Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-01-21-PB-min.pdf Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 21, 2026 Page 1 of 10 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 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; Meghan Roche, Assistant 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, January 21, 2026 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 Rangeway Extension – Definitive Subdivision Performance Guarantee Mr. Schanbacher opened the request from the applicant for the Rangeway Extension to release the remaining $8,325 performance guarantee. Ms. McCabe summarized the subdivision history, noting that there was a partial release of the performance guarantee in 2022. She advised that they have completed the remaining work and submitted as-built plans. Planning and Engineering staff inspected the site and the applicant has closed their Conservation Commission process. Ms. McCabe stated that the applicant is not pursuing street acceptance; Rangeway will remain a private road. Board Questions Ms. McBride wondered what the final items addressed were. Ms. Roche explained that there was final curbing and grading which had been finished. Ms. Thompson moved to approve the request to release the remaining funds in the tripartite agreement in the amount of $8,325 and return to the applicant. 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. Lexington Hills Definitive Subdivision – Minor Modification & Security Release Mr. Schanbacher opened the request for a modification to the Lexington Hills approved site plan review, special permit, and subdivision. Ms. McCabe summarized the history of the subdivision, which created Cart Path Lane and Stage Coach Road, and subsequent modifications. She stated that the applicant has submitted a request for the road acceptance to go before Town Meeting this spring. Planning and Engineering staff have confirmed that the roadway and infrastructure have been built to plan and easements have been recorded. Ms. McCabe advised that there was an outstanding condition of the 2020 modification approval which called for $20,000 to be taken from the security deposit to facilitate a trail network connecting Cart Path Lane to Potter Pond on Walnut Street. She further advised that the Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 21, 2026 Page 2 of 10 Conservation Commission (ConCom) and the Greenways Corridor Committee (GCC) have been working to develop a trail connecting Lexington Hills to Concord Avenue through Massachusetts’ Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) land abutting the development. The applicant is requesting that the $20,000 be used for this proposed connection instead of the original trail to Potter Pond and that the remaining security deposit be released now that all the improvements have been completed. Board Questions Mr. Creech recalled that there was an easement planned for a pedestrian path. Ms. Roche confirmed that there are two recorded pedestrian easements. Mr. Hornig provided the historical logic behind the proposed Walnut Street path. He recommended rewording the motion, changing “north of” to “from” in order to explicitly state that the easement will connect to Concord Avenue and will not leave a gap between the end of the easement and the existing Western Greenway Trail System. Ms. McBride wondered if a path along Walnut Street had been complete and if anyone spoke with the residents along Walnut Street and at Potter Pond for their feedback on the proposal. She expressed concern at the volume of traffic and noted that the residents have asked Town Meeting to address traffic calming measures and pedestrian safety. Ms. McCabe advised that the 2020 condition of approval was only to give the Town the funds to facilitate building a path, not to have the developer build the path themselves. Mr. Hornig provided more details about the decision and 2020 modification and explained that the trail was discussed when the subdivision was first proposed many years before the 2020 modification. He noted that the proposed trail ran into roadblocks at the state level, with the state having little interest in pursuing such a project. He advised that Keith Ohmart, chair of the Greenways Corridor Committee (GCC), was present and could provide further details. He also clarified that he was supportive of this modification as ConCom and the GCC are prepared to take action on the other path proposal. Mr. Schanbacher agreed with this approach. Ms. McBride indicated that she would be supportive of the modification, provided the Walnut Street residents are in support. Other Comments Keith Ohmart shared that a connection had been made to the Western Greenway Trail at the end of the Cart Path Lane cul-de-sac, which needs to be connected on the other end to Concord Avenue. He added that GCC would use the funds for surveying the boundaries of the Conservation parcel to execute the exact location of the trail. Gordon Glass, attorney with Johnson & Borenstein, LLC, was present to represent the developer, Lexington August Realty Trust. He confirmed Ms. McCabe’s statement that the condition was for the applicant to provide the funds to the Town, not to construct the path themselves. He further clarified that the applicant requested this modification at the request of town staff. He asserted that the applicant has met their obligations and the excess funds should be returned to the applicant. Public Comments part 1 Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, Precinct 1 Town Meeting member, echoed Ms. McBride’s questions as to why the original path had not been pursued. He noted that the Walnut Street residents had been working Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 21, 2026 Page 3 of 10 to make improvements and it is his opinion that they would appreciate a pedestrian path to traverse that section of roadway. Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, Precinct 6 Town Meeting member, agreed with Mr. Luker. She would like to ask the neighborhood what they would like to see and shared that the Select Board has been discussing traffic calming measures on Walnut Street. She recommended connecting with the Potter Pond Association. Board Comments Mr. Leon asked Mr. Hornig if the sidewalk was unable to be built due to the width of the right-of-way (ROW) and lack of public property to widen the ROW. Mr. Hornig clarified that the developer did build a sidewalk from the north to south end of the development, but that a connection along Walnut Street to Potter Pond stalled due to a lack of interest from the State. He advised that the Town staff is encouraging the proposed modification and would not be interested in re-opening discussions with the state and Potter Pond. Mr. Leon acknowledged the difficulty of working with the DCR. Ms. Thompson confirmed the proposed path through conservation land and asked how long the money had been outstanding. Ms. McCabe advised that the condition was implemented in 2020. Ms. Thompson expressed her support for the modification. Mr. Creech stated that if the original proposed path will not be built due to practicality, he would be in support of the modification. Mr. Hornig added that a trail connection was a condition of the original 2007 approval, not just the 2020 modification. Ms. McBride emphasized the importance of building the originally proposed path, noting that it would provide access from Potter Pond to the Greenway. She encouraged the Board to connect with the Potter Pond and Walnut Street residents to determine if they would still like the path on Walnut Street. Public Comments part 2 Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, Precinct 6 Town Meeting member, emphasized that the Planning Board has an obligation to uphold the original agreement and encouraged them to connect with the Condominium Association to determine what the residents would want. Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, Precinct 1 Town Meeting member, agreed that the residents should be informed of the change. He suggested that Walnut Street residents would not want to walk to Cart Path Lane in order to access the trail connections. Board Deliberation Mr. Hornig clarified that the intent of the trail connection is to benefit the Lexington Hills residents and connect them to the rest of the Town, not Walnut Street or Potter Pond, nor was it intended for traffic calming use on Walnut Street. Mr. Schanbacher agreed that the issues were being conflated. Mr. Hornig repeated his opinion that the Board should move forward with the modification, as the Town has shown there has been little interest in pursuing the footpath on DCR property. Ms. Thompson asked for a history of the project, which Ms. McCabe and Ms. Roche provided. Ms. McCabe requested the Board vote on this item tonight because the street acceptance hearing is coming up and the applicant is requesting a release of funds. She reminded the Board that ConCom and GCC are ready to move forward with the modified proposal. Ms. McBride acknowledged the benefit of the modified path but encouraged the Board to continue to explore options to meet the original proposal. Mr. Leon suggested the Board vote to release the remaining funds from the performance guarantee as the applicant has met their obligations and that the $20,000 Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 21, 2026 Page 4 of 10 could be held by the Town or Conservation until the other residents can be consulted. Mr. Schanbacher expressed his support for such a motion. Mr. Hornig wondered if the Board could release the performance guarantee and continue the discussion of the trail funds. Mr. Leon, Mr. Hornig, and Ms. Thompson worked to revise the language of the proposed motions, specifying that the $20,000 is to be used for a pedestrian path benefiting Cart Path Lane. Mr. Schanbacher and Mr. Hornig suggested generic language or matching the 2007 language to allow for flexibility on the final path location. Ms. McBride expressed a preference for the 2007 language and wondered how much surveying the property and construction would cost. Ms. Roche provided some information and indicated it would mostly likely be over $20,000. Ms. Thompson moved to confirm all improvements required by the Lexington Hills Subdivision have been completed and release the remaining security funds in the amount of $102,072.71 to the Applicant, Lexington August Realty Trust. 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 modify the May 13, 2020 Definitive Subdivision and Special Permit with Site Plan Review approval special condition #2 to apply the $20,000 in security funds already submitted to apply to facilitate a trail connection from the subdivision to Concord Avenue to connect the ACROSS Lexington trail system to the Western Greenway Trail on DCR's Beaver Brook North property or to facilitate the trail for pedestrians on the easterly side of Waltham Street to the entrance to Potter Pond from Cart Path Lane. 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. 475 Bedford Street – Multi-Family Overlay Site Plan Review Mr. Schanbacher opened the public hearing for a multi-family site plan review at 475 Bedford Street. He stated that because the public hearing would likely conclude after the upcoming March election, Mr. Hornig will not vote on this application. The Chair called for Mr. Leon to be elevated to a voting member for this application to ensure more voting members at the point of deliberation. The applicant’s team included: Essek Petrie of Pulte Homes; Peter Mara, civil engineer with VHB; Erik Bednarek, landscape architect with VHB; Clare McCaffrey, architect with Pulte Homes. Also present was the Board’s peer reviewer, Mike Carter of GCG Associates. Mr. Petrie introduced the applicant’s team and provided an overview of Pulte Homes of New England. He shared the current state of the property, noting that there are several site constraints including natural resources, wetlands, and multiple utility easements. He advised that they have been working with the Conservation Commission informally and have filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) and an Order of Resource Area Delineation. Mr. Petrie reminded the Board that Pulte Homes secured a zoning freeze on the property, allowing them to develop under 2024 Multi-Family Overlay (MFO) District zoning bylaws. He explained how the proposed development would further these goals and be a benefit to Lexington, including multifamily housing near public transit and the Minuteman Bikeway, approximately 1.5 acres of pavement being converted to grass and landscaping, and a public connection to the Simond’s Brook Trail. Mr. Petrie presented the proposed 3-building development. Each building would contain 50 units for a total of 150 units for ownership in a mix of 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units. 22 units are proposed to be inclusionary dwelling units. The buildings will be all-electric and there will be dedicated parking spaces in garages beneath the buildings with additional parking in a surface lot. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 21, 2026 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Mara shared the proposed site layout and highlighted the reduced impervious area. He stated that the reduction would be accomplished by reducing the existing parking area by half and replacing the pavement with replicated wetland areas. He noted that there will be accessible sidewalks around the buildings with access to the amenity areas, the parking lot, and Bedford Street. He advised that the pathway from Bedford Street to the entrance for Simond’s Brook Trail would also be accessible. Mr. Mara confirmed that there would be short-term bike parking near the building entrances, electric vehicle charging in the surface lot, and emergency service access throughout the development. He further noted that they are proposing sustainable and green infrastructure and stormwater management improvements. Due to a history of flooding, Mr. Mara proposes multiple infiltration basins, grass swales, and porous pavement to manage excess water and runoff. Mr. Bednarek shared the proposed landscaping plan. He advised that they are planning to preserve existing trees along Bedford Street, as well as vegetation to the north and the wetlands to the east of the site. Mr. Bednarek stated that planned amenity spaces include grills and firepits with pergolas and seating, a tot lot play area, and a half-court basketball court. He confirmed that all proposed planting will be native materials with a focus on seasonal interest and year-round growth. He also confirmed that no mounted light is over 12’ tall and are dark-sky compliant. Ms. McCaffrey shared details of the architectural plans, highlighting egresses, lobbies and mail rooms, trash rooms, and utilities. She confirmed that bicycle parking requirements will be met. Ms. McCaffrey shared the typical floor plan and unit layouts for each of the dwelling sizes, showing the robust storage options and private, covered outdoor space for each unit. Ms. McCaffrey presented proposed elevations and detailed the architectural articulations and façade treatments used to break up the building massing. She further explained the overall goals to reduce perceived scale and create a pedestrian-friendly, accessible landscape while balancing efficient construction and long-term ease of maintenance. She concluded by sharing renderings of the courtyard spaces and buildings from multiple angles. Staff Comments Ms. McCabe summarized the staff memo prepared by Mr. Koepper dated 1/17/26, including comments from other Town departments, boards, and committees. She explained that the applicant has requested a special permit regarding parking design standards. She confirmed that they are meeting the required number of parking spaces, but tandem spaces fall below the required 9’x19’ when considered as two spaces. As the applicant meets the required parking numbers without the tandem spaces, she clarified that the special permit is not required as initially thought. She advised that they may need relief on the required clearance between walls and column structures and parking spaces. Ms. McCabe asked the applicant to provide an updated garage layout plan and bicycle parking plan to confirm dimensions and clearances. She encouraged the inclusion of oversized (10’x3’) bicycle spaces and outlets for e-bike charging. She further noted that the applicant is requesting relief for the slopes around building 3. Additional staff requests for future submittal plans include revising the unit mix to include some 2 - bedroom inclusionary units and 3-bedroom market-rate units and to indicate these units and parking on the plans, reducing a parking lot light from 15’ to 12’, indicate EV-ready car charging spaces, and the total caliper of trees being removed in the landscape plans. Ms. McCabe noted that the Fire Department has requested exterior access to the sprinkler room and to confirm that the largest fire truck can enter the site without swinging into oncoming traffic. She advised that the applicant is also working with the Conservation Commission and introduced the Board’s peer reviewer. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 21, 2026 Page 6 of 10 Peer Reviewer’s Comments Mr. Carter summarized the first peer review memo dated 1/14/26. He stated that the majority of the items are minor details that can be addressed in future plans but highlighted their main concerns for stormwater management. Mr. Carter requested that the applicant re-evaluate the water table elevations as the plans show a 2’ discrepancy between files. He cautioned that porous pavement should not be used within 100’ of wetlands and that it processes stormwater differently than impervious surfaces. Board Questions Ms. McBride appreciated the green space and attention to landscaping. She wondered if the buildings or parking lot would include solar panels or be solar ready. She further wondered about visual and noise screening on the roof for the heat pumps. Mr. Petrie advised that they cannot put solar arrays over the parking areas due to restrictions on the Eversource easement and there is a lack of space on the building roofs once the heat pumps are installed. He further advised that the heat pumps would be centrally located on the roof and would largely not be visible from the ground level and that they are relatively quiet units. Ms. McBride requested renderings of the view from surrounding neighborhoods, including Drummer Boy Way and the Eldred Street neighborhoods. She suggested that market rate unit owners should be required to declare primary residence to support the MBTA Communities Act goal of creating more workforce housing and to minimize rentals within the development. Mr. Petrie advised that the condominium association would likely restrict any rentals to a minimum of a 12-month term. Ms. McBride suggested revisions to the façade treatments and massing, as well as a reduction in parking. Ms. Thompson repeated the importance of this location in Lexington and encouraged the applicant to update their design to something representative of a high-end condominium in Lexington. She noted that the presented plans strongly resemble their developments in other communities. She suggested additional design details such as gabled roofs. Mr. Petrie advised that they would reconsider and highlighted the successes of the landscaping and amenity plans. Ms. Thompson asked if the applicant would round up inclusionary units to 23, reevaluate the unit mix, and ensure that the finishes and amenities available are equal to the market-rate units. She would like to see 2-bed inclusionary units and 3-bed market rate units. The Board recessed at 8:16 PM and reconvened at 8:21 PM. Mr. Hornig noted that the Town has desired housing at this location for several years and that the rules that the condominium association makes are not under Planning Board jurisdiction. He advised that the 62/76 bus no longer exists; they are separate routes. Mr. Hornig recommended that the applicant consider each tandem space in the garage as one extra-long parking space as they have sufficient parking counts without including the tandem spaces at all. Mr. Petrie clarified that the tandem spaces would only be sold together to one unit, not split. Mr. Hornig explained that by counting the tandem spaces as one instead of two, it eliminates the need for a special permit for those dimensions and reduces the parking ratio to 1:1.5. Mr. Leon asked Mr. Petrie the expected market rate pricing for a 2-bedroom unit. Mr. Petrie suggested a range of $500,000-$900,000 depending on the size of the unit and construction costs. Mr. Leon encouraged architectural revisions and shared his opinion that the presented development was “cookie- cutter” and looked like a “fenestrated shoebox.” He recommended substantial vegetative screening around the infiltration basin on Bedford Street and increased outdoor amenity space. He wondered if it would be possible to lower the parking base grade in order to reduce the overall height of the buildings Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 21, 2026 Page 7 of 10 or step back the upper floors to minimize the massing. Mr. Petrie advised that due to the groundwater table the base grade could not be lowered, but he would review architectural options. Mr. Creech confirmed the location of the gas easement and Eversource’s access to the site for vegetation management. After verifying the width of the central courtyard with Mr. Mara, Mr. Creech echoed Mr. Leon’s suggestion for additional amenity space and seating. He further encouraged increasing the walkability along Bedford Street as it currently is fairly steep and narrow with no sidewalk. Mr. Creech urged the applicant to include signage and information to residents that Drummer Boy Way is private, and to consider a ride-share option for the development. He repeated Ms. McBride’s concerns about the noise from the rooftop mechanicals and recommended noise screening. Mr. Creech supported staff’s request to have up to 5 spaces designated for public use at the trailhead with signage indicating the hours the trail is open. He concluded by sharing examples of other multi-family developments in the Greater Boston area to highlight his architectural preferences Mr. Schanbacher asked for details on trash removal. Mr. Petrie advised that it would be private removal, with trash chutes on each floor. Mr. Schanbacher asked the applicant to update the plans showing hipped roofs and wondered what dictated the tandem parking spaces. He also wondered if the parking lots are full in their other developments. Ms. McCaffrey and Mr. Petrie explained that the utility and trash rooms in the basement offset the tandem spaces and that the parking lots are designed to have some surplus parking. Mr. Schanbacher asked the average unit size and requested future plans include average unit sizes by bedroom count. He echoed Ms. Thompson’s request to review the unit mix and confirmed that the condominium fee would be based on unit square footage. Public Comments Barbara Katzenberg, 37 Moon Hill Road, Precinct 2 Town Meeting member, Chair Noise Advisory Committee, recommended predictive modeling to determine the volume of the noise produced by the mechanical units on the roof when all are running. Doris Wong, 12 Drummer Boy Way, expressed displeasure with the 5 stories and flat roof, stating her belief was 52’ would be 4 stories with a gabled roof. She recommended altering the architecture to better align with the surrounding buildings and neighborhoods. Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, Precinct 1 Town Meeting member, Transportation Advisory Committee, spoke for himself to agree that the MBTA Communities Act is intended to produce housing. He argued that housing is housing, regardless of ownership or rental. He stated that a 1.8 parking ratio is excessive and highlighted that increased parking results in more cars and emissions. Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, Precinct 6 Town Meeting member, disagreed with Mr. Petrie’s proposed pricing. It is her belief they will be significantly more expensive. She encouraged at least one deeded parking space per unit and recommended a design more suited to Lexington. Lisa Newton, 15 Ledgelawn Avenue, Precinct 8 Town Meeting member, also encouraged a reduction in parking. She recommended larger amenity spaces for families, noting that the half-court and tot lot seemed insufficient for the number of residents. Bob Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue, stated that he is saddened to hear Mr. Hornig is leaving the Board and cautioned against comparing Lexington to other towns or cities. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 21, 2026 Page 8 of 10 Staff Response Ms. McCabe advised that 52’ is allowed and that the number of stories is not regulated. She agreed that she would typically expect 4 stories with a 52’ building, but it is not specified. Applicant’s Response Mr. Petrie stated that he appreciated all the feedback and that he would investigate noise modeling. Board Comments Mr. Creech shared an example of a Pulte Homes development in North Reading which looks very similar in framing to what has been presented for Lexington and included the current pricing for those units. Mr. Leon suggested the inclusion of a fenced-in dog area to minimize waste on the conservation trails. He also requested more details about a proposed bus shelter. Ms. McBride wondered if the infiltration basin could be pond-like after heavy rainfall and if vegetative swales could be used to improve visual appeal. Mr. Mara advised that the basin would drain within 72 hours of rainfall and Mr. Bednarek stated that he would review options for swales. Ms. McBride repeated residential concerns about the perceived height of the building and encouraged the applicant to revise the architecture to blend with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Mr. Hornig advised that the Conservation Commission has strict regulations about what can be planted in open detention basins. He suggested exploring a rain garden with appropriate landscaping. Mr. Schanbacher stated that significant work is still needed, particularly in regard to the special permit and waiver requests. He discouraged any waivers related to parking and stated his belief that the bylaws and regulations are achievable. He further expressed his disappointment with the rounded down inclusionary unit count, although he acknowledged that 22 units is in compliance, and he appreciated the applicant re-evaluating the unit mix. Mr. Schanbacher shared his concerns with the design, noting that at every presentation the Board requested a great design, not “fast casual” architecture that could be found in any town or city. He requested that future renderings include infrastructure elements, such as the transformers which define the threshold for the open space between buildings 2 and 3 and the pump station near the basketball court. Mr. Schanbacher questioned the depth of the buildings and wondered if the tandem parking spaces dictated those dimensions rather than resident experience and livability. He recommended the architect review examples of strong multi-family architecture and return with a simpler, more intentional design befitting such a prominent location in Lexington. Ms. Thompson moved to continue the public hearing for 475 Bedford Street until Wednesday, March 11 at or after 6:00 pm on Zoom. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: McBride – yes; Thompson – yes; Creech – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Leon – yes). MOTION PASSED. Board Administration Amendments Ms. McCabe advised that the public hearing would be held February 4, 2026 and shared potential revisions for the zoning key to be added to Table 1: Permitted Uses and Development Standards and Table 2: Schedule of Dimensional Controls. Mr. Creech and Ms. McBride expressed support of the proposed revisions. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 21, 2026 Page 9 of 10 Board Member & Staff Updates Ms. McCabe reminded the Board members to review the annual conflict of interest and bi-annual online ethics training required of municipal volunteers and employees. Ms. McCabe further advised that the Board would transition in February to a new packet dashboard system. She stated that staff are learning and practicing, and the expectation is that it will be live for the March 11, 2026 meeting. She noted that the material included will not change. Mr. Creech shared that the Metropolitan Area Group on Interlocal Communication (MAGIC) is now subject to Open Meeting Laws. Review of Draft Meeting Minutes: 1/7 Ms. Thompson moved that the Planning Board approve the draft January 7, 2026 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; McBride – yes; Thompson – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED Upcoming Meetings: February 4 and 25, March 11 and 25. Adjournment Ms. Thompson moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of January 21, 2026 at 9:45 PM. 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 Meeting adjourned at 9:45 PM. Lex Media recorded the meeting. Material from the meeting can be found in the Planning Board’s Novus Packet. List of Documents 1. Rangeway Extension As-built Plan PDF file titled “29_RANGEWAY-ROAD-ASB_PLANS_11-30-25”; dated 11/30/25 Release Request Memorandum from Frederick Russell to Abigail McCabe, subject: Re: Rangeway Extension – Full Bond Release, dated 1/12/26 No Parking Sign photo Memorandum from Abby McCabe to Arnold Lovering, Treasurer, subject: Re: Partial Release of Tri-partite Agreement: Rangeway Extension Subdivision, dated 12/20/22 2. Lexington Hills Definitive Subdivision 2020 Site Plan – Subdivision Approval Decision; dated 5/13/20 PDF of 2020 Plans Letter from Greenways Corridor Committee to Abby McCabe, subject: Re: Lexington Hills Definitive Subdivision, dated 1/19/26 Letter from Gordon Glass to the Planning Board c/o Abby McCabe, subject: Re: Minor Modification Request – Lexington Hills Definitive Subdivision, dated 1/21/26 Conservation Trail Visual PDF File titled Conservation_trail_connection.pdf 3. 475 Bedford Street Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 21, 2026 Page 10 of 10 GCG Peer Review Letter dated 1/14/26 Staff memo dated 1/16/26 Application and site development plans submitted with PLAN-25-53 4. Zoning Amendments PDF of Draft Motion for Technical Corrections dated 1/12/26 PDF of Article for Tech Corrections PowerPoint presentation titled Amend Zoning Bylaw – Technical Corrections, dated 1/20/26