Dear Editor,
As a candidate for one of the two open seats on the Planning Board, I want to address certain questions that have been raised about my Town Meeting votes.
In 2023, Lexington passed Article 34 to comply with new state multifamily zoning requirements. Article 2 was passed in 2025, attempting to cut back those zoning allowances due to genuine concern that too much housing would be built too quickly. While I supported zoning modifications, I voted against Article 2 because my background in planning left me certain that Article 2 would not achieve its stated goals.
Fundamentally, Article 2’s impact accelerated development proposals — the opposite of its intended effect. This was demonstrated by the increase from 90 units/month in 2025 to over 290 units/month in 2026.
This occurred largely due to “zoning freezes.” Under state law (G.L. c. 40A, § 6), landowners have the option to freeze current zoning as-is. It was clear to me that landowners would use this option, and they did, locking in Article 34’s zoning for 25% of the approximately 228 acres originally zoned by Article 34 for up to 8 years. Landowners who may not have previously planned development were given a short deadline to start the process.
These unintended effects could have been avoided if we had taken a more nuanced approach. Gradual modifications based on professional input and design guidelines can shape development without triggering additional proposals.
Moreover, Article 2 imposed a density limit that discourages smaller units such as studios and one-bedrooms, units which Lexington has sought to encourage and which its market needs.
If I am elected to the Planning Board, I hope to make our Town Center more commercially viable and lively by bringing in a 21st century planning framework. I proudly supported the 2025 Center Amendment, which would have continued to allow diverse housing to be built in Lexington Center.
With my training in architecture and planning, I will advocate for a community-driven plan for a vibrant Town Center which incorporates community concerns around height, massing, and shadows.
Lexington deserves zoning that works, and I look forward to advancing our goals on the Planning Board. I welcome any questions, please email me at kunal@votekunal.com or meet me at upcoming events listed on votekunal.com.
Sincerely,
Kunal Botla
Candidate for Planning Board
Town Meeting Member, Precinct 4
Chair, Transportation Advisory Committee
I commend Kunal Botla for owning his positions against Article 2 and in favor of the Amendment to add back the Center as an MBTA zoning district. However, I disagree with his logic and facts as expressed in his letter to the Editor.
Article 2 was passed by a vast majority of Town Meeting members who recognized that otherwise we were exposed to “by-right” developments that could potentially double the number of households in our town within a few years. While several developers did manage to preserve (or freeze) their options to submit projects subject to MBTA zoning rules, they weren’t enabled by Article 2. They just moved quickly enough to get under the wire before Article 2 took effect.
Concerning the 2025 Center Amendment, I agree that the Center would benefit from more multifamily housing. I support multifamily projects in the Center that are sensitive to their immediate surroundings and to their location in the Battle Green District. A recently revised proposal for multifamily housing at 16 Clarke St shows potential to become such a project.
But the Center is complex. A project that works on a side street might not fit on Mass Ave, and one that works on one side of Mass Ave might be out of proportion on the other side. The 2025 Center Amendment would have imposed “by-right” one-size-fits-all zoning rules on the entire Center. Again most Town Meeting members recognized the potential negative impacts of this Amendment in voting it down.
Peter Shapiro
Town Meeting Member, Precinct 4
As the concerned citizen who initiated the petition that brought forward Article 2, I am particularly interested in Kunal Botla’s criticism of its effects. Yes, there have been many zoning freezes. They are allowed by Massachusetts’ unusually generous law that gives developers 8 years to retain the zoning from 2023, rather than the 3-5 years allowed by most states. Fortunately, no more than 60 acres are involved, and the rights to develop them under Article 34 (2023) will expire in 8 years. Surely that is better than having 274 acres developed under Article 34 in perpetuity. Without Article 2, the 2023 zoning with unlimited density could have doubled the number of housing units in Lexington.
The zoning freezes should not have been a surprise to anyone. The delay in holding Special Town Meeting, following the extensive hearings and negotiations on Article 2, gave the developers extra time to file the necessary documents to obtain the freezes. The Article 2 team was aware of these unavoidable consequences. The freezes were clearly set out in the presentation about Article 2 that I gave to Town Meeting.
Article 2 was a compromise, a result of lengthy and intensive negotiations with the Planning Board. The zoning freezes came from landowners and developers seizing economic opportunity, as would be expected.
In the negotiations, we considered what restrictions would be likely to produce smaller units, and those restrictions were included. Furthermore, for developments with 10 or more housing units, Article 2 retained the same 15% requirement for moderate income housing that Article 34 contained. Compromise Article 2 was overwhelmingly approved by Town Meeting: 164 (yes/Creech & Jensen) – 9 (no/Botla) – 5 (abstain).
Carol Sacerdote
Town Meeting Member, Precinct 4
A number of Mr. Botla’s assertions seem incorrect and self-contradictory.
1) The development count in the past 3 years is erroneous. There is no evidence that “Article 2’s impact accelerated development proposals.” Here is what happened:
a) The Town passed the original MBTA-C Law in April 2023 (Article 34).
b) Developers spent much of 2023 finding properties that they liked and working on their proposals.
c) The 2nd year (2024) is when the 1100 units were proposed.
d) In the 3rd year (March 2025 – now February 2026), after the passage of Article 2, about 800 additional units have been proposed or will be soon.
2) As Mr. Botla noted, only “25% of the approximately 228 acres originally zoned by Article 34 [was locked for zoning freeze] for up to 8 years.” This proves indeed why 95% of the Town Meeting Members voted Yes on Article 2: 25% of the acreage with unlimited density for 8 years is better than 100% of the acreage with unlimited density for perpetuity.
3) The claim that Article 2’s “density limit .. discourages smaller units” is not based on fact: Article 2 has site coverage limitations, and so the unit size is moderated.
4) There was no possible incremental change that could have avoided the zoning freezes by developers. Property owners have done zoning freezes when there were minimal zoning changes in the past (unrelated to the MBTA zoning). To have multiple zoning changes instead of one is not practicable nor advisable.
5) There is no gradual modification nor nuanced pathway. Developers had the right to build as they chose to, as long as they adhered to the Town’s 2023 MBTA zoning law. This 2023 law had parameters that were very generous for developers. In some cases, developers have bluntly stated that the Town’s bylaw allows them to proceed in a certain way, and have completely ignored strong suggestions from Planning Board members who wanted them to change their design.
This letter further indicates that Mr. Botla’s position is for wanting unlimited density, and unplanned, untethered growth in Lexington.
Sumitra Sujanani
Lexington resident
There are 3 Planning Board candidates for 2 seats in the Planning Board race. A candidate’s voting record can speak volumes about their judgment and outlook. Which two candidates do you trust to represent you on the Planning Board, and to work toward responsible growth in Lexington? The voting record for Article 2 and the Lexington Center Amendment is described below:
1) 2025 – Compromise Article 2 Citizen’s Petition (Creech & Jensen voted Yes; Botla voted No). Details:
a) Scaled back MBTA multifamily zoning from 253 acres of unlimited density to 90 acres of 20 or 25 units per acre “by-right” (Planning Board can’t reject compliant application)
b) Allowed 81 acres of unlimited density from 2023 MBTA zoning bylaw: 54 acres of zoning freeze properties (zoning freeze lasts 8 years) & 27 acres of existing projects
c) Reduced unit capacity from 13,400 (doubling existing housing stock) to 6,000
d) Removed Lexington Center from “by-right” MBTA multifamily zoning.
e) A compromise after months of intense negotiations
f) Passed with 95% vote
2) 2025 – Lexington Center Amendment to Article 2 (Creech & Jensen voted No, Botla voted Yes). Details:
a) Last-minute proposal by 4 Town Meeting Members, including Botla
b) Would have added Lexington Center back into “by-right” MBTA multifamily zoning, allowing up to 52-foot, four-story buildings in the 25-acre historic area
c) Failed with 32% vote
I’m pleased to see that Mr. Botla has written this letter as an attempt to clarify, what I see, as many contradictions throughout his Planning Board race.
Article 2 was a necessity; 95% of all Town Meeting Members agreed – Article 2 passed through Special Town Meeting (STM): 164(yes)-9(no)-5(abstain). The ONE person who voiced concern at the Special Town Meeting about potential for “locking in the zoning,” a Select Board member, ended up voting YES to Article 2 once the debate had been heard at STM.
Mr. Botla writes he “proudly supported the 2025 Center Amendment” – in fact, he was 1 of 4 Town Meeting Members to bring this forth to the STM. This amendment included 52-foot-tall buildings, limited set backs, and unlimited density. However, he then states in his letter that, if elected, he would advocate for “…a community-driven plan for a vibrant Town Center which incorporates community concerns around height, massing, and shadows.”
At the CAAL-PAC 2026 Candidates Forum, candidates were asked about 16 Clarke Street in Lexington Center. 16 Clarke Street was “locked” into the old zoning prior to Article 2 and developers have proposed a 51-foot-tall, 4 story building with 52 condo units and retail space directly across from Cary Library, the Belfry and within the Battle Green Historic district. Mr. Botla responded to this topic by stating that we should invest in technologies so that we can “know what to expect and aren’t spooking residents and the community the way the 16 Clarke Street project did.”
Which one is it? Care about “…community concerns about height, massing and shadows” or strong supporter of the 2025 Amendment to keep Lexington Center in the by-right unlimited, 52-foot-tall building zoning? I agree we all want a vibrant center, but as Peter Shapiro and others have pointed out, the Center is a special place and should be thoughtfully planned, not with “by-right” 52-Foot buildings which have potential to overpower the historic center.
Lastly, Mr. Botla has done some very good work with the Transportation Advisory Group and it should be commended that Mr. Botla, a college student, has taken such an interest in town politics and volunteering his time.
However, I am still left with questions about his background and qualifications, which seems exemplary for a college junior. So, I decided to look into some of the experiences he has publicized – he has repeatedly stated that he has a background in Planning, and at the candidate forums he states that he’s a junior at Tufts University “studying Architecture and Planning.” His website refers to his “…architecture and urban planning education at Tufts University.” However on-line sources indicate that he will be receiving a BA in Architectural Studies (liberal arts based program) and a BFA in Interdisciplinary Studio Art in 2027. The only program in urban planning I could find at Tufts is a combined Fifth-Year Master’s Degree Program: BA/BS and MA in Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning or MA in Environmental Policy and Planning.
I would like clarification from Mr. Botla on what his “Planning Background” consists of. He has noted “professional design experience” which typically would mean paid work experience. However, I believe the “work” listed is a case study for a college class and a high school project based on a competition; which I don’t believe was selected to be built. I might be wrong in my research, so I look forward to hearing him expound on these experiences. As a voter, I value transparency and clear communication, especially for Planning Board Members since they have to interface with residents, developers, and land owners, while navigating legalities and bylaws.
“290 units/month in 2026”. Is it not premature for Mr. Botla to calculate units per month for all 2026 on February 18, 2026?
See resident Ms Sujanani’s first comment above, that tells the facts: 1,100 units from spring 2024-summer 2025, 800 units from fall 2025 spring 2026.
Running a Respectful and Solutions-Oriented Campaign
From the solutions-oriented and respectful way Kunal and his supporters have run this campaign, it is clear that he is not running for Planning Board because he is against something or someone, but because he brings the technical knowledge, collaborative relationships, and genuine care needed to address a complex set of challenges decades in the making.
Planning in our town requires collaboration—with fellow Planning Board members, professional staff across departments, and the community. No single person can start or stop housing production. What matters is the ability to work constructively within that system, and this is exactly what Kunal brings.
Already Proven His Commitment and Acumen
Kunal has already contributed significant time and expertise to our town—more than many of us do in a lifetime of civic engagement.
His analysis played a key role in bringing improvements to service from the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.
He supported the advancement of the $20 unlimited Lexpress pass.
And there is much more than can fit into a single comment.
To learn more, watch his performance at the League of Women Voters forum (https://share.google/lUhSCH3rZA5gBzlk0), visit votekunal.com, or reach out to him directly at kunal@votekunal.com
.
Multi-disciplinary Academic Training in Architecture and Planning
His academic training is exceptionally well suited to the multidisciplinary nature of planning. At Tufts University, his Architectural Studies program integrates urban planning, design, and engineering. As the program describes:
“The program’s signature multidisciplinary curriculum takes full advantage of Tufts’ unique assets as a liberal arts college, including its Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning, its studio arts offerings at the School of the Museum of Fine Arts at Tufts, and the university’s School of Engineering.”
More details:
https://as.tufts.edu/art-architecture/academics/undergraduate-programs/ba-architectural-studies
Addressing Criticism Respectfully, While Staying Focused on the Future
Kunal has kept his campaign centered on practical solutions and technical realities, addressing criticism only when necessary.
Many criticisms raised against him do not engage with his actual proposals or contributions. Instead, they focus on his age, his multigenerational living situation, and a single vote. Kunal had the courage to do what he believed was right despite intense pressure surrounding Article 2.
The well-supported Center Amendment reflected concerns raised by both committee members and residents. The many revisions required for the 16 Clarke project also demonstrate that “by-right” development in a historic district is far from automatic and can still produce outcomes shaped by community input.
Demonstrated Technical Knowledge Our Town Needs
Kunal has also demonstrated a clear and accurate understanding of how MBTA-C density caps function.
Density in this context refers only to the number of housing units allowed per acre—it does not determine building size, spacing, or occupancy. In practice, density caps often lead to fewer but larger and more expensive units, which does not address the needs of seniors and young residents.
For example, approximately 60% of the proposed 1,100 MBTA-C units were studios and one-bedroom units. Density caps would likely have combined these into larger, more expensive units—reducing total unit counts substantially while shifting the mix away from the housing sizes and types our town needs most.
Sharing unit counts without discussing unit size and type can therefore be misleading.
This kind of technical literacy matters. It ensures that valuable public meeting time is spent solving real problems rather than re-establishing core terminology already used by our professional staff.
Please take the time to watch Kunal at the forum above, attend a coffee, or reach out to him directly—as I did before becoming convinced. I’m very glad I did.
One great thing about local politics is that the candidates are also our neighbors, and it’s easy to engage with them directly around the questions we care about. I encourage everyone to check out any of the recorded candidate forums, attend a candidate coffee, or reach out to candidates through their websites with the questions that matter to you. Hearing directly from candidates has been very helpful to me in filtering out some of the campaign noise to focus on what I actually value. After listening, I’ve decided to vote for Kunal, who impressed me with his many practical ideas for addressing our town’s longstanding (and sometimes intractable-seeming) planning challenges. You might decide differently: we’re a big, diverse town, and we all have different criteria for what we want from our elected representatives. But there’s no substitute for hearing directly from candidates before casting your vote.
I strongly urge Lexington residents to support Mr. Botla—not in spite of his background, but because of it. He possesses a unique “superpower”: the focused agency of a young professional paired with a collaborative, humble, and transparent spirit.
Having witnessed the multidisciplinary evolution of the Tufts University program firsthand, I can attest that the work from students of his caliber often surpasses that of seasoned professionals. He brings a level of data-driven precision and fresh strategy that our town needs to move forward.
Rather than defaulting to age-based bias, we should view his candidacy as a necessary recalibration of the status quo. His presence invites new perspectives and will likely encourage engagement from other young local professionals. Mr. Botla personifies Lexington’s history of advancement through a maturity evidenced by the sheer quality of his work and willingness to make a difference.
He is far more than a “newbie” in the room. His presence—and his approach to our town’s evolving challenges—is the catalyst Lexington needs to turn a future-facing vision into reality.