HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-12 Managing Growth Development and Open Space Working Group.pdf •
LEXINGTON VISION 20/20
MANAGING GROWTH: DEVELOPMENT AND
OPEN SPACE WORKING GROUP
Final Report, June 12, 2000
This is the Final Report presented to the Lexington V20/20 Core Participant's Group by
the Managing Growth: Development and Open Space Working Group. The members of
that Working Group are:
John Andrews Marianne Lazarus
Lary Belvin Karen Longeteig
Suzanne Caton Gerard Moloney
Gary Fallick Josh Murray
John Frey Markus Pinney
Ione Garing Tiffany Papadonis
Mike Hanauer Donna Rossi
Tom Harden, Chair Lee Sinai
Karl Kastorf Edmond Vail
This draft contains:
Vision Statement page 2
Narrative page 3
Goals page 8
Environmental Scan page 20
Citizen Survey page 27
Managing Growth- 1
VISION STATEMENT
This Vision is as though written in the year 2020.
Lexington of 2020 is a people-centered residential community in which the physical character of
the town enhances the quality of life for all its residents. Our town provides an environment that
is healthy, enjoyable, and enriching. We respect and appreciate diversity of all types, and provide
for people of varied income levels and ages. Our intent is that our leafy, historic and inviting
small'town character be preserved and enhanced for generations to come.
Our coherent neighborhoods, while diverse in both residential and physical character, all provide
inviting amenities and opportunities. Traffic, noise, pollution and overcrowding are elements
which we reject. Easy and safe access to open and natural areas, pleasurable scenery, walking
and cycling, solitude and social interaction are both common and highly valued.
Work and business opportunities in the town are encouraged. The people of the town have ample
opportunity to offer their intellectual skills from their homes or from business settings that are
compatible with Lexington's character. We strive to enhance and balance that character with
consideration of new technology and ideas.
We recognize that, with limited space and resources, many types of growth will be detrimental to
our quality of life. Lexington's historic places, gracious old homes, farmland and open spaces
and diverse neighborhoods are effectively protected by zoning laws and other policy. We limit
and direct growth through replenishment and refinement rather than through mere expansion.
Our town continues to plan thoughtfully for the future. We adapt to society's transformations
while realizing that we need not adopt all such trends.We recognize our role in living a
sustainable lifestyle, both as an individual and as a global community. We continue to lessen our
dependence upon fossil fuels, decrease our use of toxic chemicals and natural resources, and
explore ways of achieving a stable population. We do this locally and through fruitful
collaboration with our neighbors in nearby towns and throughout the region in efforts to protect
our common environment.
We in Lexington believe that the future is to be selected, not predicted. We thank our past active
citizens and town employees for their concern and their foresight. We greet the future with
confidence, enthusiasm, and a continuation of our caring tradition.
Managing Growth-2
NARRATIVE
Preface
The "Managing Growth: Development and Open Space" Work Group was formed by the
Lexington Vision 2020 Steering Committee in December 1999 for the task of developing a
vision and action plan for the physical character of Lexington in the Year 2020. The group is
comprised of 18 members and has met biweekly from January to June 2000. In addition to
discussion, our group conducted research and public outreach and produced the documents
included in this report.
We began the process of developing a vision statement and goals by researching recent Planning
Board documents on existing conditions and recent development issues and by considering other
studies which reported the core values and desires of town residents regarding the physical
environment. This research is documented in the Environmental Scan. Upon completing the
Environmental Scan, a Vision Statement, and a Goals/Objectives / Actions/Measures Matrix
(Matrix) were drafted. The ideas in these documents were then presented to the Planning Board
and to the Vision 2020 Core Participants Group. In addition, a Managing Growth Questionnaire
was prepared and distributed to Town Meeting members and to a small sample of other town
residents. In light of the feedback received from these various sources, further discussions
occurred and final changes were made to the documents.
This Narrative summarizes our group's vision and goals and describes the important issues and
considerations addressed. The Appendix includes a copy of the questionnaire and a summary of
the responses to it.
Goals for the Town of Lexington for the Year 2020
Lexington has a strong sense of tradition, historic preservation and land conservation. Despite
undergoing a period of rapid growth and suburban development in the post-war decades, the
town has maintained much of its historic character and small town scale. Its buildings and public
spaces vary in character and age, representing the civic aspirations of generations over three
centuries. This continuity with the past and ability to adapt to the present is part of the town's
rich legacy and is a starting point for envisioning the future.
Lexington has grown from its agricultural past to its position as a suburban center in the Greater
Boston metropolis. Relatively little undeveloped land remains for new construction, but the
overheated real estate market continues to provide economic incentive for a process of
succession favoring more intensive land uses. But while unconstrained growth and development
in Lexington is neither possible nor desirable, continued change is inevitable. The needs of
Lexington residents, the use of technology in our lives, the economic activities we engage in —all
of these may change and we must adapt to those changes.
We are now in the midst of a time of rapid technological change and a period of unprecedented
economic growth, which may have significant implications for our physical landscape in the
Year 2020. At the same time, continued metropolitan growth has exacerbated problems related
Managing Growth-3
to traffic, noise, air and water quality, and housing costs. As citizens of the metropolitan area,
we are without a broadly accepted vision for how unsustainable patterns of sprawl and waste can
be transformed in favor of the building of the livable communities that people yearn for. As
citizens of our town, we are faced with growth and development issues that are fundamentally
regional in nature. As we respond to these issues locally, it is our challenge to be pail of the
solution rather than part of the problem.
As we have looked toward the future in attempting to articulate a vision and identify goals, our
group has sorted through these and many other considerations to decide what things should
change and what should stay the same. We have attempted to ground our vision and goals in the
core values that have been repeatedly affirmed by town residents. These include preservation of
the town's historic character, preservation of its open space, affordability, and the importance of
social diversity in the town's population. (See the Environmental Scan for further discussion of
core values.)
Our vision and goals are constrained and motivated by the fact that only a limited amount of
growth and new development is possible, given our current zoning regulations and our physical
boundaries, without major changes to the character of the town. Because of the limited
opportunities remaining for new development, we must be very diligent to make sure that the
type of growth that does occur is what the town really needs. We have reached the point where
only some types of growth are good and, even for that type of growth, development opportunities
are very limited. Thus we need to target any additional growth toward satisfaction of long term
town priorities.
The following goals are our attempts to interpret the core values and long teen town priorities in
terms of the physical landscape of the town. They are intended to protect, renovate, replenish,
and transform the existing physical infrastructure of the town so that it serves our future needs.
Goal 1: Increase Lexington's protected open space.
Protection of open space is one of the town's significant accomplishments to date.
This open space is an important part of the town's character and is a major aspect
of what residents value and what non-residents admire about the town. The
town's attitude toward open space stems in part from respect for nature in the
tradition of Henry David Thoreau and a desire for a green residential community
within the metropolitan area. Protected open space enhances our sense of
community literally and figuratively, by providing common ground where citizens
can walk and find other recreational opportunities. Many residents perceive the
town's remaining undeveloped privately-owned land as open space (this land does
not look any different from town-owned, protected land). According to a recent
Planning Department list, there are 127 parcels totaling more than 1,200 acres
which are vacant or under-developed. Although not all of this land is suitable for
development and not all owners are interested in selling, the potential exists for a
considerable amount of new development on this land in the coming years. Our
group would like the town to protect as much of this remaining undeveloped land
as possible, depending on cost, funds available, and in balance with various
development goals. As it has done in the past, the town should protect open space
Managing Growth-4
by negotiating restrictions with current owners or, where necessary, by acquisition
of priority parcels with public funds.
Goal 2: Restore and maintain Lexington's streets as safe, usable public spaces.
Traffic congestion negatively affects one's quality of life, in terms of both
convenience, environmental quality, and the quality of the town's public spaces.
While our group acknowledges that traffic congestion is both a regional issue and
a transportation issue, we also see traffic as a local development issue and would
like the town to attempt to limit the type of development which would add to the
town's existing traffic congestion problems. Our group would also like the town
to improve conditions for pedestrians and for the use of alternative vehicles, and
to promote development that would be conducive to the increased usage of
existing public transportation. We would like to see residential streets again be
suitable for play areas and places where neighbors meet one another.
Goal 3: Ensure a clean and healthy environment in Lexington and encourage a
transition to sustainable consumption patterns.
Our group would like the town to make an effort to improve the quality of the
environment in the town. This goal is a corollary to the goal of protecting open
space in that both reflect a respect for nature. By limiting waste and preventing
pollution, protecting wetlands, and nurturing and improving biodiversity, the town
and its residents can contribute toward preserving the quality of the environment
for future generations. One way to preserve environmental quality is to establish
sustainable patterns of production and consumption. But we recognize that
sustainable production is a matter largely beyond the control of the town.
Goal 4: Preserve and enhance the physical character of the town and its
neighborhoods.
A deep respect for the town's historic character is one of the things that make
Lexington unique. We hope the town will continue to build upon the best of what
has been done in the past. Recognizing that the town has a long history and that
its landscape has been continually modified by successive generations over three
centuries, choices are necessary about which aspects of town character to preserve
and enhance. We would like the town to take a more active role in shaping the
town's commercial and residential development to be consistent with the human
scale and pedestrian-friendly characteristics of the pre-automobile eras. We
would like to encourage design that enhances neighborhood livability, sense of
community, and that promotes access to green space and other public spaces. We
also want the town to continue to preserve its historic character out of respect for
its place in history, as a source of pride and as an attraction to tourists.
Goal 5: Create a mix of housing stock that permits the choice of lifelong residence in
Lexington and that is affordable for people of all socio-economic levels and age
groups.
Town residents place a strong value on maintaining social and economic diversity. This
value is jeopardized by the trend toward more and more expensive real estate, which
Managing Growth-5
makes the town less affordable to those of more modest means. Also, many residents
favor the option of life-long residency in Lexington. This need will become more
pressing in the face of the demographic trend toward an aging population living in
smaller households on fixed incomes. Our group would like the town to establish policies
to protect and maintain existing levels of moderately-priced housing stock. Because of
these concerns, our group would like the town to promote the development of a broader
range of housing options for its citizens, including more affordable housing, more
housing for small households, and more housing suitable for those who do not drive.
Goal 6: Ensure that the ongoing process of managing growth is conducive to long
term success.
Lexington has a tradition of civic participation in decisions which shape the town's
physical environment. Vision 2020 is part of that tradition and represents a major
investment of town and citizen resources toward the shaping of the town's future. Our
group supports the continuation of an appropriate and democratic planning and decision-
making process to cope with preservation, growth and development issues. We advocate
the extension of the Vision 2020 process and the incorporation of long term strategic
planning in connecting policy decisions to the town's core values and goals. Our group
also stresses the importance of the town assuming an activist role among neighboring
towns in the region and in the metropolitan area to work toward broader solutions to
traffic, pollution, housing and other issues affecting quality of life for town residents.
Issues Examined, Conflicts and Unanswered Questions
Our group was in agreement about many fundamental issues. All agreed that development in
town should be limited and should be consistent with town character and that unconstrained
growth, both within and outside town borders poses a threat to our quality of life. All agreed on
the importance of historic preservation and protection of open space. And all agreed that
measures are needed to cope with problems such as traffic congestion and air- and water-
pollution, and to limit tear-downs and mansionization.
When there was conflict, it was about the concept of managing growth itself. Is the town legally
and politically capable of effectively managing growth, limiting unwanted development and
promoting desired projects? A zero-growth thesis argues that growth and development cannot be
sufficiently controlled to prevent the erosion of the town's historic and small town character.
This point of view asserts that the best way to prevent increases in traffic congestion and
pollution and to protect existing open space is to prevent any new development. It is a call for an
indefinite development moratorium.
The vast majority of the group rejected the idea of a zero growth policy as neither a real choice
nor a desirable option for the town. We maintain that appropriate development can exert a
positive influence on the town and allow the town to pursue a variety of important goals and
meet needs that are under-served. We propose that tighter regulation of development is possible
within the framework of individual property rights, and that town government can and should
mediate between competing community needs, and between private and public interests. We
Managing Growth-6
think that appropriate development can lend itself to regional solutions to traffic and
environmental quality, such as redevelopment conducive to transit use, which creates greater
opportunity and incentive for the development of regional transit. Our vision and goals are
characterized by qualified optimism that the town can prevent unwanted development and can
promote desired development.
This is not to say that our group's position should be characterized as "pro-development." There
has been much concern expressed in our discussions about the kind of new development that has
occurred in town over the last decade. Few examples exist of new development which is widely
viewed to have a positive effect on the town. The particular phenomena of"tear-downs" and
"mansionization" are generally viewed as having a negative impact on neighborhoods and being
threatening to the town character. It is with only guarded optimism that our group embraces the
idea of managed growth.
Our group's support for new development is first of all imited: it must directly address
community needs and priorities. New development projects should be for the following
purposes:
• Providing senior housing, subsidized affordable housing, or other specified alternative
housing options;
• Supporting and strengthening the economic viability and vitality of the town center and
satellite centers;
• Supporting the formation of one or more higher density neighborhoods along public
transportation routes as part of a long-range effort to reduce automobile dependency.
Secondly, our support for new development is conditional: it must be carried on within the
constraints defined by our goals for open space preservation, limiting traffic congestion,
improving environmental quality, and retaining town character (even though that character may
be difficult to precisely define). Furthermore, given our strong desire to protect open space, we
propose that most new development be redevelopment within the existing town build-out and
infrastructure, and that new development on the town's remaining vacant land be limited
according to the constraints and for the purposes outlined above.
The means to manage new development successfully will be through town zoning by-laws. We
urge the town to make changes necessary in current zoning and regulatory structures to prevent
the kind of development that we don't want, and to encourage desired development.
Reaching agreement that "managed growth" is preferable to "zero growth"was fairly easy, but
the real choices that the town will face regarding what is appropriate development are full of
potential conflict and complexity. Critical choices include the following:
• Open space. How much of the town's remaining vacant land should be protected from
development? Our group calls for the town to protect much of the town's vacant land, but
Managing Growth-7
remains open to the option of appropriate development on some acreage. Which sites are the
highest priorities for protection? Which sites are appropriate for development?
• Town Center. Our group calls for the town to create a zoning overlay district in the Center
which would allow mixed-use development, more upper story commercial and residential
development, and possibly a parking structure. But how much new Center development is
appropriate without compromising what we cherish about town character?
• Residential Development. Our group sees opportunity for a limited amount of new
residential development(and redevelopment) to help maintain social and economic diversity
within the town. Well-planned residential development(and redevelopment) is also viewed
as a long-term way of making the town less automobile dependent and of encouraging a
stronger regional transit network. How much new residential development is appropriate and
where can and should it be located? How much re-zoning of existing residential
neighborhoods to allow single-family residences to be redeveloped as small multi-family
buildings is appropriate? How much more population can Lexington comfortably support?
We believe that these are important questions for the town to continue to explore and seek to
resolve in the ongoing process of managing growth and development.
Costs and Fiscal Impacts
There are substantial cost and fiscal issues for these and other choices related to our vision and
goals. Our group has not had the resources to closely examine the costs or fiscal impacts of our
vision and goals, nor do we believe that it should be our primary focus. However, we believe that
many of the actions we call for in the Matrix can be accomplished with no cost to the town, or
out of the town's operating budget at current spending levels. Some of the proposed public
improvements may be accomplished through a combination of public and private funds, while
others, such as the construction of new sidewalks, may require the town to approve a Proposition
2-1/2 override if they are to occur.
However, actions proposed related to the town's acquisition of land for open space protection
and for affordable housing production would require substantial amounts of additional public
funding. We estimate that$50 to $100 million may be required from the town to carry out the
land acquisition needed for these actions (mostly for open space protection), with additional
funding needed from the state and federal government for affordable housing production. Our
assumption is that the town will maximize efforts to protect additional open space by means of
private gifts/bequests, negotiated land-use restrictions, and techniques other than outright
acquisition, but that purchasing private land will continue to be necessary to meet our open space
protection goal. In order to provide funds for land acquisition, we support the idea of a real
estate transfer tax, pursuant to the enabling legislation currently under consideration on Beacon
Hill, with funds specifically earmarked for open space protection and affordable housing
production. In addition to possible funding for open space protection from the state, a portion of
the needed funds could be provided through a tax override. The response to our Managing
Managing Growth- 8
Growth Questionnaire indicates there may be support for increasing property taxes for land
acquisition.
Although expenditure of$50 to $100 million would be a very large investment, it should be
viewed in relation to the quality of life and real estate value benefits that additional protected
open space would offer, and in relation to the direct and indirect costs to the town which would
result if much of this land was developed. In addition, the amount needed for land acquisition is
of the same magnitude as the amount that might be generated by the real estate transfer tax.
Because the transfer tax would tax the appreciation in real estate values which is partially
generated by our community investments in schools, infrastructure and open space, we see it as
an appropriate source to fund continued investment in the town's priorities.
Open Questions about the Vision
The year 2020 is a distant enough horizon to allow us to imagine what could be, but near enough
to force us to be rooted in current realities. Our workgroup's vision comes out of respect for the
historic character of our town and the continuity with the past that it represents, as we look to the
future. It is a call for the town to recognize issues and concerns which have become critical at
this unique time in history and to address them with long term vision.
•
The vision proposed by our group for the year 2020 is not "business as usual." We are not
saying to the town, "keep on doing more of what you have been doing for the last 20 years".
While we are not calling for a development moratorium, we are asking for the town to use its full
regulatory powers to curb unwanted development and to promote development which meets
particular goals and serves its core values. We are calling on the town to make wise use of the
small amount of undeveloped land which still remains within its borders in the Year 2000.
The vision is also a call for support and cooperation at a regional, metropolitan, and state level.
Concerns of Lexington are not unlike those of many other towns in the Commonwealth and
many issues cannot be significantly addressed without going beyond the town boundaries.
Lexington needs support from the state in terms of enabling legislation for zoning by-law
changes and for funding for transportation, housing, and other needs. It needs cooperation from
neighboring towns to curb sprawl development, and to deal with traffic, housing and
environmental issues. Regional support and cooperation is particularly critical in response to the
threats posed by the expansion of Hanscom Airport. In return, the town needs to contribute to
metropolitan and regional efforts which not only reinforce our own efforts to maintain and
improve the quality of life,but which support the economic and environmental wellbeing of the
metropolitan area of which we are part.
Managing Growth-9
CT
b `d O
C C
b9 or, 0 P 0 U a)
C a w 0 v. a)
• P
CC• W O wO 'd N pc' p • 0 O
®W Q O C C> 'CP � POO '0
00
O W O O ' ' i 0 N w O N
WCC Ucd
0
'd .„ abill
o C U _ C L
UHc ,a P. > UQtaUP4
00 .o
al
Q Pa U C7 Q
W
b
0
O 0 0
a) O 0
P.
O O� 0 0 0
LU 7 C X CC in d PN
.0 p O' O O
�_�/� h.mu 'C b < a'C.
v/ O Uwb
4-1 Q O '
Ov CN
saN
W y o a -
C W ;d C O
°: 00 .25 0 C
0 •-1
0
Q� al ti P. „ c 3 .v
s
a � � : � oboo0 al ga ¢ ;
Z P. an o U oa
00
C
ttep 0 a y w .0 O 2 U
bq
.G
•. P.'0 C .C .0
c:•4 N '2 0CEGoC EY 'CCl
W "w 0 "0C Y o ClC` w O a w Na o 0 0 O
a �' UbC 0 C '0 aJ C T c 0 O C 4.
Z v Oa 4" U :� � aI 4w .7..)0 U' isP .n o o P Po
O V ❑ g wGf co, mo0wCU 'oof PU2
1+1TbooU G5 .dC a45o « 0 bo $ ob . .
2 0 i. oC.> ti y o 'O 0 0 0 .
H H .2wCb 0 • 0 - 00 Co � 'C aw
V o -• 00 — -• 80 b2K ..0
.2 0 :2 p o ' . c E " 2 m 0 o . ' a o
Q atiwroaanu � a
o' WvNo '� bw0 - .
' '^ - 0 ' bno ,0C ,ACl
,, .
(/Poa o4o ,- co00 'xco ateoboo .c51. .8) EA
Z W U 4% .0° P. W 00. 0P. P. N W0Pr •tP .it-L1 ;... cs
Cl W N
0 Q W U d W w d co
0 V N
N Z w o .
N m o o o o
a W ata
W > 00 0 `
p P
V] c P 0
W0 d ... d o
I W 0 .- o
~ en
0 0
O 0 H a"P C C
0
on U U
LL. 0 C vC, a�
Jo a a." --1 P. P.
• 0 0 0
N u-o Eo a o
'
CO 3 o N
to a ° ,
W •
vpn• I,, 0-,0 t• 0w , dO. m m N0 w7u '48 o
• W Y ti . N
> a .dt 3 b , o ti 'd 0
O '>o
on
OW -eC0• -0 m O Y p " ti
° a8vbw5 � o °° 60
cn
"
bill
m
nZ Cda . d'c
a 0 .o- c'lo U m-ci .o0 tiv P. C co
Yo ° 0
gl oNGI bti N
I . 0 O N 'd ^ GI N N - 70• Diy
0
UH w d p, m . a b as
N d P' v
I—
W °
3 0
W . o 0
o ° co
I— o "op ° G
Cl) N G C 'gid
W OoAc Y
'^ T'� ° N dg
p V+ ,c12
0i > ~ N
Q 1_ 0 0 . o ci
I,,,� N o ca j
111 V QCO'y N U p P
ZNis Cw Co u, o
W U z 0 3 N c b a z
Jm ' Pa MI -3 0
L Irl 4, 0co
c 0 U 8 Nr 0
H O
r W •5 >.0 F . b Fc'
Z Nb 0
09 y
° a '� ° ° o ° a ^ . c °c o pa ° pO ,
Q W
U b O c . '
E a p N by N U .o y ° 2 � N K y
Q o 5 m .� � .....
Coo o,
>> aT a P. a
3 w
w
N
O • C > ° ca 2 aL (40 Oo -. LC F .° .4
. >
aui . C0 "� Na 0
U iii G2g0b 15 � ow � ; a N >
4 Nccio .t. � 0> o
tyQ °' v 0 ' ° 0 . ° d o •
Um . . XX " H0
) 0i m. Cotiaa+ v 5 : aaT t) O N P
OV ° m0 g o ❑ a w30 -0 H ,- [24mH3 tex2
g a. Ao) b `� F 'Cc W : MG PS
d
N Q p UP. VP. . > P a
W ai ci dP'
CC
C
N v
3
a.°
JO Ci >,
134 >Q ' d vU
w O ''t^ y fU
m 09co
(j -dScdC
g y ro 0 a
F v
G
aro5 a
oo C omi >
U p
o d b aY d d
.<1 4,)>, o o9 >
mro a T > 0 0 E n' N o m
a ° c "' �. 3 xO • o N N o .� bTa
,.,
>• el
0bCI00 0
Q . bo ti O N
w > O > db T
m t4 x aO 0 P..P, O m
P. b P. p
d a 4L' a 124 cal b °4t H
N cn t V)
N PI N N N
c >, 7:1 o .G 3 9 co Co
co
2 4 o
cl
O LU H NUdY wm .o ioCb90 'aOE
� Co a> ° � voN > ° mo1- po05 > ro ° o°- < ' wbO C. 0 O,p o C C N U 0Z of R. UyaN0v
o a .
C v 3
° Gm '' caCb � F ' u p,� . : atiy
f, g.s
> E .� U O ,. tiNq9I390 9> P. bbN 'd • 'O N CoC .Co O
C Z 01° C , O y wCOCC o °P..o oC W ° 20 > " " d o O
o m p, W ° a) c> .cp.H H b W waN O o o U o : U
1:13 e P;
C
Pp. y b Z N Q 0.l U Q 0. '1 U
Q Z >,
0 Z Co s
pW � co 0
° , "
OU a ° w T C to -C p
0 /Q^ cN .- N .n U " to
0 � Q. t C U ti Oil 2 N O W
N 4- ° o 371 (43 O 3
0
v
'
0 4j
b l" (14h)
d k N 9
C1 Si
? N 0 a
' N
C vU 00 C
'Ll il* b .� O U U SCU Co U y
cn C b 'd 'o '
Z = 0o
O 8 SCaC
CoLLI O y Pi Pi PycPi .0
0
`'' .40 z0 < .0. ot 0 ¢ cn 0 Q
0
0
U o
0 y re .
y "o b a1-, � Jb ° . N C a ° ro
2 C No U CC
a.- N N N UbT
Z cd
co co cd
N 0 bQ
cd
• dw .o m U bw � . " W J 0 a N
0 i tb 7 NiiOyZ = N N Y N N "
00, 7 � � vN ° Y � 7 .Co a
00a) p0 � ° � o
O O. C C0. X " 0 " .1.-1 � oC 8C 'Gd . h 0 ti ti b �"' r aO vw y EN CotiO� C UoJ Ucd Nxy
i .9, .Co " 'a C .n " ma ' iv0i-7 oCaE
C • Q .jOATC 'o bCNCpOi
Cb, oU N V 'diipt t313 b E O d ea .Co9Td
OCV/ cd "
0 �o o 'd p = i > > 3CqUo 0 ."
po ca,
pCw .N , � b P
co o -
Op, 00.0, _cONQ NONOE UUU -. C � . " W RA .
V] = « Q.= p Vl . O P., a, U T
ZZ
d W U Qp ¢ . U
Q H o
W N � 0
_j
Z .
aCo Q .� 3-3
cb9 O0 U .b ,re ed ° V
7Co QH0' NXCyb
N
C
a C W 0
O ,..t . 1N O U9 >T;'
Co. 2 09
o v. O O = od N y y
Of) 0 0 0. ' 3moNu m
1-4 0 i0 5 Z ; mb® Co .g� L6d b9 au y
to
H52 F U 4 Q, Coo g O O E
0
a N
NM
N cV m
•
ani ti 4-, .: ro ,m
w .
tiyU m N c.0. la'
T Y C //0 q0 Owbo .c a o ro o '' 0 o oo
O tJof atEP.
oco -0w
CI
0 'co ). 0 > m F is OC , byaN b a Cy .,
4 'c0 Oa b G 1. O
00 a
.0 •
U .� i ..o a 3 C a 3 t.re a N b U o e-..5 'u
0 0 a-.0.1 0 0 2 0 ° O .01 F a.4, 0 0 � � �,o o 0
C ._ pF5 :d � w .5o b^n'5
q . 2 bil x Pl 0 b « Q PP � 3 .� Pa .°�. ~
W
y =
3 Cl 1--
0
7 aE-• b m ' " w0'Ow00 O p 0 p" C
'
N 0 .0
M
0 vn y P. P .O6'
Oh .P i ° a al W
V) Ir. bn G o I—
_i � v10 o o �
ict
.U Cb ,Ui, U .O C LL
N 'T^ ° C .ti C .-. y
Q
N pYPpCY •'y b . . T
. GP
O 0o O U `' N USt U
U.
Zz pC Q J 0CC, . ° C 0-04 oOb
b4 C 8 o
414.4
vd Z'
N—
_
o q
U H OE O T C , O ° bU i } LC
y 0 PO 0 C O O ..o O C C
O T'D bb co) i3 P.p U iN > .d 0 C, 0OA•C C X
�
'b• w tica -5 � Cawp � 0ama0 fl,
, Oy . Cl 0 ii N 2 P
" T U n co 0bv, . 'od > Co ° 0 la a:doo - ou CG
o � NyUP • NqcG . � my
° > ° b °' 9P
`' U + N ° A A U P. 'b "i ) ,. b " ° ° F _
> • w y 'G � ° mov Pbu C •o .
a0b y . C . > uj Z
,o 3 i . a ? > doy 42
• mt' ;H.' m K b >, p b i .o ' o n (kb � 14 ch auo . ? `' Lit . ucs
O Cl v bn u) ° a ro < p3 cdCo5oe ° z
G9 .. 0 ayo .>>3) a) RTN .^ yUtiUNa`b - 0OT� tiCE
a,
C .
W - p � y Pei 1-
NiCUgP N 5 .o 0l P.'O C 0 N 0 U 0 N ~ > b O 0Uoo ) ,. bj.. yo7 'ONOP ❑ 6Cb iaU o Ur
•P0y -oCa .'.11 . y w .0 U 0 o a PI. a O''-, -b U N - 0 a .,. z
U C '« w . w >
W
cii 4 W W a1 U d W U (fl 0
6y a
v ,, Ct
° 0 o
o Cl 0 W
C
d
N
3b ON
4 5
>
0 C41O0> wUyO' ct V
.. U NNv P C
00
a Q' " LUAV/N w w W
0
P. p0 U id Ob P. CC
.3 Li
Ui"N ... N 0 ofC
0 Tr
U
o p0 o o o v u; o O
O 0 3 o °a '3 .1) u > o..0
U P. o as P."v, .H .2 P. N 0
M d 7
M C1 cn
•
•
•
0 .
.
15
0 p -1,1)G y O G. y .5 '01 0
a co G vi •
.
t tFO G s O 2 O U ,0 O T b9
av Ab0 �0 = P ° tO o . -0 Pp o A. o .a
bO N J a tiN " 0O 5 H O 00W IQ N G p .G C O a
0., va bh 09
IDA be 0 d N °rv G v v ° cal
•44. roGG 0 Np' O > 'd aCb9CCG « UwUd .0b90y. O .G. Y bi00
O p N U G . 'd 0 .d °w444, tix NctO UzcCCYOP+ ° N 0 NO ° (3c3 ,--,
57., 13.-4.1aoH .° U Nave waQa O
a75 > w — it
Q a1 U Q a1 U Q
Y
0 0
09 'd « W 0
0 •^ O Y O C b
Cm < •c? 30 G•d
o .d 0 0 g ° ., w
00 O `0 y > <a L
a b o 00 w U ro 'C^ O d ,-, Oq G
cd a)
.0 0 0 4. N O .0 'd "d
•, U T O �9 G N O
Oj Om
° OO> 0 C .G
. 09 <.. C 0bb - 9Ga,, 0 bl)� O C O
U E N .G .0 a N O N
w <a <d ,. H <d w C b C
+
w 0 0 , OPqO N '0 0 . 0 � _
0iC . bC0 0 NC
in
N..0 O 0 n i .Z N No0 0tiUOPG w 0O N N ' . O aN OTY0 C 'U ,Ti n . > . ° 3 0 8 O O ' 0 O
UN 0PaCY 0GUa °' 'O 0 . N E N 'd N p ° b9LO Ni. <n z
C , O G b O N ow �0 ° O O G . 0U ° '« ' A ° N5 Q �"P ° O . N . tl ato v)
. <° 0 bN ` '�
0 - ,,L) ..00000 ,„ 0 •- •„5• 10, 00C ° N r-
ct
2D0 e G 3v,,, Po " ° ° .gi ,,,GI ^ O a,d O .E z N tip 0Nno � 0 ,s
2 C . "d GN N N N T .. 0? p0N 0 ° G G9< .a briG 0 6. -
w,G, ail) c> --0 09 a .: 0 °i v; 0, I., 0
•
Le
C b o an " ^ am« ' o' ' ' ti . °2b c w a c0 Cb c a oo voObO , > • b ro ro0GjWa9 °U > "' ' o O � N uOi0 N .„ P. calU CX 'v b o 7.1 > ., .-, b •0oroo0v p ° 0 ° cy v ° b wo a ° C m ., a
ti "' o c, 04 <CQ ..b , < , Waa <a 0 aWatia0vP
u.
Q W U Q P• U Q
ii7
UO
S
a P >
co 0
O C d
K P w
O O
C4 74 > N N
N „
a 0 N ON C
•
w F �
6 U 'd
0 °U 0 0 0
E ' °' Y 'S2
0 '^ cal 0 0 O
R G ,a
,O„ b C ca 0 bo
:'. a° a W a P
ry
4 4
cd
•o in
y wT c ccdd a3) 0 CO 0 .- ti co
bil 'a' 3 0 by 3 a>) :0 C .t
E ,d O N 0 c 0 3 on .1 LL 0 P. 3
o h m C r\.. N x 'b x a) 0 > O 0 O O
to b i> Q.el O 3 p 7 p 0 d O 0 b0 �O .O P.
C a) b co 0 o v, 0 a> 0 p 0 ,0 w 0 o P' m o .8 0
co 0 011
0
C 0 .N 0 '' a`i ro o m 0 m 0 cd ,c ..i bcA_''- v 0
',I o o > .o a> 3 b 3 E o E c d b :2' ai
''d -0 y O b b 0 b y 'd 0 'd <d ❑ v. 0 bA
O E x U cd :a > o ti W ' v> o , o P. .o fsc. a.S 00
U Q d •
0.l 6 d 0.'t U
9,
•v 0 p p
b >, 0 o
ob G
0.
.>� '5
Q -5 0 b�m 0 b ' > c .44
on .9.
3
>0 . y T � , 0 C
'V tibA.d & idC b wd C '0
i- 'd To:,
> N
o x a 0 E G 0 d CO mi .. m 0 •a> a E o
y p > U O N .6 'b^ .p 1.) .:2 .0 .0 0 0 o C)
1-' 0 0 h y • b N J : U 'S P, b N ,n 4
N C U 0 b b p T.•• "c N 0 M R
w . 0 ' 0 0 w, Co 3 . ,t. o 3 . b w 2 . 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 o ,n P. 0 > o p -o > O O c`d T
o 0 o 0 0 0 b 0 o o 0 0 0 0 � 0 0 0 .Cc O
z 2, U (-1zp T z 'tia c> cGZ )-1 Ocv F c0 a..0
0.1•
6 PP CJ d Q 6 W
bA
0
> o ,� ti T A .b w0 .5 ,p C o c 0 �T P
,. a ° 1y O c b 3 0yi
;
O Va)i ,-Ti .N. N 0 ° en (O ,d .o a> CO �cA U. ,.0 •N >, ..
N 4 8 G
V)
a o 5 r� d v o . N 0 b 0 ac> ,5 'E 0 m o a 3 p a
�d ❑al O P. 0 N o O O O uJ o d U <d ^ N 0 0 N . P, O IN)
o o 7
co o O N 0 N 0 k co 0 O b ,p •'d a) > •b•J b 'E a > g vOi N , .P+
-C '�C b ai v r, b ro .. O
o 0 p o 3 0 w .0 71 u, 0 bA a`�'i 'j id id C�a> En abi r�i� a�'i
va U '5 0 * Co3 00 C O m ,O, P� +- a> �d a, °)
ra
ti , ., y ., Co A0 O .O <d ,- .5' 'b c ❑'Ll ab N '' O '0 " G w 0 o C T
o ti c .' 0 m o v .bc v b01)
a o p• ;� 3 c0) .L' cd b ° a`di
co o N y 0 "-' 0 •O bA d 0 N o o .. 0 E o 0 P T.— ,..0) c M .�
0-1 �a .'p.. W E c1 o x 0 d .0 < .0 Q (>. V) 0 0.i o i-+ 0 ❑ P,W .0 P.0-+ 0 c>
Q M. U f-0 W P. W C.5 d W
00 x u
a � 7
O 2 co aoi °? o E .J
N 0
L❑., b '° 'C b 0 .0
09 bA 0 bA 0 0 .N, N
Co N E CL a) e.> d
.0 id y 0 M ti O N O Ca
N
"P t 0 T od >
b
0 o A ,N > a % C i
rib.u, cdOc ) 0 00 0 Co
.0 0 o vC v Yy
d 0 dit) oG
I-) c .R1 ... ^ 0 ❑ Oi N�> ' ayk
. . b
)
� o
en
.o, N CO > p p rTo d .c
0 O 0 cd U'b N N 0idcl 0
W P. cid L ❑ P. > P4 rOi, 'S P.
M V v-) CD
4 4 4 4
log
C
� 52 2 > > o o
.� C C
en . w YpG 0 1_, o aP. O
C 'yoE00., 2
Of) 0 a0m Z Z n . all
oC °..
i.
•
ca6O 3 °
fbuy Y 3 4 ) a0 Q o °ca o x Cv °� " a ' " W W ti � cu o `o on p � N 0 0 O N w bu'-' a) C +9 1-,
ct
0 bb
Z
'ti
3 7 N O
P,• N O Y n. b9C C ^ JC OU -8
kO C
O ..O 'uO CO bcsro � > C . 0 O N bf) 'O a)
: (Io ° www 3 o 3U � rw � � a
P..1 a ... w [- o [-, aw0 �
ai W J ¢ 5 U
ai (3 d ¢ PQ v Q V
iG
J I h
0 b 4-
O. vE 3 _ = LL i.. 8o Up C >0 09 IO m LI
C
> >" o
•b a > W IpW o o 0 S0 O�' ' a9 = ! 1 oa u o.
dc9_ 0, H D. lo �>" 20 O. o . o a
.c .. .n 1.
o co COQ it tis 8qq
34w . Cm cd
. . 1p ° � °> ° > � o1• .N u ° C 'C
„, iM a . " b' 5
C1 C C ti C u' O w L6 �I P ... •. A .d o
a0oaooy1 WOIE4 = s � 'ro
e
w aC Q Qi z 4a a J 0 i 0,a
`= m Wj
> C 0 a) C
° o B 0 OD Y i" .„oc N a F u
o• O aV'+ O .. o .�°' 'LJ .. C 0 011 b0 b9 g ° W .0
,°', °' m o 0.1 y c E x :._ C c D u Z I:d ;.c v •- ,+_• 0, G 'c/lc-..�� $ 3
ab p rj
_ d H2 C m t4.0 cd LL i >,o Ubu;, � .° u;oza N
O o . C , 0 b ¢.'0 0 LL Q I� bn G .� bu ., o
bqo 3 N Cb aFi `� 0 obb y COQ 10 . .0 � '�' ro o 0
JI
°
~ �d � ° > Aroo � oo
up g � aU N � '� �Z � WahoOay `) �
Gp OO N Dyb9 odT '. p --, JIC 3 d . .2 Ow
0 E 0 0dv3cno ioC ,3 � " .5 n 0 o o •geC82 ai o 01 . a Q j � , > a w m
if, y be f.) a ti .. o. a' ., ao C w J . « > , c " .o.. O C •p N .a P. bua) ° o
.00, 2 , ooa0, � 2. 3o > 0 0H 1N° ^ 2 'd tiN C .a U b.teox . x 0 eNN = I . N N y N ° N2-
y .n C •` an 0 U 0.'0o NO b9 IU a'0, . w .� ., p F 0 O
P4 > . o > ..•:.-
..D €/) C W C . R ° .. .o 5. Q
Q l 6 l•
U Q pGi- LLOZ
Pa - .o Q 1
1 0.1
b X Z i0,
O . o
'45
a)) O C O " Q a 1ro
nii C � T7 G UZ I
P,„CC. I4-,
O,
.. o Z 0 o0,ui 5 y ° 8 ,p 0, QX
a ` 5W II)I>p p S' ,6 MLL.2 ° aN I G a
.0 C p . C l
`y N C> p C N C w VZO
0 a
'0,a >, 8 55 :5 W 1 0 '5
0 `- N P. o '7 U 1.5 C
N > ° .U, o bu A J I ,Oi. "bu
cd x . 0 0, "7 C ° 0 Q Z i .a c
xAci b o . �" :° 0W Ilio
V ❑ m m G2
C m p"s Wo. ° u Pte. P.w P. I— —
W I
00 C CC 1-I
4 4 4
U - a) bq o
s.
yGp d G O
G G C 0 >
..
RpN .0 ti
0 .,
a) U O O H
o w 0 o a 6 w>,.a o 0 bG° U
U -0ii •- W N N 'o0 C U C>
U
O b �
b9
OG00 0
'OCEO0 . tiGiyOelcn N 0
I U . aw w p
_ 0 on u, 0 b9 0
Cl .O. ti2 G b .G
3 b ; pR Cbn' 3 ' p C
ONC0a .00 OHe .0 >, o -1H '00 N
Q rd Ci d
0
'0 g b0
1 G co o a
U 0 O
1 0. 0OP z
0 I ti
IT, 3 C In. 0 .. G
1PI os yo .2 o
ai o .d o P.':
10 ~C U `'..a.)
p of U N
1'O .0 p w 0 aJ C
1 b9 b9 G .„ O > a O
1 OU " .0 a) -' C
1 0 N 3 N b9 «'1 ,p N
1
H W
0C .Y
p 'C Cly 't S ' 3 0
o .5o P. O Cl ') b
)
0G0 a ^1 G 4" " O '0 70OOp ,
' 1-'
b9
1'E > bo 12 •-0
0 brobin 8 b
q 3w z o � ., 0
3 0 0 b , . 0
C O
1"' 0 C CwOO . 0 .y ON oOy .0 R 7 p o
17 x ^ y , OOb90 . 0 , OU0o0
itp KC ii . ' C p _ b N . N . w
b Cob o O n° O ' ° ce 'boo > 52 c oC o
0 b9 - C OvG >, O 0 >- i .
Id .0w2 a) > 201U00OO cd o
aFu, U 'pi •C riG . O , y a) by �
l.0 > , 0 -0 b ? U 0 • wGo2nti ti N 0 ro > ti03
.
10N0NKq L 010U , 3 0. 0 G aJGO 'o .GYga
b b C P: G GO wC 00 G Pid a .y U iC. w Jh
U Ca 1- W
0
w N
0
1ny o
is o •5
9
1 0
I0 w G 0
-0
j8 o ^ v
8C .'a
I•o 0 00 m
C N
.q -0 'ln G
I'm '0 0 3
1
1N
1,4-;
•
0 'C
00
O id C t.I .p, 0 y
p `n I" C O Y
W ° C
dpC5
0
y 'dOvab O N
U 0 N by O T
r ^C ii 0
U > U p 5
° N ' '01
OO N❑
Z U E C C 7
03
L0 el
N C
� d Y C id
o
w 7 E " 0 0
N Y 'E o b o 'G o C >
i �.NW o O a)
1 . >1 o >La a o E aE by f ni c
.
a d U b w :d j Y C o b w
3 TaUO > ° ° w
. ° ° o
,Cm
44 . G C v p
I'd -ti
•
0.
•
p C 0 7a0p 0 �a0 0- 0 ' ° .L� C o "
3C C ) P. 70 �
g i N p a ) U
cyw O ao « PN C 9
b NCUy p ayb0
Owtieq
by ti C Vi E .F;
0
co 3 1 >
w ° O Cal g ) 1, N Nd m .1" y ,p
IO � Ni T Z N u0a ' 00U ._.
dOv_C ' d Y y o ° G
U 'd 'Sti '4 g 'O N
b. orsy N ch
R o w va .1-4
'J q ° Ncca -0 aC a (vs 6
E E Oe E
S d > OO a) Q w g (-1 en . G T R > N g `d ) 8 N ,o N
IR 8 = OONP zw C � C :d > ° gK > y
o N N . V . id 0 p 2 b O 'yid ay 0 "D
i•-cc00 E N a Q go veto a� m 9 o .) , •oca ., -o ° po
H ,o C (-4 ..9 co 1,-; P. cd 2 U .5.,
7S5 R. E n ). a Pr Uv) 0 E ,-) w F y w CP o C
�
k U • dj ? fU WG0.l U QO
00 C ^3 N c> b
O • 3 -Co 0
o w
0
pI E3 E U) G CC - aaa
w
wov 7d d `d 0) 0 0 ' ) '.S > a
m W CC v ao - 'o 3 ,b o o •2 -O V cx 0 d o
I uy ' G 9Oi ni 9 qO .2 yT0Ua co . , w
OC ) bO Ctim • ..cti ' N0 ,; O 'P NU q U 0 N m> U O a) � CG 0a) Noan
Nb E j' N c) d (} . >, ° a) .n C
Of) ud dU c C pa ° m"
y' Ea : q • p cro Z b C6 ,d a p ll ° a
U
v N C R ' O > NaN y p .d yN p
I bp i. uf oO dO• Oa.^ cU ' a) y kby 4 0
o ycOZ° o ' 0 0 c m ,y Y
FG ° c E U9wo cvy5 ° c
> N o 0 0 0
° E ypCa. 2 gO , cp > n b
N b0v ° a � 75 <40, aU '^ 0 > a3 a
° `d 0 ac 00 a) 7 0 0 . .. a x
G - ° aa) G y O. ai
G. CoWa) ici ° - wi � o ai ' o a Z < P. v .o . Q 2 a.o P: o
W 0 0
a ., N ..0b UU
Q 0.1 U W <4 Pa U d W dd W
T C mby
0O
I
a 1 o . Cb U E
t o v O
W : " n 0
oo ti � aN0
cU o
' o0 w On N0 d0n .o i ^ ' ai Q
U N
C 0 cd Eo oo
UIN y 0 E v a yO p V/ o E 4-[ 0i .
Na by Z c .N ° p
a .0 'Con
6. a) p C C 'O�
o
0 — LU v "ai U c w' c o . 0a .0 co
R.
W o U b a)
a)> O E •.- J mo > O C a°�
C
. 9P ° d ° Yo C p
P, w W a , U cd P. U 0 W OO
M N m
kr;
0 0 P.
,. ,.. ;,
o 0 b 0 C Y
U C .0 C C C pu...
0 7 m C •0 'O ❑ ro 0
0O +ONNo> > q' O N
:
ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN approximately 1,900 rental units,less than half are in
MARCH 10, 2000 multi-family complexes of five or more units.
• Much of Lexington's historic character is based on
CURRENT STATUS the town's preservation of 18th and 19th century
houses.The Historic Districts Commission has
jurisdiction over 150 homes while the Historic
General: Lexington is widely considered to be an Commission has identified an additional 671
exceptionally attractive community in which to live. historically significant residences.Lexington
Many of the town's physical characteristics are maintains its reputation as an historic town in spite of
clearly important to the quality of life in Lexington. the fact that more than 75%of the town's housing
These characteristics include a location accessible to stock has been constructed since 1940, and more than
a major city,many historic and period homes of half was
exceptional quality,the availability of pleasing open built during the boom between 1940 and 1969.Much
and recreation space,a clean and healthy of the town's post-war development was constructed
environment,and a center that serves as an agreeable in densities and styles typical of suburbs across the
and convenient shopping,dining and meeting place. nation, with many modest sized houses on quarter-
acre or larger lots,in a pattern heavily dependent on
We have consciously managed growth. While there automobile transportation.
are always external pressures on a community,many
of the pleasing aspects of the town are consequences Whereas there were 4,500 acres of developable
of well debated and carefully considered decisions by vacant land in 1960,by February 2000 the Planning
the citizens and their government. The present center Department estimated that only 175 to 200 acres of
is the result of long range plans,as is much of our vacant land which could be used for new housing or
historical preservation and open space conservation. other development remain. An additional 1,100 to
Well-crafted regulation has been a crucial factor in 1,200 acres is considered "under-developed"relative
developing the physical character and attractiveness to what zoning would allow.
of Lexington.
Much of the housing constructed in Lexington in the
There have been unintended consequences of our last decade has been"infill" development,which
management of growth. Although the number of our includes construction of new houses on scattered
households is growing,our household size is steadily vacant lots,the tearing down of an existing house and
shrinking. Our population is aging,and doing so at a replacement with a new house,and the creation of a
greaterrate than in neighboring towns. We have very new subdivision allowing construction on "orphan"
little undeveloped land remaining.Lexington's open lots.Over the last decade,approximately 400 houses
spaces,wildlife habitat and biodiversity have been have been built,evenly divided among"tear-downs",
adversely affected by development. subdivisions,and those on vacant parcels. The largest
"Mansionization"is resulting in higher housing share of the infill development has occurred since
prices and fewer smaller, less expensive homes for 1997,including approximately 80 "tear-downs."Infill
younger,less affluent families. This inhibits the development is generating increasing concern
diversity that we value.Our dependence on the regarding impact on the scale of neighborhoods and
automobile is increasing.We drive more miles each on housing affordability.Tear-downs are eroding the
year then we did in the past even though more people limited stock of"starter" homes for moderate-income
may be working in their homes at computers. The households.
sleeping giant of Hanscom is stirring and threatening
us with more traffic,noise and pollution.These The cost of housing in Lexington has increased
unintended consequences of our past growth steadily over the last decade.The median sale prices
management must be carefully considered as we for a single-family house in Lexington has gone from
develop our plan for the physical character of $189,500 in 1985 to$253,000 in 1990 to$283,100 in
Lexington in 2020. 1995,and soared to$425,000 by 1999.Roughly five
percent of the town's housing(541 units)is
Residential Development: Of Lexington's 10,650 considered "affordable" by state standards, including
acres,63%are in residential use, supporting just 261 rental units in six locations owned by the
about eleven thousand housing units.Nearly 82%of Lexington Housing Authority. Still,Lexington falls
these are detached single-family houses;the same short of the state standard for a minimum of 10%of
percentage is owner-occupied. Of the town's affordable housing for households
Managing Growth -20
with low and moderate incomes. towns.The center contains the town's most important
historic sites as well as a variety of public and
Concerns about housing affordability in Lexington commercial buildings. The buildings in the center
date back to the late 1960's and stem from specific vary in character and age,representing"the civic
concerns. Long-term residents living on fixed- aspirations" of generations over three centuries. The
incomes feel rising assessments may leave them center has benefited from town efforts in recent
unable to afford their property taxes. High purchase decades to provide a more unified and pedestrian-
or rental prices pose a strong barrier to low-and friendly streetscape in keeping with both its historic
moderate-income households seeking to move to and contemporary character. Noted shortcomings are
Lexington, therefore making Lexington a more litter and poorly organized parking. Satellite
exclusively upper-income enclave.Town employees, commercial centers are also important: East
and others who provide vital services for town Lexington,Countryside, and the Marrett
residents,may be unable to afford to live in town, Road/Waltham St. intersection. These satellites vary
making it more difficult for the town to maintain greatly in their state of repair and amenities.
quality services.
Transportation/Accessibility: Transportation is one
Over the years,the town's efforts to address these of the major consumers of land in Lexington.
concerns include support for publicly-funded housing Approximately 20%of the land surface is currently
development,zoning amendments enabling devoted to transportation, and even more of the land
"accessory apartments," deferral of property tax is affected by transportation. Transportation has a
payments for income-eligible owners,and new major impact upon public open space rivaling that of
regulations encouraging"cluster development." any other human activity. This is because of physical
impacts(noise,air quality,etc.),safety impacts
Commercial Development:Lexington is attractive (especially upon children and pedestrians),and social
to commercial enterprise due to location(I-95 and Rt. impacts(adverse impacts on neighborhoods). An
2,Hanscom) and available infrastructure(fiber optic, important part of"public open space" is the space
Cary Memorial Library's business research along streets and roadways- space that degrades
capabilities,town center's restaurants). rapidly as traffic volumes rise.The morning and
afternoon'school run'clogs Lexington roads;the high
There are about 2400 firms in Lexington. They school parking lot overflows with single-occupant
range in size from MIT Lincoln Laboratory with cars.Current transport systems and schedules for the
2200 employees to the single person shops. There high school,especially,lack widespread use or
are 235 commercial building lots with only 2 vacant. support.
Commercial building lots total about 745 acres;the
buildings on these have about 5 million square feet of More than one-fourth of town residents do not have
commercial floor space. the use of a car. This group includes children,the
elderly,and others.
The town has shown support for limited commercial
development by"setting aside"zones on Hayden The only access to the Hanscom civil terminal is
Avenue and Hartwell Avenue;those two areas Route 2A(Battle Road) which is a historic route and
provide the bulk of Lexington's commercial tax is already congested with commuter traffic. The
revenue outside of the center. current Massport office space proposal would add
700 trips per day. The main access to Hanscom
Since 1984 the value,and therefore the tax revenue, AFB is via I3artwell Ave.The Hartwell/Bedford St.
from commercial and industrial property in intersection is currently rated as failing. The Air
Lexington has dropped from 20.8%of the tax base to Force is now bringing 1000 employees from Mitre,in
a low of 11.3%in 1997.It has since rebounded to Bedford,back to the base,with a predicted increase
14.9%in 2000. of 800 car trips a day.
Massport is proposing a 92,000 square foot office Environmental Quality: Middlesex County air
building next to the Hanscom civilian terminal.This quality ranks officially as"Moderate,"or about 100
will require a parking facility to handle 350 cars. on an EPA scale of 1 to 300.In 1997 and 1998 only
ozone levels briefly exceeded 100 on two days in
Town Center:Lexington center is an upscale, August. Particulate matter emissions for Middlesex
thriving commercial center that attracts Lexington County have declined from 129,000 tons in 1986 to
residents as well as consumers from surrounding 44,000 tons in 1996.
Managing Growth-21
impoverished by horticultural choices of non-native
The total number of miles driven by Americans each lawns and plant species that provide little food or
year is increasing more than three times as fast as the habitat for birds and wildlife.Landscaping of public
country's population. New Englanders are driving spaces is similarly unfriendly to wildlife. The
nearly a third more miles than they were just a Bikeway and the Minuteman Park are notable
decade ago, an increase of another third from the exceptions.
previous decade. This increased travel accounts for
about 40%of the smog that caused violations of RESIDENT NEEDS AND PREFERENCES
health-based air standards for more than 20 days per
year in parts of New England. Residential Development: Surveys of town residents
in recent years have yielded consistent but sometimes
The quality of life in and the attractiveness potentially conflicting statements of goals and values
Lexington's built environment are dependent to a regarding residential property.Preservation is
great extent on the health and resilience of its natural important to us--of our historic properties,our New
environment. The amount of waste generated,and England small town character,the ambiance of our
the manner of waste incineration,contribute to the neighborhoods and center,the diversity of our
presence of toxic contaminants such as dioxin and housing stock and the diversity of backgrounds,ages
mercury in the food supply. and incomes of our residents.We worry about growth
in general and an increase in density,often about loss
In the next few years Lexington can expect to have of open space and increasingly over to
15—20,000 wireless phone users,plus a significant mansionization and the loss of space between
increase in non-voice wireless devices ranging from individual houses.Maintaining affordability is a
mobile internet devices to vending machines that use frequent concern,especially for those who grew up in
wireless to report that they are empty. In addition, town,are employed by the town,or are on fixed
the number of wireless devices in vehicles passing incomes.More recent opinion surveys reveal even
through the town will increase substantially. greater concern about the high and increasing cost of
housing in Lexington, going beyond that expressed
Average Lexington residential water usage is 74,800 about those on fixed income to a broader concern
gallons per household per year,totaling 2 billion about the changing social characteristics of the town,
gallons per year purchased from MWRA. The about"creeping exclusivity," and the"danger of
average household generates 15-20 lb.of toxic waste becoming economically homogeneous" and losing
per year. "economic diversity." Conflicting goals include the
desire for affordable housing and the desire to
Open Space:Land use:Lexington covers 10,650 preserve density patterns and open space. One is
acres,of which about 1300 acres(12.2%) difficult to provide without the expense to the other;
is conservation land or private land with conservation the Mercer analysis found 72%of residents preferred
restrictions. About 11%of the town is covered in maintaining the current amount of open space in
paved roads. town over use of undeveloped land to build
additional
Undeveloped Land: There are 222 acres of vacant affordable housing.
land remaining in town.
Commercial Development:The citizens of
Critical Parcels: In 1996 the Lexington Conservation Lexington view the town as primarily a residential
Commission identified 20 parcels of unprotected land community. Most large-scale capital investment in
comprising 498 acres that were considered to be infrastructure that would generate commercial
"critical" open space. Development of these parcels enterprise has been rejected or opposed. At the same
will clearly harm open space values.The largest time,there has been consistent expression of the need
parcel,the Arlington/Lexington Great Meadows,has to expand tax revenues from commercial enterprise.
183 acres.The Lexington Golf Club comprises 72 Support for the existing tax rate,66%higher for
acres. commercial than for residential,has been strong.
Wildlife habitat and biodiversity:Much of Town Center:Residents are interested in pedestrian
Lexington's current open space consists of backyards access,bicycle accommodation, adequate parking,
in residential areas,where single-family lots leave the variety of uses,retention of historic buildings,and
undeveloped portions fragmented and less usable to protection of adjacent neighborhoods. Residents
wildlife.Much current residential landscaping is express concern over litter,the poor condition of the
Managing Growth-22
backs of buildings, and a lack of diversity in retail The rate of new development may depend on local
and dining. economy,with at least one major economic downturn
very likely over next 20 years.
Open green spaces in the center and at satellites must
be preserved and enhanced. A limited number of cluster developments may be
permitted,resulting in an insubstantial(relative to the
Environmental Quality: Lexington residents place a demand) amount of new housing for small
high value on achieving a clean and healthy households.
environment for themselves and their children.
In coming years,the housing needs of a larger aging
Transportation/Accessibility: A wealth of population,beyond the question of affordability,may
experience shows that Lexington residents see high come to the fore,such as smaller, more easily
traffic volume and traffic congestion as being maintained and more accessible units for those who
incompatible with their vision for their choose not to run for better climate but to continue to
neighborhoods. Residents support alternatives to the live in familiar
automobile,such as Lexpress,the MBTA buses, surroundings.That population may be better off
bikepaths,and pedestrian ways. financially than earlier generations,having gained
from(among other things)the increase in the value of
Open Space:Lexington residents place a high value real estate.
on conservation land. The acquisition and protection
of open space has consistently been one of the top Commercial Development:Technology and the
two or three priorities emerging from surveys of town growth of the Internet seem to be producing
residents.Citizen support can also be inferred from enormous growth in"work-at-home"commercial
the existence of several active citizens' groups that enterprise. Significant changes in technology
are focused largely on open space. (Internet"work anywhere,"DSL,fiber optic cable)
may continue to change patterns of living and
FUTURE TRENDS working.
General:Lexington's total population may not grow Town Center: On-line shopping may decrease
substantially over the next twenty years, though the shopping runs to the center by 2020. Work-at-home
segment aged 60-75 may increase significantly.The self-employment,assisted by hi-tech communication,
total population projection rests on the assumption may probably increase.
that residential zoning options do not markedly
change Transportation/Accessibility: No significant
changes are expected to physical characteristics of
Aviation growth may likely increase. The potential the major automotive thoroughfares through the town
market for Hanscom is sufficient to make it a major (routes 4/225,2,I-95,Mass. Ave./Bedford St.,
civil airport.If real estate development on Massport Lowell St.,Marrett Road/2A). Growth in
property succeeds,and/or Hanscom Air Force Base commercial property and infill housing may tend to
closes there may additional commercial development increase traffic.
with associated growth in parking,traffic and density.
There may be a move to provide new access to DSL and fiber optic connectivity penetration may
Hartwell Avenue,through a re-opening of plans for a increase significantly during the next 20 years and
"Hartwell Connector" from I-95,across open space may cause a reduction in certain types of vehicular
wetlands. traffic.
There is a growing recognition and use of regional Environmental Quality: Consumer awareness may
approaches because transportation issues and clean reduce use and generation of toxic materials,and
air problems both transcend jurisdictional boundaries reduce some non-point pollution,e.g.pesticide runoff
and are related to development. and migration into groundwater.
Residential Development:Tear-downs are and will The mix of planes using Hanscom is changing,with
continue to be the primary source of new home increases in jets and blimps,and decreases in prop
construction. planes.Noise,air and water pollution increase as this
happens.
Managing Growth-23
Open Space: Certain parcels of town owned land, development?
while undeveloped and used as conservation land,are
not protected by conservation status.These include How do we create smaller and more affordable
parcels at Harrington School,the PWD building and housing that is required for our aging population?
along the Bikeway. Public pressure may grow to Should we change zoning controls to increase the
incorporate these parcels into the town's conservation amount of accessory apartments? Should we
program. proactively target and acquire priority parcels for
development of affordable and/or small household
There are tax implications to the loss of open land. housing?
Some studies show that open space expenses cost the
public treasury only$.33 per dollar of revenue Commercial Development: Growth in the number
received,while residential land costs$1.12 per of residential properties used for"work-at-home" and
dollar. The loss of open space devalues surrounding the potential of differential taxation for these
property, and thus the value of the town as a whole. properties could emerge as a very difficult local
debate. There is uncertainty about the types of
EXTERNAL FORCES AND PRESSURES businesses that will predominate in twenty years due
to the rapid change in technology.
General: Fluctuations in the economy may have
major consequences in the price and development of Town Center: Deck parking?Do we provide more
the kind and size of housing,the amount of tax parking,which could improve retail health and
revenue derived from commercial development,and possibly customer convenience,but at the same time
the intensity of growth of businesses in the center. increase traffic congestion?
Town Center:The current thriving economy in town Do we allow upper story residential development
and region as well as the good mix of high end retail within the center for residents without cars?
and services may spur more intensive use in the
center. The visual impact of parking in the center is not bad
because it is behind the buildings. Should we set new
Transportation/Accessibility: International controls/guidelines to require rear parking in all
agreements on global warming may require redevelopment?
reductions in automobile use.
Transportation/Accessibility: How much will
Environmental Quality: Commercial development commuter traffic grow? How much will commercial
in adjoining towns may impact on overall air and and residential development increase traffic?
water quality.
Will the trend of more people working out of their
Open Space: Any potential expansion of activity at homes lessen automobile traffic in the town?
Hanscom airport,or indeed the presence of any large
employer in the vicinity,would put pressures for Will continuing decreases in the known threshold for
additional residents and businesses on all the health damage due to air and noise pollution force
surrounding communities,including Lexington. tighter controls on automotive traffic?
UNCERTAINTIES AND TOUGH QUESTIONS Should non-drivers be treated equitably with respect
to access to town amenities,subsidies,and
General: Will population aging,decreasing expenditure of tax revenues?
household size,a growing"work-at-home"
population,and economic barriers to social and Do town residents want to maintain their current
cultural diversity enhance or impoverish Lexington? strong dependence on the automobile as the only
viable means to go about their daily business?Could
What influence may the next economic downturn this pose a danger to the viability of the town
have on our increasingly expensive residential and infrastructure as the population ages?
commercial real estate market?
Environmental Quality:Will new technology,e.g.
Residential Development:Do we pursue further hybrid vehicles,significantly alter transportation
zoning controls to limit the amount and/or size of related air pollution?
Managing Growth-24
What effect would a definitive scientific finding that
radiation power densities cause adverse health effects Boecker,Cindy,Ed.,Report on Community
have on policies and attitudes toward wireless? Conversations, Town of Lexington,January 1994.
Building Liveable Commnities,A Report from the
Can we influence behavior to reduce household water Clinton-Gore
consumption, waste generation and use of toxic Administration, June/999.
materials? Center Revitalization Committee, Lexington Center:
Managing Change, Town of Lexington,
Open Space: Will the town exhibit the political may, undated.
leadership, and public financial City of Cambridge, Transportation Demand
commitment to seek funds to protect open space? Management Bylaws,
While zoning and sub-division control can regulate bpc.iserver.net/codes/cbridgeLDATA/Title_10/18/in
the use and density of development,they cannot dex.html.
forbid it.The best protection for current open space is Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Western
the purchase of the land or of its development rights. Riverside Council of Governments,July 1996
[www.wrcog.cog.ca.us/1.
Will funds and leadership be found to support a Conservation Law Foundation, CityRoutes,
biodiversity educational campaign necessary to effect Cityrights: Building Livable Neighborhoods and
changed attitudes and knowledge? Much can be Environmental Justice by Fixing Transportation,
done by private citizens to improve the biodiversity June 1998.
on private property,and town authorities could Delucchi,Mark,and Hsu,Shi-Ling,The External
similarly change their landscaping choices for public Damage Cost of Noise Emitted from Motor Vehicles,
spaces. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, October
1998.
The Town of Arlington owns the Great Meadow. Division of Capital Planning and Operations,
Can agreement be reached with Metropolitan State Hospital Reuse Plan,
Arlington that would provide for permanent Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1994.
protection? Would Lexington be willing to provide DPW page on Town of Lexington Web site.
compensation and/or joint management rights to Dixon,David,Design Guidelines of Commercial
Arlington? Districts, Volume I: Public Improvements,David
CONCLUSION Dixon&Associates, 1990
Dixon,David Design Guideilnes of Commercial
Districts, Volume II: Private Sector Improvements,
Our scan of the environment in and around Lexington David Dixon&Associates,1990.
reveals that we are getting older,that we have almost Engwicht,David, Reclaiming Our Cities and Towns:
no room for more homes or businesses,that just Better Living with Less Traffic,New Society
moving around our town is a challenge and that in
Publishers,Philadelphia, 1993.
doing so we may be fouling our environment. EPA Web sites.http://tree.epa.gov/ceis,<
Buying a home in Lexington is a choice now limited http://www.epa.gov>and
to the most affluent and thus we are losing our Liveable Communities links.
diversity. Keeping a home and the services we are Hanscom Field Generic roEnvinmental Impact
accustomed to may become harder as more of us age Report- 1995 Update, Environmental
484/8696,April
out of the workforce. There may be some relief in 1997.
technology driven work-at-home,and we may be
Hunneman Real Estate, Statistics on sales of real
becoming more careful regarding our habit of
polluting. We have demonstrated that our combined estate in Lexington, February 2000.
intellectual resources are our strength in good J.DeVillars,Keynote address, Conference
Proceedings-Smart Growth, Strategies for New
economic times as well as a hedge against bad ones.
England, Boston,MA,February 2, 1999,
We are skilled at planning and managing the physical hit,://www.era.eov/re_ion01/ra/s.rawl/index.hhnl.
character of our town. We seem determined to Leviton,Roberta.,Affordable Housing in a Suburban
preserve the attractive character of town and to Town, 1987.
conserve open space. There are tough questions Lexington Vision 20/20, Community Workshops,
ahead;we have the ability to resolve them. June 8-12, 1999.
Lexington Vision 20/20,Futures Panel,at Clarke
REFERENCES Middle School Feb.17,2000.
Managing Growth-25
Litman,Todd, and Laube,Felix,Automobile
Dependency and Economic Development, Victoria
Transport Policy Institute.
Litman,Todd, Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and
Equity Impacts, Victoria Transport Policy Institute,7
December 1999.
Litman,Todd,Issues in Sustainable Transportation,
Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Litman,Todd, Sustainable Transportation Indicators,
Victoria Transport Policy Institute,December, 1999
Litman,Todd,Pavement Busters Guide: Why and
How to Reduce the Amount of Land Paved for Roads
and Parking Facilities, Victoria Transport Policy
Institute.
Litman,Todd,Land Use Impact Costs of
Transportation, Victorial Transport Policy Institute,
1999.
Marino,Joseph,Lexington Commercial Use
Statistics,in manuscript, Town of Lexington,March,
2000.
Mercer Management Consulting,Inc., Town of
Lexington Strategic Market Research: Goals and
,Values Profile of The Community,Town of
Lexington,March, 1994.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Population and
Household Forecast, 1996.
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program for
Residential Streets, Town of Brookline,
Massachusetts,September 1995.
Personal communication,Joyce Miller,chair,
Lexington Conservation Commission.
Planning Board, Design Guidelines for Commercial
Districts, Volume 1: Public Improvements,
Town of Lexington, 1990.
Planning Board,New Larger Houses in Existing
Neighborhoods,Town of Lexington,July 1997.
Puterbaugh,Lewis, TUV Test Report B94470I,
Nextel Fallen Steeple, TUV
Product Services,November 1999.
U.S.Department of Commerce, Selected Population
and Housing Characteristics, 1990
U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Census of Population and
Housing, 1990.
Warren Group,Town Stats:Lexington,MA,
February 2000
Zoning Board,Lexington By-Law Article 29,
Residential Development in Subdivisions and RD
Districts, Town of Lexington.
Managing Growth -26
CITIZENS'S SURVEY notax
xfer fee-2
prop tax levy- 1
The questionnaire results are in, (questionnaire both -2
attached). Altogether,I received 38 responses to the
questionnaire.20 of those responses were from Town Open Space Q4:
Meeting Members Association [TMMA] e-mail list 0.0%- 1
recipients, 12 of them were from my neighborhood [I 0.5%-2
am calling it the Pine Meadows neighborhood,for 5.0%-2
lack of a better name],and 6 of them were from the 7.0+%- 1
Merriam Hill Association e-mail list recipients. [median-0.5/5.0]
I am not a statistician,but I think it is safe to say that Traffic Ql:
this is far too small a sample set to draw any not important- 1
meaningful conclusions from.However,I did receive somewhat imp. - 1
20 responses from Town Meeting members, and moderately imp. -2
these 20 responses represent approximately 10%of very important-2
all Town Meeting members,so we should not [median-moderately important]
discount the TMMA results out of hand.
Traffic Q2:
I will have more comments at our Tuesday night walk comfortably-5
meeting regarding these results,but I would like to somewhat dangerous- 1
point out the noticeable lack of consensus among the
TMMA respondents with respect to the 8 managing Other Growth Issues
growth issues(the ones that had to be ranked from 1 Hanscom- 1.6
to 8).That is, there is not a single issue among the 8 traffic-2.8
listed that stood out to these respondents.Both the enhance tax base-4.8
Merriam Hill respondents and the Pine Meadows mansionization-5.0
respondents ranked Hanscom as the clear#1 issue, pollution-5.0
but Hanscom was a weak#2 issue according to the auto dependence-5.3
TMMA respondents.In fact,each of the 8 issues affordable housing-5.8
received at least one first-place vote from the group center parking-6.0
of [end of Merriam Hill summary]
TMMA respondents. And all but one of the 8 issues
received at least one last-place vote from the TMMA Pine Meadows neighborhood- 12 responses
respondents.
Open Space Q1:
Summaries of the results: 200 acres- 1
500 acres-2
Merriam Hill Association-6 responses 750 acres-4
1000 acres-4
Open Space Q1: [median-750]
0 acres- 1
300 acres- 1 Open Space Q2:
500 acres- 1 definitely not-4
750 acres- 1 a few units-3
1000 acres-2 several units-5
[median-500/750] [median- a few units]
Open Space Q2: Open Space Q3:
definitely not-2 no tax-3
a few units-2 R.E. xfer fee-5
several units-2 prop tax levy- 1
[median-a few units] both-2
other- 1
Open Space Q3:
Managing Growth-27
Open Space Q4: Open Space Q4:
0.0%-4 0.0%a -2
0.5% - I 0.5%-4
1.0%-3 1.0% -4
2.0%-2 1.5%- 1
2.5% - 1 2.0%-2
5.0%- 1 2.5%- 1
[median- 1.0%] 3.0%- 1
5.0%-3
Traffic Ql: 7.0+% - 1
not important-0 [median- 1.0%]
somewhat imp. -7
moderately imp. -2 Traffic Q1:
very important-3 not important-1
[median-somewhat important] - somewhat imp. -4
moderately imp. - 8
Traffic Q2: very important-6
walk comfortably-6 [median-somewhat important]
somewhat dangerous-6
Traffic Q2:
Other Growth Issues walk comfortably- 11
Hanscom- 1.3 somewhat dangerous- 8
pollution-3.5 hostile- 1
mansionization-4.3 .
enhance tax base-4.5 Other Growth Issues
traffic-4.6 - traffic-3.6
affordable housing-5.6 Hanscom-4.2
auto dependence-6.0 center parking-4.3
center parking-6.3 affordable housing-4.4
[end of Pine Meadows summary] enhance tax base-4.5
pollution-4.8
Town Meeting Members Association-20 responses] mansionization-4.9
auto dependence- 5.3
Open Space Q1: [end of TMMA summary]
0 acres- 1 [end of results]
100 acres- 1
200 acres-2 Questionnaire comments(grouped by topics)
500 acres-8
750 acres-3 Affordable Housing
1000 acres-2
[median-500] While it is important for a town to have moderately
priced housing,to achieve that by stealing from the
Open Space Q2: supplies of open space is bad accounting.In my view,
definitely not-2 the real value of open space already donated to
a few units-5 LexHAB by the town should be considered owed to a
several units-6 land bank.When moderate income housing is built,
many units-6 let the true price be accounted for. On that basis,it
[median-several units] may well be that in fact converting existing buildings
is much more economical.
Open Space Q3:
no tax- 1 Bicycling
R.E. xfer fee-3
prop tax levy-6 Most of Lexington's major arteries are
both-9 EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS FOR BICYCLES.
other- 1 We would rather drive our kids places than allow
them to try and bike to them. In fact my wife and I
Managing Growth-28
are also hesitant to bike on such roads in our area as Taxes
Pleasant Street,Watertown Street,Concord Ave and I am concerned that property taxes tax those(such as
Waltham Street.Mass. Ave. is also fairly nerve- the old) who have large now valuable plots but small
wracking. I would support A MAJOR houses and small incomes. If property tax could be
INVESTMENT IN PROVIDING MANY MORE based more on the value of the house and less on the
BIKE ROUTES,either in the form of new paths,or value of the land then(a) it would tax those who
in the form of marked/protected bike lanes on major could afford it and(b) it would not tax those who
arteries. contributed though their own land to the greenness of
This would make a very good contribution to Lexington by their own property.
relieving traffic congestion,and it would also
improve the cardiovascular improvement Most of the homes in Lexington are under-assessed.
opportunities and quality of life for many residents. Owners of new homes have relatively higher and
probably more accurate assessments and are therefore
Bicycling and Walking paying more than their fair share of real estate taxes.
I am very much in favor of connecting the many bike
paths and recreational areas so that you can get from Vehicular Traffic
one to the other safely as a pedestrian or on self- I think most efforts on alternate means of
powered wheels of any sort.Examples are: connect transportation are futile.
the Vine Brook bike track(and all connected I am amazed at the amount of needless traffic
conservation land)to the Minuteman commuter bike congestion(not to mention on-site safety hazards)
path safely. caused each weekday morning and afternoon through
Allow easy broad pedestrian access to Mass Ave the ritual of school drop-off and pickup. The most
sidewalks from the commuter bike path without obvious opportunity I can think of to get a high-
having to cross the parking lot.And so on. impact improvement in congestion for little effort is
Pedestrians and cyclists need a continuous network, simply to require the use of buses by all families.
both for travel and recreation. Even if this necessitates a return of bus costs to the
• tax levy,it would be worth it for me even if I didn't
Hanscom have kids in the schools.
I was born and raised in Winthrop Mass.Do I need to And there may even be some legal way we can keep
say any more? [This respondent ranked Hanscom as the fees separate from the tax levy and still make
his/her#1 issue] them mandatory for parents to pay--but that's way out
of my areas of expertise.
Infrastructure
My view is that Lexington is a mature developed A certain amount of congestion is essential to limit
community without much growth potential. The issue traffic.For example,the lights at Waltham St/Mass
I think is serious but nowhere addressed is the need Ave,and the intersection of Mass Ave/Pleasant St
to provide for good ongoing maintenance of our [Wilson Farm] are two things which dissuade people
infrastructure already in place(schools,roads, from coming into Lexington.They are essential
municipal buildings,recreation facilities).The choke points. Straighten them out, and more traffic
community needs to financially support the(less would flow though Lexington on its way to
exciting than building something new)routine somewhere else.
operating requirements.
Walking
Mansionization I like to walk and am able to do so comfortably.
It should not be the role of town government to However,I think sidewalks belong on all streets
dictate controls on mansionization.Let the market except residential dead ends in as developed town as
decide within current town laws and restrictions, Lexington.We used to require sidewalks. I think the
which are plenty and sufficient. town is remiss in not maintaining existing sidewalks
and there should be more.
Open Space
I would support buying larger parcels of vacant
space.
A lot that lies within a residential neighborhood
would not be a priority for me.The number of acres
is not as important to me as the attributes of the land
in question.
•
Managing Growth-29
Lexington 2020 Vision — Managing Growth Questionnaire
Introduction
Lexington's Selectmen,Planning Board, and School Committee have enlisted more than one hundred town
citizens to help determine what the town will look like in the year 2020. These citizens are focusing on six
broad issues. One of these issues is Development and Open Space. Our Managing Growth group has proposed
several actions pertaining to open space.
The purpose of this questionnaire is to help our Managing Growth group determine whether our proposed
actions are representative of the community as a whole. We would like to find out both whether you agree with
our proposals and to what depth you agree(or disagree).
Instructions for completing this Questionnaire
Most of the questions below include a box that represents a continuum of possible answers. You can circle the
answer that best represents your opinion,or you can write in an answer if none of the choices is acceptable to
you. We welcome your comments on anything that you see in the questionnaire. Your answers will be
anonymous.
Open Space
Background information: According to the Planning Board,there are nearly 1,000 acres of vacant or
underdeveloped land remaining in Lexington [out of a total of 10,650 acres of land in the town]. These
thousand acres have a fair market value of approximately$300 million. The Planning Board and others are
currently in the process of trying to determine which of these thousand acres contain the most critical
unprotected open space. The current best guess is that approximately 500 acres are thought to be very
important to protect from development.
Goals and Actions: Our group would like the town to protect as much of the existing open space as is
practicable. We support the creation of a land bank and/or conservation trust to aid in this effort.
Questions: We would like to know how important protecting open space is to you. Please answer the
following series of questions regarding open space:
Question#1 —There are over 1,000 acres of vacant/underdeveloped land remaining in Lexington. How much
of this acreage do you feel it is important for the Town to try to protect as open space?
Answer#1:
0 acres 100 acres 200 acres 300 acres 500 acres 750 acres 1000 acres
Question#2-Would you support the development of medium-density moderately priced housing on some of
the remaining privately owned vacant land in town?
Answer#2:
definitely not just a few units several units many units
Question#3—If you think that the town should try to purchase some of the remaining open space,should the
purchase be financed via a real estate transfer fee[when a property is bought or sold],the property tax levy
[which would apply to all landowners],or a combination of both?
Answer#3:
real estate transfer fee property tax levy both other[please provide a suggestion]
Question#4—If the town attempted to finance the purchase of some of the remaining vacant/underdeveloped
land via a Proposition 2 Vz debt exclusion,what increase in your property taxes would you be willing to absorb?
Managing Growth-30
Answer#4:
0% [no increase] 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0 7.0+%
Vehicular Traffic and Transportation
Background information: Approximately 20%of Lexington's land surface is currently devoted to
transportation(roads, parking lots,driveways,etc.). Commercial or residential growth(development) increases
the strains on the existing transportation infrastructure. Many local streets are narrow,do not have sidewalks,
and are generally unsafe for pedestrian and bicycle traffic(especially for children).
Goals and Actions: Our group would like the town to try to protect the ability of pedestrians and bicyclists to
safely use local streets. We would also like the town to encourage those who work in Lexington but live
elsewhere to use public transportation to commute to and from Lexington. We support the implementation of
traffic calming measures.
Questions: We would like to know how important traffic and alternative transportation is to you. Please
answer the following questions regarding vehicular traffic and transportation:
Question#1 —How important is it that the town does more to reduce traffic congestion and provide better
alternatives to automobile use for non-drivers(especially the elderly and children)?
Answer#1:
not important somewhat important moderately important very important
Question#2—How important to you is pedestrian accessibility in Lexington?
Answer#2:
I don't like to walk I like to walk and am able I like to walk but some roads I think Lexington
To do so are too dangerous. Is hostile
To pedestrians
Other Managing Growth Issues
Our group has identified the following important growth-related issues that are currently
affecting the quality of life in Lexington. Please rank the following eight issues in
descending order of importance where "1" is the issue most important to you, "2" is next
most important, down to "8" —least important. Feel free to write in other issues that are
important to you.
Issue Importance[Priorityl
Vehicular traffic [circle one: on major streets on minor streets on my street
everywhere]....
Lack of parking in Lexington
Center
Hanscom Airport expansion [increase in commercial jet
flights]
Mansionization[the construction of new,larger houses in existing
neighborhoods]
Managing Growth- 31
Air and water pollution[from cars,toxic household and garden chemicals,jets,
etc.]
Expanding commercial activity to enhance tax
revenues
Dependence on automobiles for commuting,shopping,running errands,
etc
Lack of affordable housing[for seniors,young families,and
others]
Please mail or drop off your completed questionnaire to:
Larry Belvin, 10 Denver Street,Lexington,02421 [home phone 781.674.0246]
If you would like to respond electronically,send e-mail to: LNBELVIN@WORLD.STD.COM.
•
Managing Growth-32