Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-07-15-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 14 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday, July 15, 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, Cynthia Nelson, Planning Coordinator Bob Creech, Chair of the Planning Board, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, July 15, 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 10 Rangeway – Public Meeting for a Street Adequacy Determination (SAD) to determine if any road improvements are required Mr. Creech introduced the first item for discussion, a Street Adequacy Determination (SAD) on Rangeway, a currently unaccepted street. He said that the planning staff, the fire department, and engineering have all performed a site visit for the location. He then introduced Assistant Planning Director Meghan Roche to present a staff memo on the project. Ms. Roche said that the SAD was amended in 2023. The applicant is proposing to develop on a vacant lot on Rangeway. She reported that the unaccepted portion of Rangeway is in good condition, meets the minimum width, and is made of asphalt. The staff recognizes that the street does not currently meet the conditions for adequacy but will through the following improvements: - Change the direction of the high-capacity grate that is on the opposite side of Rangeway from #10 so that the grates are facing upstream and can more adequately collect surface runoff from the roadway. Replace the cracked granite inlet stone with throat and seal the corners of the grate; - Replace and install cape cod berm where none is currently present between the driveways of 33 Skyview and 5 Rangeway. This work shall include cut, patch and place of the asphalt curb and patching the roadway surface in front of the new curb; - Cut and patch the small pothole at the intersection of Skyview and Rangeway near berm; - Any damage caused to the roadway during construction or cuts into Rangeway necessary for utility connections must be repaired to standards acceptable to the Town’s Engineering Office; Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 15, 2026 Page 2 of 14 - Seal any cracks along the road and around any catch basins from the intersection of Rangeway and Skyview Road to the far side of 10 Rangeway; - Clean all catch basins from the intersection of Rangeway and Skyview Road to the far side of 10 Rangeway Ms. Roche also stated that the planning staff was in support of waiving construction plan requirements and that the project require a performance guarantee of $9,238.95 to cover associated improvements. Mr. Creech asked if applicant Dennis Griecci had anything to add, to which the applicant declined. The Board members asked of the project team and planning staff: Associate Board Member Michael Leon asked if any homeowners’ associations or other organized entities were currently responsible for the street’s condition. Ms. Roche said that she was unaware of any HOA on the street but that a LexHab project in the neighborhood was a reason why the road was in better condition compared to other unaccepted streets. Vice Chair Melanie Thompson asked for a review on the purpose of the waiver. Ms. Roche explained that because the improvements were so minor, the applicant could waive the requirement to provide full construction plans. Ms. Thompson asked for confirmation that this pertained to construction plans, and Mr. Creech further explained that full construction plans included aspects such as utilities and sewer, which would be “overkill” to plan. Lin Jensen asked for clarification on whether the paving would be for just the property in question or for the entire street. Planning Director Abby McCabe said typically in the past the new paving is the area in front of the subject property and a certain distance but not the full street length. After Mr. Creech reviewed the public comment purpose and policies, members of the public asked the project team: Umesh S., a resident of a neighboring unaccepted James Street raised concerns about construction trucks driving down his street and causing damage that will not be addressed by the Town. He pointed to a similar issue occurring in the past when a house on Rangeway had construction. He said that a previous Planning Director told him that contractors would not use James Street for site access, but they did anyways. He felt that contractors should be told to help maintain the roads they travel on. Mr. Creech asked the resident about how this pertains to the discussion at hand and the resident said that during the previous Rangeway construction, a resident of James Street fell due to road damage from contractors and suffered a concussion. Planning Director Abby McMabe said that the project plan could include a condition that the contractor avoid James Street. Nick Deluca of the applicant team said he felt it was unreasonable to expect that the contracting team not use James Street for travel, especially considering that his business has a history of responsible builds. He also pointed to recent construction on James Street. Mr. Creech said this perspective would also be considered. Ms. Jensen asked if applicant is not liable for damage caused to the streets, could the team be asked to avoid traveling on unaccepted roads. Mr. Deluca said that he can certainly ask the drivers not to travel down James Street, but then the team would have to back up on Rangeway which has children recreating in the street. He also said he would find it odd if he has a person on James Street filming the trucks that go travel on the road. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 15, 2026 Page 3 of 14 Mr. Creech said that a condition for the contracting team not to travel on James Street would be considered. Mr. Creech concluded the resident comment period, and moved to Ms. Thompson for pre-determined three motions on the project and to add the James Street condition Motion: Ms. Thompson motioned to determine that the vicinity of 10 Rangeway is not presently of grade and construction but will be after the recommended improvements are made. 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. Motion: Ms. Thompson motioned to grant the applicant’s waiver request regarding street condition plans, due to the street’s good condition and on the condition that the applicant is agreeable to the recommended minor improvements outlined in the staff memo dated July 8, 2026. 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. Motion: Ms. Thompson motioned to surety in the amount of $9,238.95 to ensure the improvements are completed and the funds shall be returned after confirming completion of required improvements. 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. Motion: Ms. Thompson amended the motion to have the applicant make best efforts to avoid James Street during construction. 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. 16 Clarke Street – Public hearing for a major site plan review application for a mixed-use multi family development in the old multi-family overlay district (continued from April 28 & June 10) The Chair opened the public hearing for 16 Clarke Street a site plan review development which was discussed previously on June 10. The project has plans to build 49 ownership dwelling units in the commercial business district. Attorney Mark Vaughan represented the applicant, Northshore Residential. He reported on the project’s few updates regarding stormwater management, construction management plans, and the project’s recent meeting with and approval from the Historic District Commission. He began to comment on the snow storage issue, to which Mr. Creech said would be addressed later. Project architect Scott Melching shared the parking plans, which Mr. Vaughn presented to the audience. Most of the residential car parking is underneath the building. There is some covered parking and some parking open to the elements. The project team notes that snow storage bylaws don’t differentiate between small or large lots in terms of requirements. Applicant wants to use signage for spots 15-17 for speedy and temporary snow removal for the small space. The project team respectfully suggests this is adequate in lieu of permanent snow removal spaces. Mr. Creech turned to Ms. Roche to present on the staff memo, dated July 9 and updated on July 13. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 15, 2026 Page 4 of 14 She confirmed that on July 6, the project received approval from HDC with an architectural gable projection. Since last hearing, the board received four public comments, including from the Tree Committee. She gave an overview of the reliefs that the project is seeking, which are as follows: - Snow storage -5 feet in width strip of dedicated land is required. Instead, the applicant wants to create temporary snow storage by using two parking spots, giving otherwise year around access to those parking spaces and intends to remove snow of the property. o The alternative plan would be to eliminate 2 parking spots permanently to be designated snow storage areas - Dedicating 15 parking spots instead of the suggested 19 o If they can’t receive the first waiver, then they would get only 13 - Waiver for tree fund - Waiver for dark sky lighting, as the non-compliant ones are not directed to the sky - To submit tree box filter as a bioretention system for LID stormwater management The planning staff also recommended that the board close the hearing for the project during the meeting. Austin Chartier from Mckenzie Engineering Group presented on the third peer review letter. He noted that the previous comments had all been addressed, such as improving stormwater management with the landscaping designs for planting beds and tree pits. He said that MEG had no outstanding comments to be addressed. The Board members asked of the project team and planning staff: Mr. Schanbacher said that he has no issues with the waivers being requested; regarding the issue of snow removal, he said that New England knows how to deal with snow. Ms. Jensen asked what the deadline is for the 150-final action deadline. Ms. Roche replied saying it was August 14. Ms. Jensen also asked about the potential of noise from the building. Mr. Melching said that the roof has noise mitigation design similar to that of other multi-family developments in Lexington. Ms. Jensen expressed doubts on whether this would be sufficient but ultimately accepted what Mr. Melching has said. Ms. Jensen also asked about the Assessor’s Office’s involvement in address changes and asked why the project had a size limit of 52 feet instead of the 50 feet and 9 inches currently laid out in the plans. Mr. Schanbacher explained that the zoning allows the project to go up to 52 feet. Ms. McCabe said that the 52-foot condition is a reminder for when the project team submits their calculations. Ms. Jensen continued, asking if this meant that the project was not being held accountable for size. Mr. Melching said the allowance for up to 52 feet allows for adjustments to be made when other consultants come in with plans for utilities and insulation, which may increase the project to 52 feet. Ms. Jensen also asked about low impact development and asked if the tree filter box would be sufficient. She asked if the project team was exploring other options such as porous pavement or rain barrels. Mr. Chartier responded, saying that the project only needs one example of LID to be satisfactory. Mr. Creech asked the project team if they were interested in rain barrels. Jack Sullivan, the project engineer, said that the team looked into rain barrels, but they did not make sense for this project. Jeff Thoma said that the team is proposing porous safety surface. Ms. Jensen raised concerns about whether the safety surface would be made of toxic materials and asked if wood chips could be considered instead. Mr. Thoma said that the wood chips do meet the standards of LID but present maintenance challenges. He also assured Ms. Jensen that the porous materials would be non-toxic. Ms. Jensen concluded her comments by saying Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 15, 2026 Page 5 of 14 that she appreciated the project team’s patience, but that she felt that this would be a tight space and that they weren’t listening to resident concerns about building a large building in a space with less parking. Clerk Tina McBride expressed support for adding rain barrels, especially in light of the poor air quality from the recent wildfires in Canada. She also said that this project should require more parking spots without taking up snow removal space, as it is a project in Lexington Center. Mr. Leon weighed in on the rain barrels, saying that the project is not overly landscaped and it already meets the requirements for stormwater management. He also expressed support for using a few parking spots for temporary snow removal. He asked about property management and inquired if the project would have two different condo associations for both residential and commercial use. Issues of snow removal, parking management, and maintenance will be handled by a single entity. Mr. Leon also asked if the project was pursuing a waiver for gas utility access for restaurant space. Mr. Melching said that the team was looking into this but has not found a solution yet. The only approved gas use so far has been for an emergency generator. Mr. Leon also praised the project for its stormwater management. The board opened the public comment discussion Jay Luker, 26 Ringe Ave. - Commented on the concerns about the lack of rain barrels. He pointed out that rain barrels don’t cause pollution but car exhaust does. He said he was in favor of the proposed parking waivers and urged prioritizing that over rain barrels as he cited the Canadian wildfires. Tom Fleming, 33 Forest St.- Said that the street was busy and many of the building applicants may have more than one car. He also raised concerns about congestion from construction crews traveling to the site. Mr. Creech pointed to a more recent development on Muzzey Street that had no onsite parking due to a construction management plan. Ms. McCabe said that the Town does not allow for overnight street parking and that residents will be given a welcome packet with information on local transit options. Jonathan Silverstein, commenting as a Lexington resident and not as a another project’s team member, said he was in support of reducing parking at a centrally-located residential and commercial site. Mr. Creech cited the Lex, which 2 by 8 framing and used steel for extra strength. High strength needs insulation, so he is also in support of allowing the project to go to the 52 feet. He acknowledged the public comments on the parking, but he did not think that having only 1 car per unit was an unreasonable requirement. Ms. Thompson said that she had come around on the issue of parking and snow removal, in the context of the building’s overall position. The snow removal, which should not take more than 24 hours, might alleviate some of the parking space issues. She expressed hope that the snow special permit would go through. Mr. Creech reminded the audience that the 2025-2026 winter season was anomaly for snowfall. He said that having 15 spaces instead of 19 wouldn’t be as dramatic as having 6 spaces instead of 19, and there would parking in the area that will not be done overnight. He didn’t see a problem with those two waivers, but wants to hear from the board. He also pointed to Ms. McCabe and the planning staff who are in favor Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 15, 2026 Page 6 of 14 of the waivers. This would be a walkable area to schools, community services, transit, and active transit – which meets the purpose of the “village overlay.” Peter Shapiro brought attention to what Mr. Fleming said earlier about the issue of contractor parking locations, which had not been answered. He pointed to the Lexington High School development which has an offsite location for parking and then the project buses the staff in. Mr. Melching said that there is a construction management plan which will have 16 onsite locations for staff parking with no need for bussing in team members. Mr. Creech cited a recent visit to 17 Hartwell Ave and encountering construction workers leaving, many of whom were going through the Beth Israel Lahey parking lot and still walking past that. He said that there is parking on Bedford Street within a quarter of a mile. He asked if that be possible for this project, if necessary? Though, he did say that it doesn’t seem like this is needed for a project team with history in Lexington. Mr. Fleming urged that the project team work in a timely matter, and Mr. Melching pointed to how the Massachusetts Avenue development is moving on schedule. Ms. McCabe recommended that the draft Decision could be updated to reference the Association and not just “owner” for the long-term responsibilities. Mr. Creech brought up the issue of noise mitigation. Mr. Melching said that the project is interested in vibration isolations, above the roof level, and set back as much as possible. He brought up how there are also unknowns regarding what tenants are looking for and the team will work with them. He said that they are still complying with the DEP noise policy, so it is not as if the project is working without requirements. Mr. Fleming said that the contractor of the LHS project is offering to do assessments for abutters. He asked if the project team gave any thought into doing something similar. He also asked about damage assessment from blasting. The applicant team said that there was no blasting planned for this evacuation. Mr. Creech noted that there are rules required for blasting if that ends up happening. Mr. Vaughn made a clarification that the project is providing more than enough parking for most retail and commercial spaces. The only parking requirements the project would fall short on were for medical or food service businesses. Mr. Melching said that the snow waiver was about providing more parking for non-snow emergency times. He said these waivers allow for a variety of businesses to move in and said these waivers were born out of community input. Ms. McBride said that medical businesses need more parking available than currently planned for. She said that she is not asking for more parking than required. She said that the parking reduction during snow emergencies would cause people to have to search around for parking in the snow. She said that community members have raised this issue directly with her. She said that she is in favor of more housing in the Lexington Center but that Lexington is not a “Dutch city where everyone rides a bike.” Ms. Jensen says that in an ideal world, we would all use non-automobile travel but that is not the reality when one goes to the doctor. She said that parking spilling out into the street makes the center less attractive and the area will lose business. Doctor appointments are timed so patients need onsite parking. She was hoping to see minimum parking for medical services. She said that because people want Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 15, 2026 Page 7 of 14 restaurants in the retail spaces, it doesn’t mean that the board and project team can see the future and know it will be food services over medical offices. She continued, saying that as the trees are being replaced, the design is maximizing square footage for units over foliage and parking. Mr. Vaughn said that he appreciated the comments from the board members. He expressed hope that the board would consider the snow storage waiver favorably because it would allow for more parking during other seasons. Ms. McCabe explained to the board that, if the request for snow storage relief is not granted, then the result would be that the project will have even less parking all year. She recommended approving the snow storage waiver if parking is a concern. Mr. Melching said that the project meets minimums and exceeds parking for everything but medical. There will be a mix of parking that will accommodate each other and meets conditions asked by community members. He felt that this would be a mutual success for the project and the Town. Mr. Creech said that he would take three more comments before moving to a vote. Mr. Schanbacher said that this waiver would allow for flexibility to rent out commercial spaces, which will benefit the condo association for finding the best possible tenant. This would ensure that the property wouldn’t have any empty storefronts. He encouraged the board to vote for the parking and snow storage waivers. Jerry Michelson said that the board should consider the issue of parking, and specific factors such as employee parking and time slots for businesses. He pointed out that restaurants patrons will be parked at different times than the people using medical office space. He believed that building management would do a good job with snow removal and expressed his support for the project. Mr. Leon expressed his agreement with Mr. Michelson. Ms. McBride said that she does recognize Mr. Melching’s argument about allowing medical practices as tenants, but questioned, that if they knew ahead of time that if the current medical tenants were planning to return to the site, then they should have planned extra spots for medical offices when determining the size of the building. She said that the onus of providing a waiver for parking is falling on the wrong hands. Mr. Creech concluded the resident comment period, and moved to Ms. Thompson for the project motions. Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing for the application submitted by North Shore residential development for 16 Clark Street. 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. Ms. Thompson moved to grant the applicant the special snow removal permitting by the fact that the Board finds the applicant's proposal to temporarily use and sign 3 parking spaces for storage, and to remove snow from the property to be an acceptable snow management plan. The Planning Board voted Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 15, 2026 Page 8 of 14 against the motion 3-2-0 (Roll call: Thompson – Yes; McBride – No; Creech – Yes; Jensen – No; Schanbacher – Yes). MOTION DID NOT PASS Ms. Thompson moved to waive the required amount of parking spaces required for future commercial uses by granting relief of 6 spaces, according to the requirements for medial office or eating establishments use. The Board finds that the site's proximity to public transit nearby on-street parking and municipal parking lots in Lexington Center and the Minuteman Bikeway reduce the need for parking demands. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 3-1-1 (Roll call: Thompson – Yes; McBride – Abstain; Creech – Yes; Jensen – No; Schanbacher – Yes). MOTION PASSED Ms. Thompson moved to grant the waiver to allow light fixtures that are not dark sky compliant because they are under the building overhead. 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. Ms. Thompson moved to waive the tree bylaw for the protected trees removed on the project site because the project is best mitigated with the submitted planting plan showing tree replacement on the property, along Raymond and Clark Streets on the adjacent library lot replacement trees in Lexington Center and the neighborhood offsite planting plan. 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. Ms. Thompson moved to approve the Major Site Plan Review and Stormwater Management Permit submitted by North Shore Residential Development for 16 Clark Street with the findings and conditions in the draft approval decision prepared by staff. Ms. McBride seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-1 (Roll call: Thompson – Yes; McBride – Yes; Creech – Yes; Jensen – Abstain; Schanbacher – Yes). MOTION PASSED. Mr. Creech congratulated the project team. He granted the board, staff, project team members, and audience a 5-minute recess from 8:13pm to 8:19pm. 439 Marrett Road - Public hearing for a major site plan review application for a multi-family development in the village overly district (continued from May 13) Mr. Creech introduced the next topic of discussion, a proposal for 13 ownership dwelling units with under building and conventional surface parking at 439 Marrett Road, which was being reviewed under the 2023 MBTA Communities by-law regarding the Village Overlay District. Attorney Jonathan M. Silverstein introduced the project team to the board and the public. He acknowledged that the project had received a large amount of feedback and that the team was working to revise certain aspects of the project. Mr. Silverstein introduced Erion Nicola from O'Sullivan Architects to present on the updated architectural plans. Mr. Nicola gave a brief overview of the building, stating that it would be a four-story building with 13 residential condominium units with 24 at grade parking spaces, as well as indoor and outdoor bicycle parking spaces. He showed an expanded view of the building to contextualize its relationship in space to Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 15, 2026 Page 9 of 14 transit amenities and both residential and commercial development. He stated that this project is proposed to be built as of right. He showed floor plans for a basement that is primarily reserved for mechanical uses and the elevator pit, rather than for common space. The first floor contains one residential unit, and floors 2-4 each contain four residential units. The plans showed the mechanical units set back from view. The project team added screening to the mechanical plans, per public feedback. The presented plans also offer more clarity to the public on how the property sits against the road and its accompanying vegetation, according to Mr. Nicola. According to these plans, the rooftop mechanical units will not be visible from the street. Mr. Nicola also addressed the public comments about potentially flipping the building to position the driveway on the left-hand side. He explained how that would complicate fire services’ access to the area and would require further site evacuation. This reorientation would also position the residential units closer to the commercial spaces, subjecting residentials to additional noise and light pollution. Mr. Silverstein followed up with showing images of the neighborhood’s existing conditions for further context. He acknowledged the public comments in support of making the design look more residential, but he explained that a pitched roof is not possible for this development. He also showed plans to separate the project the neighboring property with vegetated screening and fencing. He also noted that an approved development two properties down does not have a pitched roof. Laurie Tarr of LTE LandArch presented on the landscape architecture plans. She provided comparison images of updated plans. Updates included the addition red bud and sugar maple trees, four-foot tall ornamental nettle, widened sidewalk with a bus stop bench, and a granite paver path at an accessible spacing. Ms. Tarr noted suggestions from the Bicycle Committee to move bicycle parking to the front entrance, but she suggested moving it opposite to the driveway for additional space. The updated plans included additional plantings at the back of the property with five-foot tall metal fencing. Ms. Tarr noted that these plans would not require mowing. Mr. Creech suggested that seeing a visual of the fencing would be helpful, and Scott Seaver said that two of the planting spots have been turned into compact spaces utilizing arbor vitae to allow for more open space on the property. Mr. Silverstein said he could get an updated visual for Mr. Creech and Ms. Thompson also said she would appreciate visuals that could provide more context to people outside the landscape architecture field. Civil Engineer Fred Russell addressed the project’s infiltration systems and lighting. He provided updated details on the storm water quality systems and proposed alternatives, noting that the project recently underwent the peer review process. He cited the zoning bylaws referring to the distance between the basement and the estimated seasonal high water table. He noted that an acceptable alternative for when this separation is not possible is to provide drainage and sump pump systems, which the project team has modeled for in connection with the infiltration system. Planner Aaron Koepper presented on the staff memo date July 9th regarding this project. He noted that the applicant uploaded responses for the public feedback from the May 13 meeting into OpenGov. He said that the staff appreciated the updates regarding emergency vehicle access, as the original plans were not acceptable. He noted that Assistant Fire Chief Chisholm would like to see curb painting for increased visibility. Mr. Koepper also noted that the short-term bicycle parking was compliant but had concerns about the 3-foot distance from the wall for the lift assist bicycle racks. The Bicycle Advisory Committee was also concerned about the number of at grade spots (being 13 versus 15). He brought to attention an issue regarding clarification on parking offset distances; he asked that the applicant provide measurements and make any considerations for compact space reliefs. He also appreciated the updates Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 15, 2026 Page 10 of 14 to the photometric light plans that are now in compliance with spillage. Regarding outstanding issues, Mr. Koepper noted that the 8-foot fence would either have to be shortened to 6 feet or set back 8 feet and that some stormwater and zoning bylaw issues still need to be addressed. He noted that comments from other committees were included in the memo and that the planning staff recommended that this review be continued to the August 19th meeting or to September. The project’s final action date is August 14, and further review would require an extension into October. Bill Maher of Nitsch Engineering presented on the peer review process. He noted that many comments from their first letter have been addressed in the second submission, but that certain items still needed addressing. These outstanding items included: - Grading to be adjusted to sufficient levels - Updates to seasonal high water estimates - More details regarding drainage calculations (only sump pump rates included at present) - Foundational perimeter drain system details (size, elevation, material etc) - Traffic signage - Walkway width clarification - Added impervious surface details The Board members asked of the project team and planning staff: Mr. Leon asked Ms. Tarr to clarify the accessibility aspect of the granite paver pathway. Ms. Tarr responded by explaining that it would be to the side of the building with access to the public sidewalk, but its intended use was private access by residents. She said that the granite pavers could be spaced about ½ apart to be access to user of mobility devices. Mr. Leon also asked about the location of the dumpster, its distance from the trees, and how it might impact abutters with noise during emptying. Mr. Silverstein responded by saying that the space needed for emergency services impacts where they can place the dumpster. Mr. Leon implored the team to develop a solution that will address emergency access and abutter concerns, as this will be a long-term issue. Mr. Seaver pointed out the planned fencing; Mr. Silverstein said that the team can explore acoustic fencing. Mr. Leon also raised concerns about the sump pump and its ability to response to seasonal conditions. Mr. Russell said that the infiltration systems would be separated by 40-50 feet and respond to different areas of runoff. Mr. Leon expressed doubts about the system, saying that the basement sump dump was overdesigned for its now smaller space. He also referenced the earlier sited nearby development, saying that, despite its approval, it was not a well- received design and should not be used to reflect the aesthetic character of the neighborhood. Mr. Creech asked for clarification on how the currently presented plans depicted fire access and whether they were compliant. Mr. Silverstein said they were aware of the plan’s issues and were working to edit the fire access plans. Mr. Silverstein let the meeting members know that the project team has already secured an extension to September 4 and is aware that another extension will likely be needed. Mr. Schanbacher asked about the existing retaining wall, which Mr. Russell said would be removed. Mr. Schanbacher wanted to know how this would work if rebuilt and mirrored and pointed to how it might impact fire access. He also stated that there needs to be more consideration paid to the big picture of this development and its relationship to the neighborhood. He proposed that the project team look further into the purpose of the village overlay and how this place will impact the quality of life for residents living, working, and shopping in the area. He also said that the team has essentially admitted that the mirrored plans change fundamentally nothing. He also asked what was left of the basement. Mr. Nicola said it was Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 15, 2026 Page 11 of 14 just being used as space for mechanical functions. Mr. Schanbacher said they could remove the basement altogether to accommodate the water table. He also implored the project team to follow the Massachusetts’ Architectural Access Board’s guidelines and not develop separate entrances for people with and without mobility impairments. Ms. McBride asked Mr. Schanbacher about his perspectives on the mirrored plans. He said he would rather have the driveway against the residential abutter and the dumpster and transformer against the commercial abutter. Ms. McBride asked the project about the impacts that flipping the site plan would have on tree removal. Mr. Seaver said that two oak trees and one maple would have to be additionally removed. Ms. Tarr raised concerns about potentially having the development’s parking lot abutting the neighboring drive and how that would concrete too much asphalt in one area. Mr. Seaver said that the team had meeting with the abutters and they had concerns about the lack of plant screenings, which is why they changed two spaces in the lot to compact spaces to accommodate more arbor vitae. This might also mitigate some of the noise concerns. Ms. McBride agreed with this idea. Ms. McBride also raised concerns about whether the number of bike parking spaces planned would be enough. Ms. Tarr said that following the 6 by 8 bicycling park as suggested would take up too much outdoor space, and there is sufficient bicycle parking inside. Ms. McBride said that including drought tolerant plantings is good, would also like to recommend rain collection and the inclusion of multiple LID strategies. She urged that the project would not use potable water on landscaping. She also said that, when providing information to condo purchasers, the team should like to include information against using anticoagulant rodenticides. She also asked if the storage units were being removed, to which Mr. Nicola said that they have been removed from the basement in the plans, and they will have an opportunity to add them to the units. Ms. McBride also asked if the applicant intended to provide a bus shelter. Mr. Seaver said that the plan is to provide a bench. He said he would rather not get involved with providing the bus shelter. Mr. Silverstein said a bus shelter would negatively impact open space, but that the team can certainly explore it. Ms. McBride asked about how much earth will be moved, to which Mr. Russell said this would be a small net amount, roughly 1 tractor trailer (27 cubic yards). Ms. McBride said that this information should be provided to neighbors, and Mr. Russell said they can do this. Ms. McBride asked Mr. Koepper about the light spillage; he said there was minor spillage onto Marrett Road and this could be easily rectified. Ms. Thompson wanted to review composting and recycling onsite, and where those facilities would be located. Mr. Silverstein said they will get back to her on that for next time. Mr. Zieff said he figured that would be a condo association issue. Ms. Thompson said they need to provide space for this. She also asked how snow storage would be managed. Mr. Silverstein said that has been added, and Mr. Russell showed this as an addition to the plan. Ms. Thompson said that she would like to have a better point of view of outdoor amenities next time. Jensen echoed the need to consider the location for the composting and recycling. She also echoed the suggestion of the bus shelter, asking if they could they provide a smaller shelter to take up less space. She also said that she likes the consideration of not having a basement to accommodate the water level. She also expressed that the bike parking outdoors would need to be visible; Ms. Tarr said it would be. Ms. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 15, 2026 Page 12 of 14 Jensen also said that she would love having more native trees and bushes. She asked if the team would you consider arbor vitae over fencing and plan more bushes than grass. Ms. Tarr said they will add more tall narrow evergreen trees where they can, but no plans for grass were in place anyways. Other forms of vegetated ground cover were being considered. In regard to obstructed views, Ms. Jensen says she would personally prefer looking at a tree to another building, if the vegetation blocking windows is a concern. Mr. Creech expressed concern over the lack of viable stormwater management alternatives discussed in the peer review. Mr. Russell said that the elevation of the site limited their choice of alternatives. Mr. Creech also asked about the water quality in the stormwater management, and Mr. Maher said that the sump catches any debris in the water, which then impacts the water quality. Mr. Creech asked if the ground water issue would become a waiver request. Mr. Russell said that the building code states that if 2 feet of separation from the basement of the water table cannot be achieved, the project has to use infiltration systems that do not affect the abutters. Mr. Creech also said that this discussion should continue into September and asked for better visuals in future discussion. The Chair opened the public comment discussion, to which there was none, and discussion shifted back to the Planning Board and the Project Team. Mr. Creech asked to clarify what the landscaping plan would be. Ms. Tarr said there would be no mowers and no regular maintenance outside of seasonal work and all plants would be native to the region. Ms. McBride said that while the pavers are nice, she would like to see a path that is more compliant with the ADA. Ms. Tarr said she would investigate this but still was in support of an accessible, more residential design. Mr. Seaver said he would rather get rid of the pathway than make it concrete. Ms. McBride said there could be a way to design the path to make is more accessible and aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Koepper clarified that he had misspoke earlier during the staff report and aid that the final action deadline was August 14th, but Mr. Silverstein clarified that the applicant has already extended that to September 4th. Ms. Jensen asked about fencing and the location of vegetation. She concurred with earlier comments for more detailed renderings. Ms. Tarr said that the vegetation does not form a solid wall against the fencing but that they could explore increasing the density. She also said that fencing could help with noise mitigation. Mr. Creech explained to the project team that the concern about the anticoagulant rodenticides also kill the predators that eat rodents. He also said that composting and recycling are site review issues, not condo association questions. Mr. Creech echoed earlier points about the project team providing more detailed visuals. Ms. McCabe said that the recommended date to continue discussion would be Wednesday, September 2 and confirmed the board’s ability to attend. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 15, 2026 Page 13 of 14 Ms. Thompson moved to continue discussion on 439 Marrett Road to Wednesday, September 2. 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. Thompson moved to approve the following meeting minutes: Meeting Minutes: June 10, 2026, June 24, 2026 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 Upcoming Meetings: August 5, and August 19 The planning office was trying to coordinate a site visit for a development on Tuesday, June 11 at 2:30 pm for Spring Street and asked for the board to confirm their availability. She also noted a recent email about Fall 2026 Planning Board meeting dates, and asked members to confirm availability for that as well. Adjournment: Ms. Thompson moved to adjourn the Planning Board meeting of Wednesday, July 15, 2026, at 10:16 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 10:16 p.m. Lex Media recorded the meeting. Material from the meeting can be found in the Planning Board’s Meeting Packet List of Documents: 10 Rangeway Materials: Record PLAN-26-14 - Town of Lexington, MA Staff Memo 10 Rangeway SAD 16 Clarke Street Materials: Record PLAN-26-8 - Town of Lexington, MA MEG Engineering Review letter – 16 Clarke St 3rd REV Staff Memo 2-16 Clark 7.13.26 REV Staff Memo 3-16 Clarke St_7.13.26 Email from Robin Kutner sent June 11, 2026 Email from Jay Luker sent July 8, 2026 Email from Susan Marinaro sent July 9, 2026 Email from the Lexington Tree Committee sent July 10, 2026 439 Marrett Road Materials: Record PLAN-26-7 - Town of Lexington, MA Peer Review NITSCH 439 Marrett 2026-07-08 WRM Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 15, 2026 Page 14 of 14 Staff Memo 2 - 439 Marrett Rd 7.9.26 Letter from Transportation Advisory Committee sent June 29, 2026 Email from the Lexington Tree Committee sent June 30, 2026 Comments from Tom Shiple