|
Lexington Home Page
|
Help
|
About
|
Browse
Search
2000-06-12 Managing Growth Development and Open Space Working Group.pdf
Breadcrumb Navigation:
TownOfLexington-Public
>
WEB PUBLISHED-PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
>
MINUTES-REPORTS-COMMITTEES ARCHIVE
>
DISSOLVED COMMITTEES
>
Managing Growth: Development and Open Space Working Group
>
Reports
>
2000-06-12 Managing Growth Development and Open Space Working Group.pdf
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2022 3:35:14 PM
Creation date
9/7/2021 6:14:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Archives
Year
2000
Author or Source
Managing Growth: Development and Open Sp
Keywords or Subject
Managing Growth Development and Open Space Working Group 2020 Vision Committee
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Open Space: Certain parcels of town owned land, development? <br /> while undeveloped and used as conservation land,are <br /> not protected by conservation status.These include How do we create smaller and more affordable <br /> parcels at Harrington School,the PWD building and housing that is required for our aging population? <br /> along the Bikeway. Public pressure may grow to Should we change zoning controls to increase the <br /> incorporate these parcels into the town's conservation amount of accessory apartments? Should we <br /> program. proactively target and acquire priority parcels for <br /> development of affordable and/or small household <br /> There are tax implications to the loss of open land. housing? <br /> Some studies show that open space expenses cost the <br /> public treasury only$.33 per dollar of revenue Commercial Development: Growth in the number <br /> received,while residential land costs$1.12 per of residential properties used for"work-at-home" and <br /> dollar. The loss of open space devalues surrounding the potential of differential taxation for these <br /> property, and thus the value of the town as a whole. properties could emerge as a very difficult local <br /> debate. There is uncertainty about the types of <br /> EXTERNAL FORCES AND PRESSURES businesses that will predominate in twenty years due <br /> to the rapid change in technology. <br /> General: Fluctuations in the economy may have <br /> major consequences in the price and development of Town Center: Deck parking?Do we provide more <br /> the kind and size of housing,the amount of tax parking,which could improve retail health and <br /> revenue derived from commercial development,and possibly customer convenience,but at the same time <br /> the intensity of growth of businesses in the center. increase traffic congestion? <br /> Town Center:The current thriving economy in town Do we allow upper story residential development <br /> and region as well as the good mix of high end retail within the center for residents without cars? <br /> and services may spur more intensive use in the <br /> center. The visual impact of parking in the center is not bad <br /> because it is behind the buildings. Should we set new <br /> Transportation/Accessibility: International controls/guidelines to require rear parking in all <br /> agreements on global warming may require redevelopment? <br /> reductions in automobile use. <br /> Transportation/Accessibility: How much will <br /> Environmental Quality: Commercial development commuter traffic grow? How much will commercial <br /> in adjoining towns may impact on overall air and and residential development increase traffic? <br /> water quality. <br /> Will the trend of more people working out of their <br /> Open Space: Any potential expansion of activity at homes lessen automobile traffic in the town? <br /> Hanscom airport,or indeed the presence of any large <br /> employer in the vicinity,would put pressures for Will continuing decreases in the known threshold for <br /> additional residents and businesses on all the health damage due to air and noise pollution force <br /> surrounding communities,including Lexington. tighter controls on automotive traffic? <br /> UNCERTAINTIES AND TOUGH QUESTIONS Should non-drivers be treated equitably with respect <br /> to access to town amenities,subsidies,and <br /> General: Will population aging,decreasing expenditure of tax revenues? <br /> household size,a growing"work-at-home" <br /> population,and economic barriers to social and Do town residents want to maintain their current <br /> cultural diversity enhance or impoverish Lexington? strong dependence on the automobile as the only <br /> viable means to go about their daily business?Could <br /> What influence may the next economic downturn this pose a danger to the viability of the town <br /> have on our increasingly expensive residential and infrastructure as the population ages? <br /> commercial real estate market? <br /> Environmental Quality:Will new technology,e.g. <br /> Residential Development:Do we pursue further hybrid vehicles,significantly alter transportation <br /> zoning controls to limit the amount and/or size of related air pollution? <br /> Managing Growth-24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.