Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-06-24-PB-min.pdfLEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD 1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, LEXINGTON, MA MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD: ROBERT CREECH, CHAIR, MELANIE THOMPSON, VICE CHAIR TINA MCBRIDE, CLERK, LIN JENSEN, MICHAEL SCHANBACHER MICHAEL LEON, ASSOCIATE MEMBER Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 13, 2026 Page 1 of 7 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday, June 24, 2026, Virtual Meeting at 6:00 PM Planning Board Members Present: Bob Creech, Chair; Melanie Thompson, Vice-Chair; Tina McBride, Clerk; Michael Schanbacher; Lin Jensen; and Michael Leon, Associate Board Member Planning Staff Present: Abby McCabe, Planning Director; Meghan Roche, Assistant Planning Director; Aaron Koepper, Planner Bob Creech, Chair of the Planning Board, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, June 10, 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 procedures of the meeting. Mr. Creech conducted a roll call to ensure all members of the Planning Board and members of staff present could hear and be heard. Mr. Creech 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 80 Bedford Street – Public hearing for a Major Site Plan Review proposal for a multi-family development in the 2024 Village High-Rise Overlay (VHO) district and Stormwater Management Regulations Frederick V. Gilgun, Jr, an attorney from Nicholson, Sreter & Gilgun representing the owners of 80 Bedford Street, James C. Johnston and Mary H. Johnston, introduced the project team and property owners. He relayed to the board the Johnstons’ application to conduct a major site plan review to construct a six- building apartment complex comprised of 31 dwelling units, including 4 inclusionary units. The property presently contains a single-family house and carriage house that are both in the Cultural Resources Inventory list; the Johnstons have always intended to continue living in the existing house and pursued a demolition delay in order to preserve the flexibility needed to relocate the house. Mr. Gilgun reports that the Johnstons are withing their rights to develop their property, as allowed by law and they are not in pursuit of any waivers. Chris Johns, architect with Thought Craft Architects, introduced himself as both a project team member and a Lexington Resident. He reports that this design team has worked on many residential projects and assures the Board that Mr. and Mrs. Johnston are building thoughtfully and intend to develop a multi- generational community on their property, as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts needs increased housing. Mr. Johns notes the historical relevance of the neighborhood, and he reports that the property will serve as a transition between the commercial and residential areas. He also notes its proximity to public and active transit infrastructure, which is ideal for achieving the goals of the MBTA Communities Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 24, 2026 Page 2 of 7 Act. The design plans are inspired by New England farmhouses with the use of natural materials and access to daylight and fresh air. Michael Novak of Patriot Engineering introduced himself and discussed working with the topography of the site to create accessible and flood-mitigating parking. The site plans use rain barrels, catch basins, and plant beds to further mitigate flooding. Hardscaped areas have pervious material and impervious material is only used when necessary. The building’s dumpster area also provides space for backing up and turning in the parking lot. The project will have two spines for water and sewer access with sensitivity to perimeter trees. Nick Campanelli introduced himself next, as a project team member from MDLA, representing the landscape architecture aspect. He notes that MDLA integrates accessibility into the everyday use of their projects. Plans for the pathways include retaining walls and directions for accessible travel from ADA- compliant parking spaces. A five-foot buffer by the eastern edge of the parking lot works well with the tree removal, as the hemlocks there are diseased or dead. Light pole installation meets the Town of Lexington’s requirements and are dark sky-compliant. Two low retaining walls provide screening and signage opportunities. Plans include shade trees and ornamental trees that still allow for natural sunlight. Plants proposed follow the Town’s preferred plant list of native species. The plans use pedestrian scaled light bollards for resident pathways. Property-owner James (Jim) Johnston closed out the presentation. He expressed his gratitude to the Planning Board, planning staff, and neighbors for conducting these meetings. He said that he and his wife, a property co-owner, have considered multi-family development for the site for over 20 years. He feels that in more recent years, public opinion on high-density transit-oriented housing has changed in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Town of Lexington, though he is still aware of the uncertainty surrounding the project. Mr. Creech introduced Town Planner Aaron Koepper, who provided an overview of the Major Site Plan Review Application from June 17. He noted the project received a zoning freeze and is being reviewed under 2023 village and multifamily overlay zoning. The project will be a total of 31 units; 30 being the mostly 2- and 3-bedroom rental units (including 4 inclusionary units) and the 1 existing historic house that will be relocated on site. 31 parking spots will also be included. The applicant received a demolition delay from the Historic Commission, which is in place until April 2027, however, this will be reduced to July 2026 following the site plan review (per Chapter 19 of the Lexington Code). Mr. Koepper noted that the project did not request waivers or special permits. He did note that the planning team needs to see additional plans for - 16 electric-ready parking spaces - two five-foot snow storage areas on different sides of the parking lot, clarification on light pole heights to meet the 12-foot maximum - a minimum of 1550 square feet of outdoor amenity space - tree plans that follow the 30-foot spacing requirements, arborvitae types, and shade conditions for the street, parking lot and neighboring buffer zones - life assist bike parking (which can also be one at-grade parking space or bicycle space) Mr. Koepper also noted that the memo includes comments from the Housing Partnership Board, the Tree Committee and the Bicycle Advisory Committee. The applicant has a scheduled meeting with the Commission on Disability in July and those future comments will be added. Public comments – mostly on traffic and parking – were also distributed to the board and the applicant. Mr. Koepper said that the planning team was looking to see revised materials and would recommend continuing this hearing in Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 24, 2026 Page 3 of 7 August. (Mr. Campanelli clarified that the MDLA is pursuing 12-foot light poles for the project, and Mr. Johns asked for clarification on the viability of fencing alternates for the buffer zone, to which Mr. Koepper confirmed that is an option. Mr. Campanelli mentioned that the low powerlines lead the project team to avoid planning for tree planting in certain areas). Michael Leon, Associate Board Member, asked Mr. Koepper to clarify the bullet point on page 2 of the memo that claimed that removing one of the buildings would resolve certain issues with the project site and increasing parking. Mr. Koepper said this was something the planning team wanted to make the board aware of for issues of compliance. Planning Director Abby McCabe said that she added those comments due to public comments about overflow parking. Mr. Creech also echoed that the public had concerns about traffic on Bedford Street blocking parking. The number of comments made regarding these issues were - 23 comments on loss of privacy - 14 comments on inadequate parking - 9 comments on dwelling density Mr. Koepper initially introduced Ben Minnix of Eaglebrook Engineering for the stormwater peer review. Mr. Creech reintroduced him. Mr. Minnix gave a brief overview of the letter submitted on June 17. He said that the applicant needs to comply with Lexington DPW on existing conditions of the sewer system and potential changes or removals. He gave a recommended for increasing and decreasing the slopes of manholes based on existing position. He continued by saying that the project needs erosion control structures and the addition of utility meters in plans. Due to the size, the project will need an NDPES permit. He also said that the project needed more pervious surfaces. The peer review recommended that the planning board consult with the tree warden regarding native species. Mr. Minnix noted that the project team provided required rainfall calculations, project narrative, drawing specs, sediment control, and the O&M plan. Regarding what Eaglebrook Engineering recommended to see, Mr. Minnix asked the applicant to: - Provide stormwater maps and test pits. - Look at retaining walls on abutting properties for potential water coming off those systems. - Confirm ground water mounding and TSS removal calculations - Confirm infiltration systems sizing (systems 1 and 2 are required to be a minimum 10 feet off the property line) - Updated O&M plan map Mr. Minnix also expressed concern about a steep slope against the building and what that could mean for runoff control and weather damage on the sidewalk. Mr. Minnix then opened the discussion up for questions. The Board members asked of the project team: Mr. Creech asked if concerns about the stone retaining wall on a neighboring historic property were raised. Mr. Minnix clarified that this was the abutting retaining wall he was referring to earlier. Mr. Leon asked if the two infiltration systems would be sufficient for the project. Mr. Minnix said that Eaglebrook would be able to design them to serve the project area properly. Mr. Leon asked about how a substantial ledge in the area would affect this process. Mr. Minnix said that all stormwater would be contained and managed onsite. Mr. Leon asked about runoff into the sidewalk and street and asked for confirmation if the plans would reduce those impacts, and Mr. Minnix said that is what the stormwater report indicates. Mr. Leon asked if there was a possibility of including more LID into landscape design, to Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 24, 2026 Page 4 of 7 which Mr. Minnix said that increased pervious areas and planting bed could be incorporated and that the team would welcome suggestions on system sizing. Planning Board member Lin Jensen asked if there were additional stormwater mitigation options available to account for the higher elevation of the site. Mr. Minnix said that the infiltration systems and parking lot design can accommodate the stormwater but was open to recommendations that may come out of the geotechnical report. He said that the team can look closer at this issue. Ms. Jensen raised concern about how housing in this area contains affordable units in the smaller ranges of size and stressed making sure there were no adverse effects to these neighbors. She also raised the issue of blasting, which has been raised in other recent projects. Mr. Minnix said that was not in the scope of his report, but he can review the issue with other engineers. Ms. McCabe further clarified that blasting is not in the scope of the stormwater report but that any blasting does require permitting from the fire department and surveying from abutters beforehand. Mr. Johnston asked for a definition of what LID is for the benefit of the public. Ms. McCabe answered that it means “low impact development” and that is refers to the practice of capturing water and then reusing it for irrigation. Tina McBride, Planning Board Clerk, expressed her appreciation for the smaller unit sizes as a factor to increase affordability, the transit access at the project site, and its focus on sustainable waste management. She advocated for consideration on installing solar, rather than being simply solar-ready, to increase resiliency and lower energy costs for tenants. She also raised the issues of the architecture and materials chosen potentially being unpopular with community members. She suggested an aesthetic that would better fit in with the existing properties. She raised the possibility of setting the historic house further back from the street and noted that that might help to mitigate erosion. She expressed skepticism on the grade changes throughout the property. She further advocated for the landscaping to expand water collection and to increase tree cover for shade and privacy. She asked to see the architectural plans slide 12 once again to clarify the location of the trees. Mr. Johns confirmed that they were the introduced species of Norway Maples running along the northern edge of the property; Mr. Johns clarified that not all of the greenery depicted in the plans reflects a plan to plant trees but rather to contextualize that there is space beyond the property. Melanie Thompson, Planning Board Vice Chair, expressed her gratitude for the presentation. She expressed concern that the open space may not accommodate all 31 units and their tenants. She asked if the project could reduce the number of units. She also raised the issue of the lack of street parking and whether there is enough parking off street. She recommended exploring a reduction in units or an increase in parking spots. Michael Schanbacher expressed his full support for the project. He did raise the importance of providing amenity spaces in building community. He noted that the density of units to acres in this project is similar to others in Lexington that do not raise concerns with residents. He echoed the proposal from the Housing Partnership Board to round up the affordable unit number of 4.65 rather than rounding down and stressed the importance of building as much affordable housing as the Town can. He expressed discontentment with the alterations needed for the site’s infrastructure but also expressed understanding of why those changes need to be made. He voiced approval for the commitment to community green space. Ms. Jensen notes her concerns on increased parking needs and traffic, citing dangerous turns in the area. She suggested reducing units (while rounding up on affordable units) and adding 7-10 additional parking spots. She would also like to see confirmation from the applicant on plans to follow sustainable utility Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 24, 2026 Page 5 of 7 practices. She also recommended continued cooperation with the Tree Committee. Ms. Jensen encouraged that renderings reflect the traffic on Bedford Street. Mr. Leon encouraged the applicant to explore designing a public play area for kids in the apartment community and to prioritize this over LID stormwater management. He also recommended looking at the possibility of designating visitor parking if a few residents are not expected to have cars. He also voiced concern about the noise from the electric HVAC systems violating the 10-decibel threshold. He also expressed support for increasing the number of affordable units from 4 to 5. Mr. Creech asked for clarification about a condominium association for rental units and whether there would be fees. Mr. Gilgun explained that this was to open the door for future purchases of units, though there would be no fees for tenants. Mr. Creech raised the issue of the potential noise of the heat pumps and said that the Board would require screening. Mr. Johns confirmed that the heat pumps will be roof- mounted between buildings and contained within the roofs and that they would be quieter than typical residential heat pumps. After Mr. Creech reviewed the public comment purpose and policies, members of the public asked the project team: Rajesh Godbole, an abutter to the property, expressed concerns about the proposed size of the development, the potential for 60+ people coming into the neighborhood, and upwards of 30 cars being parked. He also voiced discontentment with the height of the project and how it will negatively impact his home. He urged the planning board to review the traffic and parking impacts to the community and said that this project could set a bad precedent for development. Nancy Sofen, of the Tree Committee, expressed agreement with the Planning Board that all mitigation should be on-site. She stated that the planned arborvitae cultivar needs to be changed for mitigation purposes. She expressed approval for the overall approach and the inclusion of windows on two to three sides of all units. She raised concerns about heat in the southern and western exposures and recommended adding additional shade trees to the common areas. She offered to provide a list of approved small trees suitable for growth under power lines. She applauded the use of LID stormwater management. Resident Bob Pressman asked about the potential cubic yards of ledged planned for removal. Mr. Novak said he could provide that number at the following meeting. Mr. Creech noted that there were no existing plans for ledge removal and that the Applicant wanted to limit blasting as much as possible. Tom McLean, an abutter to the property, said that he is typically a supporter of high-density development but expressed concern that this project is too dense. He also expressed concerns about runoff, particularly as it pertains to neighbors. He also expressed preference for fencing over increased tree cover. He voiced concern about increased trash in the neighborhood and suggested the creation of a bus shelter for the new residents. Mr. Creech concluded the resident comment period, and addressed the project team: Mr. Creech emphasized the historic significance of the area and the need to preserve that character. He encouraged a decrease in the amount of impervious surface and a reconsideration of Building F, potentially a very different approach to Building F in order to accommodate infiltration, more open space and separation from the 88 Bedford St property. He echoed Mr. McLean’s concerns about the impacts to his property and reiterated the concerns about the lack of visitor parking. He said that “he didn’t see how the project could function without visitor parking”. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 24, 2026 Page 6 of 7 Ms. Jensen echoed sentiments about adding a play area and concerns about parking , the number of units, and additional tree planting in the courtyard and around the buildings to improve privacy, add shade, and improve water runoff. She also encouraged exploring a repositioning of the buildings onsite to have the historic house as the sole building in the front and the apartment complex be set back. Motion: Ms. Thompson motioned to continue the public hearing for a site plan review application for 80 Bedford Street to Wednesday, August 19th, at or after 6:00 p.m. on Zoom. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: (Thompson – Yes; McBride – Yes; Creech – Yes; Jensen – Yes; Schanbacher – Yes). MOTION PASSED. Board Administration Board Member & Staff Updates: Ms. McCabe noted some minor revisions to the draft minutes from the April 28 meeting. Ms. Jensen notes a lack of identifying information regarding a participant from that meeting. Meeting Minutes: April 28, 2026 Mr. Creech moved to approve the Planning Board meeting minutes of April 28, 2026. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5 -0-0 (Roll call: Thompson – Yes; McBride – Yes; Schanbacher – Yes; Jensen – Yes; Creech – Yes). MOTION PASSED. Upcoming Meetings: July 15, August 5, and August 19 Ms. McCabe announced that a new planning coordinator would be joining the staff, and her first planning meeting will be July 15, 2026. She also announced the upcoming retirement of Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development. Ms. McCabe and Ms. Roche elaborated on a recent email about funding for bikeway and pedestrian improvements. The funds to improvement connections to the high school were awarded through state taxes and the planning staff returned funds to the general fund. Mr. Leon asked if there were updates in the design and alignment of the connections. Ms. Roche said that the scope was a work in progress. She also gave an update on the Worthen Road multi-use path; a kick-off meeting with the engineering consultant would be held the following day. Mr. Creech reported back from the Sustainable Lexington Committee meeting from the night before. He reported on plans to put solar on the Muzzey Street Lot. He noted there is some opposition. He asked if there was a subdivision on 16 Muzzey, to which Ms. McCabe clarified there is an ANR plan for 20 Muzzey Street. Mr. Creech relayed other topics from the meeting, which included solar at the Pine Meadows Golf Course, invasive plant removal, composting, and reusable food containers in the school system. Mr. Koepper confirmed that there are other subdivision plans on 7 and 11 Muzzey Street, as well as 1834 Massachusetts Avenue. Ms. Jensen reported back from the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) meeting. She mentioned the tax relief benefits from commercial development and raised the issue of how once a commercially-zoned property is switched to residential, it cannot be zoned back to commercial. Ms. Roche announced that the July 6 Select Board meeting will contain agenda items on intersection redesign, bike lanes, and parking restrictions. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 24, 2026 Page 7 of 7 Mr. Leon circled back to Ms. Jensen’s comments on commercial zoning. He mentioned that the market is currently not favorable for commercial development and therefore some of this concern may be misplaced, but he did express discontentment about a lack of commercial space on Mass Ave. Adjournment: Ms. Thompson moved to adjourn the Planning Board meeting of Wednesday, June 24th, 2026, at 8 :31 p.m. 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; Jensen – Yes; Schanbacher – Yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 8:31 p.m. Lex Media recorded the meeting. Material from the meeting can be found in the Planning Board’s Meeting Packet List of Documents: 80 Bedford Street Materials: https://lexingtonma.portal.opengov.com/records/120480 Staff Memo 1 for 80 Bedford St dated June 17, 2026 Peer Review Letter Eaglebrook Engineering dated June 17, 2026 Letter from John R Sterns dated May 17, 2026 Letter from Rachel Harrington dated May 19, 2026 Letter from Rajesh Godbole dated May 26, 2026 Letter from Wei Wang dated May 29, 2026 Letter from Mary Casella dated May 29, 2026 Letter from Meredith Jean-Baptiste dated May 29, 2026 Letter from Elizabeth McLean dated May 29, 2026 Letter from Susan Roberts and Kathleen Reardon dated May 30, 2026 Letter from James and Christie Leitch dated June 1, 2026 Letter from Manju Rathnasabapathy dated June 1, 2026 Letter from Huiheng Wen dated June 1, 2026 Letter from Gillian Epstein and Yuri Ivanov dated June 2, 2026 Letter from Becky Barrentine dated June 8, 2026 Letter from Helen Epstein dated June 10, 2026 Letter from Donna Hooper dated June 15, 2026 Letter from Marcia Steere dated June 16, 2026 Letter from Tianyu Clement Cai and Xiaowen Liu dated June 17, 2026