HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-02-15-MGWG-min.pdf Thursday,February 24,2000 Fwd:Draft Minutes Feb 15 Page: 1
Subject: Fwd: Draft Minutec - Feb lc
nate: 14:05:26 =0500
nate: 24 Feb1 VV 2000 -VJVV
From:
To:
Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2000
From: Andrews John <
DRAFT (unapproved)
MINUTES OF WORK GROUP MEETING
Title of Work Group: Managing Growth: Development and Open Space
Date, Time, and Location of Meeting:
Tuesday, February 15, 2000, 7:00pm - 9:00pm, Bird Room
Members Present: John Andrews, Larry Belvin, Gary Fallick, John Frey, Mike Hanauer, Tom
Harden, Karl Kastorf, Marianne Lazarus, Karen Longeteig, Joe Marino [Staff Resource] ,
Gerry Moloney, Marcus Pinney, Lee Sinai
Members absent: Suzanne Caton, Ione Garing. Donna Rossi, Edmond Vail
Distributed Information:
1. Minutes of previous meeting (February 3)
-?. Draft environmental scans in following areas: Residential Development, Commercial
development, Town Center, Transportation/Accessibility, Environmental Quality, Open
Space.
3. "Lexington Sustainability and Implementation (draft) " by Mike Hanauer
Date, Time, and Location of Next Scheduled Meeting:
Thursday, March 2, 2000, 7:00pm - 9:00pm. Location TBD.
The meeting was called to order by stand-in chair Tom Harden.
Issues Addressed and Agreements Made:
1. The Working Group welcomed a new member, Marcus Pinney. Marcus is a Lexington
resident, a former member of Lexington Town Meeting and a former member of the Lexington
Conservation Commission. He has a background in natural resources and planning and is
currently serving as Natural Resources Coordinator for the Town of Concord.
2. Gerry Moloney reported that the Working Group is still pursuing a possible Working
Group member with experience in real estate development. If no one can be found who can
be a full member, the fall back will be to find someone who will augment our expertise
through more limited consulting with the Group.
3. Minutes of February 3 meeting were approved with the following
correction: Subcommittee "Accessibilty" changed to "Transportation/Accessibility"
4. Subcommittees reported on the progress made toward their individual contributions to
the Environmental Scan. Much useful information was provided in the handouts. The
following notes are intended only to provide a feel for the items that seemed to receive
'pecial attention during the presentations.
Residential Development (presented by Gerry Moloney) :
mailbox:/Macintosh%20HD/System%20Folder/
Preferences/Netscape%20Users/
Thursday, February 24, 2000 Fwd:Draft Minutes-Feb 15 Page:2
o Planning BoardOs build-out study is a valuable reference.
o Median housing price in Lexington is $335,000 (1998)
o There are 227 acres of vacant land and 1407 acres of "undeveloped" land.
o Teardowns have become the primary method for new home construction.
o Economic trends are leading to larger, more expensive homes.
Commercial Development (presented by Karl Kastorf) :
o Lexington is an attractive site for commercial developers.
o Historically Lexington has tried to concentrate commercial development to
well-defined areas such as Hartwell Avenue and Hayden Avenue which are separate from
residential areas.
o Tax revenue from commercial and industrial property has dropped from 20.8% of
the tax base in 1984 to 11.3% in 1997. This is largely due to decline in assessed
values. Some recovery in assessed values seems to be underway.
o Commercial tax rate (per thousand dollars ) is 66% greater than residential
rate.
Town Center (presented by John Frey) :
o Lexington Center is an upscale, thriving commercial center that attracts people
from local businesses and surrounding Towns as well as Lexington.
o Noted shortcomings are litter and poorly organized parking.
o Satellite commercial centers are also important: East Lexington, Countryside,
Marrett Road/Waltham St. intersection, etc.
o Residents are interested in pedestrian access, bicycle accommodation, adequate
parking, variety of uses, retention of historic buildings, and protection of adjacent
neighborhoods.
Transportation/Accessibility (presented by John Andrews) :
o Transportation uses or heavily impacts over 20% of the TownOs area.
o Transportation impacts include air quality, noise, road runoff, wildlife
habitat fragmentation, degradation of safety, and loss of social interactions along
.treets.
o More than one-fourth of current Lexington residents are disadvantaged with
respect to access to amenities in an auto-dependent community. This population includes
the elderly, the poor, the handicapped, children parents with only one car, and people who
chose not to own a car.
o Traffic impact is often at the heart of controversies over growth, rezoning, and
commercial expansion.
o Amount of future traffic impact will depend upon whether new housing and
commercial expansion requires more vehicle trips, or whether means are provided for people
to have access to amenities by walking, using public transportation, etc.
Environmental Quality (presented by Gary Fallick)
o Average Lexington residential water usage is 74, 800 gallons per household per
year.
o Non-point source pollution accounts for more than half of New EnglandOs water
pollution.
o Air pollution in Middlesex County seldom reaches current EPA warning thresholds,
but EPA is attempting to lower thresholds due to scientific findings that health damage is
occurring below these thresholds.
o The average household generates 15-20 pounds of toxic waste per year.
o Electromagnetic fields are currently below standards, but trend is for exposures
to increase and for standards to fall.
o Environmental quality can be improved by encouraging individual efforts to
reduce toxic material use, recycle and reduce waste, reduce pesticide use, etc.
o Expansion of Hanscom Field is a major issue with regard to noise and impacts of
commercial development.
Open Space (presented by Karen Longeteig) :
o About 10.8%of Lexington is currently conservation land.
o The Lexington Conservation Commission identified 20 parcels of unprotected land
comprising about 498 acres that were considered to be "critical" open space < which, if
mailbox:/Macintosh%2OHD/System%20Folder/
Preferences/Netscape%20Users/
Thursday, February 24, 2000 Fwd:Draft Minutes-Feb 15 Page:3
developed, would clearly harm open space values. The largest parcel, the
Arlington/Lexington Great Meadows, consists of 183 acres.
o Major reasons for preserving open space are 1) Preserve Town character, 2) Protect
'ildlife and wild areas, 3) Provide open space for use by residents, and 4) Protect
,wetlands (for flood management and water quality) .
o Patterns of residential development and landscaping contribute to the loss of
biological diversity in Lexington. (Recommended reading: Noah's Garden: Restoring the
Ecology of our own Back Yards by Sara Stein. ) .
o Open space can be saved by direct purchase, transfer, receipt of gift, and
conservation restrictions (e.g. buying development rights) .
o Securing funding for those parcels that must be purchased will be a challenge.
5. In discussion of the reports the following questions and comments were provided for
consideration by the subcommittees:
o We need to further understand the potential for increasing tax revenues from
commercial property. How do we decide if the commercial tax rate is too high or too low?
Is there any way to stabilize this income so that it doesnOt vary greatly with the state
of the economy?
o What fraction of people visiting Lexington Center are from out of town? How do
we balance use of Lexington Center by Town residents versus its role as a regional
shopping center?
o Having a mix of businesses that adequately serves the needs of residents is
important. For example, people feel that restaurants and a movie theatre are important,
but might not care if there were one less real estate office. How can we ensure a good
mix of businesses.
o We should acknowledge that commercial centers in adjacent towns are important resources
for Town residents. For example, not all shopping needs have to be satisfied by
transporting residents into Lexington Center.
o We should consider peak hour traffic as a different problem from non-peak
traffic.
o Our final report should try to reconcile land use figures that seem to be
inconsistent. For example, the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission seem to
have different ways of counting the amount of open space left in Lexington.
o A cooperative agreement with Arlington regarding the Arlington/Lexington Great
Meadow could protect this major parcel of open space. What possibilities in this regard
would Arlington accept?
6. Mike Hanauer provided a brief explanation of his memorandum entitled "Lexington
Sustainability and Implementation" . In discussion of this memorandum, the Working Group
noted that it contained items that could be useful when extracted and included in
subcommittee reports. It was suggested that sustainability could be addressed by writing
a statement that would indicate that we are aware that the future evolution of the Town of
Lexington will be influenced by the national (and international) movement toward
sustainable practices.
7. Plans for completing the environmental scan were discussed. It was noted that there
is overlap between the topics addressed by the various subcommittees. It was accepted
that this can be resolved when the individual reports are merged. The following procedure
was adopted:
o Subcommittee chairs should provide a final revision of their reports to Karl Kastorf
(using the email address kastorf@shore.net) by Sunday, February 20.
o The submission should indicate which paragraphs the subcomittee thinks are important for
inclusion in the final environmental scan. Keep in mind that the final scan will be about
5 pages long, which implies that less than one page can be devoted to each subcommittee
topic.
o Karl will merge the submissions into a draft master copy. He will then pass this copy
on to other subcommittee chairs for their review and revision. This process will procede
_in an ad hoc manner to achieve quick turn-around given that some people may be traveling
r unavailable on particular days. All original material, whether included in the draft
environmental scan or not, will be retained in an appendix so that no information will be
lost to the Group.
mail box:/Macintosh%2OHD/System%20Foider/
Preferences/Netscape%20Jsers/
Thursday, February 24, 2000 Fwd:Draft Minutes-Feb 15 Page:4
o On Sunday, February 26, all changes to the draft will have been made and the master
copy will be returned to Karl. After a final check, Karl will email a copy to the full
Working Group on February 28.
The draft environmental scan will be reviewed and approved at the March 2 meeting.
X11 members should try to read the draft prior to this meeting. ✓
Respectfully submitted, John Andrews, February 16 2000
mailbox:/Macintosh%20FRD/System%20Foider/
Preferences/Netscape%20Users/