the Board would like to sponsor prior to any detailed discussion on the language of any changes. ADUs — Accessory Dwelling Units Mr. Hornig stated his strong support for an ADU article. He explained that he has worked with staff and other Boards to review Lexington's existing bylaws and what modifications would be necessary to align with state regulations. Mr. Hornig noted that Governor Maura Healey was in Lexington discussing the merits of ADUs and how they benefit the state's housing initiatives. It is his opinion that this work is in a good place to bring to ATM 2026. Mr. Creech expressed general support for ADUs but raised concerns with implementation. He shared that he reviewed the state's model zoning and highlighted the goals of encouraging small, infill housing, moderately priced units for smaller and lower income households, and options that allow homeowners to age in place or earn supplemental income. He wondered if the state's regulations are too idealistic and prescriptive. Mr. Creech also highlighted construction costs as a deterrent and asked that the Board and Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 10, 2025 Page 4 of 11 staff continue to research the impact and implementation of ADUs. He recommended delaying a zoning amendment until the following year. Mr. Leon stated that he generally agreed with Mr. Creech. He noted that Lexington has exceeded expectations by already having approved a large number of new housing units. He expressed concern that the proposed bylaw removes key limitations allowed by the state statute and could allow oversized ADUs, construction on nonconforming lots, teardowns to effectively create two-family developments anywhere residential use is allowed, and development without meaningful regulation. Mr. Leon noted that the most significant barrier to ADU development is the cost, not zoning. He expressed concern that rushing changes to Town Meeting could provoke unnecessary opposition and recommended more work and deliberation. Mr. Hornig corrected some misconceptions, noting that existing dimensional requirements for main structures would still apply to ADUs and he proposes having the same setback requirements for the principal dwelling. He has met with staff on drafting an enforceable bylaw over the past year. He advised that the lot size would no longer be regulated, according to state regulations. He shared his opinion that Lexington should not be the last municipality to adopt revised zoning to comply with the state. Ms. McBride requested clarification on certain aspects of the proposed language, such as why ADUs would be allowed in the CN (Neighborhood Business) Zoning District and encouraged any revisions to mirror the state model zoning language as closely as possible. Her opinion is that 900 SF is enough space for a 2 -bed ADU, with exceptions up to 1000 SF for accessibility reasons. Ms. McBride supported bringing the article to ATM 2026 with significant revisions for clarity and simplicity. Ms. Thompson expressed concern with by right ADU development, citing issues that have arisen from the MBTA Communities Act and its lack of design standards. She acknowledged the work Mr. Hornig has put in thus far but suggested that Town Meeting would not have interest in zoning revisions this year, particularly with the number of dwelling units approved by the Planning Board in 2024 and 2025. She recommended the discussion be continued. Mr. Creech clarified that he would like to see more information about built ADUs in neighborhoods, not having the staff rewrite Mr. Hornig's work. He recommended that the Board draft the bylaw together in layman's English, then having the staff revise as needed for the bylaw. He reiterated that he is not in favor of bringing this article to ATM 2026. Mr. Hornig explained that the draft bylaw is based on existing Lexington bylaws with minimal changes, including the 1000 SF limit. He reiterated the importance of bringing this article to ATM 2026 noting that with differing state and town rules, a property owner could build two ADUs on their property by -right. His proposal limits this to one ADU per lot. Mr. Schanbacher stated his support for the Article and recognized the other Board members' concerns. He encouraged further clarification of the language in the bylaw to minimize confusion. SRDs — Special Residential Developments Mr. Creech stated his opinion that the proposal is straightforward and simple. His understanding is that the revisions would reduce unit size which should reduce prices and increase the number of units. Mr. Hornig wondered which issues the proposal would address. He noted that there have been three SRDs submitted over the last three years since the zoning was enacted. Ms. McBride explained that the proposed changes are intended to address the issues that have been raised with the existing SRD projects, such as a site coverage and gross floor area (GFA) restrictions to reduce visible and perceived density on Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 10, 2025 Page 5 of 11 the lot, GFA limitations to reduce costs and address the "missing middle," transition buffers for increase privacy between single family dwellings and larger multi -family projects, and ensuring public areas are easily accessible by future residents. Ms. Thompson reiterated her opinion that the Board did not need to sponsor any Zoning Amendments for ATM 2026. She noted that one SRD was well liked and suggested that the Board should not rush to make changes based on one bad project. Ms. Thompson recommended that changes be made after more data is received. She expressed doubt that smaller units would lead to affordable units due to the costs of construction. Ms. McBride stated that it was oversimplification to characterize one SRD as "good" and the other as "bad" and it did not address problems with the Meriam Street SRD, such as the building proximity to the neighbors. She acknowledged that smaller units might not be truly affordable, but a reduced size would make them less expensive and help address the missing middle, where existing SRD projects have produced large, costly units. She stated that the proposed changes align with Lexington's Comprehensive Plan and address resident concerns. Ms. McBride agreed that by -right projects allow the Board little oversight and expressed hope for more input on future SRDs. Mr. Schanbacher stated that he felt it was important to allow the existing SRDs to be constructed in order to fully understand the scale and reasonability of the proposed changes. He raised concerns about an influx of zoning freezes if amendments are rushed to Town Meeting, noting that the zoning freeze plans from ATM 2025 occupied most of the staff and Board's workload this year. Ms. McBride acknowledged the concern for zoning freezes but shared her opinion that the SRD requirement for two lots will prohibit property owners from acting immediately and that it is important to make changes now for better projects in the future. Rounding The Board engaged in a discussion about inclusionary unit rounding in the Village Overlay (VO) zoning districts. Ms. McBride expressed support for rounding fractional units up and that she would not expect to face opposition at ATM 2026. Mr. Creech agreed that it is a beneficial proposal but disagreed with Ms. McBride. He opposed bringing this to ATM 2026. Ms. McCabe stated that staff has heard significant support for rounding up or to the nearest whole number. She advised that this change would need to be reviewed by the EOHLC for compliance. She cautioned that they may require a new economic feasibility study and warned that rounding up could potentially produce unfavorable results based on the 2025 modified zoning. Mr. Hornig advised that he had run his own feasibility study and found that small projects would struggle with 15%, while developments over 50 units could potentially support a 20% inclusionary requirement. Mr. Hornig noted that most expected large projects are under a zoning freeze and would not be impacted by the change. He recommended continuing to evaluate economic feasibility and attempting to have larger developments provide a larger percentage of inclusionary units. Mr. Leon wondered if there was any information in the Fougere report on feasibility, noting that this has been a topic of discussion in many towns in the region. He cautioned against increasing the inclusionary requirements so high as to discourage any development in town. He concluded by expressing his support for rounding but recommended further feasibility research as well. Mr. Schanbacher appreciated Mr. Hornig's suggestion for increased requirements but agreed with Mr. Leon's concerns about feasibility. He also expressed reluctance to bring Village Overlay amendments to Town Meeting at this time. Mr. Leon suggested a buy-out option for the smaller developments, which Mr. Hornig noted currently applies to SRDs, not Village Overlay. Ms. McBride noted that Newton and Wellesley require 20% inclusionary. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 10, 2025 Page 6 of 11 Mr. Schanbacher took an unofficial poll to determine which articles the Board was interested in bringing to ATM 2026 and warranted further discussion. ADUs: 3-2-0 (Roll Call: Schanbacher — yes; Thompson — yes; Hornig — yes; McBride — no; Creech — no) SRDs: 2-3-0 (Roll Call: Schanbacher — no; Thompson — no; Hornig — no; Creech — yes; McBride — yes) Rounding: 1-4-0 (Roll Call: Thompson — no; Hornig — no; Schanbacher — no; Creech — no; McBride — yes) Mr. Schanbacher stated that the Rounding proposal would not be pursued for ATM 2026 and invited Mr. Hornig and Ms. McBride to share presentations regarding their proposals for ADUs and SRDs. He stated his preference to bring an unanimously endorsed article to ATM and would be willing to change his vote on ADUs and SRDs pending further information. Mr. Schanbacher also provided more details about the workload Ms. McCabe and staff manage on each project, with continued monitoring past the Planning Board's approval. Ms. Thompson reiterated that with the number of dwelling units already approved, she is inclined to not bring any zoning amendments to ATM. Board recessed at 8:09 PM and reconvened at 8:15 PM. Mr. Hornig shared his presentation on the proposed ADU changes, including a brief history of ADUs in Lexington. He summarized the state's Affordable Homes Act which requires ADUs be allowed up to 900 SF, with the same setback height and exterior restrictions as one -family dwellings, no limits on lot size or number of bedrooms, and no required parking within % mile of a bus stop or route. ADUs are not counted in dwelling density calculations and may not have owner -occupancy restrictions. Mr. Hornig further shared his proposed revisions, noting that they are driven by five main goals including: compliance with the Affordable Homes Act, limiting ADUs to one per lot with limited special permit exceptions, preserving existing ADUs, avoiding negatively impacting current owners, encouraging accessible ADUs, and simplifying Town zoning to clarify and align with state regulations. Regarding the state requirements, Mr. Creech recommended not exceeding 900 SF and requested clarification on dimensional and construction requirements. He also opposed the lack of parking requirements, expressing concern for parking on main roadways. Mr. Hornig advised that the lack of ADU parking requirements would not supersede Select Board regulations regarding prohibited parking. Ms. Thompson wondered if Lexpress would count as a bus stop or route when considering parking requirements. Ms. McBride confirmed why ADUs would not be included in density calculations. Mr. Leon highlighted differences between Lexington and Massachusetts methods for calculating GFA. After reviewing the proposed Lexington Zoning Bylaws, Mr. Creech raised concerns that the changes could effectively enable by right two-family zoning, particularly given the removal of owner occupancy, parking requirements, and the sizing regulations. He and Mr. Leon questioned whether the revisions would incentivize teardowns, condominium conversions, and larger -scale redevelopment, with little Board oversight. Mr. Leon highlighted revisions which were discretionary, in his opinion, rather than state mandated. Mr. Hornig reiterated that the proposal makes minimal changes to the bylaws which have been in existence since the 1980s. He further noted that the Board's concerns seemed relevant to the state law itself, rather than his proposed revisions to the Town Bylaw. Planning staff left the meeting at 9:09 PM. Mr. Hornig reiterated that the removed restrictions are due to state laws. He suggested that if the Board started drafting from scratch, the end result would be similar to his proposal. Mr. Hornig advised that Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 10, 2025 Page 7 of 11 ADUs would be protected under the Dover Amendment and that setbacks, heights, and GFA limitations would be unchanged. He further advised that his proposal keeps existing ADUs as conforming and protected, limits homeowners to one ADU per lot with no short-term rentals, and that ADUs would remain subject to HDC (Historic Districts Commission) approval as applicable. The new proposal simplifies three types of ADUs to one. Mr. Creech clarified the regulations surrounding non-conforming lots. Mr. Hornig explained that the state is clear that a protected ADU (PADU) can be built regardless of lot conformity. Mr. Leon clarified GFA calculations and caps. He disagreed with Mr. Hornig's understanding of ADU protections under the Dover Amendment. Mr. Hornig shared a map showing properties in Lexington within % a mile of public transit. The Board discussed the definitions of station, route, and transit authority as it pertains to the state laws and if Lexpress would count as public transit under those definitions. Mr. Hornig concluded by noting that the drafted bylaw is only two pages. SRD Presentation Ms. McBride presented her proposed changes to five sections of Ch. 6.9 Special Residential Developments (SRDs). Changes included: reintroducing a site coverage limitation, similar to the restrictions in §7.5 Village and Multi-Family Overlay Districts; linking Gross Floor Area (GFA) allowances to the single -family dwelling table in §4.4.2; required transition areas between SRD and non-SRD properties, similar to §7.5; reducing maximum dwelling unit GFA to address the missing middle; and adding language requiring open space to be easily accessible by residents. Ms. McBride stated that these revisions are a result of community feedback and a desire to increase consistency across multi-family development bylaws. She shared examples of how approved SRDs would have been altered by these proposals. §6.9.6.4— Ms. McBride proposed language stating that buildings and impervious surfaces shall not exceed 28% of the lot area of development. This is intended to increase and improve green space, water infiltration, and beauty. Mr. Hornig suggested that there is inconsistency between §7.5 and the proposed language. He stated he could support a true 28% site coverage restriction, but not a 28% impervious surface limit. He expressed concern that this would make SRDs more difficult and noted that the Board had moved away from impervious surface limitations as they are addressed in the stormwater bylaws. §6.9.6.6 — Ms. McBride proposed a decrease of the GFA allowed in SRDs by restricting it to 115% of the GFA allowed for single family homes in §4.4.2 to reduce site congestion and improve open space. Mr. Hornig recommended specifying that the bylaw would relate to Table 4.2.2.2 as there are multiple tables in §4.4.2. §6.9.7 — Ms. McBride proposed required 20' transition areas between SRDs and abutting non-SRD lots. The intent is to allow larger trees, denser infill, and increased privacy screening. Mr. Leon wondered if the transition area would apply if the abutting properties were zoned for commercial use. Ms. McBride advised that the transition area is for the residents' benefit as well as the neighbors and that she would include the buffer for all zoning districts. Mr. Hornig clarified the definitions and requirements of a yard and a transition area. He advised that while many residents include landscaping in their yard, there is no specific requirement. Mr. Hornig further advised that a transition area could impact building setbacks, as emergency services would require 10' clearance between the transition area and the building. Ms. McBride explained the language was meant to mirror that in §7.5 and that she would review the requirements for a transition area. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 10, 2025 Page 8 of 11 §6.9.8—Ms. McBride proposed a reduction in maximum average dwelling size to 2,000 SF, with a provision for units in historic houses allowing up to 2,500 SF. She suggested that the smaller unit sizes would result in lower rental or ownership costs. Mr. Hornig objected to the removal of "in a compact neighborhood development" (CNDs) from the bylaw, as he felt it removed the need for Site Sensitive Developments (SSDs) as CNDs tend to be more practical for developers and the proposed change would eliminate the existing dwelling size bonus granted to SSDs and remove the Board's ability to regulate the number of dwelling buildings in a SRD. §6.9.11— Ms. McBride proposed the introduction of language requiring open space in a development to be "reasonably accessible" with a maximum grade change to ensure future residents are able to access and use open space. Mr. Hornig advised that there are existing regulations for common open space which specify that it must be designed and intended for use by all residents. Mr. Hornig wondered what level of "accessible" would be required, noting that the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (MAAB) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) have different guidelines. He and Ms. McBride engaged in a discussion of what would be required. Mr. Schanbacher agreed with Mr. Hornig about defining "accessible" and suggested that the implementation of a grade change restriction would fall under building code and outside the Planning Board's purview. Mr. Leon wondered if there was a source the bylaws could reference defining accessibility requirements. Mr. Schanbacher suggested the MAAB would be readily understood but cautioned that there are complexities to consider. He advised that if MAAB guidelines were followed on the 287 Waltham Street project, the wooded trail would not have been feasible as the MAAB would have required full ADA Accessibility for the path. Mr. Schanbacher further cautioned that these changes would be in the zoning bylaws and not be able to be waived. He suggested that this requirement may be better suited to the Planning Board Zoning Regulations (Ch. 176). The Board discussed the potential consequence of natural sites being leveled to accommodate accessibility requirements and agreed that natural open space should not be sacrificed if possible. Mr. Hornig recommended reevaluating the definition of common open space. The Board confirmed that they needed to take a vote at this meeting as articles need to be submitted to the Select Board prior to the Board's next meeting. Ms. Thompson appreciated Ms. McBride's work and reiterated her reluctance to bring any zoning amendments to Town Meeting. Mr. Schanbacher agreed that it is inadvisable to rush articles to Town Meeting and suggested that further discussion could happen over the next year in order to prepare for ATM 2027 or later. Ms. Thompson moved to request the Select Board add the following zoning amendment articles to the Annual Town Meeting warrant: Amend Zoning bylaw for accessory dwelling units. Mr. Hornig seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted on the motion 1-4-0 (Roll call: Creech — no; Hornig — yes; Thompson — no; McBride — no; Schanbacher — no). MOTION DID NOT CARRY. Ms. Thompson moved to request the Select Board add the following zoning amendment articles to the Annual Town Meeting warrant: Amend zoning bylaw for special residential developments. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted on the motion 1-4-0 (Roll call: Creech — no; Hornig — no; Thompson — no; McBride — yes; Schanbacher — no). MOTION DID NOT CARRY Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 10, 2025 Page 9 of 11 Ms. Thompson moved to request the Select Board add the following zoning amendment articles to the Annual Town Meeting warrant: Amend zoning bylaw for rounding for fractional inclusionary dwelling units in the Village Overlay District. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted against the motion 0-5-0 (Roll call: Hornig — no; Creech — no; McBride — no; Thompson — no; Schanbacher — no). MOTION DID NOT CARRY Ms. Thompson moved to request the Select Board add the following zoning amendment articles to the Annual Town Meeting warrant: Amend zoning bylaw for technical corrections. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Thompson — yes; Creech — yes; Hornig — yes; McBride — yes; Schanbacher — yes). MOTION PASSED. Board Member & Staff Updates Mr. Hornig stated that the Select Board voted to appoint Mr. Schanbacher to the Housing Partnership Board per the Planning Board's recommendation. Mr. Creech, Mr. Schanbacher, and Ms. Thompson expressed their gratitude for the work done by Mr. Hornig and Ms. McBride on their presentations. Review of Draft Meeting Minutes: 10/8 Ms. Thompson moved that the Planning Board approve the draft October 8, 2025 meeting minutes as presented. 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 Adjournment Ms. Thompson moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of December 10, 2025 at 10:38 PM. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Hornig — yes; Creech — yes; McBride — yes; Thompson — yes; Schanbacher — yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 10:38 PM. Lex Media recorded the meeting. Material from the meeting can be found in the Planning Board's Novus Packet. List of Documents 1. 1834-1840 Massachusetts Avenue and 7-13 Muzzey Street Staff Memo dated 11/28/25 2. 329 Massachusetts Avenue Staff Memo dated 11/28/25 3. 162 Bedford Street and 5 Reed Street Staff Memo dated 11/28/25 4. Zoning Amendment Warrant Article Discussion DRAFT list of ATM articles, dated 12/10/25; DRAFT ADU zoning changes, dated 11/5/25; DRAFT ADU presentation, dated 11/19/25; DRAFT Special Residential Bylaw Changes, dated 10/24/25; DRAFT VO Inclusionary Rounding Changes, dated 11/19/25; DRAFT SRD Changes Presentation, dated 12/5/25. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 10, 2025 Page 10 of 11 Email from Lin Jensen sent December 9, 2025 to Planning Board, subject: ADU: the proposed amendment includes additional zoning relaxations and is inconsistent the state's requirements and recommendations Email from Sandra Hackman sent December 3, 2025 to Planning Board, subject: letter re amendment the SRD bylaw Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 10, 2025 Page 11 of 11