HomeMy WebLinkAboutBusa Land Use Proposal Committee Report 03-14-2011Town of Lexington
Busa Land Use
Proposal Evaluations
and
Recommendations
Report to the Board of Selectmen
March 14, 2011
Submitted by
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee:
William Dailey
Ric Fulop
David Horton, Chair
Ginna Johnson
Pamela Shadley
Deborah Strod
Albert Zabin
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
4 Section 1. Introduction
1.1. Busa Farm Purchase
1.2 Board of Selectmen Charge
1.3 Committee Members
9 Section 2. Site Description
2.1 Physical Features
2.2 Environmental Resources Areas
2.3 Applicable Codes
2.4 Environmental Assessment
13 Section 3. Work of the Committee
3.1 Chronology of BLUPC Activities
3.2 Evaluation Criteria
3.3 Requested Proposal Information
17 .Section 4. Summary of the Proposals
4.1 Lexington Community Farm Coalition
4.2 Lexington Housing Partnership
4.3 Lexington Recreation Committee
21 Section 5. Evaluation of the Proposals
5.1 Lexington Community Farm Coalition
5.2 Lexington Housing Partnership
5.3 Lexington Recreation Committee
5.4 Alternate Layout Studies
44 Section 6. Recommendations
6.1 Use as a Community Farm
6.2 Affordable Housing
6.3 Athletic Fields
6.4 Additional Considerations
6.5 Other Town Land
6.6 Minority Opinion
6.7 Final Statement
52 Section 7. Appendices (two volumes)
Volume 1 (located in the Office of the Board of Selectmen)
7.1 Survey and Site Reports
7.2 Public Forum Minutes
7.3 Committee Meeting Minutes
7.4 Proposals
7.5 Ongoing Questions
7.6 Community Preservation Act (CPA) Questions and Answers (Q & A)
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 2 / 52
7.7 Robert Pressman Report (Waltham Street conservation land)
7.8 Letter to Lexington Residents
7.9 Letter from Scott J. Soares, Massachusetts Commissioner of Agricultural Resources
7.10 Traffic Studies (Town of Arlington)
Volume 2
7.11 Correspondence to the BLUPC (located in the Office of the Board of Selectmen)
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 3 / 52
1. INTRODUCTION
Overview
The Busa Land Use Proposal Committee (BLUPC) is a Selectmen- appointed Town committee charged
with evaluating proposals for the Town's use of the "Busa Land" along Lowell Street and making
recommendations to the Selectmen for its use. The Selectmen will make the ultimate decision. This
Report presents background, a detailed description of the property, a record of the Committee's work,
evaluations of the proposals for the use of the land, the Committee's recommendations, additional
questions /outstanding issues, and supporting documentation or references.
1.1 Busa Land Purchase
The Town of Lexington purchased the Busa Land on December 2, 2009, for $4,197,000 pursuant to a
vote to authorize the purchase taken at a Special Town Meeting on May 6, 2009.
The motion voted at that Town Meeting read (Italics added):
"ARTICLE 6: LAND PURCHASE — OFF LOWELL STREET
MOTION: That: (a) the Selectmen be authorized to purchase or otherwise acquire, or to take by
eminent domain, for recreation, and /or affordable housing, and /or open space purposes any fee,
easement or other interest in all or any part of land shown as lots 38, 40A and 43 on Assessor's
Property Map 20 on such terms and conditions as the Selectmen may determine; that the sum of
$4,197,000 be appropriated for such land acquisition, and that to raise such amount, the Treasurer,
with the approval of the Board of Selectmen, is authorized to borrow $4,197,000 under M.G.L.
Chapter 44, Section 7 (3), as amended, or under M.G.L. Chapter 44B, as amended, or any other
enabling authority; (b) $98,000 be appropriated from the Undesignated Fund Balance of the
Community Preservation Fund for debt service and related borrowing costs of the Community
Preservation Fund for fiscal year 2010; and (c) the Board of Selectmen be authorized to lease to the
seller all or any part of such land for farming purposes for a period not to exceed three years on such
terms as the Board of Selectmen shall determine, as part of the consideration for the acquisition."
The purchase agreement provides that the Town can lease the land to others for up to 3 years for
farming, while the Town decides what to do with the land. It was leased back to Dennis Busa for
farming through the 2011 growing season.
The Community Preservation Fund (CPF) referred to in the motion is a fund set aside for particular
purposes (Open Space, Historic Resources, Community Housing, and Recreation) under the Community
Preservation Act (relevant descriptions of the Act are in Appendix 7.6). The CPF is funded with a 3%
surcharge on residential and commercial property taxes (according to a formula involving the tax rate
and the assessment of the property; and there are exemptions), and the amounts raised are matched at
a varying rate by the state. Proposals for use of the CPF are made to the Community Preservation
Committee (CPC) of the Town; those that are accepted by the CPC are brought forward to Town
Meeting for a decision on whether or not to appropriate money for them from the CPF.
Since there has been some public discussion and debate about the intentions of various proponents of
the purchase leading up to the Town Meeting vote, the Committee thought it appropriate to lay out
some of the steps. The following excerpts from the public record are presented to show the evolution
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 4 / 52
of the Busa Land purchase, from a concept of athletic field(s) (with some variations on accompanying
affordable housing, community gardens, and a tot lot) presented by the Recreation Department to the
CPC, to a vote at Town Meeting which left determination of the usage to a future process that resulted
in the formation of the BLUPC.
a) Town Manager Carl Valente described a proposal for the Busa Land to the CPC on April 27, 2009.
Minutes of the meeting summarize the description as follows:
"There would be three primary purposes for the land: recreation, affordable housing, and open
space. The recreation needs could possibly be met with the purchase of the land included a soccer
field, a little league lot, a tot lot, community gardens, and their combined parking. The housing
portion of the land may include two lots with frontage on Lowell Street. The open space portion of
the land might include trail connections to other conservation or recreation parcels, and buffers to
the Arlington Reservoir and /or Munroe Brook."
The minutes of the CPC on April 27, 2009, also state that the CPC took a straw vote on the proposed
project to purchase the Busa land for the possible purposes of recreation, community housing, and open
space. The straw vote was 8 -0 in favor.
The minutes also note that the neighborhood had not yet been involved in the process.
b) A Selectmen's meeting was held on April 30, 2009, "to discuss with the abutters the possible purchase
of the Busa farm (approximately 8 acres) and what the Town is thinking of using the land for."
Conceptual drawings by Sasaki Associates were presented that showed two configurations of athletic
fields (one with a baseball field overlapping a multisport field, one with only the multisport field) along
with a tot lot and community gardens. The proposal also suggested setting aside 31,000 square feet of
land for affordable housing.
Excerpts from the minutes also include the following:
The Town showed a few options for possible uses of the land that included: affordable housing
units, community gardens, playgrounds, soccer /little league fields, walking trail and parking.
Mr. Valente explained that the Busas contacted the Town in December 2008 to see if the Town was
interested in purchasing the land. The land is Chapter 60A Land, which means it has reduced tax
status due to its agricultural use, and so the Town has the right of first refusal to match any bona
fide offer.
Neighborhood residents, and at least one Arlington resident, raised questions about the size of
affordable housing (considering a duplex or single family house, not sure, perhaps two lots of 15,500
square feet; would be rentals; would have driveways), concern for the environs (keep the area natural /a
farm, concern about traffic and parking — no study done but there is time; land would need to be leveled
and drainage work done; concern for impact on Arlington Reservoir), concern that the farm should be
kept up; proposed use of Rindge Ave for a field — too small; and cost ($350 -500K for the full -size field).
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 5 / 52
c) A Public Information Session, held by the CPC on May 5, 2009, was attended by 30 -40 members of the
neighborhood and Town Meeting members, as well as Arlington residents and representatives. Minutes
include the following:
Mr. Valente explained that the possible uses for the property included recreation, housing,
community gardens, and "other" uses. He specifically noted that the latter category had been added
because of neighborhood input. He showed a concept plan for the land, which highlighted a full -size
soccer field, two lots devoted to housing, and associated parking for the recreational use. Mr.
Valente noted that new recreation fields had not been constructed in Lexington in many years, and
pointed out that the Town had in fact lost soccer fields when the new Harrington School was built.
He stressed, however, that the concept plan he showed was only one of many possibilities.
Audience members asked specifically whether Mr. Valente's use of the "other" category included
preservation as a farm and wanted to be sure that the wording of the motion to be made at Town
Meeting was flexible enough to allow that potential use, such as a farm with an educational component.
A Town Meeting Member also asked whether the motion would be flexible. The minutes note that:
Mr. Cohen, Selectman, addressed this issue by stating that the motion had been worded to include
"recreation, and /or affordable housing, and /or open space purposes."
And later:
Mr. Burnell, Selectman, stressed here that the Town would decide at Special Town Meeting to
purchase or not purchase the land, but would not decide its specific use. He stressed that most of
what neighbors were concerned about is what would come before Town Meeting in future years,
not at the Special Town Meeting scheduled for the following night.
The topics of affordable housing (whether it could be removed from the article or not), farming, traffic,
and preservation of the Arlington Reservoir all were recorded in the minutes.
d) On May 5, 2009, The CPC voted unanimously, 9 -0,to approve the purchase of the Busa land by the
Town.
e) Town Meeting approved the purchase of the land on May 6, 2009.
1.2 Board of Selectmen Charge
This charge was adopted by the Board of Selectmen on March 22, 2010:
Description:
• To invite, receive and evaluate proposals from Town residents, Town departments, Town boards
and committees, and other persons and entities at the discretion of the Committee, regarding
possible uses of the parcel of land known as "the Busa property' *. Evaluation criteria shall include,
but not be limited to:
1. Whom the use(s) will serve;
2. How the use(s) is (are) consistent with any Town master plans;
3. Impact the use(s) will have on abutters and the surrounding neighborhood;
4. Environmental impact use(s) will have (such as, but not limited to, traffic, noise, dust, and
stormwater runoff);
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 6 / 52
5. Types of public access to the property for the proposed use(s);
6. Impact on the riverfront buffer area;
7. Impact on surrounding topography;
8. Financial feasibility of the use(s);
9. Impact the use(s) will have on the Arlington reservoir.
• To identify desirable uses for the parcel of land known as "the Busa property' within the categories
of "open space," "historical preservation," "housing," and "recreation," as defined in the Community
Preservation Act, M.G.L. c. 44B with the understanding that a proposal is not required to fall into all
categories;
• To evaluate the possibility of multiple uses within the same parcel, whether through overlapping use
of the same area(s), or by allocation of separate portions of the parcel to different uses;
• In evaluating proposals, the Committee shall have access to the services of a land use planner or
such other professional services and consultants as the committee may deem necessary, as
authorized by the Town Manager and Board of Selectmen. These services will be funded from any
amounts made available for such purposes by the 2009 Town Meeting.
• To submit to the Board of Selectmen a report on the investigations and evaluations set out above,
said report to include one or more proposals for allocation of the parcel to a specific use or multiple
uses. The report should indicate to the Board of Selectmen the reasons that each of the proposals
represents desirable uses serving identified constituencies in the Town and how each could be
practically implemented.
*A footnote stated that: Busa Property is defined as that parcel of land in Lexington, Massachusetts as
bounded and described in the deed as well as any contiguous parcels that may be purchased by the
Town within the lifetime of the committee.
The Board of Selectmen requested that the Committee make every effort to submit its report to the
Board no later than December 31, 2010.
The Charge was approved on March 22, 2010. Discussion about the charge, recorded in the minutes,
included the following:
• Some suggestions from the public were included following distribution of the draft charge at an
earlier meeting.
• The committee can prioritize its recommendations if it chooses to do so.
• The Selectmen should be kept in the loop on any spending.
1.3 Selection Process and Committee Members
During Town Meeting deliberations, a Town Meeting Member proposed that a committee of neutral
members, as opposed to a committee of advocates, be put together by the Selectmen to support a
decision about what the Town should do with the Busa Land. In early 2010, the Selectmen agreed that
the committee should be composed of neutral members, and set the number of members at seven (7).
The Selectmen established the following selection process:
a) Selectmen designated any appointed member of the Busa Land Use Proposal Committee as
Special Municipal Employees on March 22, 2010.
b) Selectmen voted the number of members on April 14, 2010.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 7 / 52
c) Minutes of the appointment on June 21, 2010 outline the process:
The Selectmen put together a list of 33 names of people who showed interest or the Selectmen
were interested in for the Busa Land Use Proposal Committee. A letter was sent to all of them
asking that they return an application if they were interested in serving on the committee.
Twenty -four on the list returned the application. Criteria for membership were neutrality, past
record, background, and broad experience; and to stay away from special interests. Each
Selectman was asked to pick up to seven members that he /she felt would be appropriate for the
committee. The names of those who received the most votes are the applicants being suggested
for appointment. The Selectmen was very pleased with the 24 wonderful candidates that
applied and hope to get some of them on other committees.
The Selectmen explained that the committee will not be doing an RFP, but that its charge asks it
to explore all avenues for use of the property and then report to the Selectmen. They expect the
committee to reach out to all interested parties for comments and to include the Town of
Arlington.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5 -0 to appoint William Dailey, Ric Fulop,
David Horton, Virginia Johnson, Pamela Shadley, Deborah Strod and Albert Zabin to the Busa
Land Use Proposal Committee.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 8 / 52
2. SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Physical Features
The three parcels of land purchased in December of 2009 total 7.93 acres just west of the intersection of
Lowell Street and Westminster Avenue on the Arlington town line. The frontage for the property is on
Lowell Street and the parcel lies just north of the Arlington Reservoir and east of the Munroe Brook. The
land contains a variety of uses, including active agricultural fields, greenhouses, and related farm
buildings.
As quoted from the May 2009 Special Town Meeting Article, "this parcel is key to creating a greenway
corridor in East Lexington from Lowell Street to the Minuteman Bikeway via the Arlington Reservoir trail,
Rindge Park and the Jerry Cataldo Conservation Area. There is an existing trail from Rindge Park to the
southern edge of the parcel. In addition to its open space qualities, the parcel also has important
watershed value. It lies 150 feet north of the Arlington Reservoir, and 200 feet east of Munroe Brook,
both important wetland resources."
The Busa Land Use Proposal Committee toured the site on July 27, 2010. Committee members walked
the perimeter and interior of the parcel, looked at the existing conditions, and spoke informally with the
people who were at the farm that day. The BLUPC then created a survey specification and solicited
proposals from three surveying firms. The Town retained surveyors WSP•SELLS, Inc., to prepare an
existing conditions and topographic survey.
The farm has a high point in the center of the parcel, and then slopes to the north and south. In the
southeastern corner of the property, Lowell Street is at an elevation of approximately 178.5 ft. (above
sea level) and an embankment along the Lowell Street sidewalk slopes down towards the farm fields,
which range in elevation from 164.0 ft. to 169.0 ft. These elevations and the open visual access provide
a view across the farm towards the woodlands of Munroe Brook and towards the setting sun in the
west. The southern border is the town boundary with Arlington, and there is a low stone wall with a
small walking trail around the Arlington Reservoir on the Arlington side.
The land contains a farm stand, a permanent (glass and metal) greenhouse and another seasonal
greenhouse. Water is supplied by an artesian well and there is electricity at the site. The property has
no town -owned water or sewer connection. Residential abutters are located along the northern and
eastern sides of the parcel, with the eastern neighbors being most directly affected by the land use at
this site. Between the Busa land and Munroe Brook, Silk Fields, LLC, owns two parcels. A reduced copy
of the survey follows.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 9 / 52
W'11a, 00
��I
curie
z +
U)
U]
w F x =
a4
lot
225$50
jig, g 1
E �P��zk$
rA
150 pa
F xx!MiHM
4 e
-2 -1
U)
U]
w F x =
a4
6F =e i.
19 �aS €e
€5S
sPe
1#
p° 1 �ai"B
s
.�y
U)
U]
w F x =
a4
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 10 / 52
1#
.�y
Y 1 K.i
zia
a
hift-
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 10 / 52
;jag
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 10 / 52
22.2 Environmental Resource Areas
Due to its location along the northern shore of the Arlington Reservoir and the eastern shore of the
Munroe Brook, there are several protected environmental resource areas on the Busa land. Each of
these resource areas has a setback within which land use is restricted. The surveyor retained the
services of an environmental firm that field - delineated the limits of the resource areas according to
state and location regulations. Their field limits have not been confirmed by the Lexington Conservation
Commission, but are shown on the site survey. The resource areas and their setbacks are under the
jurisdiction of the Lexington Conservation Commission, and proponents of any proposed development
in these areas must submit a "Notice of Intent " The performance standards a project must meet
include the incorporation of state standards, an assessment of stormwater runoff, proposed structures
in a floodplain, wildlife habitat impact and mitigation, and work within buffer zones. The following
resources areas are found on the Busa land.
• Wetland Limits: The limits of the wetlands were field- determined on October 6 and 7, 2010,
according to state and local requirements. The Town of Lexington's Wetland Bylaw requires the
assessment of impacts of a project within the 25' buffer zone, 50 ' buffer zone, and a 100' buffer
zone. The wetland limits are shown as "WLF" on the site survey. While the wetland limits are
entirely beyond the Busa land property, the buffer zone limits are on the Busa land along its
southern and western borders
• Flood Zone AE ( "Special Flood Hazard Areas subject to inundation by the 1- percent- annual-
chance flood "): This limit is generally taken from the National Flood Insurance Program map.
There is a small area of Flood Zone AE in the southwestern corner of the Busa land.
• Riverfront Area: This area is determined by "mean annual high water" along a river or stream
and has a 100' and 200' offset in which site development is regulated. This applies along
Munroe Brook and, therefore, there is a small amount of "riverfront area" in the northwestern
and southwestern corners of the property.
The report prepared by Norse Environmental Services in October of 2010 on resource areas is
included in Appendix 7.1 of this report.
2.3 Applicable Codes
The BLUPC assumes that all applicable codes will apply to future development at the Busa site. These
would include building codes, environmental requirements and codes, and universal accessibility codes
such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the requirements of the Massachusetts
Architectural Access Board (MAAB). Should the future land use of the Busa site include the retention
and ongoing use of any of the existing structures (farm stand, greenhouses), the Town may want to
obtain a detailed assessment of the conditions of these structures relative to current codes.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 11 / 52
2.4 Environmental Assessment
Prior to the purchase of the land, the Town retained the services of environmental consultants to assess
the condition of the site, and also to prepare subsequent memoranda that answered questions posed by
the Town. Copies of the reports are found in Appendix 7.1 and include:
• August, 2009, Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment Report" prepared by Woodard & Curran
• September 1, 2009, Memorandum from Woodard & Curran to present results of screening for soil
compounds relative to future human risk
• December 1, 2009, Williamson Environmental LLC's "Limited Removal Action Documentation Report
(Pesticide Impacted Soil), Revision No. 1"
• December 1, 2009, Williamson Environmental LLC's "Opinion on Risk of Harm to Human Health,
Busa Farm Pesticide Area P -2"
• December 1, 2009, Site Cleanup Memo from Rob McGrath to Karen Mullins
• October 21, 2010, Resource Area Delineation letter from Norse Environmental Services
In summary, there are no known dangers or restrictions to the continued use of the site for human
activities.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 12 / 52
3. WORK of the COMMITTEE
3.1 Chronology of BLUPC Activities
Initial Tasks (Communication):
• Distributed an announcement of our work and dates of public forums that appeared in the
Lexington Minuteman two weeks running, via the Lexington "Yahoo" Group listserv, via email to
chairs of boards and committees in the town, and to members of TMMA.
• Sent the same announcement via US Mail to Lexington residents living within a half -mile of the
Busa land, approximately six hundred households. (See letter in Appendix 7.8.)
• Visit by BLUPC members to the Busa land (July 27, 2010)
• Established a web wage: http: / /www.lexingtonma.gov /committees /busalanduse.cfm. A copy of
the BLUPC web page (was) attached to this report. It includes the committee's Contact
Information (email and US Mail); Committee Members, the "Committee Charge "; Comments
from the public; Upcoming Meetings; Approved Minutes; Draft Minutes; Agendas; Concept
Presentations; Presentations (additional); Working Documents; Group Information System (GIS)
Map; Introduction; and a Description of Land. It also contains a means to "Sign up to receive
email updates."
Additional Tasks:
• Contacted abutters James and Kimberly Goldinger to meet with the BLUPC on September 28,
2010
• Contacted Arlington Town Manager Brian Sullivan and invited him and town officials to meet
with the BLUPC on September 28, 2010
• Requested site survey to be undertaken
• Gathered material on wetlands: the Code of the Town of Lexington for Wetland Protection
• Gathered reports of studies to determine if the Busa land had any contamination (apparently it
does not, according to the reports)
• Checked to see if Lexington had conducted a traffic survey in the vicinity of the land (it has not,
but the Lexington Sidewalk Committee is aware of the traffic patterns in the area); Arlington has
studied the area (traffic studies from Arlington are included in Appendix 7.10)
• Checked to see if sewers serve Lowell Street in the vicinity of the land: they do up to the
intersection of Lowell Street and Westminster Avenue
• Checked with the Lexington Tree Committee to see if it had any interest in the land (it does not)
• Checked with superintendent of schools regarding projecting number of school -age children in
new housing
Meeting Dates and Agendas:
• July 8, 2010: organizational meeting
• July 27, 2010: BLUPC toured Busa land with Dennis Busa
• July 29, 2010: recommended that the lease to farm the land by Dennis Busa be extended
through the 2011 growing season; established a timeline for our work; determined the
frequency and date of future meetings; identified categories and documents to be posted on
the BLUPC web page
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 13 / 52
• August 26, 2010: communication with the public (update); discussed design and program
criteria for concept proposals; scheduled meetings with the Goldinger family and Arlington town
manager; heard update on progress of the site survey; scheduled two open forums in Lexington
• September 15, 2010: First Open Forum — approximately forty -five people came to the
microphone with their ideas about the future use of the land. The thrust of each idea was
recorded on chart paper and incorporated into the minutes of the forum. Those people who did
not get a chance to speak were invited to speak first at the next forum on October 7, 2010.
• September 28, 2010: met with James and Kimberly Goldinger; met with Arlington Town
Manager Brian Sullivan, Selectman Clarissa Rowe, Director of Planning & Community
Development Carol Kowalski, and Chair of the Transportation Advisory Committee Ed Starr;
reviewed first open forum; finalized the information /criteria to be included by proponents in
their presentations (concept proposals) at the November 4, 2010 forum (this was followed by
distributing the information /criteria)
• October 7, 2010: Second Open Forum - approximately forty people came to the microphone
with their ideas. No one was left out! Their ideas are incorporated in the minutes of the forum.
• October 21, 2010: reviewed open forum of October 7th; reviewed the evaluation criteria for
proposals; discussed that the town had not conducted a traffic study of the streets near the
Busa land; reviewed materials to bring to the Arlington forum; finalized the format for the
November 4th "concept proposals" forum (three groups had filed — Lexington Community Farm
Coalition; Lexington Housing Partnership; and the Lexington Recreation Committee.)
• October 27, 2010: Open Forum held in Arlington by the Town of Arlington - 55± Arlington
residents attended of whom 34± came to the microphone. 5± Lexington residents were
identified in the audience in the auditorium in the Arlington Town Hall. Arlington Director of
Planning & Community Development Carol Kowalski moderated the forum. Comments and
ideas are incorporated into the minutes of the October 27th forum.
• November 4, 2010: Concept Proposal Presentations (in alphabetical order) were made by the
Lexington Community Farm Coalition; Lexington Housing Partnership; and the Lexington
Recreation Committee. To read their proposals, please go to the BLUPC web page. (also in
Appendix 7.4 of the final report to the Board of Selectmen)
• November 18, 2010: met with Robert Pressman and received written information from him to
support his contention that meaningful affordable housing, meaningful community farming, and
a recreation field can co -exist on the overall site (Busa land). Further, he contends that, with
cooperation, some land at Waltham Street could supplement the farm. (All of his
communication with the committee is available on the BLUPC web page. (Also, see Appendix 7.7
of the final report.) The committee also voted to accept the Evaluation Criteria for Land Use
Proposals that had been developed and modified; discussed information the BLUPC had read
about contamination studies of the land; began to compare each proposal to the evaluation
criteria; and examined the site survey to see what it tells us about the land and what it can
accommodate and where.
• December 7, 2010: reviewed responses to questions about proposals posed to proponents
raised at the November 18th meeting; compared each proposal to the "Evaluation Criteria" for
land use proposals (adopted November 18, 2010)
• December 16, 2010: continued to apply the evaluation criteria to the proposals the BLUPC has
received; discussed the implications of each, the pros and cons, from the members' perspectives
• January 5, 2011: reviewed any pertinent correspondence, e.g., the form of the final report to
the Board of Selectmen (BOS); progress report to the BOS to be presented on January 10, 2011;
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 14 / 52
brought proponents of the three proposals "to the table," literally, to discuss possible site
placement /scope of each one in relation to the other, if the land were to serve multi purposes,
i.e., affordable housing, a community farm, and a recreation field, while conducting a "site
trace" (laying over on the site survey representations -to -scale of key proposal elements in
various configurations }; began to discuss the elements and format (categories) of our final
report to the BOS; assigned two BLUPC members each to evaluate one of the three proposals
according to the evaluation criteria and to bring what they wrote to the next meeting; agreed to
meet at least twice in February, after the scheduled January 19th meeting.
• January 10, 2011: presented progress report to the Board of Selectmen
• January 19, 2011: reviewed meeting with the Board of Selectmen on January 10, 2011; shared
and reviewed draft evaluations of the three proposals; developed an outline for the final report
• February 2, 2011: heard from committee members regarding their thoughts about the reuse of
the Busa land; shared and reviewed drafts of material for the final report
• February 9, 2011: reviewed drafts of material for the final report; reviewed how the report will
be organized, printed, assembled, and distributed; learned that the committee will present the
final report at the March 14, 2011 meeting of the Board of Selectmen
• February 16, 2011: discussed possible number of affordable housing units; continued to review
drafts of material for the final report; reviewed format and organization of the report
• February 28, 2011: final review and edit of the draft of the final report
• March 14, 2011: presented final report of the BLUPC to the Board of Selectmen; anticipate that
future meetings with the selectmen will be scheduled to review the details of the report
3.2 Evaluation Criteria for Land Use Proposals
1. The value /benefit to the people of Lexington
2. How many people benefit from the use; benefit to underserved populations
3. Scale of the proposed land use /development
4. Impact to the neighborhood
5. Impact to abutters and enhancements
6. Impact to the Arlington Reservoir and enhancements
7. Impact to environmental resource areas and enhancements
8. Impact to public utilities and infrastructure and enhancements
9. Security requirements
10. Maintenance requirements
11. Financial impact to the Town (cost and benefit)
12. Consistency with Town Master Plan and Core Values
13. Sustainability
14. Timeline
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 15 / 52
3.3 Requested Proposal Information
In the presentations prepared for November 4, 2010, the Busa Land Use Proposal Committee requests
that the proponents of the various land uses for Busa Farm include the following information in their
concept - proposal presentations to the Committee.
1. Group making the proposal
2. Primary land use; any secondary land uses? How much land is required for the use {s }?
3. What are the public access amenities and restrictions?
4. How much parking is needed?
5. How will the land use vary by weekday or weekend, and during different seasons?
6. How does the land use respond to the abutter's property lines, the Arlington reservoir and the
environmentally sensitive areas that are currently known?
7. What are the impacts of your proposal relative to the neighborhood, noise, lighting, connectivity
and sustainability?
8. Approximately how much will your land development proposal cost, and how it that cost
allocated between public and private development dollars? What funding amount is expected
from the Town?
9. What infrastructure is needed (sewer, water, gas, communications, drainage, etc)?
10. What are the financial benefits to the Town?
11. What is the timeframe for the implementation of your proposal?
12. Who will maintain the site once your proposal is constructed?
13. How do the people of Lexington benefit from your proposal?
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 16 / 52
4. SUMMARY of the PROPOSALS
4.1 Lexington Community Farm Coalition
The Lexington Community Farm Coalition (LCFC) proposes to transform the Busa Farm into the
Lexington Community Farm (LCF), a professionally managed, working community supported agriculture
(CSA) farm with educational programs. These programs would be shaped via an ongoing and active
engagement with the Town of Lexington and its residents. The farm would be open and accessible to
the entire Lexington community as well as surrounding towns. It would require no financial input from
the town, now or in the future.
A non - profit corporation would manage Lexington Community Farm with governance by a board of
directors that would include community stakeholders. A model including a Town agricultural committee
could also be used. A paid, professional farmer would carry out the farming. The farmer would be
assisted by a staff of volunteers and paid seasonal employees. Farm production activities would be
combined with open -space access and passive recreation activities for all Lexington residents. Further,
the mixed use of this land would include the historic preservation of the farm landscape, helping to
reclaim the farming heritage of the former "Cambridge Farms."
The vision and plan of the LCFC is to create a self- sustaining, financially sound, environmentally
beneficial, and fully accessible landscape on which food may be grown for sale through purchased
shares (CSA), through a farm stand, at farmers markets, and through "pick- your -own" opportunities. A
percentage of the food grown would be donated to local food pantries.
The LCFC plan recognizes and promotes the role that such a farm can play not only in promoting health
and food affordability, but also as a place for educational and participatory programs for school -age
groups, adults and seniors, for passive recreation including trails and accessible paths and community
events, and enjoyment of open space.
The three components of the community farm proposed by the LCFC are: maintaining a sustainable
working farm, providing farm -based community education and outreach, and providing access for all to
open space.
4.2 Lexington Housing Partnership
The Housing Partnership Proposal (LHP) envisions multiple uses for the land: affordable housing, a
multipurpose playing field, a community farm, and shared parking. It would take a "green" or low
impact development approach to construction and operation and has designed a plan it believes fits into
the context of the existing residential neighborhood. The plan preserves large agricultural and natural
views on the southern portion of the land and separates the uses so that each can be constructed or
developed independent of the others over time.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 17 / 52
1.2 acres (^'15% of the land) would be devoted to affordable housing and parking. The plan proposes to
cluster the residential buildings in the northeast portion of the site, adjacent to Lowell Street for access
to utilities and a level development site. It shows two farmhouse -style multifamily buildings with 6 units
(apartments) in each for a total of 12 rental units, all of which would be affordable, and rented to
applicants that meet certain income guidelines. (NB: In discussion with the LHP, up to 14 units were
mentioned, depending on the number of bedrooms /unit. 12 units are written here because the
financials in the proposal are based on that number.)
The plan also proposes that 1.9 acres (^'24% of the land) be utilized for a multiuse recreation field for
soccer and lacrosse, sized to meet National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) standards for a soccer
field, and associated parking. Access to the playing field would be from Lowell Street, just south of 36
Lowell Street (Assessor's Map 20, Lot 39).
It further proposes to set aside 4.8 acres (^'61% of the land) for a community farm and shared parking
that would be contiguous to views of the working landscape and adjacent to natural areas to the south,
while preserving the existing structures (greenhouse and well). This is all the land not allocated for
housing or recreational use /parking under the plan. It includes some land for vehicular circulation and
access from the south.
The total cost of erecting 12 units is estimated to be $3,617,679. Development costs per unit are
estimated at $300,000. LHP indicates that financing for the project would likely come from a variety of
sources such as: a mortgage loan, capital cost funding from the state through the Department of
Housing and Community Development (DHCD), possibly federal funding from the federal program for
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), and Town funds from the HOME Investment Partnerships
Program (HOME) and /or the Community Preservation Act (CPA).
LHP projects the mortgage to be in the order of $63,000 /unit, with $100,000 /unit provided by DHCD,
leaving about $137,000 /unit to be funded by a combination of federal and Town dollars. If there are a
sufficient number of units to attract federal funding in the form of low- income housing tax credits,
enough capital investment might be realized to reduce the Town contribution to $38,000 /unit. On this
basis, a 12 -unit project would need $485,000 from the Town, which could possibly be a combination of
Metro West HOME consortium funds (the Town receives approximately $50,000 /year) and CPA funds.
4.3 Lexington Recreation Committee
The Lexington Recreation Committee (LRC) proposes to convert the Busa land into a multiuse
neighborhood park consisting of recreational space, affordable housing, and community gardens (NB: a
different concept than a community farm).
LRC would issue permits for the use of the field to youth sports organizations, primarily for the spring
and fall seasons, on weeknights from 5:30 p.m. — 7:30 p.m., Saturdays, and Sunday afternoons.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 18 / 52
Children, families, walkers, joggers, and the entire neighborhood could use the other recreational
elements of the proposed park year- round.
The proposed playground would be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)- accessible and consist of
structures for children ages 2 -12.
The proposal includes a park in the center of the property for passive recreation, such as a family picnic,
play catch, throw around a Frisbee, or to fly a kite. Under this proposal, there would also be trails
throughout the park for walking, jogging, or running. Fitness stations could be located along the trails.
Given the proximity of the playground to some parking spaces, fencing would be installed around the
perimeter of the playground to ensure the safety of children. Other proposed site amenities located
throughout the park include a bike rack, recyclable park benches, picnic tables, signage, and
trash /recycle receptacles.
During the course of the BLUPC's work, LRC presented three variations of this concept with different
field sizes. Each proposal is described in chronological order below.
On November 4, 2010, the Lexington Recreation Committee proposed a 3.54 -acre area of the Busa Land
be used for active and passive recreation, including:
1. Multipurpose, regulation, full -size grass athletic field, which could be used for soccer, lacrosse,
field hockey, football and ultimate Frisbee. The proposed field was described as being 350' x 245'
(includes a safety zone on all sides and buffer zone on three sides, actual playing field is 330' x 195')
= 85,750 square feet or 1.97 acres.
2. Playground — 5, 058 square feet or .12 acres;
3. Passive Recreation Area — 32,957 square feet or .76 acres;
4. Trails — 22,278 square feet or .51 acres;
5. Parking Area (47 parking spaces) = 8,333 square feet or 0.19 acres;
Total Proposed Recreation Land Use = 154,376 square feet or approximately 3.55 acres.
Next, in email from the LRC dated December 2 2010, dimensional inaccuracies of the initial November
4t" presentation were acknowledged. LRC called to the BLUPC's attention that it had located the 330' x
195' field on the plan without any buffers or safety zone (even though such were described in text). In
addition, LRC stated the buffers needed to be increased to 40' from the buffers they had initially
proposed. LRC stated that a 330' x 195' field with 40' buffers does not fit on the Busa property in the
location illustrated by the November 4th concept plan. In that email, the LRC asked that the BLUPC
consider an intermediate -size field ( "intermediate field ") measuring 240' x 150' (without buffer zones) in
the same orientation, if a regulation field would not fit.
An intermediate -size field could be used for 6v6 soccer or 8v8 soccer. The U9 and U10 programs play
6v6 while the U11 and U12 play 8v8 soccer. In 2010, Lexington United Soccer Club (LUSC) had a total of
2,543 participants in their spring and fall programs. There were 562 participants in the U9 and U10
programs and 514 participants in the U11 and U12 programs, for a total of 1,076 participants (or 42.3%
of all LUSC participants) that could utilize an intermediate -size field. The Recreation Department has
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 19 / 52
informed the committee that the standard size of buffer needed for such an intermediate -size field is
30', although they also said that some towns vary that due to space constraints. An intermediate -size
field would be permitted for the same hours as the larger field initially proposed.
Lastly, on January 31, 2011, the LRC sent by email to the BLUPC a final revision of its proposal.
"In our original proposal, the size of the multipurpose field was 330' in length by 195' in
width. These are the maximum dimensions allowed for a full -size multipurpose field. In actuality, a
full -size field can be smaller in length and still meet the industry standards for a full -size
multipurpose field.
"Attached to this email is a revised map of our concept plan. On this map, the dimensions of the
multipurpose field are 300' x 195'. With the length of the field being reduced to 300 feet, this is the
minimum length requirement needed for a full -size field and it would ensure that there is a 40 -foot
buffer between the multi - purpose field and the abutter on the right side (east side) of the field,
which includes the safety zone. A 40 -foot buffer would not be necessary on the left side (west side)
of the field since there is no home located in close proximity to the abutting property line. On the
attached map, the distance between the field and the abutter on the left side of the field is
approximately 14 feet. In comparison, there is a safety zone of 10 feet around each of the three
synthetic turf fields at Lincoln Park. Therefore, I believe the amended full -size multi - purpose field on
the attached amended map would address the safety zone and buffer zone concerns that have been
expressed by the committee."
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 20 / 52
5. EVALUATION of the PROPOSALS
Below follows the BLUPC's evaluation of each of the three proposals, according to the criteria
established by the Committee.
5. 1 Evaluation of the Lexington Community Farm Coalition's Proposal
Introduction: History of the Busa Farm
The Busa land has been used for farming for almost 400 years. Numerous families have farmed the land
in that location; the last in a line of farmers has been the Busa family, beginning in 1916 when the family
rented the land and then purchased in 1919. The seal of the Town of Lexington includes "Cambridge
Farms," the name of the land in the 18th century.
In the 1920s, Lexington was a leader in farm production in Middlesex County, supplying the expanding
Boston wholesale produce markets. The Busa family grew vegetables for the wholesale market at
Faneuil Hall. As the Busa family grew, the land was divided into four parcels.
Even though competition from large -scale agribusiness changed the way produce was grown and
marketed in our country, with a great deal of farm land sold for real estate development, the Busas
persisted and kept their family farm, managing to hold on to the almost eight acres of the original
property that the town purchased in 2009.
Today, in Lexington and communities in the area, there is a strong interest in local food and in
sustainable agriculture. The Farmers Market that a group of local residents organized is testament to
that interest and to the renewed connection between farmers and consumers. A community farm would
allow Lexington residents to have a personal connection to a farm and direct involvement in food
production.
The Lexington Community Farm Coalition (LCFC) proposes to continue the tradition of farming the Busa
land, to serve as the most recent "custodian" of this site, but with a 21St century "twist ": through a
community farm, community- supported agriculture, the only such Town -owned farm land in Lexington.
The LCFC proposes adding a chapter to the farming history of the Busa land.
Evaluation Criteria:
1. The value /benefit to the people of Lexington
The goal of the Lexington Community Farm Coalition (LCFC) is to provide the community with an
ecologically and economically sustainable farm that offers fresh produce to its subscribers, for sale as
well as for donation to food banks, and to provide educational programs for the community. The LCFC
proposes to transform the Busa Farm into the Lexington Community Farm (LCF), a professionally
managed, working, community- supported agriculture (CSA) farm with educational programs for all age
groups. The LCF would provide opportunities for regular public access and participation on a farm and
serve the interests of a large cross - section of the Lexington community.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 21 / 52
The farm proposal also fulfills the desire of many in Lexington to use farming as an intergenerational
activity. This activity, and the numerous community service and educational opportunities it proposes,
creates a forum for families to gather and for farmers to offer their expertise on soils, crops, insects,
sustainability and nature. Lexington has two private, working farms and a public farmers market. While
these outlets offer access to fresh produce in a retail setting, neither offers opportunities for regular
public access and participation on a farm.
2. How many people benefit from the use; benefit to underserved populations
LCFC would grow and distribute fresh produce through multiple channels, which would include CSA
shares (approx. 250), a farm stand to serve the general public, school lunch programs, pick - your -own
passes, and donations of fresh produce to low- income families and individuals. A percentage (estimated
to be 10 %) of the food grown would be donated to local food pantries. It has the potential to provide
educational opportunities for pre - school children, school -age children, young adults, adults, and seniors.
LCFC would like to offer intergenerational events such as potlucks and farm tours to encourage all of
those interested to be actively involved in the life of the community farm. It would be the only farm in
Lexington that can simultaneously meet the needs and interests of all age groups and economic levels.
A letter from the Commonwealth Commissioner of the Department of Agricultural Resources,
recognizing multiple benefits to Lexington and surrounding towns is included in Appendix 7.9.
There are Lexington residents who already own shares in community- supported agriculture enterprises
in other communities in the area. They are people who want to be directly involved in food production
and want to pick /harvest their own food from a local farm, a farm in Lexington, through hands -on
involvement. These same people are among others who also want to support a farm in Lexington as a
means to demonstrate the town's commitment to global and local sustainability.
"There is a high demand for CSA shares in this area. Waltham Fields sells out its 300 shares a year in
advance and has a waiting list. Smaller farms like Newton Community Farm typically sell out their
CSA shares in a week. These sales are even more impressive given that consumers pay up to $700
per share months before they receive any produce." —LCFC
We consider the people who desire to participate in a Lexington community farm an "underserved"
population, as there are currently no opportunities to participate in this type of activity in the Town.
3. Scale of the proposed land use /development
The scale and scope of the LCFC proposal are compatible with the acreage of the Busa property. The
LCFC proposal states that the property has sufficient acreage to support a sustainable community farm
operation.
The Busa Farm assets that the LCFC would want to incorporate into its operation include the
greenhouse, artesian well, farm stand and greenhouse.
4. Impact to the neighborhood
LCFC would continue the tradition of a working farm on the land. Razing structures and grading the land
are not required in this proposal. Existing access points to the land are adequate: via the parking
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 22 / 52
lot /farm stand on Lowell Street and via walking trails from Lowell Street and the Arlington
Reservoir /Munroe Brook area. LCFC feels that the parking needs would be comparable to parking needs
of the current farm operation. It is likely that the impact of traffic on the area would be similar to that
for the present farm stand, although a traffic study of the area may be warranted.
5. Impact to abutters and enhancements
No additional walls or fencing than is currently on site are proposed. LCFC would seek to enhance the
area with landscaping in consultation with abutters. A working farm is a familiar presence to the
abutters and the LCF would sustain that land use.
6. Impact to the Arlington Reservoir and enhancements
One of the aims of this proposal is to continue best farming practices and continue to research and
implement improved farming methods for maintaining the Arlington reservoir's quality. Lexington's
2009 Open Space and Recreation Plan Update cited the Busa Farm as one of Lexington's few open
meadows, which provides "habitat variety in Lexington and is particularly important for certain
butterfly, bird, and small mammal species..." Continued farm use would maintain this meadow habitat.
In a report to the Lexington Conservation Commission dated April 30, 1996, the Land Acquisition
Planning Committee wrote, "Successful implementation of a good open space plan for Lexington
requires cooperation with nearby communities and resource - oriented regions in the region. The Town
should continue and expand upon efforts to coordinate with neighboring communities regarding the
protection and maintenance of open space areas that provide green corridors across town borders."
Arlington's Great Meadow, in proximity to the land, is one of those areas cited in the report to consider
in the context of regional natural resource planning. The Arlington reservoir abuts the Busa Farm land
and is also a factor when considering the future use of the land.
The Arlington residents who spoke at a community forum in their town were by and large in favor of the
continued use of the Busa land for farming. Lexington residents also spoke about the protection of the
reservoir, the desire to maintain contiguous natural open space, and the desire for additional walking
trails and stewardship opportunities, all of which are provided by the farm proposal.
7. Impact to environmental resource areas and enhancements
LCF would continue to provide access to walking trails around the farm to the Arlington reservoir to
enhance connectivity to the Munroe Brook area. It would also provide sitting and picnic areas and a
garden with shade and seating to provide open views of the farm fields and sunsets that the
neighborhood presently enjoys. The Land Acquisition Planning Committee also wrote in its report that
"The diversity in age, ethnicity, and income in Lexington's population indicates a need to provide open
space and recreation opportunities that appeal to a wide variety of potential users. The fact that
Lexington's population is getting older, as noted in Section 3.3, Population Characteristics, points toward
a need for open space and recreation areas that allow access for elderly and disabled residents,
entrances that permit access, and trails that are well marked and conducive to 'easy' walks. In fact,
walkable, accessible areas generally ranked very highly in the survey for what people liked about
Lexington's open space."
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 23 / 52
LCF would operate under sustainable land management techniques that are consistent with ecologically
sound, environmentally beneficial principles. The farm's approach proposes to encompass care not just
for the soil, but also for water and air.
The proposed uses of the environmental resource areas of wetlands, buffer zones and riverfront area
are consistent with the Committee's understanding of the laws protecting these areas. They include
farming and walking trails that provide connections with other walking trails.
8. Impact to public utilities and infrastructure and enhancements
"This use requires no additional utility infrastructure beyond the existing artesian well and electricity
currently on site. A portable sanitary facility would be necessary for hosting programs for the public; in
the longer term, we propose to improve the site with composting sanitary facilities... Existing electric
service to the site and buildings is sufficient for use." —LCFC proposal
In supplemental information provided by the Lexington Community Farm Coalition, LCFC expressed its
desire to add composting toilets over time, similar to those constructed by Minuteman High School for
Drumlin Farm. It appears that the current water and electrical supply is sufficient for farm operations,
and that sanitary facilities that do not require a connection with town sewer would be provided. It is
possible that in the future, should the farm be very successful and attract many visitors, volunteers and
school children, that permanent sanitary facilities would be desirable.
9. Security requirements
There would be no additional security requirements for the continued use of the Busa land as a farm.
10. Maintenance requirements
"The Lexington Community Farm Coalition would undertake all maintenance, including maintaining field
fertility and necessary repairs to the greenhouses, well, and farm stand. In addition, LexFarm would
manage a volunteer Farm Stewards program for the purposes of maintaining trails and open
space ...... We propose to use and improve all existing structures on the property, including the
permanent greenhouse and the seasonal greenhouse. The heated, permanent greenhouse would serve
a combined use: for early seedling production. " -LCFC proposal
In supplemental information supplied by the LCFC in response to a specific question from the
Committee, it was stated that they are not aware of any structural issues with the permanent
greenhouse. LCFC's budget includes annual maintenance costs of $500 for the greenhouse and farm
stand, as well as utility costs of $5,000. In addition, LCFC acknowledges that should the permanent
greenhouse be used for public educational events, a qualified professional will be called upon to
determine that it is safe for such use. Additional information on the condition of the greenhouse
provided by Jane Hammer, who currently works at Busa Farm, is found in Appendix B of LCFC's
submission to the Committee dated December 6, 2010. Lastly, LCFC's assumption is that the well
(drilled in 2002) and the pump are in working condition, the farm stand building is unheated but is
usable and contains a walk -in refrigerator, and annual maintenance costs are included in their budget.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 24 / 52
The LCFC asserts that the Town will not have any maintenance costs should the Busa land continue its
use as a farm. As the farm gains financial stability over time, it is possible that the Lexington Community
Farm would be able to provide public improvements in addition to maintenance. It is suggested that
should farming continue at this site with a non - profit corporation as the responsible party, the Town
obtain a professional assessment of the condition of the infrastructure, so that future farming proposals
address infrastructure specifics, and so the Town can be assured of public safety at the site.
11. Financial impact to the Town (cost and benefit)
"The Lexington Community Farm Coalition would expect to have an agreement with the town to
manage the property as a community farm on behalf of the Town. All financial benefits and costs
associates with managing the community farm would be included in the agreement ...... Lexington
Community Farm is a re -use of the existing farm; it does not require any additional development, apart
from construction of a shade shelter, which would be funded via donations. No funding is expected
from the Town. Funding for non - operating costs (startup, educational programming) would be raised
from Lexington Community Farm Coalition members and grants and a small, low interest
loan...... Lexington Community Farm would be managed by a non - profit corporation with governance by
a board of directors that would include community stakeholders. A paid, professional farmer would
carry out the farming. The farmer would be assisted by a staff of volunteers and paid seasonal
employees." —LCFC proposal
The LCFC proposal states that there would be no financial obligations to the Town for either capital costs
or maintenance costs for the continued use of the Busa land as a farm. "The centerpiece would be a
minimum of five acres of farmland under cultivation and a permanent greenhouse which would support
a community- supported agriculture (CSA) model of produce sales. Local consumers would buy a share
of the farm's output in advance of the growing season for a fixed price and receive a weekly share of the
harvest. In addition to providing full prices shares, LCF would offer 5% of its shares at a significant
discount to low- income families." A percent of the harvest would be sold at the public farm stand,
which would also sell seedlings and plants and produce purchased wholesale from other area farms to
provide more diverse offerings. LCF would also donate 10% of its produce to local food pantries.
The LCFC provided the following 5 -Year Budget as part of its proposal. It illustrates a net operating loss
in the first year as it sells shares, gains experience and purchases farm equipment, and then increasing
production towards financial stability. LCFC illustrates a commitment towards education by including a
cost for it within its budget. It also states that as a non - profit with a [possible] contract with the Town, a
small annual rent ($6,000) would be possible within its business plan.
Appendix B below is one appendix in the LCFC proposal - Summary of Farm Budget.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 25 / 52
Appendix B: Summary of Farm Budget
FARMING Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Income
CSA Shares
81,284
92,368
115,461
115,461
138,553
Donated Food
Value
(10,884)
(12,368)
(15,461)
(15,461)
(18,553)
Direct Sales
31,600
41,636
51,045
53,045
63,455
Expense
(19,722)
1,724
986
33,297
Cumulative Total Surplus
Payroll
58,400
59,400
74,200
76,800
78,200
Produce Supplies
26,700
29,895
35,832
38,382
42,318
Property Casts
18,184
23,778
19,000
19,000
19,000
Admin
11,800
13,000
14,200
15,400
16,600
Yearly Farming Surplus (Loss)
EDUCATION
Income
Expense
Yearly Education Surplus (Loss)
EVENTS &
MEMBERSHIP
Income
Expense
Yearly Events & Membership Surplus
(Loss)
TOTAL
(13,084) (4,438} 7,814 3,464 27,336
750
852
1,065
1,065
1,278
0
10,000
20,000
20,500
21,000
16,957
25,682
750
(9,148)
(18,935)
(19,435)
(19,722)
32,500 27,227
47,700 6,050
{15.200) 21,177
19,545
23,807
33,182
6,700
6,850
7,500
Expense
162,784
142,124
12,845
16,957
25,682
Income
135,250
149,716
171,656
177,918
217,915
Expense
162,784
142,124
169,932
176,932
184,618
Yearly Total Surplus (Loss)
(27,534)
7,592
1,724
986
33,297
Cumulative Total Surplus
(27,534)
(19,942)
(18,218)
(17,232)
16,064
12. Consistency with Town Master Plan and Core Vision
Lexington's 2009 Open Space and Recreation Plan Updated cited the Busa land as one of Lexington's few
open meadows, which provides "habitat variety in Lexington and is particularly important for certain
butterfly, bird, and small mammal species." The "Lexington 2020 Vision, Themes, Goals and
Recommended Actions" listed the promotion of community character, fostering educational excellence,
sustaining and enhancing the larger environment (such as increasing protected open space), and
reinforcing connections between residents, civic organizations and town government. The
establishment of a community farm is consistent with all of these goals.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 26 / 52
13. Sustainability
In June of 2010, a Sustainable Lexington committee was established to "advise the Selectmen on
proposals which affect Lexington's sustainability and resilience..." Expertise sought for membership on
the committee includes "food supply and agriculture." A community farm in Lexington would be an
example of "putting sustainability into action." The Lexington Community Farm would offer education
and provoke conversations about sustainability through experimentation with sustainable farming
practices, informational events, and school programs.... Lexington Community Farm's sustainable land
management techniques would include organic soil amendments, composting, crop rotation, the use of
physical barriers to defend against pests and weeds, and other best practices in farming and ecology.
Carbon inputs and outputs will be carefully considered in farming decisions. Visitors will also learn
about how the farm's sustainable practices can be applied in residential settings thus extending the
farm's environmental benefits well beyond its acreage. The farm's holistic approach to sustainability
will encompass care not just for the soil, but also for water and air. This approach will ensure healthy
land, healthy food, and a healthy watershed area and wildlife corridor that support a diversity of life .... A
sustainable farm would continually work to incorporate green technologies such as gray water
management and solar - power." —LCFC proposal
Current mass production techniques for food are energy intensive and rely on fossil fuels. A local farm,
dependent on community labor and support, reduces car trips, dependence on mass - produced food,
and supports the local human and natural ecosystems.
" Sustainability has been defined as using natural resources in such a way that our needs are met
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. It is essential for all
citizens to learn where their food comes from, the tradeoffs that are made in getting it to our table,
and making food choices that are healthy for humans and the environment. Food production and
choice is a key element in maintaining and improving the quality of our soil, water and atmosphere."
Fran Ludwig, 10/29/1010 to BLUPC
14. Timeline
Because the Lexington Community Farm would be a continuation of the existing use, it could be
established immediately.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 27 / 52
LEXINGTON COMMUNITY FARM Concept
Illustrative Plan by LexFarm Nov 2010
Farming:: Recreation &Education :: Historic Preservation
Community /
Educational Shade]
Activities Structure/ Accessible
Planted Buffer Gathering Educational
to Neighbo d Area Co munity Gardens
— Approx 200'Strearr Buffer QO Cutting Garden( -0.15 a)
Existing Parking
Seasonal
GreenhoO] e rea
s
Structures`
® Bicycle Par king
;• �; Area
l N. Fields
rchard i5 ' g rmstand and
FruitTree5 utb i ding
° oad
5
Planted Buffer
• o Neighbors
y ® /
Central Fields ' �Se itting Garden /
�. 03 a. Glee ; cnic Area
Fenc #. erb Garden:
91 ..',9.388•T69'W-�.V .. Utility 'r' 7 5f
FA.S`.2 [[411
xo•,9, � Area
`
t8
I ' � - _
J
_. Pi Area
1 10 t} Pe
1 xo-192 at -Ht6h Point ;'o :on le
1"A 1. ,rx.7a SAL'1tl'1 Vields
Overlook
1 –2.75 a.
Access to 173.19
Munroe Brook ` - Southwest Fields'
Birder's Walk \.1 .a _
fries
Walking paths
Approx 100'Wetland Buffer Far ss
16Z.]Sfi982 A _ s to Arlington Res,
18$�� Trail E tr
e Playgroup -&r � y
] -'s in ay 1
.....1 ': k4hm C ErVM W 20
�r 13 U3 A FAR1Vl .
•� tea,..... - ,'' �..., .....�.. w r. -
TOWN OF LEXINGTON, MA
==mom MIDDLESEX COUNTY
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 28 / 52
...................
:1�1 • I�1
Figure 1: LHP Concept Plan
Lexington Housing Partnership
Building a Diverse, Vibrant Lexington
rs
*-Q qua g
� 1>R3■�.� � �� �` l .]ate
4014
k = c ✓� �a
1, �l
L �
BUSA HARM
Lowell St
rc:�tiu�d ui LCXIN
LHP, Busa Property Concept Plan 3 November 4, 2010
I
I
I
I
1
1
1 I
� t
//
�/
_� rte•• _ r�r.•- . _ 1`
5.2 Evaluation of the Lexington Housing Partnership Proposal
Introduction
The Lexington Housing Partnership (LHP) made its presentation to the BLUPC on November 4, 2010. Ms.
Chris Kluchman, Bob Bicknell, and other committee members represented the LHP. Bill Kennedy was
present representing the Lexington Housing Assistance Board (LexHAB). Mr. Kennedy, in response to a
question, indicated LexHAB was deferring to LHP. LexHAB has indicated it is interested in participating
in the use of the property, if the LHP proposal does not go forward.
The LHP proposal documented the continuing need for affordable housing in Lexington. 18% of
Lexington's population falls into the moderate, low or extremely low- income category. The waiting list
for Section 8 rental vouchers for affordable units in Lexington is about 200 people. The LHP proposal
cites statistics that document the decrease in population of persons aged 18 to 24 (a decline of 50% over
the last decade). The 25 to 44 year -old population has decreased by 6 %. The population of those over
65 has increased in the last decade by 19 %. 36% of renters in Lexington fall below the moderate - income
category (less than $64,400 /four person household). The need for more affordable housing in Lexington
continues to be unmet. It seems reasonably clear that many younger people cannot afford market
housing in Lexington.
LHP proposes to construct two farmhouse -style buildings containing a total of 12 rental units (NB: the
number of rental units may vary; LHP "financials" in the proposal are based on 12 rental units). The
units would consist of one, two or three bedrooms. The average number of bedrooms in the units
would be just under two per unit. The units proposed for the Busa Farm would consist of both market
rate units and affordable units. Parking would be provided on site, perhaps incorporated with one or
two of the other uses put forward by the Lexington Community Farm Coalition and the Lexington
Recreation Committee. The LHP plan includes a full -size playing field, and leaves nearly five acres for the
community farm.
The "rule of thumb" used by LHP to estimate the number of school -age children in apartments is one
child for every three units. Twelve units would yield four children using this method. The number of
children to be expected in a residential multi -unit development is largely a function of the number and
size of the bedrooms. The anticipated additional costs to accommodate these children in the school
system will have to be calculated. It was projected that the units at Avalon at Lexington Hills (Met State
Hospital land) would result in a total of approximately 110 children becoming part of the Lexington
school system. The total number of 166 children coming into the school system from there has
exceeded the projected number by about 50 %.
Evaluation Criteria:
1. The value /benefit to the people of Lexington
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 29 / 52
It is anticipated there will be approximately one child each for every second and third bedroom in a unit.
This estimate may be low, based upon the Town's experience with Avalon at Lexington Hills. The Town
may be expected to contribute a minimum of approximately $38,000 toward the construction of each
unit, but it depends upon the sources of the funding for the project. If the Town has met its affordable
housing quota, will the Town be willing to continue to absorb the costs involved in view of the fiscal
difficulties that exist and are expected to continue or to commit Community Preservation Act (CPA)
money to the proposed project? If not, is the proposal viable? A limited number of Lexington residents
can be expected to be given accommodations. If the buildings are located near the abutters, the
shadows created can impact the quality of living for them.
2. How many people benefit from the use; benefit to underserved populations
The number of affordable housing units will benefit those in need. It is unknown how many Lexington
residents will be selected to rent accommodations in the affordable units.
3. Scale of the proposed land use /development
The LHP proposal was seen to have a great impact on the land, due to the housing, its parking needs and
access, as was the athletic field. The proposal was seen to create significant activity on the property. If
the housing were to be sited where the farm stand is presently located, the buildings and accompanying
shadows would impact the quality of life for abutters.
4. Impact to the neighborhood
The LHP proposal massing and placement were seen to have a large impact on the neighborhood and
abutters. The proposal was also seen to have an impact on the proposed community farm operation.
The combination of an athletic field, community farm, and housing, bringing a second road to the land,
was seen to be an issue for traffic in the area. Without the athletic field, the impact of the proposal on
the neighborhood would be moderate. The additional traffic on Lowell Street would seem not to be any
greater than traffic from the Bartlett Street neighborhood.
The number of units with the attendant parking needs and traffic generated can have a negative
subjective impact on the neighborhood. The housing units, if located in the area of the existing farm
stand, will impact the abutters.
5. Impact to abutters and enhancements
See No. 4 above
6. Impact to the Arlington Reservoir and enhancements
It is doubtful the housing units, if properly developed, would have a meaningful impact on the Arlington
Reservoir. However, combined with the other elements of the proposal, the level of activity and
development would have a significant impact.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 30 / 52
7. Impact to environmental resource areas and enhancements
It is doubtful the housing project would impact substantially the environmental resources, if properly
constructed. However, combined with the other elements of the proposal, the level of activity and
development would have a significant impact
8. Impact to public utilities and infrastructure and enhancements
Probably no major impact with the exception of parking required. Sewer and water connections will be
needed and depending on the placement of the housing, this could require an extension of the sewer
line along Lowell Street from the Lowell Street /Westminster Avenue intersection. Electric, cable and
other connections (gas) would also be required.
9. Security requirements
No special requirements are needed.
10. Maintenance requirements
The housing maintenance would be taken care of by the people responsible for the housing, but in some
models, that might be an owner /lessee or it might be a Town - related group like the Lexington Housing
Partnership.
11. Financial impact to the Town (cost and benefit)
It is estimated the LHP proposal would require the Town to spend a minimum of $38,000 /unit, but that
figure is dependent upon the sources of the funding for the project. Development costs are estimated
to be $300,000 per unit (12 units), but may not reflect what the Town will need to spend, if other
sources of funding are identified and procured. After construction costs, the housing would be cost -
neutral. Given the potential for an increase in school age children, there are likely to be some costs to
the school system.
12. Consistency with Town Master Plan and Core Values
The LHP housing model is somewhat different in that 12 units (or possibly up to 14) will be clustered
together on a rather small footprint. Increasing or at least maintaining diversity in the Town is and has
been for at least the past thirty years an important Town goal and Lexington has supported moderate -
income affordable housing. The LHP proposal supports these values and strategy.
13. Sustainability
The housing would be as self - sustainable as any other apartment or condominium development in
Lexington. The LHP proposal states that a green or low- impact development approach will be taken to
construction and operation of the housing,
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 31 / 52
14. Timeline
The housing project as described should be able to be undertaken in 1 -2 years.
5.3 Evaluation of the Lexington Recreation Committee Proposal
Introduction
The Lexington Recreation Committee (LRC) presented three iterations of a plan to include an athletic
field, trails, tot lot, affordable housing and community gardens, along with required parking and vehicle
access. See the "Summary of the Proposals" (Section 4 of this report) for a detailed chronological
description of the LRC proposal and modifications to it.
During the past few months, there was much discussion and clarification of the figures for field use
toward establishing a need for an additional field; but the bottom line is that the BLUPC accepts the LRC
contention that additional facilities are needed, and that if built, a new facility would primarily serve
Lexington school children.
The community gardens, trails, park, and affordable housing elements of the proposal are also worthy
additions to Lexington and the BLUPC very much appreciates the efforts of the LRC to address the other
needs of the Town. However, the discussion here in the Summary will focus on the major goal of the
LRC (per the January 31, 2011 email), the addition of a 300' x 195' multipurpose field to the Town's
inventory of playing fields.
Again, the most recent proposal illustrates the 300' x 195' multipurpose field along the north end of the
parcel with an east -west orientation (see Figure 5.3.1). Along the east side of the multipurpose field,
along the Borensztein property, the proposal shows a 40' buffer /safety zone, which is the standard for
athletic fields. Along the north side, a 38' buffer is illustrated, which should be adequate not only as a
runoff and spectator seating zone, but also to protect any trees on the abutters' property and the
existing stone wall that runs along the property line. However, on the west side, a 14' buffer /safety zone
between the southwest corner of the field and the Goldinger property is shown. The January 31, 2011,
email states: "A 40 -foot buffer would not be necessary on the left side of the field since there is no
home located in close proximity to the abutting property line because a residence is not currently
located there." The Committee respectfully questions this assumption. As the property is privately
owned, the parcel may be developed and /or the owner may not want Town activity on their property. If
a fence is required, the 14' -foot buffer /safety zone may be inadequate for safe and convenient play
(runoff, goal attempts, ball retrieval, etc.).
More importantly, when the field above, as described in the January 31, 2011, email, is laid out on the
survey (see below), the overall dimensions do not fit on the Busa property. The distance between the
Borensztein property line and the easternmost extent of the Goldinger property measures about 343',
not the required 354' (300' field + 40' east buffer + 14' west buffer). With the 40' buffer /safety zone
positioned along the east property line ( Borensztein property) there is about 3' between the field goal
line and the Goldinger property line, not the 14' dimensioned on the Recreation Department revised
plan. (At the northwest corner of the field, the property line angles to the west, so there is actually a
larger buffer as the property line moves to the southwest.)
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 32 / 52
Figure 5.3.1
i
I
El
l f
l
i.
With the 300' -long field, the 343' between the Borensztien property line and the easternmost extent of
the Goldinger property line allows a total of 43' for buffer zones, so the buffer /safety zones could be a
variety of dimensions, but even with the eastern buffer reduced to 30', the buffer on the west is only
about 13'. The concerns about safety and convenience mentioned above remain, and moreover, the
buffer must provide the space for a swale (a low sloped area for stormwater runoff) and the distance for
the proposed elevations of the field to return to the existing grade along the Goldinger property line.
Another difficulty with siting the January 31, 2011, concept is the entry drive. The southeast corner of
the field and buffer /safety zone is only about 16' from the property line of the residence at 52 Lowell
Street. A 16' -17' -wide dimension (adjacent to the property line) may be too tight to accommodate a
two -way drive to access the forty -car parking lot on the site interior and return to existing grade along
the property line.
Please see Section 5.4 for the BLUPC's consideration of alternate athletic field orientations and locations
not originally proposed by the LRC.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 33 / 52
1
I
El
l f
l
i.
With the 300' -long field, the 343' between the Borensztien property line and the easternmost extent of
the Goldinger property line allows a total of 43' for buffer zones, so the buffer /safety zones could be a
variety of dimensions, but even with the eastern buffer reduced to 30', the buffer on the west is only
about 13'. The concerns about safety and convenience mentioned above remain, and moreover, the
buffer must provide the space for a swale (a low sloped area for stormwater runoff) and the distance for
the proposed elevations of the field to return to the existing grade along the Goldinger property line.
Another difficulty with siting the January 31, 2011, concept is the entry drive. The southeast corner of
the field and buffer /safety zone is only about 16' from the property line of the residence at 52 Lowell
Street. A 16' -17' -wide dimension (adjacent to the property line) may be too tight to accommodate a
two -way drive to access the forty -car parking lot on the site interior and return to existing grade along
the property line.
Please see Section 5.4 for the BLUPC's consideration of alternate athletic field orientations and locations
not originally proposed by the LRC.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 33 / 52
Evaluation Criteria:
1. The value /benefit to the people of Lexington
The LRC proposal describes an increasing demand for field space due to growth in the number of youth
soccer players (from 1,800 ten years ago to 2,500 last year), baseball leagues with 1,300 -1,400 players,
and new sports including lacrosse and ultimate Frisbee, in addition to school -based athletic needs. The
Recreation Department permitted 51,400 hours, and denied requests for 2,225 hours, of which
approximately 1,825 were for Lexington youth- and school -based sports organizations. Two fields were
lost when Harrington School was built over this same period of growth, some of the remaining fields
have drainage issues and most cannot be used after dark. In some places where baseball fields overlap
with soccer /field hockey fields, the two sports cannot be scheduled at the same time.
Many of the existing Town athletic fields do not drain well. The Recreation Department states that it
cannot properly dry out the fields after storm events without denying even more requests, but this lack
of "rest" also exacerbates the deterioration of the fields. The Recreation Department was denied the
ability to place a field on the Hennessy land years ago, and has been waiting and searching for another
opportunity.
The LRC proposal addresses part of the gap between hours needed and hours available on fields by
creating a multipurpose field at the Busa Land for soccer /field hockey /lacrosse /ultimate Frisbee. Hours
on the Busa field would directly add to the time available for those uses, while some conflicts would be
alleviated between soccer /field hockey /lacrosse use and baseball use, where the fields overlap, because
the soccer /lacrosse /field hockey could be scheduled at Busa. The proposal suggests limiting a Busa Field
use to youth only, and for the hours of 5:30 -7:30 p.m. on weeknights, 5 games on Saturdays (at 9, 10:30,
12, 1:30 and 3 p.m.), and Sunday afternoons 12 -5:30 p.m. This would provide approximately 10 hours
during the weekdays and 14 hours on the weekends. Over the 22 weeks during the year, this could
provide 528 hours of field time. This would in the ideal meet approximately 24% of the approximately
2,225 hours of sports time that was denied in 2009. The 24% figure using the ideal substitution of hours
is probably not realistic; for example, some of the 2,225 denied hours were high school sports requests
that would not be shifted to a Busa field under the LRC proposal.
An additional regulation field (300' x 195' multipurpose field with 40' buffers) would be a benefit to the
several thousand Lexington athletes, both youth and adults. The renting of fields to groups that include
members from Lexington, but also include people from other towns, particularly adult leagues, helps to
support the principle of sharing resources regionally, and provides increased revenue to the Recreation
enterprise fund. However, adult usage is more damaging to grass fields than youth usage, so the
revenue must be balanced against the cost of maintaining the system of fields well in the face of such
additional adult usage. The LRC proposal indicates it would likely limit a Busa field to youth play, which
would help to maintain this field, but continue the impact of adult usage on existing fields.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 34 / 52
The physical and social benefits of exercise are well- documented, and the national obesity crisis is also
well- documented. While there are many opportunities for physical exercise in Lexington, an additional
field that opened up additional hours would help the population to stay fit.
Integrating a neighborhood park with the sports field would provide for families attending ball games as
well as those just interested in using the park. The passive recreation facilities would benefit and be
available to people of all ages in the Town.
The footprint for affordable housing units was not included in the plan presented, but it looked like two
lots were devoted to affordable housing.
2. How many people benefit from the use; benefit to underserved populations
The proposed regulation field would be available to serve more residents. LRC proposes to have a Busa
field regardless of size limited to youth participants. As noted above, the field hours proposed by LRC
would at best meet approximately 24% of the denied hours. The LRC estimated that in 2009, 4,500
children participated in youth sports, not including the middle and high school athletic programs. There
are over 2,000 students at Lexington High School and approximately 1,500 students at the two middle
schools; but there is overlap in the populations playing youth sports and playing school sports; and there
are overlaps between sports. It is not clear how many individual children are taking advantage of the
youth sports opportunities, but it is safe to say that it is in the thousands, more than 4,500 and less than
the total of 6,235 students that are in the public school system this year. Indirect benefit would accrue
to more players than just those who use the hours on the new field, if the whole system were made
easier to maintain and fields were able to be rested after heavy use or rain.
No estimates are given for the number of people who would benefit from the affordable housing
anticipated in the LRC plan.
No figures are estimated for use of the playground /park /trails. Several neighbors noted that the nearby
Rindge Avenue park has play equipment and the Arlington Reservoir park does also; it is not clear
whether those populations would gravitate toward the new playground or if new people would be
drawn to the new park as well.
3. Scale of the proposed land use /development
The LRC proposal would have a large impact on the site, due to the field, playground, housing and
parking. Grading the field to create a level playing surface and swales to capture storm water runoff
from the field would impact elevations beyond the dimensions of the field itself.
As noted in the introduction, the 330' x 195' multipurpose regulation field would not fit within the
property lines and watershed boundaries in the east -west orientation in the LRC proposal.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 35 / 52
The smaller 300' x 195' multipurpose field currently proposed would require regrading, as well as
parking and roadways capable of handling the traffic between games as two teams leave and two teams
arrive. See Section 5.4 for other orientations.
The neighborhood playground would also impact the site by regrading to create a level surface.
Community gardens would require the existing well to continue to supply water, or an alternate; and
would require parking and access for gardeners and their equipment.
The fields and playground areas would probably be surrounded by chain link fencing to protect abutters'
property and to contain young children.
The affordable housing component of the plan would impact site grading. Access to the site from this
area of Lowell Street is problematic because of the grade change, which ranges from 12' across the
north end of the parcel to 14' across the south end of the parcel. If access to the units is from Lowell
Street, there would need to be several feet of fill (and walls) to support parking and /or garages.
Depending on the size and rotation of the proposed sports field, access to housing units may be possible
west of those existing houses, but such a right -of -way driveway would impact the three existing houses,
sandwiching the properties between roadways.
4. Impact to the neighborhood
The LRC plan impacts the neighborhood in positive and negative ways. The positive impacts include the
availability of local community gardens and a play area, and easy access for local youth athletes and
those who wish to use the passive recreation trails.
The major impact to the neighborhood would be the loss of the farmed open space. Many people at the
public meetings spoke about their appreciation of the farm produce and the farm atmosphere.
Lexington residents also recounted how they enjoy views of the farm (unexpected in a suburban setting)
as well as sunsets and the proposed housing would block much of the view from Lowell Street. Single or
two - family housing might block the view somewhat less than the larger units proposed by the Lexington
Housing Partnership. The bucolic introduction that Busa Farms gives Lexington, similar to that which
Wilson Farm provides along Pleasant Street, would be lost at the Lowell Street threshold to Town.
In addition, the impact of 5 games on Saturdays, with cars for potentially 25 -30 youths each game and
twice that during game changeovers, was seen as additional traffic volume at an already dangerous
intersection, a large negative impact. The impact of the midweek practices is less, but still of concern for
the intersection, particularly as the midweek practices overlap with rush hour.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 36 / 52
5. Impact to abutters and enhancements
Abutters along Lowell Street are particularly concerned about the loss of the farm atmosphere of nature
and quiet. Abutters to the north and east voiced concern about placement of the field immediately next
to their homes, traffic congestion, and noise of games all day on Saturday, Sunday afternoon, and into
the early evening on weekdays.
Again, the 14' buffer to the west property line proposed in the January 31, 2011 email would not be
sufficient. Although Silk Fields, LLC, (the abutter to the west) does not currently have a home or other
use there, the 40' buffer would have to be maintained so that any future development of the Silk Fields,
LLC, property does not impact the use of an athletic field.
6. Impact to the Arlington Reservoir and enhancements
The LRC proposal limits all potential grading and site improvements to the north end of the site, placing
the community gardens near the Arlington Reservoir. Therefore, the vegetative buffer and storm
drainage patterns in this area could be preserved. Moreover, the LRC says the Town DPW practices
integrated pest- management, pesticide -free and environmentally sensitive maintenance on fields.
Best management erosion and sediment control systems would need to be used to protect the Arlington
Reservoir from any construction impacts, as storm water from the Busa land drains into the Arlington
Reservoir.
7. Impact to environmental resource areas and enhancements
The Busa land is perceived to be part of a contiguous ecological system with the Arlington Reservoir. A
playing field and playground, while providing open space, do not provide the same food source and
habitat for local fauna. The community gardens would maintain some of the contiguous system, but the
major disturbance of the field, playground and housing in this proposal would increase storm water
runoff and reduce habitat and food source for wildlife. The LRC proposal stated that proper drainage
would be installed, but did not indicate to where the extra stormwater runoff would be drained.
8. Impact to public utilities and infrastructure and enhancements
The LRC proposal did not require public utilities for the field and park, because it did not propose any
bathroom facilities or nighttime activities requiring lights. The affordable housing element of the
proposal would require significant utilities (electrical, water /sewer, etc).
9. Security requirements
The LRC proposal does not require any change in the current security requirements.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 37 / 52
10. Maintenance requirements
The Town would be responsible for maintaining the field, park and trails in the LRC proposal, for an
estimated $7,000 per year. The proposal did not detail costs for the Town related to maintaining the
affordable housing component. In the Lexington Housing Partnership (LHP) proposal, there were several
models offered: housing maintenance would be taken care of by the people responsible for the housing,
but in some models that might be an owner /lessee or it might be a Town - related group like the LHP. The
proposal did not detail maintenance requirements for the proposal's community gardens.
11. Financial impact to the Town (cost and benefit)
The LRC estimated its proposal would cost $800,000 to build, as originally written, based on an estimate
from a landscape architect in 2009.
The LRC provided this further breakdown of the cost estimate in an email dated January 2, 2011:
• Multipurpose athletic field - $350,000
• Playground - $200,000 (two structures, swing set, safety surfacing, and installation)
• Parking lot, trails, and passive recreation area - $200,000
• Master plan and site amenities - $50,000
In addition, as mentioned above, it would cost $7,000 per year to maintain the site.
The LRC proposes to seek CPA funds for development of the site. The LRC told the BLUPC that fees for
new participants anticipated to be accommodated would partially but not entirely offset the $7,000
annual maintenance cost, but no specific figures were given.
12. Consistency with Town Master Plan and Core Values
The LRC proposal is consistent with the Town's stated values to maintain, improve and promote
opportunities for physical recreation (2020 Vision Themes, Goals and Recommended Actions). It is also
consistent with the Lexington Open Space and Recreation Plan Update 2009, Goal 9: Preserve, protect
and improve Lexington's recreational infrastructure. The Plan noted that there is some competition
between the values of conservation and recreation, and suggested that the Town do long -term planning
to address the two values cooperatively.
13. Sustainability
The BLUPC looks at sustainability as a long term "the triple bottom line ": 1. Cultural and Community
Value (People), 2. Economic Viability (Profit), and 3. Ecological Value (Planet). It is anticipated that the
community would continue to have active use of a field, the playground /park and trails; and because
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 38 / 52
interest in local food is growing, it is reasonable to assume that the community would continue to have
interest in the community gardens as well. The LRC plan would require consistent input from the Town
related to maintenance of the field and playground, community gardens and affordable housing. The
maintenance practices for the field and park were described as environmentally friendly, and therefore
sustainable.
14. Timeline
LRC estimated that the field component of the proposal could be completed in two years. It did not
provide a timeline for the community gardens or affordable housing components of the proposal.
5.4 Alternate Layout Studies
Introduction
In addition to reviewing the proposals from the Lexington Community Farm Coalition (LCFC), Lexington
Housing Partnership (LHP), and Lexington Recreation Committee (LRC), the BLUPC tested alternate
schemes as a group at the January 5, 2011, meeting. In the weeks that followed, during the evaluation
of the three iterations of the LRC proposal, several additional athletic field orientations and locations
were studied.
330' x 195' Regulation -Field Studies
At the January 5t" meeting the BLUPC first studied the 330' x 195' regulation -size athletic field. With the
required 40' buffers, the regulation field did not fit in the east -west orientation proposed by LRC, but
extended onto the Goldinger property and into one of the 200' riverfront boundaries. In considering
other orientations, it appeared that the regulation field with 40' buffers could not fit onto the property
and still allow proper access for other program elements, roads, and parking (see Figure 5.4.1, below). In
particular, the dimensions of the field extended over the existing locations of the farm infrastructure,
including the greenhouses and well. Therefore, in the combined program study described below, the
intermediate -size field was analyzed.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 39 / 52
Figure 5.4.1
I
L..
195' :�.�..�
Combined Program Study
i
I
i
�7
i
Next, the BLUPC attempted to lay out the most critical program elements of each scheme (see Figure
5.4.2, below). These elements included the 240' x 150' intermediate -size athletic field with 30' buffer
(see above), two affordable housing structures (with 12 to 14 units as requested by the Lexington
Housing Partnership), and the farm infrastructure (preserving the greenhouse, well and southern fields).
After a full discussion concerning the possible orientations for the proposed athletic field and the
proposed housing, there was consensus that to include all these elements and the needed parking for
each created too much activity on the property. Two members of the BLUPC felt with one housing
structure, the Board of Selectmen should give further consideration to the inclusion of an athletic field,
assuming additional land for farming purposes is located. Furthermore, one of these two members
believes that the housing structure should be a single building containing one or two units while the
other supports 5 -8 units in a single structure. The sketch layout plan located 32 to 34 parking spaces,
when approximately 40 spaces would be required for housing and the athletic field (2 cars per housing
unit or 24 spaces minimum not including visitor parking, and 16 spaces for athletic field 8v8 games) and
additional parking would be required for the farm. In addition, the placement of the housing west of the
Borensztein residence would block this abutter's natural light and views and create a lot of activity close
to the Borensztein home.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 40 / 52
Figure 5.4.2
5Cd � q
i
e
�Ngo�Y N
Alternate Field Layout
/ T r jL
A6 Nvl
_ 4w
During the analysis of the LRC proposals for 3 different field sizes, several alternate orientations and
locations were studied (see also Figures 5.4.3 -.4). The extreme south end of the Busa property is not
feasible because of the resource areas (the Arlington Reservoir 100' and 50' foot buffer zones extend
onto the property), as well as an eight -foot grade change from north to south that would require
significant disturbance to the site to grade a level playing field.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 41 / 52
PFMMT
M2 Mµ F p
GRRNryWSE :. ' MgPN0.R C
. 2
fEO 201
BCgy�n x/c
� �v sazx
1
During the analysis of the LRC proposals for 3 different field sizes, several alternate orientations and
locations were studied (see also Figures 5.4.3 -.4). The extreme south end of the Busa property is not
feasible because of the resource areas (the Arlington Reservoir 100' and 50' foot buffer zones extend
onto the property), as well as an eight -foot grade change from north to south that would require
significant disturbance to the site to grade a level playing field.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 41 / 52
Figure 5.4.3
1
0
l �
11 .o.
...............
I �
I I
i
i
I I
As mentioned earlier and shown above, an irregular property line complicates the extreme north end of
the site. The shortest east -west distance across the property is about 343'. Therefore, the only field that
fits in this location with standard buffer zones is the smaller 240' x 195' intermediate -size field with 30'
buffers (long dimension 300'; see Figure 5.4.4 below). The majority of the BLUPC questions, however, if
the Town investment in land, construction costs and annual maintenance, as well as the loss of the
farming acreage and infrastructure (the north greenhouse and farm stand would be removed) is worth a
single M soccer field, that while useful, does not solve the Town's need for the larger regulation field.
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 42 / 52
Figure 5.4.4
/—T—J
10 F-
M, '
II�
f
i
i
1 .
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 43 / 52
�
I
�
I
I
M, '
II�
f
i
i
1 .
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 43 / 52
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Use as a Community Farm
The Busa Land Use Proposal Committee has worked since the summer of 2010 to fulfill the Board of
Selectmen's charge to us. We have visited the site with Dennis Busa and several abutters, walked it
individually, listened to scores of comments by Lexington residents at two public forums and also to
Arlington residents at one public forum, read the hundreds of emails and letters sent to the BLUPC,
listened to the public at our own committee meetings, and tested three proposals as well as several
variations on the new site survey. Our charge is to invite, receive and evaluate proposals, to identify
desirable uses, evaluate the possibility of multiple uses, and to prepare a report on these evaluations
and describe the reasons the proposal[s] are desirable to the people of Lexington. The Board of
Selectmen clarified that they expect our recommendations for the Busa land. Our recommendations
follow.
While the BLUPC was asked to understand and evaluate the needs of the people of Lexington as they
relate to open space, housing and active recreation, we were tasked with evaluating those needs on this
particular parcel of land. As we came to discover, this is an eccentric piece of property. It is large, just
under 8 acres, but has an irregular property line. It has a single access point from Lowell Street near a
difficult intersection. At its northern end the parcel is flat and relatively high; the land then slopes down
toward the Arlington Reservoir with steep slopes in the southeast corner. Different environmental
resource areas, each with different setbacks and restrictions, line its southern and western boundaries.
All of these unique features complicate the layout of possible land uses. Moreover, the community
shared its local knowledge; neighbors cherish the Busa land for its seasonal change and sunsets; and
ecologists value it for the habitat it provides for many species of animals and birds. The BLUPC was given
the task by the Board of Selectmen to evaluate and recommend the most appropriate use(s) of this
particular and unique parcel of land.
Foremost, the Committee is unanimous in its support of the continued use of farming on some or all
of the Busa land. The overwhelming benefits to the people of Lexington, including an underserved
population of people who want to participate in Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) and in food
production and education in their own town, affected the Committee. The reasons for continued
farming are:
• This site is currently a farm, and its soils support farming. As described in the Commissioner of
Agriculture's letter to the BLUPC (Appendix 7.9), the occurrence of 100% Hinckley soil on the
farm is a very rare and an important aspect of this site, "of statewide importance for the
production of food, feed, fiber, or forage crops."
• The existing farm stand, greenhouses, and well are in reasonable condition and can continue to
be used (no infrastructure is immediately required)
• The intergenerational opportunities presented by farming (this goal was mentioned many, many
times during the course of our explorations)
• The ecologically and economically sustainable advantages of providing locally grown produce
• The opportunity to provide educational programs on agriculture for adults and children
• The opportunity to address the growing awareness, interest in and participation in CSAs in
eastern Massachusetts
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 44 / 52
• The protection of the existing environmental resource areas, and possibly their promotion and
improvements through active stewardship and improved trails
• The overwhelming support of the immediate abutters and the minimal impact to the
neighborhood through the continued land use
• The support of the hundreds of people across the Town who took the time to speak or write to
the Committee
• The minimal financial obligations to the Town as compared with housing or active recreation
• Consistency with the Town Master Plan and Core Vision; the opportunity to have the farm
provide 10% of its produce to the local food pantry
• The demonstrated commitment to sustainability and green infrastructure
This parcel of land, which has been farmed for almost 400 years, presents a unique opportunity to the
Town of Lexington to demonstrate to its residents, neighbors and visitors its support for locally grown
food, intergenerational agriculture and education, and open space.
The Committee acknowledges the public benefit of each of the three proposed land uses. However, we
believe this particular parcel of land should, in great part, remain a farm.
Oversight of the Community Farm
The LCFC has stated that a Town agricultural committee or a non - profit organization could be
established as a governing body, if that is the structure preferred by the Town. The Lexington
Community Farm Coalition or an equivalent group could be responsible for managing the farm and be
required to have a farm manager. The Town should issue an RFP for the management of the farm, and
outline in the RFP the expectations and requirements for management of this important Town resource.
6.2 Affordable Housing
In addition, a majority of Committee members also believe that the site could accommodate a small
number of affordable housing units. One of the core values of Lexington has been the promotion of
moderate income housing to meet the serious needs of people who qualify for it, the requirements of
Massachusetts law and policy, and the goal of maintaining a significant degree of economic and social
diversity.
The Committee felt that if housing is sited on the Busa land it should, to the extent practicable:
• not adversely impact farm operations or infrastructure
• not adversely impact neighborhood traffic
• be consistent with the scale and character of the neighborhood
• not destroy existing views enjoyed by neighbors and the public
• avoid or minimize any adverse impact on abutters
Therefore, the consensus of the Committee is that the number of units (12 -14) that the Lexington
Housing Partnership has proposed, with associated access drives and parking, and the required
stormwater infiltration measures as required by Town bylaw, would be incompatible with the interests
of the proposed farm and abutters. If the Board of Selectmen decides to place affordable housing on
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 45 / 52
the land, the BLUPC instead recommends using the approach of LexHAB'S scattered -site program, which
has successfully created moderate - income housing consistent with the character of Lexington's
neighborhoods.
Three members of the Committee believe that no housing should be built on the land because, as one
member stated, it could dilute the intent and functions of the farming operation; if carefully sited, three
members would support 1 -2 units in a single structure (one of these three members would support such
a structure if it did not require a variance); and one member could support from 5 to 8 units in a single
structure, but also proposed 4 units as a compromise.
Given the property's irregular configuration (with limited frontage along Lowell Street) and its
topography (with a grade change of over 12' at its southeast corner), siting housing on the Busa land is a
challenge. The majority of the BLUPC reached consensus on two possible housing locations, with a
minority opinion recommending a third.
Option 1: 34 Lowell Street (Southeast Corner)
The main advantage of this location is that the interior of the site is kept intact for crops. The
driveway(s) would enter the parcels directly from Lowell Street, which avoids pedestrian /vehicular
conflict with the farm operation and preserves the farm stand and current parking for farming. The
location along Lowell Street would also limit the run of utility lines. Moreover, the steep slope makes
this land less valuable for cultivation but, assuming the use of structural walls, there are opportunities
for structures that open onto the street and also on the farm side. Therefore, the first option the
Committee recommends is a deeded lot south of 36 Lowell Street. The structure could be similar in
massing and character to the adjacent residence at 36 Lowell Street, which totals about 1,212 SF per
floor. To align with the property line to the north, the lot could measure about 99' (east -west) x 100'
(north- south), or about .22 acre total. The lower level might provide some usable space or amenities for
a farm.
However, there are significant disadvantages inherent in the southeast corner of the site. The 12' grade
change from the road to the field makes access difficult and expensive; significant fill and or walls would
be required to build driveways /parking from Lowell Street. Access to the southeast corner could be
from the west at the lower field elevation, but this approach would require a long run of impervious
pavement that would enclose the rear yards of several abutters. A sewer connection would have to be
extended from the intersection of Lowell Street and Westminster Avenue. Moreover, as it sits on the
boundary with Arlington and is adjacent to the Arlington Reservoir, the southeast corner is a gateway to
Lexington, offering expansive views of the farm fields from Lowell Street and Westminster Avenue and,
as many neighbors recounted, cherished sunset views. Especially during the winter months, the slope
along Lowell Street is also visible from the Arlington Reservoir.
Option 2: 50A Lowell Street (Northeast Corner)
Another possible site is on the northeast corner of the property where the current farming operation
cultivates flowers. The frontage along Lowell Street north of the existing Busa Farm parking lot has a
better grade relationship to the street than does the southeast corner. With the RS zoning dimensional
controls requiring a 15' minimum setback from the abutter on the north and a 30' minimum front yard,
a schematic footprint measuring about 30' x 85' would fit on the site. Allowing for a 15' setback from
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 46 / 52
the residential property to the south where none currently exists, there would be room for a 64' -wide
double - loaded parking lot and about 12' from the north side of the parking to the proposed structure.
Of course, it would benefit the farm and reference the history of the farmhouse, if parking were to
extend to the property line.
The proximity of this structure to the farm suggests incorporating it into the farm operation by creating
housing for a farm manager and possibly other farm - affiliated people. In this way, a separate driveway
or access point from Lowell Street would not be required and resident parking could be in the farm
parking lot or (at peak visitation like CSA pick up) behind the farm stand. One scenario, which might
increase the visibility of the farm from Lowell Street, would be to create a barn -like structure with
community gathering space, public rest rooms, storage space or farm stand sales on the first floor and
the affordable housing units above on the second floor. Whether a barn, expanded farmhouse, or other
architectural style, affordable housing in this location (as well as planting along the 15' setback) could
serve to screen parking from the abutter to the north.
The BLUPC agreed that although housing integrated with the farm operation did not meet the
conventional definition of affordable housing, it would meet the Town's goal of increasing community
diversity. However, if the units were not available by lottery to the wider community, the housing may
not qualify for grants and alternate funding sources would have to be pursued. Another disadvantage of
this site is that parking for the farm is limited, and if the existing farm stand were to remain, a new
structure north of the parking lot would create a pinch point for access to the farm.
Option 3: Site Interior
One Committee member advocated a third possible location. It would be in the interior northeast
corner of the parcel, behind the land owned by the Borenszteins to the east and the Wang and the
Billmers families to the north. It would require the removal of the existing seasonal greenhouse After
extensive discussion at our February 9 meeting, the majority of the BLUPC concluded that it cannot
recommend this location due to the impact on abutters, removal of the greenhouse, the occupying of
flat, tillable farmland, the cost of utilities needed to be brought to the interior of the site, and the need
to create a driveway and parking on tillable land inside the site boundaries.
Further Analysis of the Site Options
A more thorough analysis of construction costs (including utilities, grading and stormwater
management), traffic safety, and funding sources will be needed to assess the feasibility of each site.
Finally, the Committee recommends close collaboration between the affordable housing developer and
the farm to assure that any synergies between the projects —new neighbors —can be realized.
6.3 Athletic Fields
A majority of the Committee believe that active recreation fields are difficult to site on the Busa
property, given its irregular property lines, and moreover, are not compatible with the operation of the
farm. This is difficult for us, as each Committee member supports active recreation and our families
have participated or do participate in the Town's recreation programs. We are also sympathetic to the
frustration voiced by Recreation Committee members that they were early advocates for the purchase
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 47 / 52
of this property for athletic fields. However, the Committee's charge is to deliberate on the appropriate
use for this particular parcel of land, given all the community input over many months.
After reviewing the recreation proposal and doing our own scaled studies on the site survey, the
Committee concludes that a full -size field (300' x 195' with 30' -40' buffers) will not fit on the site in an
east -west orientation. In the north -south orientation, it will require the removal of one and possibly
both greenhouses, and will dominate the largest, flattest portion of the site. In addition to the field,
parking and driveways will be required. While a smaller field that would accommodate younger children
and a narrower range of activities is also possible, the BLUPC feels that a smaller field will not address
the scheduling difficulties expressed by the Lexington Recreation Committee and is not an adequate
tradeoff compared with the loss of tillable Hinckley soil. It is possible for the site to accommodate a
field, housing and passive recreation such as trails and community gardens (different from a community
farm), but it is not possible, in the Committee's opinion, for a financially viable farm and athletic fields to
coexist on the Busa land.
6.4 Additional Considerations
In considering implementation of the Committee's recommendation that the Busa Land be used for a
Community Farm, the Committee wishes to bring to the Selectmen's attention several considerations
that were raised during our deliberations:
The proposal of the Lexington Community Farm Coalition (LCFC) cites several expected sources of
income, including the sales of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) shares that are projected to be
125 shares the first two years and approximately 250 shares the last three years of the LCFC five year
projection, the operation of the farm stand with the sale of produce and other items, donations, and
some miscellaneous income. The CSA shares are expected to be sold at a price of approximately $550
per share. This figure of approximately $550 per CSA share is probably sound.
Committee members with experience in farming expressed concern that the revenue projections in the
LCFC proposal can be met. The viability of any proposal to operate the farm, within a model similar to
that proposed by the LCFC, depends on the ability to raise or purchase a sufficient volume of produce
and other items that are needed to support the requirements for filling the CSA shares and operating
the farm stand. The Busa family currently farms the conservation land off Waltham Street and
purchases produce and other items to supply the farm stand operation. Will a substantial number of
acres, i.e., over and above that available at the Busa Farm, be necessary to support the LCFC proposal or
any other proposal that may be received in response to an RFP which involves sales to CSA and farm
stand operations?
To support the LCFC model, individuals with at least three major responsibilities may be needed. These
responsibilities would include farm management, procurement of items that must be raised apart from
those items raised on the acreage supporting the proposal, and farm stand management. A question
might be, could volunteers be expected to fill some of the roles? Volunteers can certainly have a place
in the farm operation and could be the source for some of the needed labor. Might there be a need for
more paid employees than the farm manager, e.g., a farm stand manager?
Would LCFC need to purchase any additional equipment to what is in its proposal? What might be the
cost of this equipment, if it is needed?
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 48 / 52
As mentioned in other sections of this report, the Board of Selectmen will very likely need to determine
the condition of the current greenhouse, artesian well, and farm stand, a well as the availability of
appropriate sanitary facilities, especially if an educational component for Lexington students is to be
included in any proposal.
6.5 Other Town Land
During the course of this work, the BLUPC was asked by at least one or more Lexington residents to
assess the possibility of using other parcels of Town -owned land to provide acreage for the community
farm, thereby reducing the pressure on the Busa land. The Committee's charge was specific to the Busa
land; however, this possibility should be explored with the same rigor that this process has entailed, if
the Board of Selectmen wishes to pursue it.
The BLUPC asked the Lexington Recreation Committee if land along Worthen Road between the baseball
field and the high school field house could be used as a full -size athletic field. The LRC responded that it
is too wet and too small for such a field.
Upon inquiry by the BLUPC, the Town Manager, after consulting with local officials, reported that Town -
owned land in the vicinity of the Hartwell Avenue landfill not currently in use is restricted for
development and would not be a possible site for an athletic field.
6.6 Minority Opinion
I agree with my colleagues that the principal use of the Busa land should be a community farm. The
majority recommends one or possibly two housing units in a single dwelling, as well. Thus this
recommendation would result in the land being devoted virtually only to a farm. I disagree. I agree with
Mr. Dailey that if some of the land now farmed on Waltham Street were made available to the
Community Farm that both housing and a playing field could be placed on the 6.6 Busa land with a
Community Farm. I disagree with Mr. Dailey and my other colleagues that the number of housing units
should be limited to one or two. I believe that five to eight units in a single structure could be built on
the land in a way that would be compatible with a functioning farm and the neighborhood. I believe
that one or two units do not go far enough towards meeting the needs for moderate cost housing or to
show a continuing commitment to keeping Lexington a diverse community. I had proposed, as a
compromise, that the Committee recommend four units.
All the members of The Committee have been persuaded by the data that the Housing Partnership and
the Recreation Committee have presented to us that there is a serious need for additional moderate
cost housing and playing fields. None of us argues that housing and playing fields are not important to
our town and its values. Is the need for a Community Farm of the size and scope of the Farm Coalition's
proposal so great that it demands the use of this land to the virtual exclusion of all else? Perhaps, but I
cannot remember that there was ever any support for the use of any other open land acquired for a
community farm, even when the Town Meeting voted to acquire farm land. In my judgment the
fundamental flaw in the majority's reasoning is that it looked too hard at what was best for The Farm,
instead of what is best for the Town.
The majority's arguments on sustainability are much overstated. For example, people will still drive to
nearby supermarkets to buy food that is not available from a community farm. There are certainly birds
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 49 / 52
and small animals living around and near the parcel, but it is surely not a wildlife corridor, as the
majority suggests. By definition, a wildlife corridor is a strip of land wide and natural enough for wildlife
to use to go from one wild area to another. The strip of land adjoining the Arlington Reservoir, from a
wild animal's perspective, is seemingly a corridor from nowhere to nowhere. There are other examples,
but the critical point is that the majority's arguments do not address the most important issue —
whether a Community farm should be the only use of this land, except for a single small structure. They
have not demonstrated that fewer than a half dozen housing units will seriously diminish the benefits of
a farm. I believe strongly that the decision on how to use this land should be based on fact -based
analysis to achieve the best result for the Town as a whole.
Compromise, balance of the various needs, goals, and policies of the Town and the interests of the
abutters and neighborhood, as well as exploration of new options are necessary to come to the best and
fairest plan for this land. The Farm Coalition argues that The Farm must have at least five acres under
cultivation to be financially viable. It may be that for the programs the Farm Coalition envisions five
acres under cultivation is necessary, but the programs can be less ambitious. Newton's CSA only has
three acres. As Mrs. Kern is quick to point out quite correctly, Newton's farm is very different from what
the Farm Coalition proposed. However, the point is that a CSA can work on less than five acres of
cultivated land; it just will be different from what the Farm Coalition proposes.
The disagreement that I have with my colleagues is about two housing units. In the grand scheme of
things is it important? I believe it is. Part of the short answer is that for two families who want to live in
Lexington or continue to live in Lexington, it is very important. For the Town it is very important. The
cornerstone of Lexington's policy to create permanent moderate cost housing has been LexHAB's
scattered site housing program. This program has been successful beyond the predictions of its original
supporters and skeptics primarily because LexHAB with the Town's support has exploited every
opportunity to build a house. That momentum needs to continue and needs our support. It needs to
continue, not only to add two more units, but to reaffirm, beyond mere words, our community's values
and commitment to diversity for others and for ourselves.
There may be an option that will allow the farm to have five acres of land and allow other uses for some
of the Busa land. Mr. Robert Pressman suggested would be for a community farm to continue
cultivating the Waltham Street conservation land that Mr. Busa now farms. If the Farm could use
acreage on Waltham Street, it would be practical to have housing and a farm on Lowell Street. Mr.
Dailey has argued persuasively that The Farm is unlikely to achieve its financial goals without using some
of the Waltham Street land. It would seem, as Mr. Dailey suggested, that Mr. Busa's use of the Waltham
Street land and his CSA program have just barely made his farm financially viable. Certainly, if acreage
on Waltham Street could be used for the farm, then more moderate - income housing could be built on
the Busa land and perhaps a field as well. The land on Waltham Street, if made available, could allow the
Farm to have its five acres and allow other uses on the Busa land. The majority of the Committee has
been strongly dismissive of the idea, with no data to support the view that the use of the Waltham
Street land was not feasible for The Farm. If the proposed farm could use the Waltham Street
conservation land, which Dennis Busa now uses as an adjunct to his farm, it might even be possible to
meet the three needs with which the Committee dealt and provide five acres of land for cultivation to a
community farm. This option is worth exploring in depth. I would hope that the Board of Selectmen
and the Conservation Commission would consider seriously this option
The Committee's report, analyzing the Lexington Housing Partnership proposal, does demonstrate that
housing on the Busa site is compatible with the neighborhood. A single building such as the type
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 50 / 52
described in the LHP proposal could be sited in the area of the present parking lot. The Coalition had
stated that if the LHP proposal were to go forward, the coalition would prefer that location to preserve
arable land. I see no rational basis for contending that such a structure would damage or be
incompatible with the neighborhood because of size or style. The houses across Lowell Street are very
large, as are the houses on Farm Road. A nursing Home and Lexington Christian Academy are part of
the relevant neighborhood. They use very large buildings. A structure on the Busa farm property that
would contain four or five units would be very close in size to the very large houses across the street. A
more detailed analysis of the compatibility issue is contained in the Committee report analysis of the
LHP proposal. Its impact on the immediate abutter would have to be ameliorated. I understand the
abutter's distaste for a large house so near to it, but, while the Town should consider seriously abutters'
objections and try to take reasonable steps to lessen the burden, they cannot be allowed to stop a
needed project.
I acknowledge that siting of housing is a difficult, but not insoluble problem. The Committee has
identified three possible sites. The southeast corner was one possible site. Its negatives include
proximity to the Arlington reservoir, and a serious grade differential from Lowell Street. The second site
was the parking area. Its negatives include loss of the farm stand, requiring the construction of a new
one and the loss of parking area. The third possible location is near where Farm Road butts up against
the Busa farm property. Apparently, a private party, who has expressed an unwillingness to sell, owns a
portion of what the map appears to indicate is the public right of way. Is it possible to run a driveway
into the farmland to serve a single four unit building? Perhaps the owner of the small bit of land
negotiate an easement to serve one building, particularly if the building would otherwise be built with a
long internal driveway?
One expressed concern is that additional moderate - income housing would increase the school costs for
the town. A proposal of four or five units, of which only two or three would be two bedroom units
would not create a significant additional financial burden for the Schools. School department data show
that one child can be expected for each bedroom over one. Thus, the probability is that a development
with two or three two - bedroom units would bring only two or three children into the school system.
The additional cost would not be the number of children multiplied by the average cost per child in the
whole system, but only a marginal cost that would be negligible, because the fixed costs of the system
would be unaffected.
When Town Meeting voted to purchase the Busa Farm for four million dollars, several possible uses
were before Town Meeting. The assumption of many members was that the Town could have more
than one of its needs addressed. I think, under the circumstances, it is bad public policy to turn
possession of this rather expensive piece of public land over to a private organization* solely for a very
limited use. Unlike conservation land kept in its natural state, where people can walk, jog, bird watch, a
farm grows vegetables and as adjuncts may conduct some education programs. It cannot, should not
and will not allow free access to the cultivated land; the proposed trails along the periphery by the
Reservoir are about 800 feet long —not long enough for a short walk. The farm is open to all who pay to
join or buy produce. I still see no justification for turning virtually all the land over for a Community
Farm.
Albert P. Zabin
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 51 / 52
* Supporters of using the entire Busa farm for a community farm bristle at this characterization used by
some critics of the proposal, but it is accurate and is exactly what the Lexington Community Farm
Coalition proposes in their formal proposal P.J.
6.7 Final Statement
The Busa Land Use Proposal Committee is enthusiastic about its support for a community farm. We
believe this is an exciting and unique opportunity for the Town of Lexington to embrace both its past
and its future, and to respond to the desires of a currently underserved population. The majority also
support affordable housing on this site, in a modest, integrated way, if it is compatible with the farm
operation. Two members also support an athletic field, under appropriate conditions.
Our recommendation is based on this site, its distinct soils, its existing infrastructure, its ecological
context, an overwhelming demand for farming in Lexington, and the desire of the members of the
BLUPC to see this land benefit the residents of Lexington.
7.0 APPENDICES (See TABLE of CONTENTS)
Busa Land Use Proposal Committee Report
Page 52 / 52