[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:19] Call to order this meeting in the election and planning board on Wednesday, August 19, 2026 at 6pm. For this meeting the planning board is convening by web meeting using the Zoom application. The board is meeting remotely, pursuant to the action of the legislature and governor on March 28, 2025, extending the authority for remote and hybrid meetings by public bodies. This meeting may be broadcast live on the next media and it is being
[0:49] recorded for future on-demand viewing.
[0:52] Since the meeting is being conducted as a virtual meeting using the Zoom applications,
[0:57] I will now ensure that all members of the Board and town staff who are participating can
[1:01] hear and be heard.
[1:03] Vice Chair Melanie Thompson.
[1:05] Present.
[1:06] Clerk, Kenamick Bride.
[1:09] Here.
[1:10] Board Member Michael Schombacher.
[1:12] Present.
[1:13] Board Member Lynn Jensen.
[1:15] Present.
[1:16] I associate member Michael Leon, President, Planning Director Abbie McCabe, President.
[1:24] I guess Mr. Roach is not here tonight, correct, okay, Plano Aaron Kepper, President and
[1:33] Planning Coordinator Cindy Nelson.
[1:36] President.
[1:38] Thank you.
[1:40] There will be public participation during certain portions of the meeting.
[1:43] I would like to remind all participants that we are neighbors and we are working together
[1:49] for the best interests of the community.
[1:51] I ask that comments be made with civility, respect, and without casting aspersions and
[1:56] without referencing motives.
[1:59] We are conducting a meeting using the webinar option in Zoom when possible I will give attendees
[2:05] an indication of both how many people are attending and who is attending meeting.
[2:11] Participants wishing to give public comment can use the raise hand function in Zoom.
[2:15] The raise hand function is under the reactions tab along the bottom of your Zoom screen.
[2:20] When we get to the public comment section of the meeting,
[2:23] members of the public when recognized will be able to speak.
[2:26] People are attending the meeting on their phones.
[2:28] Can you star an eye to raise the hand?
[2:31] And once recognized, you star six to unmute yourself.
[2:34] Written materials for the meeting are available on the planning board's website.
[2:39] We will be taking up the agenda as published, the sequence of the agenda is published.
[2:50] Okay.
[2:51] First this evening is a continued public hearing for Bi-Rite MBTI Communities Project at
[2:58] 80 Beverage Street.
[3:00] The MBTI Communities by-law is approved by Tom Media in 2023.
[3:04] This is a public hearing for a major site plan review application for a multi-family development, which will include affordable housing in the old village, ovally district that is to say the original ovally district.
[3:17] This meeting is continued from June 24th.
[3:21] Two of the concerns raised at the June 24th hearing are the following.
[3:25] The project did not initially provide any visitor parking at first, at the first meeting
[3:31] both staff and board recommended visitor parking as an essential element in this location.
[3:37] Even though no visitor parking is specifically required, and even though the 31 parking
[3:42] spaces proposed is compliant.
[3:45] The project buildings are very close to properties on north, on the north side of the site on near
[3:51] a 2x3 street, especially nearest building F. The app that was asked to consider something
[3:57] different for building F. In response to these concerns, the submission for this meeting
[4:02] does include six visit-aparcan spaces, however the plans for building F are remain unchanged.
[4:09] I want to say something about the pace of the meeting and the timing. I would like to complete
[4:16] this hearing, no later than 730 this evening. For this hearing and for all hearings, I'm asking
[4:22] the board to make statements efficiently, keeping in mind that if each board member spoke for
[4:27] just 10 minutes at each hearing, that would take nearly an hour per hearing. Given multiple hearings
[4:33] and input from other entities, this is not sustainable. To be clear, I am not suggesting that board members
[4:41] refrain from making relevant project and planning board statements. I'm saying that your statements
[4:46] needs to be efficient and can swim only the time needed to make the point.
[4:50] This is about the pace and relevance of the communication and not about any board member
[4:55] point of view.
[4:57] Having said that, I will now go to the applicant for their presentation and comments.
[5:03] Mr. Gilgun?
[5:04] Yes.
[5:05] Good evening, Mr. Chairman.
[5:06] Members of the board, my name is Frederick Gilgun.
[5:09] I'm an attorney with Nicholson Schrader and Gilgun at 33 Bethford Street in Lexington.
[5:13] As you know, on this project, I represent James and Mary Johnston as the owners of 80 Bedford Street.
[5:19] A reintroduction of the team members, we have an architect, Chris Johns of Thoughtcraft Architects,
[5:24] the engineer Michael Novak of Patreon Engineering, the landscape architect,
[5:30] this evening is Michael DeAngelo of MDLA.
[5:33] The team members will highlight the changes that have been made to the plan set since our last hearing.
[5:38] and we will hope that you will find that we've made great efforts to accommodate many of the questions
[5:44] and concerns that were raised. Before I turn it over to the team to highlight those issues,
[5:50] I'd like to address a few issues myself. The first is that you'll see that the site plan does show a
[5:56] seven-foot-sensor fence along that northern boundary of the property. This was included at the
[6:06] increase in the height over the permitted six feet that requested it be up to eight feet.
[6:12] Our clients willing to accommodate this request, but it will require a special permit from
[6:18] the planning board.
[6:19] So we would leave it to the board if it's the board's preference if they think that the
[6:24] increase in the height of the fence is something that will benefit the project, then we'd ask
[6:29] the board to let us know the preferred height and to grant the special permit that would allow
[6:34] for that. The second thing I want to make the board aware of is that ultimately, the
[6:41] Johnston's may complete this project in two phases. The first phase would include the
[6:48] front portion of the property and the second phase would be towards the rear. And I have
[6:52] discussed this with Ms. McCabe and Mr. Kelly, and they didn't find an issue with this, but
[6:59] that in discussing with Mr. Kay, we thought it was appropriate just to bring it to your attention.
[7:07] And then finally, I just want to make note on a personal matter I have a hearing before
[7:12] the Historic Commission at 7 o'clock this evening, so I'll need to drop off, I'm second
[7:16] on that agenda, so I'll need to drop off shortly thereafter after 7 and I'd ask if there
[7:20] are any issues that the board felt that would be best addressed by me, that if we could take
[7:26] those earlier on, I respectfully request that accommodation.
[7:30] Having said that now, I'd like to turn the presentation over
[7:33] to Chris Johns.
[7:34] Thank you.
[7:38] Am I able to share the screen?
[7:44] You should be able to.
[7:51] Most has disabled participants screen sharing.
[8:02] Do you want to try it again?
[8:04] It sounds like you should be able to.
[8:07] No, I keep clicking it.
[8:08] This is the same thing.
[8:16] I'm getting the same message from Mr. McCabe.
[8:44] What about now?
[8:45] I've made you a co-host. There we go, that's it. Thank you.
[8:57] You should be seeing the cover sheet of
[9:00] our submission. Yes. They're coming through great. Okay, so again, there's a lot of discussion
[9:08] around timing constraints, so we'll try to keep this brief and highlight the sort of major changes
[9:15] to the project and answer a few of the questions and things that came through the latest round of
[9:21] staff notes. So the largest change that was made was the addition of more parking spaces.
[9:29] We picked up six parking spaces by leveraging some reduction in a storage basement space
[9:40] and then a reduction of a three-bed unit down to a two-bed unit on the ground floor of
[9:48] these building D and building C plus the addition of two spots within the garage space underneath
[9:56] the relocated house. And so what that does is again reduction from a three bed to a two bed unit
[10:05] and the reduction of some storage space. There was a comment in the notes regarding
[10:12] These storage spaces, these are for property management, owner spaces, not for tenants.
[10:21] These are mainly for supplies and materials and things to manage the property.
[10:29] And there was a question regarding the mail room.
[10:33] There is a single mail room that's accessible act grade here in Building D. And that serves
[10:39] the entire complex. And then there was also a note about
[10:46] stroller parking. So in in three of the kind of four new buildings we have we have
[10:54] space allocated in the entry lobbies for things like stroller parking. So in
[11:00] building D you can see see it here next to the stair and building C kind of
[11:05] tucked in behind the stair and along the edge here in building A and B. There's a larger
[11:13] lobby, so we have a large alcove in the back for things like stroller parking. Building
[11:19] F does not have stroller parking, and it's the smallest building with four units and has
[11:26] only two bedroom units. All the larger three bedroom units are in the A, B and C and D buildings
[11:38] So, that kind of covers the, I think, and Fred mentioned the fence, but we did not
[11:47] change the sort of formats of the buildings, I think, that the neighbors were pretty clear
[11:58] about having a fence, regardless of what we did with the structures.
[12:01] So the structures have remained as designed previously.
[12:07] I think that covers.
[12:11] Oh, there was a note again about a rendering.
[12:16] View from the really village.
[12:20] So that's up in here in the upper left.
[12:22] We've had that in the package all along.
[12:25] So you can see in the foreground.
[12:26] This is the existing really village buildings.
[12:29] and then up in the up the hill a little bit behind the trees is the new development.
[12:37] I think that covers most of my points. I'm happy to answer questions. I'm going to pass it on to
[12:45] Mike D'Angelo to review the landscape provisions.
[12:50] Thanks Chris. So the last time you all have seen this, we made a few changes. We know
[12:57] the tree committee on site and a couple of the things that came out of that meeting was we've added
[13:03] some trees along the southern portion of the property line. You see those three trees right there
[13:08] those are three maples. So that not only helps with adding shade but it helps with our tree mitigation
[13:13] calculations. We've also added a tree right near where that parallel parked car is building D
[13:20] and then we've added two additional trees. One tree we added north of building D
[13:24] and then one of the trees that was previously an ornamental tree is now a
[13:29] shade tree. So six trees, shade trees have been added. The tree committee
[13:36] asked us to look at adding trees along Bedford Street. We've studied that very
[13:42] closely and we advise against adding trees there simply because there's
[13:47] power lines that are very low. The greatest slope goes up quite quick and the
[13:54] trees would be virtually touching very soon after planting, so we advise against putting those there.
[14:02] Otherwise, we were able to satisfy all their comments in regards to lighting.
[14:07] We made a few changes, so we had some baller lighting along Bedford Street at building F.
[14:14] There was some light spill and some comments regarding that light spill on the Bedford,
[14:19] so we were able to lower those
[14:21] volumes a little bit, reduce the light spill to zero over the property line.
[14:27] Additionally, along the southern property line, there was some light spill occurring.
[14:33] We re-ran the model with the accurate planting that we have in place
[14:38] and we were able to reduce all light spill along the property line.
[14:42] So we've addressed the comments that came up.
[14:46] I think there's one other thing I could mention in regards to change Chris if you go back to the color plan the dumpsters that were
[14:57] added
[14:58] were reconfigured
[15:00] Which allows for the parking to work in maneuverability to work much better, and we're still able to maintain that five foot setback from the property line. And that concludes the landscape changes. And just in regards to the comments that we said we had come through.
[15:21] Thank you.
[15:26] Anything else from the applicant team going to talk?
[15:29] I am the Civil Engineer Mike Novak.
[15:33] Mr. Chair, if I could, we'll keep it brief.
[15:36] We're in receipt of the latest peer review memo.
[15:39] There's probably half a dozen comments to still take care of.
[15:43] I think we can get there.
[15:44] Some minor, some take, have a little more teeth.
[15:47] The biggest changes we've, as you can see on the bottom of that plane
[15:50] in the parking area, we've added soil testing.
[15:54] We've done additional soil testing on site to help better establish soil and ledge profile.
[15:59] That allowed me to condense and bring the systems a little further downhill and away
[16:04] from some of the higher ledge areas.
[16:07] Some of the comments, there's still a couple of eyes to dot and teased across with that
[16:11] in regards to the peer review comments, which I'll handle in the next round, but that was
[16:18] Because the biggest change, the change in the parking areas as you were shown basically
[16:26] infringed on already existing impervious so there wasn't really any major change in
[16:31] that regards to terms of the overall design in regards to stormwater.
[16:37] We did also try to demarcate a little better some of the poorest areas in particular that
[16:42] we're going to use in paper wise, in particularly the pathway down to Bedford Street behind building
[16:48] F, if I have that right Chris, on the other side, yeah, right there, I've added sections
[16:55] of per-pervious paper within that too. I think there's a comment from both the peer review
[17:01] and from someone in the public, and the concerns run off from that walkway, so we've added pervious
[17:08] papers, and also to try to respond to the request for more green or lower impact development
[17:15] in regards to the storm water. There was some other minor adjustments in regards to pipe
[17:20] slopes and things of that nature. I did add stone storage to the plans as well
[17:26] to check that box, and we did have to align some of the water,
[17:38] change was the initial soil testing and the reconfiguration of the soil marsh system.
[17:44] With that, Chris, I think we're all set.
[17:46] Maybe back to Fred, if there's anything, if not.
[17:50] No, that's it.
[17:50] I can please the presentation, Mr. Chairman.
[17:53] I'm happy to accept any questions, comments you have.
[17:57] Okay, thank you very much.
[18:00] Next, I'm going to go to Planner Aaron Kepper, and he can summarize his staff report.
[18:07] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[18:09] In your packet is a staff memo from the Planning Office,
[18:15] dated August 13th.
[18:18] I can just review the main points of that.
[18:21] At this time, the applicant is not requesting any relief,
[18:24] but we did have a few things we were still looking to be resolved.
[18:27] It sounds like a couple of these have been already touched on
[18:30] by the applicant team, so it sounds
[18:33] like they're being worked on currently,
[18:35] which is great, but I'll just review what was in the memo for clarification.
[18:40] So the first thing we were looking for more information on is the heights of the buildings.
[18:45] We were hoping to confirm with the zoning and building offices.
[18:49] There is height information listed on the plans with like what would be the information that go on the average natural grade forms.
[18:57] However, the way that we calculate average natural grade is by comparing the existing elevation
[19:05] with the proposed elevation, and then taking the lower of the two, and that both elevations
[19:10] are not listed on plans, so we were just hoping to get the forms filled out, and then we
[19:16] could get those over to the zoning and building offices to confirm the building heights.
[19:21] Let me see. I had a note that the photo metrics plan was still showing minor light spillage
[19:28] across property lines. It was less than a foot candle and mostly behind the refuse area.
[19:35] There's a couple screen dumpster bins and a couple lights over there and it was over the
[19:40] property lines back in really village. Mr. D'Angelo was just discussing and it sounds like they
[19:45] have that all cleaned up. So in the next submission package you should see a photo metrics
[19:50] plan likely with no light spillage, so that'll be good. I had a note in here. The lift
[20:01] assist bicycle racks that are proposed do not meet the required three-foot separation
[20:06] from a wall. There's a regulation in Chapter 176 that just dictates that separation. I had
[20:15] I noted that I would be supportive of relief if the applicant was able to show some specifications
[20:22] on the proposed bike racks saying that it needed less distance to function properly.
[20:29] Like if it's say needed 14 inches or two feet rather than a three feet, I would be supportive
[20:35] as the manufacturer is advising.
[20:37] However, at this time without relief and without relief being requested, that would need to
[20:45] be updated to be complied. To be compliant. Let me see. Mr. Gogan and Mr. Jones, I believe
[20:54] it talked about the defense along the property line. That would be a special permit for relief.
[21:00] However, staff would be supportive as it sounds like the request is mainly coming from the
[21:06] butter. So that would be in the public interest to accommodate that kind of relief between
[21:12] the butting property in the development.
[21:17] I have a note here. We had a discussion with the RHSO,
[21:22] the Regional Housing Services Office, who helps review these plans and talks about the affordable
[21:29] housing in the memos that is often comments. There is one unit that is proposed to be both an
[21:35] inclusionary unit and a group 2A unit. And we had heard that sometimes these without a direct need,
[21:44] These can be difficult to market or difficult to rent, so we had asked if they could swap
[21:50] that out to a different unit for the inclusionary.
[21:55] And then also there was an ask if the applicant had a preference if the units were floating
[22:02] or fixed upon turnover.
[22:06] This would come into play if say attendance income increases and they are no longer eligible
[22:12] for the IDU, then they would be able to retain the unit that they're in and the inclusionary
[22:21] unit would move to a comparable one in the complex.
[22:26] So the RHSO was recommending floating units for that reason, and staff would agree with
[22:32] that.
[22:32] So I just wanted to call that out as well.
[22:35] You see, Mr. D'Angelo also mentioned meeting with the Tree Committee.
[22:40] I will confirm that the plans meet the required mitigation on site, and we do appreciate the extra trees.
[22:48] We will just still encourage the applicant to see if there is anything they could do with just plantings along the street line.
[22:55] I know that maybe large shade trees wouldn't interfere with the utilities there, but maybe shorter trees or just anything that would help beautify the project.
[23:04] I know they do have a lot of plantings, but just for the street trees there.
[23:07] there. Still a consideration. And then one other thing along the Bedford Street line
[23:15] that was not in the memo, but we had discussed with Ms. McCabe earlier as well as some
[23:24] people in the office. And we would recommend the, there are two curb cuts on the Bedford
[23:32] street line on the property, one where the driveway is, and then another closer up towards
[23:41] the plan north of the property. The bicycle advisory committee was asking to retain this
[23:48] curb cut, but just in a way that bicyclists would be able to access the sort of internal pathways
[23:55] of the site and staff would request that the applicant would adhere to that request and make it
[24:04] accessible for bicyclists to be able to ride up from Bedford Street in the bike lane onto the
[24:10] property and the internal network in dismount and into the property but also close the curb cut
[24:17] otherwise and clean up the sidewalk just so that there's nothing sort of confusing about what the
[24:25] access is and that there wouldn't be any cars or anything trying to bring that in and
[24:30] also just so that it's clean and safe for bicycles to enter but also otherwise just a sidewalk.
[24:40] So that was just an extra comment that I wanted to bring to the board's attention but it wasn't in
[24:45] the memo. Let me see. So just to add on to the comments I had here, some of them were included.
[24:53] The board also received written comment letters from the Tree Committee, from the Transportation Advisory Committee, and from the Bicycle Advisory Committee, and also the Council on Aging submitted a letter for this project.
[25:06] Those were all included in the memo, and you can access the letters yourselves directly.
[25:13] The applicant also provided a written response to the planning board comments and to public
[25:18] comments.
[25:19] Those are uploaded in the OpenGov portal from your June 24th hearing.
[25:24] So if there was nothing directly followed out in the memo, you can look there as well.
[25:29] For a staff recommendation, we recommend that the board would continue at the end of this
[25:34] hearing, would continue the hearing to your September 16th meeting date, as this would give
[25:39] time for the applicant to respond to comments and finish up any finalized material.
[25:46] I believe your peer review consultant Ben Minnick's from Eaglebrook Engineering is here with
[25:53] peer review report. If you wanted to go to him next, I'm happy to answer any questions if there's
[25:58] anything somebody has for me. Thank you, Mr. Kepper. I'm just going to clarify with that additional
[26:07] curb cut. The request is to close that curb cut and make one that lines up with the new path.
[26:16] It would be a lot safer for bicyclists not to have to stop in the bike lane on Befford Street
[26:25] and just drive up onto the path. Okay, so I will go with Mr. Kepper's suggestion and we'll now go to
[26:36] Mr. Masha, is it with Eagle Burke for the peer review?
[26:42] Hello, yes, this is Ben Minick with Eagle Burke Engineering.
[26:45] Sorry.
[26:46] No problem.
[26:47] Can you hear me okay?
[26:49] Yes.
[26:49] Great.
[26:50] So we had the chance to review the additional revised plants.
[26:56] So I'm just going to share my screen and go through quickly the main points.
[26:59] There wasn't too many comments.
[27:01] I think we're getting pretty close.
[27:02] So I'll just go through those briefly.
[27:04] should
[27:10] be able to see the grading plan here.
[27:13] So first thing was utility meters were not added specifically on the plan.
[27:19] I'm not really surprised because the location can be changed later on
[27:24] once you get through the construction documents.
[27:28] So I think it makes sense to maybe just make a condition by the planning board
[27:32] that the meters are properly screened.
[27:36] So maybe that takes a change with the landscape plans during construction.
[27:42] Second, there was no self-fence added along the front of the property.
[27:46] That may have just been some layer control for the final plans,
[27:49] but that self-fence line needs to be added along the front of the property.
[27:56] Second one, and Mr. Novak may be able to answer this right away,
[28:00] but I looked right before this meeting and my comments about the geotechnical report missing
[28:06] boring number 11. I think it may have been a duplicate building number four and so if that's
[28:12] the case, Mr. Novak, I think that that comment is void. I don't know if you want to answer right now.
[28:19] Mr. Chair, may I? Yes. Yeah, so I actually got that response today. Ben,
[28:27] That be that second before, which is located within building E is B 11.
[28:32] I'll send that to you tomorrow through Abby, but yes, I can confirm that that that is B 11.
[28:38] That's great. Yeah, if we could just get that in writing so they have a record of it.
[28:42] That makes a lot of sense.
[28:43] Is that the trace trace through and see that that probably made sense for building having boring 11.
[28:48] So that's good.
[28:50] So that comment about the building not being two feet above seasonal high ground water.
[28:54] With that being pouring number 11, it does make sense that it's the basements for floors, at least two feet above.
[29:03] So going down just a little bit further in my letter here, just a small couple clarifications in the stormwater report.
[29:13] And then the biggest thing with the two infiltration systems, additional soil testing was done and was very helpful.
[29:22] There's just some questioning of the depth to ledge between test pits 3 and 4 and 2 and 4.
[29:32] Just by interpolation, it looks like a portion of infiltration system 2 may be on ledge,
[29:38] so maybe Mr. Novak wants to look at different options of separating that system, moving it a little bit.
[29:45] I'm sure there's some creativity that can work there.
[29:49] second is the groundwater mounting calculations which need to confirm how
[29:54] that's being done and then there's some some question is this impervious barrier
[30:00] You know, if those mounting calculations change, is this impervious barrier along the south side of Infiltration System 1 going to be enough? If those, if those calcs change in the last comment we had was, we still recommend a geotechnical engineer, structural engineer review this retaining wall on the abutters property. We do have that proposed impervious barrier, which would help. But again, if the mounting calcs change that may be more of an effect
[30:30] on that wall.
[30:34] I believe that everything else was addressed and those are the major comments now.
[30:41] I think we're getting close and we can figure those last few points out.
[30:46] All right, thank you, Mr. Medigas. So does the applicant team have anything they want to add at this time?
[30:54] Are you all set for now? I think we're all set, Mr. Chairman, would take questions at this time.
[31:00] Okay, great. So I'll go to public comment first and then to the board and I'll read the public comment
[31:15] statement. Public hearings are an opportunity for the board and the public to thoroughly
[31:20] understand a proposal, suggest improvements, and advocate for or against it. As a reminder,
[31:26] the planning board is not legally allowed to make decisions based upon impact a project may
[31:31] have on the school system.
[31:36] For MBTA communities projects, the planning board is also not allowed
[31:40] to require the developer to prepare a traffic study, not to mitigate impact on additional traffic.
[31:47] Not requiring a traffic study is one of the rules established by the state for MBTA communities
[31:52] zoning. Each public hearing may be either
[31:55] continued to a future date or close at this at the end of this evening.
[32:00] Comments during the public participation are limited to two minutes, at two
[32:04] minutes I will ask the speaker to wrap up. For this project and for all projects
[32:08] you are welcome to offer your own opinions regarding a project other than by
[32:12] inference criticizing the views of other residents is not the intent of public
[32:17] comment. Off topic comments will be abbreviated. In the interest of time if you agree with the previous
[32:23] comment or please indicate your agreement, but kindly do not repeat those comments at length.
[32:29] The board especially welcomes written questions and comments at any time via the planning office
[32:34] website either instead of or in addition to comments made during public participation. Submitting
[32:40] written comments is an in advance of the meeting gives the board and staff time to consider an
[32:45] or resident views and can only improve communication between residents of the planning board.
[32:51] As a reminder, please use the Zoom raise hand or start an eye on your phone and I will
[32:57] call on you. Please identify yourself including your address and any relevant affiliations.
[33:04] Okay, with that, I'll go to public comment. Has anybody in the public want to comment on the project
[33:12] this evening and
[33:17] I see we only have four attendees this evening. Okay, I don't see any hands raised.
[33:25] Let's give it a couple of seconds.
[33:31] All right, so in that case I will now go to the planning board
[33:37] to get input comments and questions from the board based on what they've seen so far.
[33:44] So, please raise your hand if you want to talk.
[33:49] Mr. Shambhiker.
[33:51] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[33:53] So, first question, have you met with the Affordable Housing Trust regarding potential
[33:57] buy-down for greater affordability with any of these units?
[34:01] We have not.
[34:04] Well, I will encourage you to do that, Mr. Gogan.
[34:06] I'm quite sure that you have their contact information.
[34:10] So Mr. Kepper already highlighted this, but can you address the two questions posed by the RHSO and provided in the staff memo?
[34:18] I greatly appreciate the fact that you provided all the responses on Open Gov, but I did not see any responses to those amongst us answers.
[34:27] The first regards why you're providing the required group 2A unit as an affordable unit and then the second is whether, as Mr. Kepper said, the units would be fixed or floating.
[34:36] I think as Mark Mosher, the project manager, I think might be prepared to respond to that.
[34:44] Mark, yep.
[34:45] Okay. Thanks, Mark.
[34:46] Yeah, and I believe did you mention the fixed and floating as well both?
[34:50] Yes, yep.
[34:52] Sorry, yep.
[34:53] Yeah, I think our intention is at our option, we're willing to float.
[34:57] Our intention is not to, you know, punish your future to float.
[35:01] You know, kick someone out who has graduated or whatever you want to say there.
[35:04] So, I think that is something we're comfortable with, as far as the inclusionary being one
[35:13] of them being accessible, that is our intent, that is our desire, that has been our experience
[35:18] in past projects, that that is the most likely to be accessible, and that was feedback that
[35:24] we got not from the local group, not from the regional group.
[35:30] so I think our experience and your local opinion was those are the most likely to be needed to be
[35:38] accessible.
[35:41] Okay, thank you very much. So Mr. Kreech wants us to do comments at the same time,
[35:45] so I'll just go. So let's see, so first I will say that for the fence I do not want to support it.
[35:52] I do not think that for all of our efforts in separating people is helping in our efforts to make
[35:56] a more inclusive town as a whole. I certainly understand the need for screening when we were talking
[36:00] about headlights of cars, but that will not be the case here.
[36:03] To me, this is another case of tree multi-family housing differently than a single-family house.
[36:07] If Mr. Johnson or a developer were posing a big, large single-family home,
[36:11] we would not require any screen, and we might take issue with the seven-foot fence
[36:15] requiring a special permit. This is a double standard. At our last meeting, I spoke about
[36:20] architecture's role in supporting and creating stronger communities. This application still does
[36:24] everything it can to support that initiative. But I want to call out what the changes requested
[36:28] in the previous meaning mean. In the previous iteration that we saw last time we had more green space
[36:34] than, and that green space has now been replaced by parking spots for cars. Now people might justifiably
[36:40] accuse me of hating cars, but I really don't. Cars are a necessary part of our lives. We cannot simply wish
[36:46] them away. And I'd rather not do that anyway. That being said, we can discourage their use,
[36:51] which is to say we don't provide more parking. People are amazingly adaptable in this project,
[36:55] it's right on a bus line. The applicant believed that the previous iteration with fewer spots was
[36:59] financially viable. By adding the additional spots we have sacrificed human space for car space
[37:04] and I frankly do not understand why we would want to encourage that. We complain about the traffic
[37:09] and in the next breath ask for more parking spots. Again, the book is a tone but I encourage everyone to
[37:15] read the high cost of free parking by Donald Choup. I like the applicant believed that if we provide
[37:20] less parking and that we encourage people to use other forms of transportation.
[37:25] So again, I would ask all of my fellow board members if trading space occupied by humans for space
[37:29] occupied by car storage is the right trade to make. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Schumberger.
[37:36] Mr. Piawn, you're next.
[37:39] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll go through a quick list of questions and
[37:44] comments. I guess first, because I know some of Gil Gunn may be moving on to another board meeting
[37:50] soon. On the issue of phasing, there's a couple of questions here. I mean, do you expect
[37:54] that this phasing to take place within the normal statutory limit for ongoing projects
[37:58] in a situation where I would assume that our decision if we're going to accommodate
[38:03] phasing would be pretty specific about what would be allowed and the requirement would be that
[38:07] any amenities that are associated with this project not be deferred to a second phase, that
[38:11] if we had to do something like that, if the buildings in the back, for example, were going
[38:15] to be built out, we would not be losing the benefits and amenities that would be
[38:19] provided for the first phase of development. So I'm assuming that you're comfortable that we fit
[38:25] within the time frame and that the decision explicitly identify how that phasing would accomplish.
[38:30] So do you have any sort of thoughts or comments on that and whether or not you intend anything other
[38:34] than just that sort of progression of public benefits compatible or commensurate with the amount of
[38:40] development you do in the first phase? Yeah, we specifically discussed the statutory requirements in
[38:45] terms of the time frame and the honest very comfortable would be able to complete that.
[38:50] I don't apply with that. So but we also discussed that the need to, and I
[38:56] discussed this with Abby, Ms. McKayben, Mr. Kelly, that we will have all the infrastructure
[39:02] installed, parking, and the like. As far as the amenity spaces, I would think that anything
[39:10] except for those amenity spaces that are in those buildings and are not constructed would be made available.
[39:15] So, kind of, that answers your question.
[39:17] Yeah, I know it does.
[39:18] Thank you.
[39:18] I just want to make sure that's the case.
[39:20] And that we'd accommodate that in the decision.
[39:23] A quick note, and sort of in response to Mr. Shambacker, I don't have an issue with the increase
[39:28] in the height of the fence from six feet to eight feet.
[39:30] I appreciate Mr. Shambacker's comments.
[39:31] That would be, it's unfortunate that we have fencing that would separate the visual impacts from one property to another.
[39:37] And while it may be true that if this is a single family house, we wouldn't have any jurisdiction over this question.
[39:42] And the applicant is already proposing to do a fence.
[39:44] All they're asking for is another foot in the height.
[39:46] I assume that this is in response to very specific site
[39:49] conditions about view, you know, their ability
[39:52] from the abutting property to look into this property.
[39:54] Some privacy issues more than anything else.
[39:56] I don't think it's a matter of intending to exclude it.
[39:58] It's this question of controlling the impacts.
[40:01] And it's not impacts associated with the vehicle traffic
[40:04] or vehicle traveling or parking or headlights running like that.
[40:06] It seems to me it's a matter of the common area
[40:09] that's accommodating the individual unit residents
[40:12] from whatever backyard or side yard,
[40:15] which might be other actively used.
[40:16] So I mean, it could be accomplished in other ways,
[40:19] you know, evergreen hedges and things like that.
[40:22] But to me, it's adding other foot or two
[40:24] is really not a critical issue in here.
[40:26] So at least I would suggest that in this case,
[40:29] accommodating the extra foot or two isn't a big deal.
[40:31] On the issue of the additional parking spaces
[40:33] and I respect Mr. Schembecker's view
[40:35] about more parking or less, I assume among other things,
[40:39] given what we've already heard before about visitor parking, these extra spaces are not really
[40:44] to accommodate the residents as much as they are. Given the number of units here, a few people
[40:49] who might actually have guests or other visitors that are there, and I know that the real challenge
[40:53] has always been, can I let these visitors who are coming from other locations park in other parking
[40:58] lots that are nearby, like the Starbucks parking lot or the Custis Place parking lot, which I obviously
[41:03] we wanted to discourage. So it's the ability to accommodate guest parking as opposed to having
[41:08] people randomly park on lowest lane or in some of the other parking lots could be valuable. So
[41:12] in this situation, that doesn't bother me a whole lot. And I don't think we're really sacrificing
[41:17] real usable common open space that would otherwise be used by the residents. On the other hand,
[41:23] one of the questions that I have is what it sounded to me from Aaron's memo was that some of the
[41:30] But two other spaces are provided by tandem parking under the existing structure that the
[41:37] Johnson's are going to live in.
[41:39] And it wasn't quite clear to me, is that what the plan is that they'll be tandem parking
[41:43] under that structure?
[41:45] Maybe that's Aaron's question, or maybe it's for the applicant.
[41:49] I'm Mr. Chris John.
[41:51] Can you answer that?
[41:52] Sure.
[41:52] That's correct.
[41:55] So we're adding six total spaces, two of which are under the relocated house.
[42:00] How many are I thought that there were two already under the house or is it additional to so for total, but they'll be tandem as I recall the last number of hearings we've had we count tandem spaces as one space, even though there are long spaces, another project coming on tonight has an also as proposed sort of an internal tandem parking space.
[42:19] It wasn't clear to me, I really appreciate the Johnson family's interest and support
[42:25] and their ability to propose a project like this for the town.
[42:29] But I'm assuming it's going to be a rental project, as we've already talked about, because
[42:34] the Johnson's going to live there for a long time, those four spaces dedicated are exactly
[42:40] how would those spaces be allocated between the Johnson's who are going to be living in
[42:44] that building, and then other tenants in the in the in the project.
[42:54] I'm not sure that's totally fleshed out on us from my perspective.
[43:00] I know they have two vehicles.
[43:03] Yeah, I could make a comment.
[43:05] This is Jim Jelston.
[43:07] Sure.
[43:07] Our our thought of visitors coming to this property is very much driven by 30
[43:13] years of experience living here.
[43:15] we often ourselves have visitors and our current approach is to use the paved
[43:25] driveway area and also frequently the the grassy area. So we have we have asked
[43:33] Chris and the architecture team to have that in mind for our particular situation
[43:41] And for us, the tandem spaces make perfect sense because that's what we're used to doing.
[43:50] Parking cars for a couple of hours for guests that come and leave.
[43:55] And if they blocked our cars, that would be fine as to the impact on the whole project.
[44:04] As Chris says, I agree we haven't really thought that through.
[44:08] Okay, now I appreciate that and you're being very straightforward about this and I completely
[44:14] respect that.
[44:15] So effectively the additional two of the additional parking spaces are really sort of special
[44:20] category parking spaces and overall you're adding additional parking spaces which I understand
[44:25] the need for but it's not like we're substantially expanding the number of parking spaces to accommodate
[44:30] visitor parking to for basically the Johnson's which I understand and appreciate.
[44:35] So, well, thank you for that answer on that.
[44:39] On the issue of the Mr. Minix's report on Eaglebrook and I appreciate what you've said this
[44:47] evening, there were questions that I had after reading the peer review report about groundwater
[44:53] water mounting issues and the death to high ground water elevation and whatnot. I am.
[45:00] A little concern about the groundwater mounting issue and the groundwater discharge facilities and the lateral impact on the abutting property. Because you have an impermeable barrier there, it would seem to me that I would suggest I would think that it would be useful to make sure that you contacted the abutting property owner to make sure that they were aware of this analysis and the fact that this imperme barrier is there to prevent breakout that might actually move over on to the customs place property.
[45:28] And so I would ask that Mr. Novak share this new information in the design specifically
[45:33] with the owner of the adjacent properties so that they can at least understand this.
[45:37] And to the extent that they have any concerns as the folks of Meaglebrook, Mr. Minnicks,
[45:41] have expressed that you'd be able to really focus on this issue to ensure that you weren't
[45:46] going to end up with some potential risks of lateral migration and a higher groundwater
[45:52] elevation and mounting that would affect the retaining wall and things of that nature.
[45:56] So, I'm positive as Mr. Minix is that this can be something that can be engineered, but it may require more work, more design to ensure that there's no lateral impact on the abutting property.
[46:07] So, I hope you would take the time to do that in the next few weeks to make sure that everybody is completely fine with the way in which you're trying to accommodate the possibility of having the potential impacts of lateral migration from groundwater amounting.
[46:26] The only other comment or question I have, if you wouldn't mind Mr. Johns, is to talk
[46:32] a little bit more about the outdoor amenity space.
[46:35] It wasn't clear to me from looking at the plans exactly how that was allocated here both
[46:42] in terms of, I know you have some ground floor patio areas along the north, I believe, and
[46:47] some other things.
[46:47] How is that allocated?
[46:50] I mean, you have individual unit outdoor space,
[46:53] and then you've got common outdoor space,
[46:54] or is there no outdoor space
[46:56] that's sort of unit specific,
[46:57] ground floor unit specific,
[46:59] and it's all dedicated in a couple of locations
[47:01] within the site?
[47:04] I'll have a try at that,
[47:06] although you might be able to hear
[47:08] from other members of the team.
[47:10] I think that in the,
[47:12] where the buildings face each other,
[47:15] There wouldn't be any unit specific common space that would be shared by everyone in that sort of courtyard space.
[47:25] Along the back sides of the buildings that face the property lines, there is quite a lot of space because it's required to be set back from the property lines.
[47:36] We have thought less about how to use that space.
[47:38] use, I think it will feel fairly spacious. I've kind of walked the property and thought
[47:45] about how that will feel. So maybe there would be unit specific, but I don't think it would
[47:51] be strictly defined. I don't think there'd be fences. I think it would be a kind of a
[47:58] cross between shared and unit specific. But each have outdoor access on that area with
[48:04] separate doors and everything, correct?
[48:06] I doubt it.
[48:08] I don't think we have doors on those back walls.
[48:11] Okay.
[48:12] Yeah, we have no patio doors or sliding doors
[48:17] from the units directly to the side yards
[48:20] or the setback areas.
[48:22] Okay.
[48:22] Intention is that again, this is a communal shared living space,
[48:28] including the outdoor, these outdoor terraces and patios.
[48:32] it's why you know each building entry has a kind of covered porch area. It's intended to
[48:39] create those more spontaneous interactions and and less about you know isolated screened off
[48:50] patios per unit. Give a dedicated play area for children. No, we're not required to have one because
[48:59] because we're not over 40 units.
[49:01] Our idea is that in the landscape plan,
[49:04] there's a lot of on-site,
[49:07] there's actually a number of kind of granite sections
[49:11] of granite from like a look like benches
[49:13] or almost like railroad tie style or size pieces of granite.
[49:21] And so our idea is to create more natural features
[49:24] in the landscape to promote more spontaneous
[49:30] play within the site and so there's not a playground.
[49:37] There's a lot of features, and when I was a kid,
[49:40] I liked running down the piece of stone or climbing a fence
[49:43] or sort of making my own thing.
[49:46] So there was no intention here to create a formal designated playground area.
[49:52] There's plenty of space in the side yards,
[49:54] and we have this nice beautiful courtyard that the kids can play in.
[49:57] So I can't resist saying I'm going to invite Chris over with his skateboard to see how he does with now mounting those granite
[50:09] Platforms they know skate no skateboards allowed
[50:11] Yeah
[50:13] On the issue slope and drainage just goes back to Eagle Brook
[50:17] I when I looked at the plans and I
[50:19] I appreciate the fact that your design concept is to manage 100% of this farm water on site and do groundwater recharge
[50:25] I couldn't find the way in which you're dealing with a stormwater drainage pattern right at the entrance to the property because I recall that it does slope down toward Bedford Street is there a trend strain there that basically captures and recharges those stormwater right at that point of contact with the sidewalk.
[50:45] No, there isn't actually because there's an existing driveway there where matching or slightly reducing considering how much we are mitigating.
[50:53] So the pre-deposed analysis, there will be less runoff, but we're not capturing that runoff.
[51:01] So not 100% is going into the street train system.
[51:07] Correct. But less than what was going before.
[51:09] Right. But I mean, it's a few hundred square feet, something like that.
[51:12] Yeah, if you look at the plants, there's a catch basin right at the neck anything below that is going
[51:18] Everything above that is being captured. There's a small area. There's the drainage the drainage maps would would indicate the area
[51:24] I could certainly have I could put it on the plan so you know how much there is but off the top my head
[51:28] I don't know exactly how much it is and it wasn't feasible to kind of capture and recharge that small site
[51:34] We just get too low. Yeah, it just gets too low and I can't go back into the site
[51:38] The street train would be the trend strain would be actually lower than the in-birds at the top of the recharge
[51:44] Correct. Yeah, and again because of our restrictions with with ledge
[51:49] We can't drive these systems down deep roots to to accommodate that so it's it's a balancing act
[51:54] Will you be able to contact the butters about the lateral?
[51:58] I know I know mr. Masha has tried to contact them and regards to other matters and it's been difficult because that's a
[52:07] business plaza that's owned by entity. So, you know, who is the owner is one thing, but I mean, obviously everything goes without saying everything is public and we're here at these meetings and everything's out there so they could certainly reach out if they wanted to.
[52:22] We could certainly give it another try, but we haven't had a lot of success mark unless I'm speaking out of turn.
[52:29] Yeah, I just want to raise this because it came up with the residents of Lois Lane
[52:33] across the street in the property, the Lex Project next door that Finnegan did.
[52:36] There was an enormous amount of concern about this sort of lateral groundwater movement.
[52:40] They were talking about flooding and basements and issues like that.
[52:43] I know that's not the same topic here, but at the same time, I mean, as you know, given
[52:47] that sort of elevated groundwater recharge system, you're accommodating 100-year event.
[52:51] There's a lot of water in those things.
[52:52] And you know, given what I read about the, you know, the ledge in the purge water table and everything like that, I could see that that could be an unexpected impact during major storm events.
[53:02] You can end up with some sea vision, particularly in the winter. That's a real big issue, you know, for getting on that side. So anyway, well, thank you very much.
[53:10] I appreciate comments. Yeah, those are the comments that I have right now. Thank you.
[53:13] Thank you, Mr. Leon. I was just going to ask you if I could move on to the other four members of the board. Sorry, Mr. Creature.
[53:20] Mr. Thompson.
[53:23] Thank you.
[53:25] I really just have, Mr. Leon got a couple of my questions.
[53:33] One thing that you mentioned was you're going to do the construction in two faces.
[53:39] So how will that work? How long is it going to add a lot of extra time to the construction?
[53:44] How do you plan on working that?
[53:47] That hasn't all been flushed out yet but it is proposed to do the front of the property first there is a statutory requirement the construction begin within three years of the special permit and we're aware of that and we've discussed that so we would expect that the second phase would certainly begin within that statutory time frame of three years.
[54:06] Does that help answer the question?
[54:08] So it will be whenever you get started on the first phase and then three years.
[54:13] No, no, it's three years from the date that we get the approval the construction must so that's so it's not an extended period of time.
[54:23] It's, yeah, construction over there, you know, you don't want to add too much.
[54:35] Well, with that, and I also don't necessarily have a problem with the fencing, but
[54:44] it would be a nice looking fence so that where it is going to be an extra height, you know,
[54:52] and the abouters did request it, you know, I hope it would be something that would not be unattractive looking.
[55:01] Okay.
[55:03] One other question I have is, I want you to want to call the area. You're coming
[55:16] in and out all of a sudden. I am. Yeah, just that. Is that better? Yes. Okay. You mentioned
[55:25] in about the mail that all of the mail will go in that one small slot. But my question
[55:32] is you know everybody today gets Instacard or you know FedEx or Amazon where are packages going
[55:43] to go. That room is about 100 square feet. It's 20 big for 31 units. Yeah it's 20 big for a 30 unit
[55:52] project.
[55:55] Okay and so they'll all just get dumped in there and then some you know people will just go
[56:03] pick them up and hopefully you know they'll all be there. It'll be locked. Okay.
[56:10] Card access only. It's not an open lobby. Okay all right and so you also showed in one
[56:23] of your pictures the is there one set of dumpsters at one side sort of toward the front.
[56:29] So the all the units, even the ones way in the back will be carting their trash, recycle, and composting to that one spot.
[56:41] Yeah, we have one designated trash recycling compost location. It's actually in the rear of the site, not the front.
[56:47] Okay.
[56:48] So not near the road.
[56:50] And that is.
[56:52] Yep, that's a singular location, so everyone will bring their...
[56:57] Hello.
[56:59] I...
[57:02] Who's that?
[57:08] Okay, so the whole unit will use... will bring their stuff to the front.
[57:15] It seems a little tight, especially for the units that are in the back by the fence.
[57:20] It seems like a long way to walk with garbage.
[57:27] And I think we, I don't think we've, or maybe we haven't gotten to this yet, but on
[57:35] in each of the units, you know, there's some of them, they have two levels, maybe some
[57:40] three, but is there of a washer, dryer units in each unit or how is that working?
[57:46] And they're all on the lower level or how does that work?
[57:52] The unit designs are not complete, but the intention is that each unit will have in-unit
[57:58] laundry, and the majority of the units are single-level units.
[58:04] We have a few upper-level units that have kind of mezzanine, like a loft section to them,
[58:12] and the laundry would be on the primary level of that unit.
[58:16] Okay. And just finally, I did the question by the Council on Aging. They really do have several
[58:26] good thoughtful questions in here. And I hope that you'll have a look at them and
[58:32] you know, sort of design kind of somewhat accordingly. In case we do have, you know, people that need
[58:39] that kind of assistance.
[58:44] Yes, noted and we did meet with the committee on disability and accessibility.
[58:51] And they had very similar comments and appreciated that we had already begun to
[58:55] incorporate some of those notions into our renderings.
[59:00] And many of those items are code required anyway, so we wouldn't even be able to get a building permit.
[59:06] that we did not provide a number of those items.
[59:09] So yes, we will be making this very conducive
[59:13] to accessible and visually impaired folks.
[59:18] Okay, that's it for me.
[59:20] Thank you so much.
[59:21] Thank you, Ms. Thompson.
[59:23] Ms. Getson.
[59:29] Oh, hi.
[59:29] Thank you.
[59:30] So I have Ms. Thompson and Ms. Leon asked some of my questions.
[59:37] So that was good.
[59:38] So, I just want to also follow up on the letter from Transportation Advisory Committee.
[59:44] They were asking for bus shelter since there's a 30 units and I think it will be good to
[59:52] consider that.
[59:54] I hope that you would have at least a formal response and see if you...
[1:00:00] We could consider building a bar shoulder even on the public way. I want to just point that out. And I also agree the tree committee's suggestion that the landscape purse, I forget the name. I would like to hear quickly that on the site where we all were wasting for some low, low hanging trees to be planted.
[1:00:29] But you guys said if there's not enough space, are there any planning and all other like bushes and things like that or is it possible at all to have a lot of different type of shorter trees.
[1:00:44] That the tree committee has recommended so I was really hoping that you would consider that that would really help on water runoff since this is a.
[1:00:53] a higher ground compared to the budding properties.
[1:00:59] Yeah, I can answer that. Mike D'Angelo.
[1:01:01] Thank you. Thank you. I was in quick on getting your name.
[1:01:06] Yeah, no problem. Thank you.
[1:01:08] So yeah, the bars are very low in the land is slowing up.
[1:01:11] So we really feel that putting trees there of any kind would be a liability for everyone,
[1:01:16] including the town with the being so close to the road.
[1:01:19] So we do have a lot of trees, we do have a shade tree tucked between E and F. We have a lot of plantings below there.
[1:01:27] There's a little patch along there that remains along the street.
[1:01:32] Perhaps we could put more shrubs there. It's a lot of planting, but I think that's that probably be the extent of it.
[1:01:38] Again, we just advise against putting trees of any kind in that area.
[1:01:43] Just giving how low those those power lines are in the slope of the land.
[1:01:47] What about the part in front of building F?
[1:01:53] If you go back to that plan, I'm sorry you met.
[1:01:56] Whoever had that up.
[1:02:01] There is a pathway there.
[1:02:03] Yeah, so you find a pathway between the pathway and the building.
[1:02:08] Is that what what are they?
[1:02:12] That's that is all shrub planting and ground covers.
[1:02:17] So that that'd be very tight to the building to put a tree.
[1:02:22] potentially could put a columnar tree maybe in there between the two light
[1:02:25] ballards. But I wouldn't want to put any too far south on building up just
[1:02:29] because of how close the building it is. Just thinking about long-term
[1:02:34] viability for the tree if you think about. People plant too close to buildings and
[1:02:38] times and it becomes an issue. Yeah so the if you are planning to do
[1:02:43] straps is not actually showing here because it seems to me that other straps
[1:02:48] you're showing. So this picture is so far. I don't know. Those are ground covers. I missed
[1:02:55] both. That area is ground covers in front of building F. So yeah, it's planted. It's just ground
[1:03:01] covers. So you would go up bushes there? We could put shrubs. Yeah. Yeah, I think you know the little
[1:03:10] their little taller and take out more water than ground cover. And I see you're having low bushes
[1:03:16] is very close to the building on the other side, which is great.
[1:03:19] So I think anything we can do to more planning on that side
[1:03:24] would be appreciated.
[1:03:27] So the other comments, I want to work question at one.
[1:03:32] Yeah, the trick I'm going to call it the understory trees,
[1:03:35] or maybe taller bushes.
[1:03:38] My question is also about the face.
[1:03:41] So did I just did Mr. Johnson said and you're going to hoping that the first phase would be
[1:03:50] building E and F? Is that correct?
[1:03:56] What you haven't thought about.
[1:03:58] Yeah, I always thought that just
[1:04:02] I'm sorry, yeah. Yeah, we have it specifically.
[1:04:05] I'm sorry Jim, let me just go quick and I'll hand it off to you.
[1:04:08] You're crazy.
[1:04:09] Yeah, but there haven't been any specific decisions
[1:04:12] as to what buildings will be,
[1:04:13] but the plan is to work from the front to the back.
[1:04:16] So certainly the Johnson's historic home
[1:04:18] will be the first one moved,
[1:04:20] what happens in terms of the other buildings
[1:04:23] and what order they would be,
[1:04:24] it would certainly be the ones along Bedford Street
[1:04:26] would be started first.
[1:04:32] Yeah, I think that we regard phasing
[1:04:37] phasing as undesirable, we would do it if we practically have to as a function of our
[1:04:46] financing capacity.
[1:04:48] And we would regard the impact of phasing primarily through the eyes of our tenants.
[1:04:57] We would not want to impose further construction on our tenants who move in first.
[1:05:04] so we won't do phasing at all unless we really need to. And as far as what order we would do things in, we have not really looked at that carefully.
[1:05:18] And we won't ever look at it carefully unless we need to.
[1:05:27] Okay. Oh, thank you. Yeah. So I would just I agree that I was also concerned about your tenets.
[1:05:34] If there's too much space, if they say it's a happier year in between, it also can be costly
[1:05:41] that you had to make the cover and things look more livable. So you cannot just have a ground
[1:05:46] if I have. Yeah. So I think you had to clean up the site in a very nice way. So it can be challenging.
[1:05:53] Yes, we care about that at least as much as anybody else might care about it.
[1:05:59] Okay, so I just want to understand, you know, hopefully you can go smoothly in one place.
[1:06:05] Did I understand that the red lines, are you going to have fencing all around? That was kind of
[1:06:12] unusual for, I don't know, I'm kind of torn in between, so did you guys know? Are you planning to have
[1:06:22] Fencing all around except the front on Bedford Street?
[1:06:26] No, the only fence that's planned is on the north side that was requested by the butters.
[1:06:31] Okay. Okay, so that's what I thought. Okay, so it's the only one side.
[1:06:35] Correct. One all the four sides. Okay, so that's better because I wouldn't want it to be completely closed
[1:06:42] out as kind of a, if you have trees to give privacy and I have a nice feeling, I think that's better
[1:06:48] than the solid financing. Yeah, thank you. That's good to hear. I was also torn about the parking,
[1:06:56] and I'm glad that you were planning to add two parking spaces for the Johnson's family. I think
[1:07:06] that's very practical, but if you take that to out and there will be four guest parking, assuming
[1:07:14] that every person who lived there had one car or maybe no cars, hopefully what are the plans if
[1:07:24] somebody has more than a couple of cats and then this is a 30-some units. If like two families are
[1:07:31] having events or even three, even one-tenth of the household or the renters are having events,
[1:07:39] I have guests. Where were you hoping that they would park? Or ideally the old bike over and walk
[1:07:49] over and take buses, but we're not talking about ideal situation. Yeah, this is Jim. Mark and I
[1:07:58] could probably both have something to say about this. We are informally discussing places off our site
[1:08:06] where guests could park. We've talked with knights of Columbus. We've talked to a couple of the churches.
[1:08:13] And those discussions are moving very slowly. We've also gotten some definite
[1:08:19] nose from commercial parking lots that are close to us. So as the need arises, as we have people
[1:08:29] move in and we see what they need and we see what the actual flows are. We think we have flexible
[1:08:37] options that we can call on if needed.
[1:08:44] Yeah, I'll just start if I could add on to that. I think we
[1:08:48] were told explicitly by the Affordable Council that they will not be renting and that has also been
[1:08:55] our experience in the past. You have to, you know, lease those number of units that will have no cars.
[1:08:59] they was asked that we would discount the parking fee and that is the case
[1:09:03] every unit has to rent their own parking none of them are assigned and it's
[1:09:09] planned to be open parking so it is not expected that everyone who has a car
[1:09:14] will be there at all times in all places and those spaces that are not
[1:09:17] utilized will also be available for guests so unless everyone's home all at the
[1:09:22] same time and all of the guest spaces are taken scenario I think is we're
[1:09:27] drastically overpart is our experience on this based on other projects.
[1:09:30] I think this concern is overblown, especially in light of the six spaces that we've added.
[1:09:37] So I really think we have 10 to 15 guest spaces at any one time and we have one amenity space
[1:09:42] and apartments that are intentionally designed small to push you out into the common area space.
[1:09:47] If you want to have a gathering, so having one space to have that, it's unlike we're
[1:09:51] going to have four parties at the same time.
[1:09:53] I think that's pretty much how we've designed it to work.
[1:09:56] Chris, correct me or I'm wrong.
[1:09:58] That's correct.
[1:10:01] Okay.
[1:10:02] Thank you.
[1:10:02] I'm glad to hear that you have some plans and to know the plan B and plan C, so.
[1:10:08] But when you said you're flexible, it's not necessarily there's space that you could
[1:10:13] push out and add in your parking space is more that could be some renders may not need
[1:10:19] a car.
[1:10:19] Correct.
[1:10:21] And they're not assigned, so if you park in space 2A, because it's not assigned to your
[1:10:27] apartment, so you could also park in space 3A if it's available, so as long as you have
[1:10:31] a permit.
[1:10:33] Okay.
[1:10:33] Thank you.
[1:10:45] Oh, sorry.
[1:10:46] I was muted.
[1:10:47] Mr. McBride, go ahead.
[1:10:49] Thank you.
[1:10:53] Yes.
[1:10:55] I'm...
[1:10:55] Thank you.
[1:11:03] The...
[1:11:03] about universal design principles and how this is fitting in with the request
[1:11:16] to not have the inclusionary unit be accessible specifically.
[1:11:32] I don't know who wants to.
[1:11:34] Can you rephrase the question? I think the request was not from us.
[1:11:39] that was from a regional housing authority to separate that you had spoken to the local
[1:11:47] as opposed to the regional. And can you tell me a little more about that conversation?
[1:11:53] It was very simple. We walked them through the plans and indicated where the affordable
[1:11:59] units were, indicated where the accessible units were, and they just frankly said,
[1:12:05] we appreciate that one of the accessible units is actually an affordable unit. We like that.
[1:12:12] Exactly what they said. So we're like, all right, we'll move forward with that.
[1:12:17] Great. Sounds reasonable. The idea of the floating condition for inclusionary units seems
[1:12:24] like a very kind and common sense solution that I support.
[1:12:30] I like that the use of rain barrels
[1:12:35] So, Mr. Johnson at your house, your private home and would encourage more in each of the
[1:12:47] landscaped areas, it makes sense in each of the landscaped areas to not use puddle
[1:13:00] water for watering landscapes.
[1:13:07] I have to say that the renderings, they still seem very
[1:13:12] bald to me. I love that you've added more trees, but because building up is so close to
[1:13:20] the street and the high part then the electrical lines would prevent plantings. It is missing
[1:13:30] that visual separation. If you go back, could someone bring up the rendering, the street
[1:13:38] rendering?
[1:14:00] Yeah, that one. I mean, if you look, again, if you look at it, if you look farther
[1:14:05] down the street you see trees and you see that there are trees behind this view. It just
[1:14:13] seems like there's very little to kind of buffer that visual from the street. And even
[1:14:21] if that building F was rotated by feet away from the sidewalk, it looks like you could probably
[1:14:33] get one in there. I know that it is sloped, but I for the tree committee to say that they
[1:14:44] strongly encourage planting. I think it's something that you should consider and look at again.
[1:14:54] Also, shrubbery, so I think a great idea. It might be sufficient because it is above.
[1:15:00] The street level, that might have some impact on the baldness that I'm seeing.
[1:15:14] I like the idea
[1:15:16] of having more greenery.
[1:15:20] So, as far as the fence goes, the butters are going to be impacted
[1:15:28] by this project and while generally I'm not a fan of border fences between
[1:15:39] neighbors. I do appreciate Mr. Johnson's willingness to listen and make changes. I
[1:15:47] understand that with the grade changes and the psych conditions and the
[1:15:58] for them, although it would be nice if this were a green solution with just more
[1:16:06] freeze and shrubbery. But can I ask what the fence is going to be made out of?
[1:16:15] Well, we proposed greenery as a screening element and that was not acceptable to the
[1:16:20] butters. They want actual secure privacy. And we are not sure what the fence is made of yet.
[1:16:29] Could I request that it not be vinyl?
[1:16:34] Some people like the look of a brand new vinyl fence, and very quickly it turns from
[1:16:40] sharp looking to yuck.
[1:16:45] So that could be a suggestion.
[1:16:47] So if they want a seven foot fence, I would be willing to sign on to that.
[1:16:53] the Greeley Village sightlines, I think they could be enhanced by adding native shrubs.
[1:17:04] You know, there are some that are just the witch hazel and viburnum, and we have a version
[1:17:10] of things like that, support pollinators and wildlife, and they can get pretty large and can do a very
[1:17:18] nice job of screening. Can you go back to that slide that shows these site lines from Greeley?
[1:17:26] Sure, but I will say that, Jim, you can probably attest to this, that because of all the Norway
[1:17:33] maples that exist around the perimeter of both Greeley and the north side, nothing, there's no
[1:17:38] understory that's worked there. So I think that's one of the challenges and I won't pretend to be a
[1:17:46] landscape architects might, you can weigh in on that, but I'll pull up to them.
[1:17:53] Yeah, pop the plan, please. The room.
[1:18:12] Yeah, just it's going to be very dark under there between the buildings and the trees.
[1:18:17] So you're saying that the Norway maples are on the Greeley Village side?
[1:18:28] Yeah, they're on on both sides. This is Jim. I think just from walking the property and the
[1:18:36] feel of it, Ms. McBride, you mentioned that you're concerned about the Greeley Village
[1:18:41] sightlines. I think those buildings are further away from our property line and also are quite a bit
[1:18:52] lower and so I think the sight lines from Greeley Village up towards our property are already
[1:19:02] very obscured by trees, very, very screened and that's not going to change. I think the concern
[1:19:09] is more along the Tukesbury side, those abouters where we also have a lot of dense trees and the
[1:19:17] The neighbors there for years have had different opinions.
[1:19:21] Some have asked us to take trees out, and some have wanted to have trees there the way
[1:19:26] they are.
[1:19:28] So where we are pulled in both directions, our plan is to keep all the trees we possibly
[1:19:36] can, whether or not they're Norway maples, since they are Norway maples, it cuts the possibilities
[1:19:44] for understory plantings. Can you go to slide four on the architectural plan set,
[1:20:02] slide number or picture three?
[1:20:08] It just seems to me that some of the some of the
[1:20:18] sunnier part on that slope and because it is lower and it's looking up well
[1:20:25] this this is a representation I don't think we have every exact tree marked and
[1:20:30] rendered in this image okay so I can't we can't speak to the accuracy of this
[1:20:37] because it's it's a software thing you know we can you can go back out to the
[1:20:43] site and take a look. But yeah, we just we've seen that there's been no no growth possible
[1:20:49] underneath the the amount of trees that are that are there. I mean yeah, if you could go out
[1:20:59] and look at the possibilities just because from there looking up a problem might actually be
[1:21:06] very effective. So if there's any way that you could you could explore that possibility that would
[1:21:10] rate and then let's see in terms of runoff down the driveway just to the
[1:21:24] southwest of the bottom of the driveway is that is it possible to put a
[1:21:30] rain garden in there to accommodate so so that maybe less of the rain is
[1:21:36] out to the street drains?
[1:21:45] There's not a lot of room there. There's the transformer
[1:21:47] lives down in that area to the low part so that would be then to the to the higher
[1:21:54] side. We have the start of the wall and the start of what will be Jim's house. So
[1:22:01] there's just not a whole heck of a lot of room there. I can certainly take a look
[1:22:05] but I don't think that there's going to be anything of significance that could
[1:22:09] happen there. Right I'm just looking at let's see what
[1:22:14] picture is that and looking at. Yeah the transformer is there but maybe just
[1:22:20] slightly lower than the transformer if there's a way to create just a little
[1:22:25] pocket area there or with some plantings to accommodate. I do worry about the
[1:22:32] runoff right?
[1:22:34] I understand that there are certain constraints but yeah if you
[1:22:39] you can, if you can explore that a little bit, that would be, that would be fantastic.
[1:22:45] And yeah, the, I understand the, the hesitation to put a bus shelter in there, but there
[1:22:52] are two, you know, there's the A1 express and there's also the 76 that go by there.
[1:22:58] So it would be nice to have accommodation for the bus shelter.
[1:23:03] Are you planning to, as the Transpacial Advisory Committee had written, are you planning
[1:23:10] on handing out the information materials on the MBTA and the, yes, okay, Mark, thank
[1:23:16] you.
[1:23:17] Masca, that is terrific, because again, back to the parking issue, if more people have access
[1:23:25] to other forms of transportation, that's better.
[1:23:29] All right, that's it for me.
[1:23:30] Thank you.
[1:23:31] Thank you, Mr. McBride.
[1:23:33] So I'll wrap it up.
[1:23:34] A lot of things have already been covered.
[1:23:41] I listened.
[1:23:42] If street trees on a better street are viable, please do it.
[1:23:45] If it's not, don't do it.
[1:23:48] I think the bus shelter would be 175 feet from the bus stop
[1:23:54] as pointed out by the applicant.
[1:23:56] I think that's too far to make it useful.
[1:24:00] Let's see, I support the need for signage mentioned in the staff report, like watch
[1:24:07] alpha bicycles, and with respect to visitor parking, I suggest it should be surface parking
[1:24:12] close to Beffer Street, and they should be assigned, saying visitor parking only.
[1:24:17] I think tandem spaces for visitors is not going to work.
[1:24:21] I think that should be assigned spaces.
[1:24:24] cases. We already talked about closing the existing curb cut and making one that's
[1:24:30] appropriate for the path. In a lease agreement, you can stipulate how many parking cars are
[1:24:37] allowed for the apartment. And let's see, with the Council on Aging, please consider
[1:24:44] all the comments and accommodate to the degree possible. So I'm finished.
[1:24:52] I'm going to move on. It's 7.25. If you have one question, go ahead.
[1:25:02] Thank you. I had two, but you mentioned one on the list of questions, requests from the Council on Aging.
[1:25:07] So I'm not going to, yeah, that's 100% support. I think that needs to be addressed.
[1:25:12] The other thing I want to mention is that we all agree that on the Bedford side,
[1:25:16] there will be a nice for the people who live there, the renters to have a little bit screening
[1:25:23] a little bit away from the very busy street actually. There's a double yellow line on the
[1:25:27] Bedford Street. It's not shown on the on the rendering. I request it last time. So it's a very
[1:25:35] busy street and it's pretty close to the back to the sidewalk. I understand you guys said there's
[1:25:43] not enough room but the room is decided by the size of the buildings. So I understand you decided
[1:25:52] is still keep building F which could have solved all our problems. However, if you want to keep the
[1:25:58] building 5 for economic or other reasons, I was wondering if you would consider shrink building F,
[1:26:07] I'm sorry, building F and or building A, I believe, A and B, so that they have just a couple of
[1:26:17] not a lot, two feet, three feet away from the sidewalk, from the street. I
[1:26:23] think that would make a world of difference if it's possible. So I think, you
[1:26:30] know, we're not, I don't know how flexible you guys are to consider for people
[1:26:35] who are right there to have a little bit more privacy, a little bit of space from
[1:26:41] the street, but I think that should be something to be considered, to shrink the
[1:26:45] one or two other buildings to make it more present. Thank you.
[1:26:53] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
[1:26:57] Okay. Ms. McKabe, you've had a handout for a while. Please go ahead.
[1:27:01] Thank you. I just want to see if I don't think we heard from most of the members, but we didn't hear from Mr. Johnson in Mr. Cree John, the seven-foot fence and what your thoughts were on that.
[1:27:16] I'm fine with that, seven-foot fence.
[1:27:18] Again, it's for privacy.
[1:27:20] It's not for blocking view of the buildings.
[1:27:23] When they're in the backyard, they want to feel so it's private.
[1:27:25] So I'm okay with that.
[1:27:28] Yeah, so about the fencing, I'm okay with that too,
[1:27:32] because I think we are, the planning for one of the purposes
[1:27:37] is that we are all for the whole neighborhood and for the community.
[1:27:40] So, we make sure the new development is having a positive effect on everyone.
[1:27:46] So, I'm okay with that, but like Ms. McBride mentioned, I support natural wood kind of
[1:27:52] fencing, not plastic, because it just creates a lot of problems down the roads.
[1:27:58] So, even though it can feel like durable, but they're just trash, you know, eventually they
[1:28:07] It can now be naturally composited or degraded once it's after its lifetime.
[1:28:14] And also just one quick note on the, I'm sorry, I just one quick note on the on the bus
[1:28:24] shelter.
[1:28:24] I just want to mention we talked about, I mentioned that earlier, I still strongly support
[1:28:29] what the transportation advisory committee mentioned about adding a bus shelter, even though
[1:28:34] is closer to the next one. I think they have the reasons and I think I encourage you to talk to
[1:28:41] them about the possibility of maybe even MDTA move their bus stop little closer to you guys or
[1:28:47] whatever it is. I think they have a good reasons to suggest that and I don't want to take more time
[1:28:52] to debate if it's worthwhile or not here, but I recommend that you talk to them if possible. Thank you.
[1:28:59] Okay, fair enough. Thank you. So we're finished with board comments questions. Does the applicant
[1:29:07] team have anything at this point?
[1:29:11] I think we're all set. I think we've got some good comments.
[1:29:14] We can take back and see what other changes we can make. But I think we're all set at this point
[1:29:21] responding. Okay, good. I do think all the questions and comments were on the table now. So thank
[1:29:26] Thank you very much.
[1:29:29] So, with that, I'll go to Ms. Thompson from Ocean.
[1:29:35] Move to continue the public hearing for the site plan review application at 80 Bedford Street to Wednesday, September 16th, 2026 at or after 6pm on Zoom.
[1:29:49] Thank you. Is there a second?
[1:29:51] Second.
[1:29:52] Thank you.
[1:29:53] We'll go to a vote, Ms. Thompson.
[1:29:55] Yes.
[1:29:55] Yes.
[1:29:56] This is Sean Walker.
[1:29:57] Yes.
[1:29:58] Mr. Johnson.
[1:29:59] Yes.
[1:30:00] Yes. Ms. McBride. Yes. And I'm yes. So it's unanimous. Thank you very much.
[1:30:08] Let's see. It's 730. I think we'll get, we'll start with five seven spring street and then we'll see if we have a chance to take a break.
[1:30:19] So this is a, this is the first public hearing for proposal to construct multifamily housing in the villageral village district at five and seven spring street.
[1:30:30] The proposal is for three two family homes using the revised MBTA communities by law.
[1:30:38] And will the applicant please make introductions and present the project?
[1:30:42] Thank you.
[1:30:43] Yes, Mr. Chair, if I may.
[1:30:45] Mike Novak from Patriot Engineering.
[1:30:47] With me tonight is the on-rapplicant John Saran from Holmes Development, along with Jeff
[1:30:53] Toma landscape architect and Mike McKay project architect.
[1:30:57] I will start with the review of the plans and then I'll hand it over to Jeff and then Mike and then we'll bring it back to you Mr. Chair.
[1:31:05] I will bring up my plans if you'll just bear with me a moment.
[1:31:11] And if once you say you can see everything, I will commence.
[1:31:20] Okay, great.
[1:31:22] So, as you stated, we're here for a five and seven spring street under the village
[1:31:26] overlay district.
[1:31:27] The two lots are located in the in the dark of bold in the middle of the plan here.
[1:31:32] Just south of the intersection of Merritt Road with spring street.
[1:31:36] Those of you at the site walk will remember that these are two individual parcels that
[1:31:42] are being combined to allow for the development.
[1:31:47] And I'll with that said, I'll jump to the, oops, sorry about that.
[1:31:50] So this is the, this is a representation of the existing conditions, you'll recall spring
[1:31:57] tree here.
[1:31:58] Five is on the right, seven is on the left, again two single family dwellings.
[1:32:02] Seven has an associated driveway that drives straight into a garage attached, and if you recall
[1:32:09] five has a slope driveway that brings around to the rear to a rear garage and then actually
[1:32:14] connects back into the parcel adjacent to the north.
[1:32:19] both both properties slope away from Spring Street. Again five slopes a
[1:32:24] little deeper with a small retaining wall. You recall that there's a filled in
[1:32:28] area to the rear of five that's was probably a parking lot at some point but
[1:32:34] has not or over flow parking for the the butter but has since not been used. And
[1:32:39] then seven slopes to a fairly flat back area that's grasped with a with a low
[1:32:46] point in the middle. The project,
[1:32:51] sorry about that, not sure what's going on with my plans there.
[1:32:55] The project is to construct three buildings, each with two townhome units
[1:33:03] a piece. So building A will have two, building B will have two, and building C will have two as well.
[1:33:10] Each unit will have a garage attached inside. The building A both units and building
[1:33:18] be both units, those will be tandem garages, building C will be single garages correct correct.
[1:33:26] And when we get to the renderings, you'll see how that will look in regards to how those
[1:33:30] are laid out.
[1:33:32] The intent of the site development is to close the driveway entrance at five and relocate
[1:33:38] the entrance of seven a little further away or self of merit road intersection and provide
[1:33:44] just one access, 24 access, to a common drive area that will allow access to all driveways
[1:33:52] on all garage bases. And we wanted to do that to centralize the bulk of the impervious
[1:33:58] area, which will be brought to catch basin collection and infiltrate it into the system
[1:34:04] shown here along with all of the roof areas. In an effort to bring in some low impact
[1:34:11] development in design as well. We're proposing pervious patios and pervious walkways for all of the units
[1:34:19] as part of the overall development.
[1:34:23] Quick utility layout just for everyone to understand we're
[1:34:27] just going to bring in a main water and a main sewer to service off each unit. And again,
[1:34:32] the system will be located here. Transformer to the self or in the corner. I believe we talked about
[1:34:39] on site, we're probably going to extend some fencing around that and relocate that slightly.
[1:34:44] But with that, I was going to let Jeff take over and walk you through how we're going
[1:34:48] to lay out the site and landscape it, and from there, we'll go to Mr. Kay.
[1:34:53] So Jeff.
[1:34:54] Good evening, everybody.
[1:34:56] Thanks, Mike.
[1:34:57] My name is Jeff Tomas.
[1:34:58] Mike said I'm a landscape architect for the project, and I'll quickly go through the site
[1:35:03] plan for everybody as it's the planning board's first time taking a look at the site.
[1:35:08] The site may be small but still has the same concerns that we have with every site, even
[1:35:14] the larger ones.
[1:35:16] And we look at the site, we want to be concerned with the edges, what happens on the edges
[1:35:20] of the property, who are the abutters, what's happened to left to the right, and behind us,
[1:35:25] and then what's the street scape look like.
[1:35:28] And so with that in mind, we take a look at the existing conditions on site,
[1:35:36] and one of
[1:35:36] observing as many of the existing trees as we can,
[1:35:40] considering the footprint of the site.
[1:35:42] And Mike, you can point those out.
[1:35:44] Those are in the sort of dark green
[1:35:46] with the solid circle there.
[1:35:50] For in the corner, there's some opportunities,
[1:35:53] a big pine tree in the front by the sidewalk
[1:35:56] and a couple of smaller pine trees on site plan right.
[1:36:00] And so those are the existing trees that we're saving.
[1:36:03] And then we take a look at,
[1:36:04] But, you know, how can we improve the site for the butters and make sure that they're
[1:36:10] not happy with the proposed development.
[1:36:12] And so one of the main concerns is screening and we're proposing a six foot fence that
[1:36:17] surrounds the site on the left or right and in the back and that helps to provide privacy
[1:36:22] for the new tenants of the project and then helps them also provide screening and some privacy
[1:36:29] for the neighbors that are but the property on those three sides.
[1:36:33] We're also trying to provide street tree planting,
[1:36:40] on any street scape that we work on.
[1:36:43] We'd like to propose some large shade trees
[1:36:44] to help with the street scape in the town of Lexington.
[1:36:49] You can see those along Spring Street, those are the two trees
[1:36:52] that are to the right of the driveway there.
[1:36:55] And that's going to help with, you know,
[1:36:57] we had a chance to work on every project.
[1:36:59] We plant street trees in that tree lawn or close to that.
[1:37:03] and really improve the canopy that exists along the town of Lexington.
[1:37:09] Again, I'm a landscape architect, so not only am I concerned with how the site works
[1:37:13] with the abutters, but we're also trying to create some amenity spaces for the new residents
[1:37:20] and we've done that both each individual unit has its own private patio behind the unit.
[1:37:28] They're small, but they're big enough to put a table in a couple of chairs for each unit.
[1:37:32] and then there's a small fence and some planting in between the units that are
[1:37:38] our tandem to each other or immediately adjacent. In addition to those spaces for
[1:37:45] each individual unit we're also providing some common amenity space and I know
[1:37:52] we've had some discussions with the the planning department and they want to
[1:37:56] make sure that we meet the 300 square foot requirement and I talked to them
[1:37:59] today. And you can see that corner up there in the angular upper glove building B1 at
[1:38:08] angle shape. There's a paved patio space with a picnic table and a couple of benches
[1:38:13] for right some seating area. Then there's open lawn space, flowering trees, and some ornamental
[1:38:19] plantings along the fence to help provide a nice amenity for the residents who want to go out.
[1:38:26] maybe if they have some larger gatherings and want to picnic outside or just sit outside
[1:38:30] and have a meal, whether that be lunch or dinner, that's a nice place for the six families
[1:38:37] that might be living there.
[1:38:39] Additionally, you know, I'm always concerned with the planting and how we do the planting.
[1:38:44] And as always, we develop the plant list based on the town of Lexington's preferred plant list.
[1:38:50] And the most important planting always starts with the structural part of the landscape and
[1:38:54] And that's the large shade trees.
[1:38:57] And you can see, again, a reiterate we're planting two
[1:39:00] street trees along Spring Street.
[1:39:02] Those are going to be red oaks, and then there's five
[1:39:04] additional shade trees which are red maples
[1:39:07] between our property in the adjacent neighbor.
[1:39:12] And those are going to provide shade for the drive
[1:39:14] and again, some additional screening and scale
[1:39:18] from the budding neighbor and for the proposed property
[1:39:21] to help bring those two-story units back down to scale.
[1:39:26] And when I say that, I also not only like to always include
[1:39:30] the large shade trees, but part of the landscape
[1:39:33] is there's three portions of the landscape in terms of planting.
[1:39:37] There's the canopy, the understory, and then the ground cover.
[1:39:41] And in the understory trees, we have these small flowering trees.
[1:39:45] They're important to every site.
[1:39:46] You can see I've got some colored light pink.
[1:39:50] And what they do is help bring the scale from the outdoor to the interior spaces.
[1:39:56] Not only do they provide ornamental flowers in the spring time, but we help
[1:40:00] again start to bring that outdoor scale back to the inside if you plant them near
[1:40:04] the entrances or if you plant them near the exterior spaces. And that's what we're
[1:40:09] doing here. And then additionally the landscape always has the, you know, the
[1:40:15] ground cover and the woody shrubs that provide that last layer of ornamental
[1:40:18] interest for the landscape. So we've got evergreens and deciduous shrubs to
[1:40:23] ride seasonal interest for four seasons of the year. And then additionally the
[1:40:27] ground cover to front erosion control and provide some space for the
[1:40:33] residents to use flexible lawn space. Additionally, then there's perennials and
[1:40:37] ground cover in addition to that. So we're trying to hit all of the key
[1:40:43] components with the landscape. As Mike said, the paved spaces are going to be
[1:40:49] porous or let water come through them. It's part of the sustainability that we
[1:40:53] like to have with all of our sites.
[1:40:58] I also can touch real briefly on, there's
[1:41:01] some bicycle parking that we're providing, you know, temporary spaces they
[1:41:05] call it. There's two spaces required for this size development and you can see
[1:41:10] those just to the left of building C1 and C2. And I know there's been comments
[1:41:16] about having the more centrally located, but you know it's such a small site and there's not a
[1:41:22] better place for them that anybody could find and I think you know considering it's a small site
[1:41:27] that that's a fine place for those two spots. We certainly be open to locating it you know somewhere
[1:41:33] else if we can think of a better spot for it. Some other concerns that were raised or that you
[1:41:39] should be aware of. We're maintaining that existing sidewalk along Spring Street and then there's
[1:41:48] a transformer for the site that happens to the left of the entry drive. And I think we're also
[1:41:54] exploring moving that a little bit so that we can bring the fencing down, you know, at four feet
[1:42:00] in height for the sort of front yard of the site to provide some screening between the transformer and
[1:42:04] the neighbors yard and then move that a little bit up and over to get it out of the
[1:42:10] more out of the cone of vision that you need to clear when you're leaving the site from
[1:42:14] a vehicle to make sure that those sight lines remain open.
[1:42:19] And I think that's a real brief understanding of the landscape site plan that I worked out
[1:42:23] with Mike and the architect and the owner.
[1:42:27] And I'd like to now obviously I can answer any questions you might have, but I think we'll
[1:42:32] go through our presentation and let the architect explain
[1:42:36] the architecture and the interiors of the buildings
[1:42:38] and how they relate to the site as well.
[1:42:41] So Mike, if you could.
[1:42:43] Thanks, Mike.
[1:42:43] Thanks, Jeff.
[1:42:44] Thanks, Michael.
[1:42:46] In addition to the board, Michael McKay and the project architect,
[1:42:50] as Michael mentioned, it's three two unit townhouse buildings,
[1:42:57] two of the buildings that are identical,
[1:43:00] just flipped. They're simple structures they're designed to be sort of colonial style with
[1:43:08] good detail at the first level breaking up with a little roof overhang the entry bay or the
[1:43:15] second floor bay to break up the facade and then the attic level is designed to be a shed
[1:43:24] at dormer, just an oversized shed dormer.
[1:43:26] So all three structures are similar in design and detail.
[1:43:32] Just the first two are the wider ones,
[1:43:37] the 36 foot wide, 18 foot units each by 36.
[1:43:42] And the back unit, it's a 12 foot wide units,
[1:43:47] times the by 36.
[1:43:50] They are, the front doors would be accessible,
[1:43:52] but as townhouses, and they would be exempt from interior accessibility.
[1:44:00] So the entry door is accessible, but units themselves will not be accessible to the second floor, just the ground floor of the parking.
[1:44:10] If you can go to the next slide, please.
[1:44:14] This is the 18 by 36. The units are identical.
[1:44:19] Again, just book matched their garage spaces.
[1:44:24] I think the last meeting, the last presentation we talked about was tandem parking.
[1:44:29] We also indicate a bike storage, but we need to resolve that.
[1:44:35] That's one of the open items that we will resolve in the next couple of weeks
[1:44:41] to I think it's the three-foot stand-away or coming up with an alternative similar to
[1:44:47] what was discussed earlier. But the anti-tree door provides access to a stairway. There's mechanical
[1:44:54] Michael's face, some storage, trash storage, at the...
[1:45:00] The ground level stairs go up to an open floor plan. It's basically completely opened with the powder room, little storage, co-closet, and a full kitchen. In the second floor has two bedrooms caught up. One is a little bit larger than the other so that we have a primary, I guess, if you wanted to call it that. Wash your dryer on the second floor. And I'm sure the upper level in the
[1:45:29] In this case, it's the third floor.
[1:45:31] There would be very little mechanical space above that in the in the gable.
[1:45:37] The next one, please.
[1:45:40] This is just a hard line elevation of just calling on materials and that would be our
[1:45:50] next one.
[1:45:54] And again, one was just the side elevation.
[1:45:56] So this is the 12th by 36.
[1:46:01] These are, this brings me back to the, a long way designed a project in Boston that,
[1:46:08] the West Roxbury that had very similar units and that's where we kind of got this idea.
[1:46:14] And the units are very livable.
[1:46:16] It's just, it's an alternative, you know, smaller unit, the living space is almost the same concept as the other units.
[1:46:24] It's just all wide open, just a slightly narrower narrow space.
[1:46:30] We spent a good bit of time with John working on the layout to to make everything work.
[1:46:38] The entrance door is a recessed on the sides is a walkway again.
[1:46:43] This would be an accessible walkway to the front to that door.
[1:46:47] and then there's a con and a mudroom.
[1:46:49] It would be bike storage in that area as well.
[1:46:55] Two bedrooms and in this case,
[1:46:57] it's just one common bath and a stack washer dryer.
[1:47:02] And the next one please.
[1:47:06] It's just a view.
[1:47:07] It's a similar detail as the other building type,
[1:47:11] just a slightly narrower.
[1:47:14] And I think that's it.
[1:47:17] Thank you.
[1:47:22] Mr. Chair, you're muted, but I'll say that we're, I think we're all sending
[1:47:26] more ready to send it back to the to the board for any questions.
[1:47:30] Meeting my lips, Mr. Novak, so listen, before we go further, I am going to take
[1:47:38] five minute break. I know I need one, and if I'm the only one, that's the way it is.
[1:47:45] So we're going to go into recess now for five minutes, so we'll be back at
[1:47:52] 803. Thank you.
[1:54:03] Did I get that return time wrong? Yes. Sorry. Okay. Well, I'm here.
[1:54:12] It was 15 minutes. Yeah. The applicant team is sharp. They're back on time.
[1:54:20] Okay. Are we all here?
[1:54:24] Michael, Michael, Tina, I don't see Melanie and I don't see Lynn. Sorry about that.
[1:55:10] Melanie, here
[1:57:11] we go. Welcome back, Lynn. I stated the wrong time.
[1:57:16] Okay. So, with that, we'll go to Mr. Kepper to summarize his staff report.
[1:57:29] Yep. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In your packet is also another memo from the
[1:57:35] Planning Office, dated August 13th. I want to highlight that this project is the
[1:57:41] first application that you guys have seen under the new MBTA zoning as it was amended
[1:57:47] through annual town meeting last year in 2025. So in addition to the normal requirements
[1:57:54] we'll be reviewing for. With the other MBTA projects you've seen in the past, we're also
[1:57:59] now looking at the number of units, the net floor area, those are both restricted and
[1:58:10] And then also building height is being measured both in height and feet and in stories.
[1:58:17] So previously it was a height and feet, now stories are included in that as well.
[1:58:23] So in the staff memo with the compliance section, the kind of grid that I put in there,
[1:58:29] there's a few extra sections that weren't in previous memos.
[1:58:33] So I just wanted to highlight that that we are, this is the first one that you're seeing
[1:58:36] since the amendments went in.
[1:58:40] The project is not requesting any relief at this time.
[1:58:44] There are a couple things that we would like to see either added or changed.
[1:58:50] It's a fairly small project compared to what you've seen in the past.
[1:58:53] So my comments are somewhat light.
[1:58:56] But also, there were a few things missing in the submission package
[1:59:00] and just a couple things were looking to see updated.
[1:59:03] First is a photo metrics plan, is it required part of the submittal package?
[1:59:10] Just to see, make sure there's no light spillage on the right of way or across property lines.
[1:59:15] There is a rule that requires no poll-mounted lighting, not be over 12 feet, but I believe
[1:59:22] in discussions there was not going to be any poll-mounted lighting proposed anyways, which we kind
[1:59:27] appreciate keep keep it to a minimum just kind of lighting on the buildings works but either way we
[1:59:33] would need to see a photometric plan just to make sure that there's no light spillage anywhere
[1:59:38] there and that all the proposed fixtures are compliant down down facing and dark sky compliant and all
[1:59:44] that we are also asking to see average natural grade forms to get to the building and zoning offices
[1:59:51] for review. The plans show the, or list the height at exactly 40 feet and exactly three
[1:59:58] stories which are complex.
[2:00:00] However, you don't really even have room for a piece of plywood during construction at that point, so we want to make sure that that is confirmed. So, if we could get those forms in to the correct offices as soon as possible, just to confirm that, that would be great. I had some comments about the proposed bicycle parking. I had spoken with at least one of the members of the Lexington bicycle advisory committee, and they said they were working with the applicant to resolve some of the issues.
[2:00:29] and Mr. Toma also raised that he was in discussions with them as well, so I know that those are ongoing, so I'm imagining in the next
[2:00:39] some metal package you'll see some updated bike parking details.
[2:00:46] Mr. Toma had also discussed the outdoor amenity space.
[2:00:50] I had a comment in the memo just asking to quantify that for your 50 square foot per unit requirement.
[2:00:57] I believe that there's enough space. I just wanted to see it on plans in further
[2:01:01] record that it is being reviewed. And then this was more of a minor comment but it
[2:01:08] came from the the tree committee just to add the tree by law setback to the
[2:01:15] landscaping plans. The tree by law setback is different than the zoning by law set
[2:01:21] back and it is actually a little bit longer. So from the front, the front setback is 30 feet
[2:01:28] and the sides are 15. Rather than I believe this project was 15 on the front, 15 on the sides,
[2:01:36] and 15 on the front, 12 on the sides, and 15 on the rear. So because of the increased setbacks
[2:01:42] for the tree bylaw, we were just asking to see that on plans so that we can verify no protective
[2:01:48] the trees were going unnoticed, and just also have that for the board so that you guys
[2:01:54] can see as well. That was mostly it for me. One more materials are submitted. I may
[2:02:01] have some more comments. Also, in advance of tonight's hearing, you got written comment
[2:02:06] letters from the Tree Committee, the Commission on Disability and the Bicycle Advisory Committee,
[2:02:11] and one additional letter from a resident came in as well.
[2:02:17] I believe that was all provided to you,
[2:02:18] and you should be able to access it as well.
[2:02:22] The staff recommendation is that at the end of this hearing,
[2:02:26] the board would continue the hearing as well to your September 16th meeting.
[2:02:32] This would give the applicant time to make the requested revisions
[2:02:34] and upload materials and also respond to any board and public comments.
[2:02:40] And I'm happy to field any questions if any members have it at this time.
[2:02:45] And also, I believe, Rob DeBenedetto from, I hope I'm saying that correctly, is here
[2:02:50] as your peer review consulted from Hancock Associates.
[2:02:54] Thank you, Mr. Kepper, for a good report, usual.
[2:02:58] So at this point, we will go to Mr. DeBenedetto.
[2:03:04] Go ahead.
[2:03:06] Hello everyone, for the record my name is Robert DiBenedetto, a civil engineer with Hancock
[2:03:11] Associates and we were contracted with the Lexington Planning Board to review the application
[2:03:21] presented for the site plan review. Hancock's review comments are intended to assist the Lexington
[2:03:27] Planning Board in understanding the proposed project, identify technical issues relating to the
[2:03:32] the storm water design and to make recommendations to the board for possible technical improvements
[2:03:37] to the project.
[2:03:40] We received a resumed all the plans and reports and generally the proposed development
[2:03:49] is generally within compliance of the storm water bylaws and local bylaws.
[2:03:55] There are a series of minor comments that we presented in our letter.
[2:03:59] There's a lot of detail in those minor comments and I don't intend to go through all of them at this point unless there are specific ones that you would like to address after I go through the more major items.
[2:04:12] So I'll just review those.
[2:04:13] If you have that in front of you, you can follow along but I'll be referencing the number from our letter.
[2:04:19] So, the first one I'm just going to address is item 16.
[2:04:26] Handcock did not receive an operation and maintenance and erosion and settlement control
[2:04:31] program document.
[2:04:33] We recommend that the applicant supply this as a standalone document.
[2:04:38] This shows up as a few other comments as well as they relate to the regulations, but that's
[2:04:44] just one item that should be addressed.
[2:04:45] We
[2:04:50] have items, I'll just go through the major items and you can address smaller ones as you see fit.
[2:04:57] There appears to be a slight coverage issue with regarding to the infiltration system proposed in the driveway.
[2:05:04] The minimum pavement grade that's allowed is at a certain elevation in this case, 252.85.
[2:05:12] It appears that the grading above the system could be a bit lower than that.
[2:05:17] I don't believe this to be any major issue to simply adjust the height of the system within
[2:05:24] the ground or to adjust the gradient above.
[2:05:29] During our site visit, Mike Novak discussed with me an additional test pit that was dug
[2:05:37] near the system much closer to verify the groundwater table is satisfactory for the proposed
[2:05:46] depth of the system. We would recommend that a confirmatory test fit be done on the eastern side of the system as well to be performed before installation.
[2:05:56] No action is needed at this time for that. That can be done during construction and are just to be to confirm the ground water level.
[2:06:03] For
[2:06:11] regarding the hydrocat model, the water modeling program that was used in the existing
[2:06:19] and proposed models, there were certain subcashments that were not connected to design points.
[2:06:26] We recommend that those would be connected.
[2:06:28] We mentioned this to Mike Novak during our site visit and he said he would address that
[2:06:33] as well.
[2:06:34] This allows the total subcatchment areas to balance between the pre and post models and
[2:06:40] ensures that we are comparing apples to apples with regards to pre and post.
[2:06:45] Again, I don't see this having any adverse effects to the overall design, nothing should
[2:06:51] change as a result, but this would just bring the modeling to a more of a completed state.
[2:07:02] A couple other items.
[2:07:03] Hengok recommends that the applicant include some offsite topography and structures around
[2:07:10] the project to justify the extent of the subcatchments.
[2:07:14] This is more to confirm that the subcatchment areas that are shown in the model do represent
[2:07:21] what's actually out there.
[2:07:22] I don't foresee major adjustments, but it's just to ensure that water that's flowing towards
[2:07:28] the south is indeed doing so and not going to other areas and that there aren't any potential
[2:07:33] offsite areas that are making it on to the site that weren't considered.
[2:07:39] Final comment, a mounting analysis is required for infiltration systems if it appears
[2:07:46] if there is less than a four foot offset to the groundwater. At the moment that four foot offset
[2:07:53] is proposed and it's being maintained. However, if there are adjustments being made to the
[2:07:59] depths then we should just make sure that it is, if it's required, that it's being provided for
[2:08:04] the depths that we propose.
[2:08:09] Is that it? Yes, is that it? That's it for the more major items to
[2:08:16] consider. Again, there is quite a few very small items that can be addressed if anyone has any specific
[2:08:24] of the questions. Okay, you know, given that we have so few attendees for this meeting,
[2:08:32] just three attendees, I wonder if the applicant and team wants to respond to Mr. DiBenedadada
[2:08:40] with this time, or not. Mr. Chair, yes, I can do an all-encompassing response. His letter
[2:08:47] was thorough, well put together. I agree with him that there's detail associated with
[2:08:53] the mind of comments, but nothing that I feel is though will drastically change the project
[2:08:57] and I feel as though I can address all of his comments adequately.
[2:09:01] Perfect.
[2:09:02] Just what we want to hear, Mr. Novak.
[2:09:04] Thank you.
[2:09:05] Thank you.
[2:09:06] So then at this time, let me see if there's any public comment.
[2:09:12] Yes, there's one hand raised.
[2:09:17] So Miss Sherry Pollock, if you would please introduce yourself including your address
[2:09:22] and go ahead. Ms.
[2:09:36] Paul, are you there? You're muted.
[2:09:41] Okay, can you hear me? There you go.
[2:09:43] Thank you. This is my first time to any kind of hearing about the next door property.
[2:09:54] And it's a big change for the neighborhood.
[2:09:59] It's a big change for me.
[2:10:01] What I'm concerned with is the red maples that are proposed to be planted on in between
[2:10:11] the two properties.
[2:10:14] And I have asked a while ago that they're not just that they not be deciduous trees.
[2:10:27] I understand the need for shade, trees, and them all for anything about trees, but deciduous
[2:10:34] trees make a lot of work for me, to be honest, and will really affect my property a lot.
[2:10:43] I have a lot of garden space in both my backyard and what I call the way back.
[2:10:50] And, you know, that's basically it.
[2:10:54] We've been doing well around this area with the green giant arbority, which is not a
[2:11:03] deciduous tree.
[2:11:05] I've also looked up and found the Colorado blue spruce as interesting, and even the eastern
[2:11:12] white pine, which is pretty interesting because during colonial times, the finest specimen
[2:11:20] were used by the British fiducian mass.
[2:11:24] I thought that was kind of clever.
[2:11:28] That's it, that's my, oh, one more point I have.
[2:11:32] I would prefer that transfer of form or be, you know,
[2:11:38] moved as far away as my body as possible.
[2:11:43] Thanks.
[2:11:44] Thank you, Miss Pollock.
[2:11:48] Since there are no other hands raised by the public, by attendees, then I will go to
[2:11:57] the board for questions and comments.
[2:12:01] By the way, does the board prefer to do questions and come back?
[2:12:06] What's been happening is no matter what I say, whoever has questions and comments says it
[2:12:11] at the same time.
[2:12:14] All right.
[2:12:15] and get to me with a complaint later.
[2:12:18] So, we'll go to the board.
[2:12:23] Let me see.
[2:12:26] Mr. Chancellor, go ahead.
[2:12:31] I thank you, Mr. Chair.
[2:12:34] I'm sure this will be taken care of,
[2:12:37] but I just want to confirm that the driveway
[2:12:41] is wide enough for fire to turn around, fire truck.
[2:12:45] I'm sure they're gonna look at it, right?
[2:12:49] Mr. Chair, if I can respond.
[2:12:51] Go ahead.
[2:12:51] Sure.
[2:12:52] So in terms of the typical turnaround you're used to seeing, we're not required to do that because we're less than 150 feet from the road.
[2:13:00] So the fire truck could go in if they wanted to, but in our initial comments with Chief Chisholm, he was comfortable with the driveway as it's laid out.
[2:13:09] Okay. Perfect.
[2:13:10] Yeah.
[2:13:10] Thank you for.
[2:13:11] Well done.
[2:13:13] That's perfect.
[2:13:15] The second question is actually raised by a neighbor on 81 Spring Street, which I think
[2:13:23] I agree that when you design the road, make sure that the driveway sidelines is clear.
[2:13:31] It's a very busy street, it's near the intersection, it's a very busy intersection, it's easier
[2:13:37] for the people to come out and make sure, you know, it's more just safety that they have
[2:13:43] a good side view sidelines. I just comments when you design the road or trees. The third
[2:13:52] question is packaging. So do you expect the delivery trucks to go into the delivery to
[2:14:02] each units or you have a job offer in the beginning of the driveway? Or is you haven't thought about?
[2:14:10] Well, partially, we do have a community mailbox located at the front, but I don't have the screen up by apologize.
[2:14:17] In terms of deliveries, I would hate to speak for what they may do in regards to.
[2:14:23] But most likely there's enough room and decent amount of units.
[2:14:27] You can see the mailbox is located right here.
[2:14:30] I feel like there's enough area in here that a box truck like a UPS would probably come in with any significant deliveries.
[2:14:36] but male will be centralized here.
[2:14:40] Okay, thank you.
[2:14:41] I was just borrowing Ms. Thompson's question from last one.
[2:14:44] I thought it's good to learn.
[2:14:47] As you know, this may be too small to require solar ready.
[2:14:54] It's not enough units, maybe,
[2:14:56] but I would like to hear from Ms. O'Connor.
[2:15:05] The last question I have is that I heard some paved area is pours. Could you come confirm which is only for the playground in the back or is the entire driveway?
[2:15:27] No, not the driveway, the patios, and the walkways will be porous along with the
[2:15:36] common area. The driveway will be as well. Okay, yeah, I always, okay, thank you.
[2:15:43] And I also agree with the staff comments that I'll be nice to have clear
[2:15:48] marking of so people like driving different ways they coming out and pedestrians and it's
[2:15:57] good to have to have some kind of a fear, a demarcation of where the cars coming out so that
[2:16:06] is not getting to each other and with biking and people walking. That's all. Thank you.
[2:16:18] Mr. Chair, would you like me to address any of those comments?
[2:16:24] You're muted.
[2:16:28] Yes, go ahead.
[2:16:30] Yeah, to first address the fire department concern.
[2:16:34] The fire department did review the plans.
[2:16:37] Mr. Novak is correct.
[2:16:40] They were happy with the plans and they did not require a turnaround with the distance from Spring Street, that the driveway goes in.
[2:16:48] There are only comments where there is an existing town fire hydrant in front of I believe is number five spring street
[2:16:55] So he was just asking to keep that
[2:16:59] Maintained yet there there it is that was his only
[2:17:02] There the fire department's only comment that they provided and it is and it's in the memo as well
[2:17:09] As far as solar ready that is a building code requirement. I believe I
[2:17:16] Will I will follow up
[2:17:17] and double check that, but I believe that it is a requirement for the buildings to be solar-ready.
[2:17:25] From the building code, Mr. Schombacher has given me a thumbs up.
[2:17:28] He's more familiar with the codes than I am, but so I can confirm that, I guess, that it will be solar-ready.
[2:17:37] I did also just, this just tricked my memory as well in the sustainability narrative.
[2:17:42] There was commentary that the project was going to be designed to be Passive House compliant.
[2:17:48] However, I believe, and I don't want to speak for the applicant, but it sounds like through discussions that may not be as feasible as with once thought.
[2:17:57] And so I just wanted to highlight that for the board if you were viewing the sustainability narrative.
[2:18:03] It may mention solar readiness in there as well, but that was just something that had come up in conversation that the Passive House compliance may not be.
[2:18:12] eligible. So, those are my comments. Thank you, Mr. Keper. So, Mr. Shambharker, go ahead.
[2:18:21] Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I know we have no preview over the interior layout. Mr. Leanne can remind me
[2:18:27] of that. Mr. Kreeds can be upset with me for asking the question, but looking at buildings A and B,
[2:18:31] does you consider marrying the plans of the stair and the services are against the shared party wall
[2:18:35] rather than the outside wall? So, this would at the very least allow for more light,
[2:18:40] from the X here and put the bedrooms against the outside wall rather than the shared party wall.
[2:18:46] Understood that this doesn't really work on the two interunits between buildings A and B that directly look at each other,
[2:18:53] but it would free up the outside. And you do it on building C. So I just curious if you have looked at that.
[2:19:00] I can answer that, Mr. Chair.
[2:19:04] We did look at it.
[2:19:05] And with the garage, in the circulation, it was problematic.
[2:19:12] We spent a lot of time, the owner, and I went back and forth several times,
[2:19:19] and we couldn't get it to be as efficient.
[2:19:23] But we can look at it again.
[2:19:26] No, you don't need to.
[2:19:28] I'm just curious.
[2:19:30] All right, so that was my only real question.
[2:19:31] and then, so I just want to point out that, you know, this is, as Mr. Kepper said, the first project
[2:19:38] that is coming under the new zoning. And, you know, this is the limitation on our new zoning,
[2:19:43] and, you know, it will be difficult for us to get affordable units out of any project. We aren't
[2:19:46] getting affordable units out of this project. And this makes it more difficult for the town to maintain
[2:19:51] its tenuous position above the sort of magic 10% line to prevent an unfriendly 40B. We turn two units
[2:19:58] units into six, which is great for the housing crisis, but not as great for affordability
[2:20:03] with a capital A. That being said, this is a modest proposal, and I appreciate the
[2:20:07] small units that will result from this development. My only real comment, and you can accuse me
[2:20:11] of being inconsistent with this proposal versus the last one. But I want you to consider the
[2:20:15] experience of walking into this development from the street, and the emphasis is truly on
[2:20:19] the experience of walking into the development. There is a nice sidewalk on Spring Street,
[2:20:24] and it is well within reason for future residents to walk to the reservoir, or even through
[2:20:27] best network of paths to Lincoln Park. Thank you.
[2:20:31] Thank you, Mr. Schombacher, and I'm not angry. Go ahead, Mr. Leon.
[2:20:37] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple of questions. One, particularly with regard to
[2:20:41] the stormwater management on the site. I was going to allocate each board member at 20 minutes
[2:20:49] total tonight. You're already over time. So go ahead. All right. I'll reduce it to one question,
[2:20:55] And it's really to maybe to Mr. Novak, can you recall what the bottom elevation is of your
[2:21:02] stormwater recharge system, your stormwater chamber on the south side of the site and the elevation
[2:21:08] of the adjacent basement, the bottom of the basement on number nine, which is the immediately
[2:21:13] budding property. Getting into the issue of groundwater mounting, I know that you had,
[2:21:17] that Mr. Bernardino had indicated that you were above four feet so you didn't have to do a groundwater
[2:21:22] amounting analysis, but in connection with the potential for any amounting to occur, I'm just
[2:21:27] wondering whether or not the basement of the adjacent property is lower. And if so, how much lower
[2:21:33] than the bottom of your recharge system? Uh, Mr. Leon, off the top of my head, I don't know if I could
[2:21:39] give you a definite answer on that, but that actually goes into the comment. Then Mr. David, then
[2:21:43] I'll add in regards to taking a look at the other. It's kind of the offset elevations, so I could add
[2:21:49] that to kind of that comment and add detail and bring that back to him. I just don't have the
[2:21:56] numbers in front of me right now. You saw in the last hearing that we had on the prior project
[2:22:03] that the issue is whether or not an impermeable barrier would be necessary to prevent any kind of
[2:22:08] impacts lateral migration into an adjacent property here. If there's an old house with an old basement,
[2:22:13] I'm just wondering whether or not your recharge is going to be four or five feet above the bottom of
[2:22:18] of their basement, and that could be a potential issue for them, depending on how far the
[2:22:22] structures are.
[2:22:23] Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.
[2:22:25] I am proposing, and in part of this barrier, I just don't have it called out.
[2:22:30] Oh, okay.
[2:22:30] I didn't see that in the report.
[2:22:32] Yeah.
[2:22:33] And it's probably because I didn't label it, so I will be a little more diligent with that,
[2:22:38] moving forward.
[2:22:39] Thanks.
[2:22:40] I appreciate it very much.
[2:22:41] Other than that, I was interested in seeing the 12-foot wide units and building C, and
[2:22:47] And I'm tired of envision that, but I'm sure that's sufficient for a marketing perspective.
[2:22:52] I just haven't seen it even like that in a new building in a very long time.
[2:22:55] Thank you.
[2:22:57] Thank you, Mr. Leon.
[2:22:59] Mr. McLean, let's see.
[2:23:01] Hold on.
[2:23:03] Make sure I, uh, uh, Mr. Thompson, go ahead.
[2:23:09] Mr. McBride did have her hand up.
[2:23:11] I know, but I, I think I passed it when you were the last time.
[2:23:14] That's why.
[2:23:15] Okay.
[2:23:15] Okay. Well, I just have one quick question in between building A and B. There's the,
[2:23:21] is that a French drain? It goes out into the, what is this, the sort of drive? Why are these steps there?
[2:23:32] I was muted. Are you talking about this one right here? Yeah, that one.
[2:23:36] That's actually the existing one. It shouldn't be on. It's not, it's, it's going to be removed.
[2:23:42] Okay, and then I can show you real quick. Okay, you can it's it's it's right
[2:23:49] Where's it right here? Right there? Right there. I'm sorry, but anyway, it's it's existing
[2:23:56] It's existing but it won't be there any longer. Okay, I'm just more confused about that
[2:24:03] Fair question. Okay, and oh I see so you you extended that six foot sort of
[2:24:14] pointy there to put a some sort of planting there.
[2:24:19] Yes, Jeff, is this an ornamental tree?
[2:24:23] Yes, that's an ornamental tree there.
[2:24:26] Okay. And each unit will have its own sort of, I don't know,
[2:24:31] what patio, outdoor space, et cetera, right?
[2:24:35] Yes, a small outdoor space.
[2:24:37] small one. I don't see the one for building a. They're colored right there. Oh, I see. But, but the one above
[2:24:48] building 2, it looks much bigger. Is that shared or is that only for the one up at the very top?
[2:24:57] That's the common space for every. Okay. All right. I got it. So that's a shared space. And then
[2:25:05] building one has their own patio too and then the small or building in the back
[2:25:12] seems to have a bigger space which is good for them right since they have such a
[2:25:18] small unit. Will this in the back be some sort of space for them to use to in front
[2:25:25] of the big trees here? Well I'm sure all the open one area will be common space
[2:25:30] I'm not sure how the agreement is written yet for the units that live here, but maybe
[2:25:38] Mike you can speak to that.
[2:25:42] I mean, we hadn't really thought about dedicating the the idea is is the lighter green spaces is more to
[2:25:49] account to go towards the common open space that's required and that's why we've we've given privacy
[2:25:55] fences parallel to the patio to dedicate. It's best illustrated right here. You can see that there's a privacy fence here, but it connects to allow both A and B to access the common space without having to go through the driveway.
[2:26:13] And the same thought was here as well. So it will probably double as both. I'm sure there'll be spillage of use.
[2:26:21] But there's also the intent of this access throughout for all parties.
[2:26:29] That's right. It's not defined as common space right now, but it's really access and maintenance.
[2:26:38] And I'm sure that it will be used by the residents.
[2:26:42] Okay. I think that's all I have. I was just curious about.
[2:26:47] You want to have open space, but you want to have some sense of privacy too.
[2:26:51] So building two and one, you know, building a if they want to get to the open space, they're going to walk right past the patio of building one and two.
[2:27:03] Unless they somehow have to go around the other way.
[2:27:08] So I don't know if I lived in building one and two, I wouldn't want to have people traipsing outside my patio all the time.
[2:27:16] Just me.
[2:27:18] That's a good point.
[2:27:19] We can take a look at it.
[2:27:20] Yeah.
[2:27:21] Okay, that's all I have.
[2:27:23] Thank you.
[2:27:24] You're welcome.
[2:27:26] Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
[2:27:28] I think that is a good point.
[2:27:29] Mr. McGregor, go ahead.
[2:27:31] Thank you.
[2:27:32] Yes, I agree with the good points.
[2:27:36] So the major site plan reviews section 12, 681, and 4.
[2:27:42] or conserve water resources and minimize energy use by reducing or eliminating use of
[2:27:47] portable water for landscape irrigation. Site design that reduces or eliminates the
[2:27:53] need for water use. Are there plans for rain barrels with irrigation hoses to some of
[2:28:00] the landscape areas?
[2:28:04] We don't have plans for rain barrels at this time. We felt as though
[2:28:08] Those were, this is a small site we felt as too many of those would take up so much open
[2:28:15] space and that's why we decided to try to keep the anything beyond the roadway pervious
[2:28:22] to kind of mitigate for storm water without having to do more solar structures.
[2:28:30] I understand that that doesn't help with the irrigation purposes but it does.
[2:28:33] those are directly connected to areas of landscape so we felt as that was
[2:28:40] the best decision for this project right now. Yeah, underneath the tree at the
[2:28:46] corner of a building is often a good alternative and again not using
[2:28:53] potable water and just having something irrigate over time is a great low
[2:29:00] tech alternative. I know we looked at the outdoor common space at the back of
[2:29:07] the property during the site visit but can you remind me what type of access
[2:29:13] there is as far as like grade change?
[2:29:20] So the site's pretty level. We are in
[2:29:24] discussions with the planning department about providing an accessible path to the
[2:29:30] proposed common space and I think that will be in addition in the next submission.
[2:29:37] And I'll add to that a little bit. If you recall, on the sidewalk that as you walk down the
[2:29:43] driveway of five, there's a slightly less than four feet above four feet of a retaining wall
[2:29:50] and then this area is higher. In regards to maintaining decent slopes and creating cover for our
[2:29:57] infiltration system where we're bringing
[2:30:00] We're we're shallowing out the that pitch and filling for lack of better term. This area so you can see that we have a gentleman's slope down to this this what will be. The existing area you can see the 253 existing here is the 253 proposed in that area will be flat will remain flattened and we'll be able to bring the site up to connect it so great. Thank you. Thank you. That's great. So for buildings a and b.
[2:30:32] for the outdoor spaces, will they also be at grade?
[2:30:37] Or are you going to have like pertaining laws running?
[2:30:39] I know you have those beautiful Mexican opinion trees
[2:30:42] back there, but in this area?
[2:30:45] Yes.
[2:30:47] Yeah, those are at grade.
[2:30:48] They're at grade.
[2:30:49] Okay, so no.
[2:30:51] You can see the 253 or 253 proposed right there.
[2:30:55] We're just creating a little bit of a pitch.
[2:30:57] but we're within six inches of what is existing now.
[2:31:03] Okay, that's terrific. Thank you.
[2:31:06] Let's see, Mr. Toma, I heard our neighbor,
[2:31:15] Ms. Pollock, talk about the plans for trees.
[2:31:22] Can you show me, again, the updated trees
[2:31:26] that you discussed with the tree committee, where they're going?
[2:31:32] So there's a couple trees going in the front here, and since there's overhead wires,
[2:31:38] there will probably be change from what we have previously on the plants, or right now,
[2:31:45] Red Oaksos will be get switched to a species called Yellowwood, which was an approved species
[2:31:51] by the the town arborist to plant under the power lines on our project on Clark Street.
[2:31:58] So those will be yellowwood trees which is a smaller shade tree
[2:32:04] that's suitable from the town's perspective for planting under the power lines that are out
[2:32:09] front there above those trees now.
[2:32:14] And you had also mentioned five maples? Yeah they're between
[2:32:22] the butters property and our property to provide some shade and some screening
[2:32:26] those are the trees that she asked be changed to an evergreen she doesn't want
[2:32:33] leaves falling in her yard it's a hardship for her
[2:32:43] there's a way that you can
[2:32:45] maybe alternate especially because planting just one type of tree it can be
[2:32:57] It can be an invitation for for disease or bugs, but maybe you could alternate some of
[2:33:08] the deciduous with ever brings that's not a bad idea we'll take a look at that
[2:33:14] certainly. Thank you. If we can make the about her happy and the owner.
[2:33:22] So passive
[2:33:30] house not feasible.
[2:33:35] I'm not sure about perhaps. I didn't mean to. That's okay. Perhaps the
[2:33:42] architect or Mike or the owner could better answer that question. Thank you. I could speak
[2:33:49] to that the your passive house where these are individual duplexes and subject to hers ratings.
[2:34:02] very stringent insulation, all electric, solar ready.
[2:34:10] The passive house process is onerous.
[2:34:15] We worked on a project and we had it approved by the planning board
[2:34:19] over a year ago that 189, 185, 189 Bedford Street.
[2:34:26] We have been in passive house review for eight months, and the cost, the engineering
[2:34:36] cost, the design cost, and the incremental construction cost.
[2:34:41] And I know it's all for the good, but a project of this type, this small six unit project,
[2:34:46] it would just break the project.
[2:34:50] That's all, and we're still going to be super-energy efficient buildings, again, all-electric,
[2:34:58] just like a high-performance single-family arm.
[2:35:03] Yes, I put the passive, I don't know all the technical details, but I heard the passive
[2:35:07] house is harder on smaller units.
[2:35:11] It's not just the, it's not just doing passive house or doing a net zero house.
[2:35:17] It is the getting a pass of house designation going through FIAS.
[2:35:24] FIAS is a third-party review that is, I just can tell you, it's incredibly difficult
[2:35:33] and time-consuming.
[2:35:35] There's a certification that's so complicated.
[2:35:37] That's correct.
[2:35:38] Okay.
[2:35:39] All right.
[2:35:40] Well, thank you.
[2:35:41] Thank you for patiently explaining that.
[2:35:44] And I can ask again, as I did multiple times with the proponents of 419 Merit Road, if they
[2:35:53] would consider reducing the size of their units to squeeze in an affordable, but your units
[2:35:59] are already smaller than they were, than they are at the Merit, at the Merit Road development.
[2:36:08] So I do appreciate that these units are smaller and will be more financially accessible to more people.
[2:36:15] So I do appreciate that.
[2:36:18] And that's it for me. Thank you.
[2:36:21] Thank you, Miss McBride. So I'll go next.
[2:36:25] So you'll address the comments made by Mr. Kepper. It doesn't sound like there's a problem there.
[2:36:30] And building C is 12 by 36, is that interior dimensions or exterior?
[2:36:39] That is, it's 12 and a half by, so it's 25 feet all together, so it's inside dimension.
[2:36:49] The rooms are approximately 11 feet clear.
[2:36:53] Okay, all right, I'm just curious, and I think the access to the common amenities
[2:37:00] space is good the way you have it laid out.
[2:37:04] I am curious about the size of the common amenity
[2:37:07] space but I think you said you'll address that at the next meeting. I would welcome more details
[2:37:14] about fence options and hope to minimize maintenance and maximize aesthetic appeal.
[2:37:21] the please no shiny vinyl and I'll just do a screenshot here quickly.
[2:37:32] I can't do
[2:37:33] a screenshot.
[2:37:40] If you try again in my work somebody else is sharing in my
[2:37:44] minute. I got it. So let's see I don't see what I was looking for.
[2:37:57] That's not it.
[2:37:58] All
[2:38:03] right, never mind.
[2:38:05] But, you know, plastic, if it's luxury vinyl,
[2:38:12] the earth tone colors, and requires no maintenance,
[2:38:17] I'm open to that, but the cheap, shiny vinyl is bad.
[2:38:23] Mr. Caret?
[2:38:24] Yes.
[2:38:25] The applicant would like to address that.
[2:38:27] Sure.
[2:38:28] Sure.
[2:38:29] Go ahead.
[2:38:30] Yes.
[2:38:30] Yes, Mr. Kreech, thank you.
[2:38:33] Would as Cedar offense be appropriate for you?
[2:38:38] I suppose that would be, you know, the thing is that the last ex-monotime untreated,
[2:38:50] he talked about untreated season.
[2:38:51] Untreated, yes, untreated.
[2:38:55] Weather is quite well and, you know, I guess he can't have it both ways with the vinyl.
[2:39:00] the, you know, the vinyl's little to zero maintenance, but it's going to become a, I guess,
[2:39:11] an aesthetic issue that we both have.
[2:39:14] Okay.
[2:39:15] Yeah, sure.
[2:39:15] No.
[2:39:16] Of course, Cedar would be fine.
[2:39:18] I'm sure some of the board members were also welcome that.
[2:39:22] I had an example of something I saw yesterday at another project, but I can't pull it up
[2:39:28] just like that. Let's see, and the difference was it was horizontal and not
[2:39:33] vertical, and it was just more attractive, that's all. And it may well have been
[2:39:37] seated, but it was treated. So let's see,
[2:39:45] I'm thinking this in terms of
[2:39:50] rain barrels. So rain, but there was an article in the
[2:40:00] In fact, we have plenty of water in the wing at the moment.
[2:40:05] We can't count on that forever.
[2:40:07] And so that's kind of a forward-looking thing.
[2:40:10] I know it's not—you can't force people to use a rain barrel.
[2:40:16] You can put it in.
[2:40:16] You can't force them to use it.
[2:40:19] So I'm thinking that maybe in building C, your download spouse can be located so that if
[2:40:26] somebody wants to put in a rain barrel, they can easily do it.
[2:40:28] maybe all the buildings, depending on where the Don Spots are, and that would mean just cutting
[2:40:33] the Don Spots and adding it to Verritor and so on. So I think as long as they are located in
[2:40:40] a useful space, especially building sea in my opinion, that would be great.
[2:40:47] Let's see.
[2:40:50] So I commented about storage and so on and so forth at the site visit. However,
[2:40:58] However, it has been pointed out to me that people are able to park in front of the garage
[2:41:03] and if they have a tandem space, for example, at building C, there can be plenty of storage
[2:41:11] there.
[2:41:11] So I'm not, I'm not, I was really thinking about salability in your point of view rather
[2:41:17] than the resident.
[2:41:19] I'm really glad to see the small units, especially building C. And I hope that you can sell those
[2:41:28] for less than a million dollars. That would be, it's not, maybe today that's affordable
[2:41:33] in my day, it wasn't, but nevertheless would be a lot less expensive than what we typically
[2:41:39] see in Lexington, so that'd be terrific. I see no negative incomes for the, it outcomes
[2:41:45] for the neighbors, so they'll be slightly more traffic, but the board is specifically prohibited
[2:41:52] by the state from acquiring a traffic study, and I've never seen, by the way, in my years
[2:41:56] on the planning board. I've never seen a bad traffic study. It always says it'll only be a little
[2:42:01] bit worse. So I'm not sure if bad traffic study exists.
[2:42:09] I don't want to make requests that
[2:42:12] it caused the project to be more expensive for the new residents. But it's so already for each unit
[2:42:21] individually be great. So individually they can put those up if they want to. And the condo
[2:42:27] documents should allow each property owner to install a solar array without the association approval.
[2:42:36] And that's really how I have it. I'm pretty positive about this project because of the scale.
[2:42:44] and so I'm hoping this goes well.
[2:42:50] Let's see, and I think it's up to you, Mr. Serian,
[2:42:55] and the project came to see if we can close on this at our next meeting,
[2:43:01] but either way, we'll have a next meeting.
[2:43:08] So any final comments by the...
[2:43:13] I
[2:43:16] just want to quickly say that I appreciate that Mr. Thomas was considering to accommodate the
[2:43:23] neighbor's request to replace the maples with the Evergreen. I was just hoping that when you do
[2:43:35] that, um, you know, all of them were some of them, um, maybe, uh, plan something that, uh,
[2:43:43] have bigger canopy because every greens are not equal. I have a variety that is a cone.
[2:43:48] It's better than the fence, but it doesn't provide a shade and it's a very narrow. So if you can
[2:43:53] provide, I'm sure you're, you're expert in finding bigger, uh, entries or evergreens, that would be
[2:44:01] win-win for everyone. So yeah, I see you on the other hand. Yeah, appreciate that.
[2:44:07] And the other thing I want to say is that I appreciate that probably because of the
[2:44:11] side limitation, each units are smaller. I echo what Mr.
[2:44:19] Regent, Ms. McBride said that they are maybe not on both affordable, but in reality,
[2:44:25] there are more affordable for the new residents and this is actually for me is a success of the new
[2:44:35] MBTA amendment that we passed by 95% of the town meeting members in 2025.
[2:44:46] I feel it's very happy that these are smaller units and not
[2:44:52] $1.5, $1.8 million, big condos, bigger than my house, so I think that's it.
[2:45:00] Welcome, change, and I appreciate that, and I think it's a small, not on paper, it's still affordable. Thank you. Okay, thank you. So nobody else's hands are raised. Does the applicant team want to add anything at this point? No, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments. I think they're very extractive, and we look forward to seeing it the next minute. Okay, great. So with that, I am going to go to Ms. Thompson from motion. Thank you.
[2:45:29] So move to continue the public hearing for the site plan review application for 5 and 7 Spring Street to be continued to Wednesday September 16th, 2026 at or after 6 p.m. on Zoom.
[2:45:47] Thank you, Ms. Thompson. Do I have a second?
[2:45:49] Second.
[2:45:51] And we'll go to a miss McBride.
[2:45:55] Yes.
[2:45:56] Ms. Thompson?
[2:45:57] Yes.
[2:45:58] Yes.
[2:45:58] Is Johnson?
[2:45:59] Yes.
[2:46:00] Mr. Schombacher?
[2:46:02] Yes.
[2:46:03] And I'm ES.
[2:46:04] Okay.
[2:46:04] Thank you.
[2:46:04] We'll see you on the 16th.
[2:46:06] Thank you.
[2:46:07] Any topic to make?
[2:46:08] Well.
[2:46:09] So we now go on to board an administration.
[2:46:17] Any last comments on the meeting minutes of April, I mean, August 5th.
[2:46:25] They were very detailed, excellent report by Ms. Nelson.
[2:46:32] Okay.
[2:46:33] If not, then we'll go to vote motion from Ms. Thompson.
[2:46:44] Are you muted?
[2:46:45] Yes.
[2:46:45] Yes, I'm here.
[2:46:46] Okay.
[2:46:47] Move to approve the planning board meeting minutes of August 5th, 2026, as recorded.
[2:47:00] it. Thank you. We have second. Thank you. And we'll go to a vote. Ms. Thompson. Yes.
[2:47:08] Ms. Jensen. Yes.
[2:47:11] It's a Sean Bucker. Yes. Ms. McBride. Yes. No, I mean, yes. And next, do we have any staff updates?
[2:47:26] Okay, I can read your sheet and any any board member updates, Mr. McBride.
[2:47:39] Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to.
[2:47:41] Oh, okay, okay.
[2:47:42] Are there any board member updates?
[2:47:48] I don't have any myself.
[2:47:53] Sorry?
[2:47:54] Miss Johnson raised her hand.
[2:47:59] I just have an update. I have a quick request that I could have written an email, but since
[2:48:05] we are held time, I just want to take half a minute to ask that.
[2:48:10] I appreciate that Mr. Cabrard's comprehensive staff report I rely heavily. I think there
[2:48:17] are great summaries and I couldn't imagine that, you know, work through this without it.
[2:48:23] I like all the tables, especially, and I appreciate that the tables are expanded to include more information in the table form.
[2:48:32] I was wondering, currently, where the units, I mean, the project review is possible to also include their number of units in the table,
[2:48:45] like a number of bedrooms if they're available. So I think those are often highlights for our decision-making
[2:48:51] in the future, where we say that how many one bedroom we added, how many two bedrooms we added,
[2:48:58] we could go through all their submissions. It's not easy to find in a little footprint, but if you can
[2:49:04] summarize the staff report in any way, we appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah, I'd be happy to do that.
[2:49:12] But I put together a table for, I think it was 80 Bedford Street that had the different
[2:49:17] variations and square footages.
[2:49:19] I left it off for 5.7 Spring Street because it was just smaller and the units were all
[2:49:24] very similar.
[2:49:26] I believe I put a note in there with average square footage in the bedroom types, but I've
[2:49:32] written a few memos recently.
[2:49:35] But yeah, no, absolutely.
[2:49:36] I'll be happy to pay attention to that and include as much as much visual aid as I can.
[2:49:46] Thank you, Mr. Kepper. So, if there are no other updates, we'll go to the draft annual report.
[2:49:57] Mr. McCabe.
[2:49:59] I distributed an annual report. We have a little bit of time, but I've heard from a few of you
[2:50:05] what some edits, so I've made all the edits that were requested, but if anyone has any other
[2:50:11] edits they'd like to send me, just let me know. The reports are due by September 14th.
[2:50:17] So we have time, but I always like to just get it in, but if you need more time to review, just
[2:50:23] let me know. Well, let's see our next meeting is September 2nd. I don't need more time myself,
[2:50:33] But does anybody else want to postpone this vote?
[2:50:41] Are you okay? Everybody okay with voting on it tonight?
[2:50:45] Okay
[2:50:48] And
[2:50:51] you're okay with that also miss my bright. I mean my cave. Yeah
[2:50:57] Okay, great. So
[2:50:59] Ms. Thompson, do you have a motion for that? No, I don't have a motion for that. I just have a review for a review for the draft
[2:51:08] Okay, but do you just like can't we just move to accept it on it? Yeah do on September 2nd. Well, do you want to move to approve the draft annual report?
[2:51:23] Okay. Move to approve the draft annual report for the planning board on Wednesday, August 19th, 2026.
[2:51:44] Okay. Is there a second? Second. All right. We will vote this week's bride.
[2:51:51] Yes, Ms. Johnson. Yes, Mr. Schombacher. Yes, Ms. Thompson. Yes, and I'm yes. Okay. Thank you very much.
[2:52:05] And Ms. McBride, do you want to go and make a somebody else to change the name?
[2:52:11] Ms. McBride, do you want to go with the upcoming dates for our meetings?
[2:52:16] Sure, your next couple meetings, your next one September 2nd, then September 16th, October 7th and October 21st, and then we get into November 4th, November 18th and December 9th.
[2:52:33] It's potentially we don't know exactly when, if there's going to be a special town meeting, but when we know that date I can, I'll check it with your calendar.
[2:52:40] Okay, great. And so we do we basically know the agenda for September 16th right now same two projects. Yes, and at the next meeting you have on the second you have 439 and then we have some time I think a couple of people mentioned talking about zoning, you know potential zoning amendments.
[2:53:04] Also at the next meeting on the second and yes that includes the housing
[2:53:11] partnership board potentially talking about the form-based zoning is that
[2:53:15] correct? Yes we could do that they did reach out to you about that. Okay and I
[2:53:22] think I mentioned the last meeting I met with them and their objective is to come
[2:53:29] up with some new zoning to get us to a true 10% of affordable units, and they've calculated
[2:53:41] X number, the number that we're short at this point in time, and they propose, for example,
[2:53:49] an affordable housing overlay district, some place, they did mention Bedford Street.
[2:53:59] So I'm not saying this is a done deal. I'm not saying that I'm going to bring it to the board to vote on or anything like that. I'm just telling you what the conversation was.
[2:54:09] Okay, so and I think I mentioned it in the last meeting. So having said that, let's see Mr. Leon, go ahead.
[2:54:19] Yeah, I was interested in that. If you could circulate around any drafts that we see,
[2:54:23] I'm particularly interested in how they translate foreign based zoning into which is not
[2:54:31] directly a density issue. So I'm kind of curious about how they would transform that.
[2:54:36] But okay, I think the overlay district as well. Yeah, they stated it in conjunction with the
[2:54:42] overlay district and other things, but I'll send you the slides that I have that they used.
[2:54:50] and then Ms. McBride, go ahead.
[2:54:56] Thank you. So you're saying we should, you want to discuss this on September 2nds?
[2:55:01] They're going to come and present to us. I've suggested them 15 or 20 minutes.
[2:55:06] Okay. And another question I have, I guess this would be for Abby.
[2:55:13] Is this something that we could overlay
[2:55:15] I, um, on the MBTA communities, um, districts,
[2:55:25] I really don't, I haven't been following
[2:55:31] along what the proposal is.
[2:55:33] Yeah, because that was one of my oppositions to MBTA communities is that we couldn't
[2:55:38] require more affordable.
[2:55:41] You know, they had all these, these, um, permissive aspects and we couldn't require more
[2:55:48] affordable. So if we could do, I don't know, I don't know, maybe Mr. Leon has a sense of that.
[2:55:59] Yeah, the HLC guidance, which serves as regulations over what's acceptable, it's not had a
[2:56:07] cap of 15% affordable units and they define affordable units as no less than 80% AMI. We
[2:56:15] We learned that HLC in fact approved a few communities that had a higher percentage
[2:56:22] than 15.
[2:56:23] I believe either Arlington or one of the other communities proposed 20% as an inclusionary
[2:56:30] requirement.
[2:56:31] And I'm assuming that that was approved by HLC, but that's where the guidance ended up at
[2:56:39] this point.
[2:56:40] But, of course, you know, and I mentioned this to a couple of board members, there's nothing to stop people from proposing more aggressive inclusionary inclusionary units, right? You can do 30% if you want, if it pencils out and presumably as everybody on the planning board knows there's been a lot of requests for supporting or allowing a buy down for the affordable housing trust to reduce the qualifications to 50% of AMI by greater subsidy that they would buy in
[2:57:10] and it would basically restrict the units to that.
[2:57:12] So there's a lot of flexibility in what you can do
[2:57:14] with the MBTA community overlay districts
[2:57:16] already, the village overlay.
[2:57:19] And of course, you have a whole bunch of other tools there,
[2:57:22] friendly 40Bs, and I mean, to my knowledge,
[2:57:26] I mean, obviously the new bylaws that we adopted in 2025
[2:57:29] have a unit count.
[2:57:32] And obviously the, one of the SRDs has caps,
[2:57:39] based on a lot of area, gross low area, which effectively constrains it in terms of overall
[2:57:45] site density. But for the MBTA community, overlay districts, there's no reason why a developer
[2:57:52] could move forward with 100% or 80% or whatever they want. It's just a question of penciling it out.
[2:58:00] Right, but sorry, I'm not very fine, but I don't think we could require more, though,
[2:58:05] because we need that economic, we have this maintainer original compliance with the law.
[2:58:11] All right, feasibility study.
[2:58:14] Right.
[2:58:14] You could ask for another feasibility study, yes?
[2:58:19] I mean, especially because we know that Orlington
[2:58:21] had a different required percentage.
[2:58:30] Do we know that?
[2:58:31] We don't know how they did it.
[2:58:33] I think Carol Kowalski mentioned that in a session
[2:58:36] that we had, but I've not campused and looked
[2:58:38] that what variations the HLC actually approve.
[2:58:43] I know the guidance says 15%, the guidance says 80% AMI.
[2:58:48] Those are the most you can require, but it doesn't prevent an applicant.
[2:58:54] If a non-profit housing developer decided they wanted to commit into 100%, and they fit
[2:58:59] the dimensional requirements that are applicable to either the overlay districts or even SRDs,
[2:59:07] depending upon the property in size,
[2:59:09] there's nothing that would prevent me from doing it.
[2:59:11] And then obviously you have, as you did on Lowell Street,
[2:59:14] you had a friendly 40, be 100% affordable unit.
[2:59:16] A friendly 40, be gives you a comprehensive permit,
[2:59:19] issued by the Board of Appeals.
[2:59:22] It was very successful on the Lowell Street project.
[2:59:25] And it's 100% affordable.
[2:59:28] So the tools are available.
[2:59:30] And you can do that anywhere in Lexington.
[2:59:33] So, right. But the question is, could we do it in an MBK district that's on bus routes
[2:59:40] that makes more sense for inclusion? Sure. No restrictions, no restrictions.
[2:59:47] Every one of the things that we're looking at could be a friendly 40-bit.
[2:59:51] Arlington is 15 and they had an economic feasibility report to get to 15. They did the same thing
[2:59:56] within. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Trump.
[3:00:00] I was going to, I was going to ask Mr. McBride to research that. So, this chance and go ahead.
[3:00:10] Yeah, I actually looked around a little bit online. There's a few towns that had done a feasibility studies and had 20% affordable in our MBTA buildings. One is conquered. Yeah, there's no I would in no I would they require 20% affordable for
[3:00:31] 16 units or more. And then there's a communities like Middleboro and Regden have used chapter
[3:00:41] 40-A, I mean 40-R districts, which will be 20% affordable requirement to satisfy their
[3:00:48] MBTA zoning mandates. So there's a different ways you can do that. And basically their multiple
[3:00:55] communities are requiring 20% either directly with the feasibility study report or they swap
[3:01:01] their 40-A, I mean 40-R districts, or they can just build, or they can, it's only 40-R districts,
[3:01:10] which is 20% affordable, and then use that as part of the MBTA zone. So there are different ways
[3:01:18] to do it, and other towns have, I mean, these are the names that I found a while ago.
[3:01:24] Okay, thank you. I mean, I don't anticipate doing anything like this in the next.
[3:01:31] in the next year. So what does it have to do with article two, which is less density
[3:01:39] and fewer affordables. So I'm not quite sure how that would work. Was there having a major
[3:01:46] discussion and a major change?
[3:01:50] The housing partnership board will discuss only form based zoning
[3:01:56] on September 2nd and I've asked them to keep that to 15 to 20 minutes and they're fine with that.
[3:02:04] So and at that time certainly you can ask them about how they would apply it and they can
[3:02:12] discuss it in more you know a little broader terms. Okay so at this point I think we're ready to
[3:02:21] to adjourn our meeting, so I'll go to Ms. Thompson for motion.
[3:02:27] Motion to adjourn the planning board meeting of Wednesday, August 19th, 2026 at 9.03pm.
[3:02:36] Thank you.
[3:02:37] Do we have a second?
[3:02:41] You muted yourself as you talked.
[3:02:43] Thank you.
[3:02:44] Thank you.
[3:02:45] And we'll vote.
[3:02:47] Ms. Thompson?
[3:02:48] Yes.
[3:02:49] Ms. McBride?
[3:02:50] Yes.
[3:02:51] Mr. Schombacher?
[3:02:53] Yes.
[3:02:53] Yes.
[3:02:53] It's Jensen.
[3:02:55] Yes.
[3:02:55] And I am a yes.
[3:02:57] Okay.
[3:02:57] Thank you very much.
[3:02:59] Thank you.
[3:03:00] Good night.
[3:03:00] Good night.
[3:03:01] Good night.
[3:03:02] Thank you.