Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-28-PB-min.pdf Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 28, 2026 Page 1 of 10 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday, April 28, 2026, Virtual Meeting at 6:00 PM Planning Board members present: Michael Schanbacher, Chair; Melanie Thompson, Vice-Chair; Tina McBride, Clerk; Robert Creech; Lin Jensen; and Michael Leon, Associate Board member. Also present were: Abby McCabe, Planning Director, Meghan Roche, Assistant Planning Director, and Aaron Koepper, Planner. Michael Schanbacher, Chair of the Planning Board, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Thursday, April 28, 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 available 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 Granicus Peak dashboard. The Board will go through the agenda in order. Development Administration 331 Concord Avenue – Public hearing to modify site plan review approval granted in 2024 and modified in 2025. Request is to modify the building segments and parking garage. Ms. Gallo gave a brief summary of updates since the last time they were before the Board on March 25. They have been working to update the plans based on comments from the last meeting including an updated garage plans and working to respond to the Board’s peer review consultant’s comments received from GCG Associates. Project architect Mr. Prestejohn from CUBE3 reported that they updated the garage plans to show 3 feet between all the parking spaces and walls and columns; an additional parking spaces for the commercial use; provided 4 oversized bicycle parking spaces; added the exterior door to the bicycle storage room requested by the fire department; he also showed a rendering perspective view of the building from the Minuteman Apartments on April Lane and a view of the courtyard. They have added additional evergreens in front of the building and to provide earth removal volumes. He explained that with this modified plan there will be a reduction in the amount of blasting than was originally expected, which will reduce the truck volume of earth material leaving the site. Mr. Prestejohn said the building is set back 55 feet from the westerly side property line. Assistant Planning Director Ms. Roche gave a summary of her staff memo dated April 24. She reported that all outstanding comments from staff have been addressed in the modified plans and she has confirmed compliance with the Zoning Bylaw and Regulations are met with the revised submission. She also noted that two additional public comment emails were received since the March 25 meeting and shared with the Board members. She recommended approval with draft conditions of approval including that all the conditions of the previous approvals in 2024 and 2025 still apply. At the end of the hearing tonight she recommends the Board vote to approval with the four conditions prepared by staff. The four suggested conditions are: the Applicant submit a final revised plan set to respond to the minor comments in the GCG Associates memo; the Applicant is responsible for filing the modified project with the Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 28, 2026 Page 2 of 10 Conservation Commission; the Applicant provide the 147 EV-ready vehicle parking spaces; and the conditions of the November 20, 2024 and October 8, 2025 are still in effect. Mr. Carter from GCG Associates, the Board’s peer review consultant, said they have reviewed the revised plans and the project is compliance but they have asked for three minor edits for the applicant to update on the plans to match their stormwater report and have asked for one more plan submittal. He recommends the project could be approved with a condition for them to update their hydro-cad in their report; to show the top of the berm in the elevation for the emergency spillway. He explained the revision they are asking for will not change the project but are changes to match the submitted stormwater report. Board Discussion Mr. Creech asked about the size of the courtyards and how they compare to the previous submittal. The Applicant responded that they are about 10 feet smaller with a reduced length, not in width. Mr. Creech asked about the trash chutes and trash rooms. Mr. Prestejohn showed where the trash chutes are located and that they trash would be compacted into bins stored in the main trash room and then wheeled out the dumpster area for pick up. Mr. Creech asked about the material for the dumpster screening area and wanted it fully screened and maintained. He also asked about the noise from the doors. Mr. Creech emphasized the importance of screening the dumpster area and reducing noise from the trash area and the garage. Ms. Thompson also questioned the trash chute locations and asked if the trash rooms was big enough for a building this size. The Applicant responded that typically buildings of this size will have one main trash room. Ms. Thompson also asked if they were planning to have composting. Mr. Prestejohn said that composting is something they could explore when they get closer to operation and maintenance discussions as the plans progress. Ms. Thompson asked about snow storage along the main drive around the building. Project engineer Mr. Dellacava from Allen & Major shared the screen to show the snow storage areas along the main drive. He also said the road is 20 feet wide around the building, which was a recommendation from the fire department with the original proposal. Ms. Jensen asked the Applicant to confirm they are providing 50% of the parking spaces as EV-ready which would be 147 spaces. The Applicant confirmed. Ms. Jensen asked if the roof would be solar ready and noted that the building is required to be fully electric. The Applicant confirmed. She also encouraged composting service for the residents. Ms. Jensen asked about the height of the building and how the average was calculated. Mr. Dellacava responded that they worked on this with the building inspector to confirm the building is 52 feet. The building inspector asked for various locations for the spot grades based on where there is a change in slope and look at the existing grade pre-development and the proposed grade, take the lower of the two elevations to get the average. Each spot elevation coincides with each segment of the building, and the building height measurement is taken from that natural average grade. Ms. Jensen asked why there were so many spots grades in certain locations and the Applicant responded that was where there was a lot of drastic grade changes. Ms. Jensen asked if LUHPPL (Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads) was considered based on the number of dwelling units and cars associated with this proposal. Mr. Dellacava responded that they are below the threshold for LUHPPL but regardless they have designed the stormwater management has been designed to implement all the LUHPPL requirements including the 1-inch water quality volume. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 28, 2026 Page 3 of 10 Ms. McBride also encouraged composting service for the residents and shared an example of the composting bins. Ms. McBride asked a questions about the maintenance for the infiltration chambers and the Applicant responded they do require regular quarterly inspections that are outlined in the submitted Operation & Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan). Public Comments: Thomas asked about the height of the building and how much taller is it was than the previous approval. Bob Pressman asked about the process of removing ledge after blasting and how much time is anticipated and what noise measures will be taken. Mike asked about the height of the building and the truck routes for the construction vehicles traveling on Concord Avenue from Waltham Street. The Applicant’s team responded to the height of the building explaining the grades and the building height was 52 feet in the first proposal for the second and third segments of the building. This proposal the height is 52 feet for the second segment of the building. Ms. Roche responded that in the 2024 approval there was a condition requiring vehicles exiting the project side would turn right towards Waltham because there is a truck exclusion in place and all construction truck vehicles will have to turn right out of the site. The Applicant agree to provide some composting bins in the dumpster area. The Board members discussed if they were ready to close the hearing and vote on the project this evening or if they should continue to the next meeting. There was discussion on how the Applicant would respond to the GCG requests. Ms. McCabe recommend approval with a condition that the Applicant submit a final revised plan set to address the last comments in the GCG memo, GCG would review one last time, and those plans would be the final revised plan set. Assistant Town Manager Ms. Kowalski encouraged the Board to vote on the project this evening as the revisions can be captured in a condition and do not appear to contradict anything in the Board’s site plan review regulations. Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing for site plan review modification for 331 Concord Avenue from Cabot, Cabot, and Forbes. 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; Jensen – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. Ms. Thompson moved to approve the modified site plan review application from Cabot, Cabot, and Forbes for 331 Concord Avenue as provided in the draft approval decision prepared by staff with the following conditions: 1) The Applicant submit to Planning Staff and GCG Associates for review and approval final revised plans to address the recommended changes outlined in the memo from GCG Associates dated April 21, 2026. 2) The Applicant is responsible for filing the modified project request to the Conservation Commission. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 28, 2026 Page 4 of 10 3) The Applicant shall provide 147 EV-ready vehicle parking spaces designed to support future electric vehicle charging stations pursuant to Section 135-5.1.13.11. 4)All other conditions of the November 20, 2024 and October 8, 2025 approvals remain in effect. 5) The Applicant shall provide composting bins and service for the residents. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Thompson – yes; McBride – yes; Jensen – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED. 16 Clarke Street – Public hearing for a major site plan review for a mixed-use multi-family development in the old multi-family overlay district Attorney Mark Vaughn of Riemer and Bronstein introduced the project team representing North Shore Residential Development is Ron Lopez, Scott Melching of Scott Melching Architects, Jack Sulliven of Sullvan Engineering Group, and Jeff Thoma Landscape Design Studios. Mr. Melching presented the project proposing 49 dwelling units (ownership) and ~4,800 SF of commercial space on the ground level to comply with the old MFO zoning district because the property obtained a zoning freeze last year with a subdivision approval. He added that the project is also in the Battle Green Historic District and the application is currently before the Historic District Commission (HDC) where the building has gone through a couple different iterations. Mr. Melching presented the site plan that has two-lane entry with 22-foot-wide driving lane from Clarke Street with a 90-degree parking on the left and a drop-off lane on the right. Residents will be able to turn left into the parking garage, and outgoing vehicles will turn right to leave the property exiting onto Raymond Street. A dumpster area for trash, recycling, and composting is situated outside the garage that will be picked up from a private hauler; residential amenity area at the back of the site; Clarke Street side of the building and public plaza area has been designed to be the commercial front of the building while the Raymond Street side will appear as a residential pedestrian area. Mr. Sullivan summarized the stormwater management proposal which includes infiltrating all the stormwater on site and there is a trench drain proposed at the garage entrance. They have done two soil test holes and the peer review consultant has requested additional soil test. They are proposing two new curb cuts, one on Clarke and one on Raymond Street; new granite curbing; and a crosswalk across Raymond Street. Mr. Thoma presented the proposed landscape and streetscape proposal which includes maintain the existing concrete sidewalk and resetting the curb to provide new granite curb and keeping the existing two street trees within the right of way on Clarke Street. They are proposing large shade trees along Clarke Street and Raymond Street with Red Oaks. They are proposing to create a tree lawn on Raymond Street to 2.5 feet to 3 feet wide to provide the trees to help create the tree canopy over the sidewalk and road. There will be some planters in the plaza area along Clarke Street and plantings around the perimeter of the property. They are trying to mitigate for the removal of the large trees within the project site that are being removed and would like to plant new trees on the library lot adjacent to this project. Mr. Melching added that half the units will have outdoor amenity space and all units will have access to the shared roof terrace and he presented renderings. He presented visuals of the proposed buildings and different views. Assistant Planning Director Ms. Roche summarized her staff memo dated April 24. She noted that a number of public comment letters were received and shared with the Board. Comments were also received from the RHSO (Regional Housing Services Office), Bicycle Advisory Committee, Tree Committee, Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 28, 2026 Page 5 of 10 and the Design Advisory Committee, and she noted the next hearing with the HDC is May 7th. The project complies with the zoning requirements to have 30% of the street level as commercial and a 5 foot transition area is required along the property line next to the library. There are 15 surface parking spaces for the commercial uses where the zoning bylaw requires 12 spaces for a general office use but a medical office use or restaurant would require 20 parking spaces so the Applicant is requesting a waiver to not require 20 parking spaces for the more intensive uses where it is not yet known who the commercial tenants will be. There are 52 parking spaces proposed in the garage where 49 is required. She said with what the Applicant is showing for tree plantings, it’s about half of the tree replacement mitigation required by the Tree Bylaw. She is trying to schedule a meeting with the Tree Warden to work with town departments to provide additional plantings in the neighborhood. A waiver from the tree bylaw allows the Board to accept a landscape planting proposal rather than funds into the Tree Fund. Ms. Roche summarized the waivers the Board should discuss. The Board’s peer review consultant Mr. Chartier from McKenzie Engineering Group presented his findings outlined in his memo dated April 24. McKenzie was hired to review the project under Section 12.9 Utilities of the Planning Board’s Zoning Regulations which focused on stormwater management and utilities. The Stormwater management was reviewed with the Town’s Chapter 181 requirements. They have asked for an additional test pit within the limits of the proposed system because the submitted test pits were done at the edges of the property currently. The additional testing will help confirm the system is at least 2 feet above the season high groundwater. The engineering department have confirmed that there is sufficient water and sewer capacity. There is nothing major that jumps out as not fixable but they have requested some more information and minor changes for the next submittal. Board Discussion Mr. Schanbacher asked if the applicant has connected with the Affordable Housing Trust and encouraged the applicant to connect with them to see if they can help with potential buy downs for the affordable units. Mr. Leon asked about the height of the building where the vehicles go under and if it was tall enough for emergency vehicles. Mr. Melching responded that the fire department said the fire department does not have to pull all the way under but can come in from Clarke and in from Raymond if needed during an emergency and will pull in and then back out, not go under the arch. Mr. Melching said at the middle of the arch is 13 feet and 10 ft. 6 inches at the side and that many delivery vehicles such as FedEx are 10-11 feet. Mr. Creech commented on the Tree Committee’s letter where they suggested different tree species and encouraged the Applicant to work with the Tree Committee to implement their suggestions. Mr. Creech expressed concern about the lack of snow storage areas and asked about snow removal. He also asked about the parking number waiver request for the commercial spaces. Attorney Vaughn responded that 20 parking spaces are required for a medical office uses based on the zoning and the proposed square footage and the project proposes 15 parking spaces and are looking for relief of 5 parking spaces because there is on street parking, municipal parking nearby, and near the bus line. Ms. Thompson asked about the size of the dwelling units and the Applicant responded that they range in sizes from 800-1100 SF all one and two bedroom units. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 28, 2026 Page 6 of 10 Public Comments: Jay Luker – Asked how many of the existing owners were intending to return to the new buildings and asked about the planning board’s 150-day application review timeline. He commented that he would like a gate to connect the property to the library for easy access for the residents that live there. Nancy Sofen, 3 Abernathy Road – Speaking for the Tree Committee summarized the Committee’s letter where they recommend the use of Silva cells like the Town used in the recent Center Streetscape improvements and they recommend large shade trees be planted and recommended some change in species that the Applicant is working to respond to. The planting proposal does not currently provide all the mitigation and suggests additional off-site plantings particularly along Raymond Strete would be beneficial to have more trees. She suggested white oaks in narrow planting areas rather than red oaks. They also recommend soil rebuilding for success for new plantings after earth disruption. Nanette Brynes – Supportive of this proposal and asked how the inclusionary units locations were selected. She recommended changing the location because 107 was under the canopy arch and next to the driveway. Betsey Weiss – Supportive of the project due to the location and that it provides seven new affordable units in an ideal location and encouraged working with the Affordable Housing Trust. Kate Colburn – Expressed disappointment in the proposed removal of the large trees on the property and encouraged tree replacement. She also asked to see the height of the building compared to the Belfry. Tom – Asked if there would be a traffic study and expressed his concerns with the number of proposed units, the library next door, and visitors to the site. Ruth Thomas – Expressed concern about this construction project proposed at the same time as the new school and was concerned about where the construction workers would park and what traffic management would be like during construction. Board Discussion: Ms. Roche explained that a tree bylaw waiver was not waiving the Tree Bylaw but is transferring the jurisdiction of the Tree Bylaw to the Planning Board from the Tree Warden and allows the Board to approve a landscape plan that offers community benefit. Attorney Vaughn responded that some of the medical tenants have expressed interest in returning to the new building. Mr. Melching explained that a 6-foot-high fence is proposed in the transition area along the property line abutting the library along the residential portion of the building but does not start at the Clarke Street line to provide a view into the commercial area without enclosing that in completely. Ms. McBride encouraged composting for residents and screening of the transformer. The Applicant responded that there was gas proposed for the emergency generator. She also encouraged the use of rainwater cisterns to use instead of irrigation. She was not supportive of a waiver from providing the snow storage areas. The Board discussed the proposed tree lawn on Raymond and if that would be enough room for new trees. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 28, 2026 Page 7 of 10 Ms. Jensen also encouraged rainwater collection and composting service and to include in the condo documents. She was not supportive of the waiver on the parking number. Mr. Schanbacher expressed his support for the waivers. He said the project is in the historic district but the location of this project in Lexington Center is important to connect Lexington’s past with its future which is near the high school. There is nearby open spaces that benefit this project directly across the street. He did not like the vehicular access through the building to lead to parking because it was too vehicular focused rather than a people focus on leading to a pedestrian plaza or pedestrian area. He preferred a site plan to prioritize the people over cars. Mr. Leon asked about noise abatement for the roof HVAC units and condensers. Ms. Thompson moved to continue the public hearing for the major site plan review application from North Shore Residential Development at 16 Clarke Street to the Planning Board’s meeting on Wednesday, June 10 at or after 6:00 pm on Zoom. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0-0 (Roll call: (Creech – yes; Thompson – yes; McBride – yes; Jensen – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED 419 Marrett Road – Public hearing for a major site plan review for a multi -family development in the village overlay district (hearing continued from March 11 meeting) Mr. Finnegan from FK Partners Lexington LLC introduced his team from Finnegan Development and Katz Team, Michale Novak from Patriot Engineering, Architect Richard Martz of JSA Design, Jeff Thoma landscape architect, and Attorney Fred Gilgun from Nicholson, Sreter & Gilgun. The proposal is for nine (9) ownership dwelling units with a garage underneath for parking and some surface parking spaces. All units are two bedrooms. Mr. Novak summarized the changes since the last meeting, which included additional storage to the infiltration system with a trench drain at the garage entrance, increased the inspection for the catch basin maintenance in the O&M Plan, some regrading at the entrance from Marrett Road, and adjusted the garage entrance. Mr. Thoma reported that they relocated the accessible route from the sidewalk along Marrett Road to the main entrance and added a six-foot-tall planting bigger along the property light on the right side and rear. There was previously a fence proposed but after conversations with the neighbor landscaping was preferred over a fence. The site walls were changed to stone cladding and the lamp post were reduced to 12 feet in height. Mr. Martz summarized the changes since the last meeting which included reducing the height of the building by three inches, removed the stone above the garage door, and changed the foundation walls and retaining walls to be natural granite, and changed some of the proposed building materials, they have updated the bicycle parking in the garage plan as requested. Ms. McCabe summarized the staff memo prepared by Mr. Koepper dated April 22. She reported that many of the outstanding items have been addressed with the revised submission but the fire department’s concerns for the fire truck movements remain, surveyed and certified average natural grade and building height forms have been requested, and one additional over-sized bicycle parking space requested. Mr. DiBenedetto, the Board’s peer review consultant from Hancock Associates, summarized his memo dated April 14, which the Applicant then responded to and he provided a third review memo on April 27th. He reported that the third plan submission essentially addressed all of their earlier request with a few minor details remaining to regard the handicap area, match the rounding details for the driveway to match Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 28, 2026 Page 8 of 10 the plan detail, to add a concrete pad detail for the bicycle rack, and to look into the grading in the off- site area to evaluate the flows. Board Discussion Mr. Leon questioned maintaining the existing tall arborvitaes along the front of the property. Ms. Thompson commented that the building did not have a lot of details and she would like to see one affordable unit included. Ms. Jensen asked if the parking spaces in the garage would be EV-ready. Mr. Martz responded that all the parking spaces in the garage will be EV-ready with the conduits installed. Ms. Jensen encourage composting service and bins for the residents and encouraged the use of green pavers. Mr. Finnegan responded that the trash room is large enough to include room for composting bins. Planner Mr. Koepper responded that the Zoning Bylaw does not specifically require the EV and EV-ready spaces for parking areas with less than 25 cars. Ms. McBride supported the requests for composting service and having at least one inclusionary dwelling unit. She also asked about screening and noise mitigation for the heat pumps on the roof. Mr. Creech agreed with the suggestion for noise screens around the heat pumps. Ms. Thompson moved to continue the public hearing for the site plan review application from FK Partners Marrett LLC at 419 Marrett Road to the Board’s meeting on Wednesday, May 27 at or after 6:00 pm on Zoom. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0-0 (Roll call: (Creech – yes; Thompson – yes; McBride – yes; Jensen – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED 12 & 16 Summer Street ANR (Approval Not Required) Plan Ms. McCabe reminded the Board that an ANR Plan was approved about a year ago where the property in front #12 Summer gave some land to the abutting property at #16. This new ANR Plan gives additional land a small parcel #23 (264 SF) to the abutting property at #16. There are no issues with this and she recommends approval and reminded the Board members to come to the office to sign the plan. Ms. Thompson moved to approve and endorse the ANR Plan submitted for 12 Summer Street Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0-0 (Roll call: (Creech – yes; Thompson – yes; McBride – yes; Jensen – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED Board Administration Board Member & Staff Updates: Mr. Schanbacher noted that the Board will reorganize at the next meeting on May 13. Upcoming Meetings: May 13, May 27, June 10, and June 24. Ms. Thompson moved to approve the meeting minutes from March 25, 2026 as written. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0-0 (Roll call: (Creech – yes; Thompson – yes; McBride – yes; Jensen – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 28, 2026 Page 9 of 10 Adjournment Ms. Thompson moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of Wednesday April 28, 2026 at 10:29 PM. Ms. Jensen seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: (Creech – yes; Thompson – yes; McBride – yes; Jensen – yes; Schanbacher – yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 10:29 PM. Lex Media recorded the meeting. Material from the meeting can be found in the Planning Board’s Meeting Packet List of Documents Draft meeting minutes from March 25, 2026 Application Material for 331 Concord Avenue Modification PLAN-26-5: https://lexingtonma.portal.opengov.com/records/117555 Staff Memo from Ms. Roche to Planning Board, dated April 24, 2026, Subject: Review of 331 Concord Ave Site Plan Review Modification #2 GCG Associates Memorandum dated April 21, 2026 RE: 331 Concord Avenue, Lexington, Massachusetts, Site Plan Modification Peer Review Presentation 331 Concord Avenue SPRA Amendment April 28, 2026 Letter from Steven Heinrich, dated April 13, 2026 Electronic Mail from Michael Germanetto with comments, plan exhibits, average natural grade worksheets, sent April 14, 2026 Application Material for 16 Clarke Street PLAN-26-8 https://lexingtonma.portal.opengov.com/records/117320 Staff memo from Ms. Roche t Planning Board, Re: Site Plan Review for 16 Clarke St; Village & Multi- Family Overlay District, dated April 24, 2026 Letter from Austin Chartier of McKenzie Engineering Group to Abby McCabe, dated April 24, 2026 Email from Susin Eustis, sent March 23, 2026 Flyer advertisement submitted by Beverly Kelly, 24 Forest Street Letter from Beverly Kelly to Select Board, HDC and Planning Board, dated March 13, 2026 Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee feedback submitted on April 9, 2026 Design Advisory Committee letter to HDC and Planning Board, November 21, 2025 Email from Mark Desnoy, subject: Support for 16 Clarke St Proposal, sent April 24, 2026 Email from Nancy Kilty, Subject: Comments to 16 Clarke St project, April 22, 2026 Letter from Peter Kelly, Re: 16 Clarke Street, March 16, 2026 Email from Roberta Messina to Select Board, HDC, Planning Board, Re: 16 Clarke Street, sent December 8, 2025 Email from Rajini Srikanth, April 17, 2026 Email from Susin Eustis, sent October 30, 2025 Email from Tom Fleming, Subject: 16 Clarke Street caveats…created by Claude.ai, April 13, 2026 Email from Tom Fleming, Subject: 16 Clarke Street…, sent April 18, 2026 Tree Committee comments, 16 Clarke Street, April 9, 2026 Email Xueyuan Liu, sent on March 12, 2026 Application Material for 419 Marrett Road PLAN-26-3: https://lexingtonma.portal.opengov.com/records/115833 Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 28, 2026 Page 10 of 10 Staff memo from Aaron Koepper to Planning Board, re: Site Plan Review for 419 Marrett Road, dated April 22, 2026 Peer Review letter from Robert DiBenedetto to Planning Board, re: Peer Review Letter #2 and # 3, dated April 14, 2026 and April 27, 2026. Application Material for 12 Summer Street PLAN-26-12: https://lexingtonma.portal.opengov.com/records/119413