Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Affordable Housing Options Committee report, 1990
i AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS COMMITTEE REPORT TO 1990 TOWN MEETING LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS "The development of [affordable] housing is a complex and controversial process Many people and agencies with a variety of concerns and requirements must work together to achieve the best possible housing plan The success of any plan lies in the ability to implement it This implies that the plan must adequately address the housing needs of the community and at the same time be sensitive to non-housing concerns of the community " -From the Rennrt to the T,exjratnn P1annipa Board from the Joint fnvernment and Citizen Advisnry Cnmmittee on jjgttsjna Pnlirv, 1978 AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 2 DEDICATION Richard K Eaton 1909-1990 The Affordable Housing Options Committee dedicates this report to the memory of Richard K Eaton In his many years as a Lexington resident Dick was involved in town service He served on the School Committee was a Town Meeting Member and most recently worked to assure greater protection for tenants in the event of conversion of their apartments to condominiums The town benefitted from the wisdom and perseverance Dick brought to each challenge he faced Affordable Housing Options Committee June, 1989 - May 1990 APPOINTED MEMBERS John Eddison Board of Selectmen co-chair Techniques Task Force Eleanor Klauminzer Planning Board, co-chair Goals & Policies Task Force chair Cathy Abbott precinct 7 TMM Goals & Policies Task Force Lisa Baci Conservation Commission Techniques Task Force Jan Brandin resource person Techniques Task Force Gail Colwell precinct 4 TMM Goals & Policies Task Force George Cooper Emerson Gardens liaison Techniques Task Force Sherry Edmonds LexHAB Techniques Task Force Diana Garcia precinct 8 TMM Goals & Policies Task Force Thomas Gouzoule Condominium Conversion Board liaison, Techniques Ed Grant, Council on Aging liaison Techniques Task Force Lillian MacArthur, precinct 2 TMM Goals & Policies Task Force Eric Michelson precinct 5 TMM Goals & Policies Task Force Sam Nablo Recreation Committee Techniques Task Force John Oberteuffer School Committee Techniques Task Force Marion Reilly precinct 3 TMM, Goals & Policies Task Force Richard Schaye precinct 9 TMM Goals & Policies Task Force Sara Schoman precinct 6 TMM Techniques Task Force Marion Shepp Parents of Special Needs Adults liaison Goals Policies Task Force Bill Spencer Lexington Housing Authority Techniques Task Force chair Put.i Walton precinct L TMM Goals & Policies Task Force Gerry Weathers Fair Housing Committee Goals & Policaes Task Force TOWN PROFESSIONAL STAFF Robert Bowyer Panning Director Marilyn Nordby Assistant Planner Zenia Kotval Planning Assistant N AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Highlights of this Report 4 I Introduction 6 Comprehensive Plan Definition of Households with Incomes Qualifying for Affordable Housing 8 II Why Affordable Housing in Lexington? 10 III Current Housing Needs 12 IV History of Affordable Housing Policies 16 V Work of the Goals & Policies Task Force 22 VI Affordable Housing Policies 25 VII Work of the Techniques Task Force 28 VIII List of Techniques 37 IX Potential Sites for Affordable Housing 39 Appendices (appearing in unabridged version only) * [ 1] Numbers of School Age Children [ 2] Housing Waiting Lists [ 3] Questionnaire [ 4] Comparison with Other Towns/Affordable Housing Produced [ 5] Fair Housing Resolution [ 6] CBI Report (Pine Meadows/Meagherville site) [ 7] Accessory Apartments [ 8] Chapter 774 [ 9] Concierge Housing [10] Higher Density Housing [11] Housing Relocation Study [12 ] Housing Specialist [13] Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical School [14 ] Modular Housing [15] Use of Existing Structures [16] Cooperative Housing [17] Lease of Land [18] Lexington ' s Borrowing Capacity [19] Private Sources of Funding [20] State and Federal Programs [21] Zoning Changes *The unabridged version, with appendices, of the Affordable Housing Options Committee Report to the 1990 Town Meeting will be available at Cary and East Branch Libraries, Selectmen ' s Office, Planning Department and from members of the committee AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 4 HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS REPORT Affordable Housing in Lexington - The Situation *An acute shortage of affordable housing now exists in Lexington This shortage is part of a regional and countrywide condition *Local groups having the greatest housing needs are low and moderate income families with children *The need is greater for rental housing than for home ownership though both are needed *There is a wealth of information and reports available on this problem *Attempts have been made to address this issue in Lexington since the 1960s The record to date has been mixed Suggested Policies and Techniques *Lexington should bear its share of the responsibility for providing affordable housing units (AHUs) The Town ' s approach should foster social, economic and ethnic diversity *The Town should take a positive, active role in the creation of affordable housing That role should be multifaceted, since no single approach will meet all needs *The Town should aim to meet the Selectmen/Planning Board targets of 150-170 AHUs in five years, or 30-40 units per year To reach these targets will require the construction of higher density, multi-unit developments on some of the larger parcels of still undeveloped public and private land The Town should encourage developments that contain the highest feasible percentage of - affordable units The Town ' s Inclusionary Housing Policy (IHP) has proved to be of great value in expanding the number of AHUs *Most private sector production of AHUs will result from developments approved for Chapter 774 Comprehensive Permits On all Chapter 774 proposals, the Town should press for the maximum percentage of AHUs and for permanence of affordability *Reaching the Selectmen/Planning Board targets will also require effective use of smaller scattered sites, including accessory apartments, which may add 2-4 AHUs per year on average The use of modular housing, especially on smaller sites, can reduce construction time and costs without sacrificing quality The use of scarce Town funds to purchase existing moderately priced housing may be justified under certain circumstances *The sale of some Town owned land to finance affordable housing may be warranted in certain cases but other financial instruments should be tried first AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 5 *The hiring of a Housing Specialist could expedite the Town ' s housing efforts while increasing cost effectiveness Identification of Sites *The Planning Department has identified twelve parcels of Town owned land, containing 199 acres (excluding Pine Meadows) , which are promising or possible for development No ideal sites have emerged from this analysis with some of the smaller sites showing the greater potential *The selection of sites and the number of AHUs to be placed on those sites are as much political as they are technical and financial issues Site selection entails a process of reconciling conflicting beliefs, values and points of view regarding a particular site at a particular time The selection of sites is the responsibility of the Town ' s elected bodies AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 6 I INTRODUCTION The Affordable Housing Options Committee was appointed by the Board of Selectmen on June 5, 1989, in accordance with the decision of the 1989 Town Meeting Its core membership is made up of representatives from town boards and one current Town Meeting member from each precinct Interested citizens also participated in meetings and discussions, offering perspective and technical expertise Professional support was provided by the Planning Department Committee members were appointed for one year with the expectation that a report would be made to the 1990 Town Meeting following an interim report to the Special Town Meeting in September, 1989 In determining the composition of the committee, every effort was made to bring together people from a broad spectrum of viewpoint and experience In addition to interests in housing, individual members have brought their commitment to education, conservation and other town goals The charge to the Affordable Housing Options Committee was to assist concerned town boards in 1) bringing together existing studies, reports and data relevant to decision making on affordable housing in Lexington; 2) integrating housing goals with other town objectives and policies; 3) expanding the range of options for financing affordable units; fP 4) assembling an inventory of potential sites for affordable housing; and 5) fostering townwide discussion and understanding of affordable housing guidelines and policies Included in this document are summaries of Task Force activity, conclusions reached by the Task Forces and adopted by the entire committee and a number of specific proposals The Planning Board report details the inventory of Town owned land Further information, statistics and details are located in the appendices which are a part of the unabridged version of the report These longer and more technical documents will be available for study at Cary and East Branch Libraries, Selectmen ' s Office, Town Manager ' s Office, Planning Department and from members of the committee This report is not a housing production plan It was understood and agreed by the committee that this report was not intended as a support document for or against any specific site proposal, but should assist Town Meeting and town boards in evaluating proposals and making decisions The committee also recognized the need for education of the public about affordable housing and for encouraging and facilitating townwide discussion AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 7 The committee divided into two task forces which addressed separate aspects of the charge The Goals and Policies Task Force, chaired by Eleanor Klauminzer, was formed to evaluate the need for affordable housing in Lexington and to examine the relationship of the town' s housing goals with other town policies and objectives, and to formulate policy setting goals The work of this Task Force is described in Sections V and VI, beginning on page 22 The Techniques Task Force, chaired by Bill Spencer, was estab- lished to identify and evaluate techniques and instruments for creating low cost housing The Techniques group report, Sections VII and VIII, starts on page 28 Planning Director Robert Bowyer and planning staff members began work on an annotated inventory of town-owned land as a basis for determining potential affordable housing sites The Planning Department report, Section IX, begins on page 39 AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 8 O•,NO,4yh °� °� °• Planning Board 12.1 i Town of Lexington, Massachusetts /r••1INo.0 Robert A. Bowyer TOWN OFFICE BUILDING Planning Director Lexington, MA 02179 October 23, 1989 617/862-0500/Ext 429 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DEFINITION OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES QUALIFYING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING USING REVISED DEFINITIONS Low Income - below 50% of Boston SMSA median income Moderate Income - 50 to 80% of Boston SMSA median income Upper Moderate - 80 to 110% of Boston SMSA median income The examples below are based on economic data at the time of writing The range of maximum incomes will change each year as the change in the median income for the Boston area is reported. The policy will be adjusted automatically as new data for median income is reported. The following sources of the data shall be used. Median income for the Boston metropolitan area. As calculated by the Regional Economist, Boston Office, U S Department of Housing and Urban Development The income eligibility requirements of various state and federal programs for low- and moderate-income housing may differ from the comprehensive plan definition and may be used instead. Example. Based on January, 1989 data on the median incomes of families in the Boston metropolitan area, the annual incomes qualifying for affordable housing in Lexington are 1 person 2 person 3 person 4 person 5 person family family family family family SMSA Median Income 4 person family times 7 8 9 1 0625 $31,500 $36,000 $40,500 $45,000 $47,813 Low Income $15,750 $18,000 $20,250 $22,500 $23,905 Moderate Income $25,200 $28,800 $32,400 $36,000 $38,250 Upper Moderate $34,650 $39,600 $44,550 $49,500 $52,595 Affordable Housing Unita are those which may be purchased or rented by those who meet the guidelines for maximum annual income for a low-income, moderate- income, or middle-income family or household, and whose expenditure for housing costs does not exceed 30% of the gross annual income of an owner and 28% of the gross annual income of a renter in the previous calendar year Housing costs includes 1) for owners - payments for principal and interest on a mortgage, real estate taxes, and condominium fees, if any, or 2) for renters - rent including furnishings, if provided, but not heat or utilities In determining mortgage costs, the following source shall be used. AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 9 Comprehensive Plan Definition of Households with Incomes Qualifying For Affordable-Housing Mortgage Interest Rate Survey of mortgage rates of area lending institutions for fixed rate mortgages, as published monthly by The Boston Globe Example: Based on the 1989 data on median income, maximum expenditure for housing costs would be (Maximum expenditures depend on the number of persons in the household) MONTHLY RENT 1 person 2 person 3 person 4 person 5 person family family family family family Low Income $394 $450 $506 $563 $598 Moderate Income $630 $720 $810 $900 $956 Upper Moderate $866 $990 $1,114 $1,238 $1,315 PURCHASE PRICE** 1 person 2 person 3 person 4 person 5 person family family family family family Low Income not applicable to ownership Moderate Income $54,000 $63,000 $72,500 $81,800 $87,500 Upper Moderate $78,000 $91,000 $103,500 $116,500 $124,500 **Based on a purchase with 10% down payment, a 30 year mortgage at 10 5%, real estate taxes at 1% of purchase price plus condominium fees, if any • In the case of retired persons living in a development that provides other services, an equivalent housing expense must be computed. When monthly charges include other items such as meals, medical care and other support services, the housing component of those charges must be identified. When an "endowment" or other escrow or investment accounts are required, for the purposes of this policy, that shall be considered to be equivalent to the sale price of a unit; a projected investment income from the "endowment" shall be calculated, based on the prevailing rate of return for a long term certificate of deposit, and that (lost) income shall be considered to be a housing cost. AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 10 II WHY AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN LEXINGTON? Shelter is a basic human need, as basic as the need for food or water or warm clothing in the winter When shelter costs consume the major portion of a low-income family ' s funds, choices must often be made between competing basic needs - between food and shelter, or medical care and shelter, for example Many families become homeless simply because their incomes cannot be stretched to cover the rent Lexington is a relatively affluent town whose residents have paid a high price for the privilege of enjoying the town's many amenities Why should the issue of affordable housing concern us? Shouldn't people who can't afford Lexington' s housing prices simply move elsewhere? Residents ' Needs to Remain in Lexington Affordable housing is a concern to us because we ourselves, or our children, or our parents might be the ones to have to move elsewhere due to high housing costs During our lifetimes, we typically move from one kind of housing unit to another from modest flat or rented rooms when we are young adults, to perhaps a condominium or small "starter home, " to a larger family home , and then back down to a smaller unit as the children leave and the house becomes too big, and too difficult and expensive to maintain Young Families Years ago, before the tremendous appreciation in housing costs of the 80 ' s, young people could hope one day to buy a home and raise a family here The private market could meet the needs of a broad range of people and income levels No more The median sales price of a home has escalated from $68, 000 in 1978 to $274, 000 in 1989 The income required to purchase a $274, 000 house is approximately $81, 500, clearly above the median income, even for Lexington The Elderly Similarly, years ago, elders on fixed incomes could choose to remain in their homes or, when the house became too much to care for, to sell their homes and move into an apartment No more As assessments increase with the appreciation in housing prices, so too do property taxes Moreover, rents on the private market typically range from $950 to over $1400 per month for a two bedroom apartment Because they own a home, they may not be able to qualify for elderly housing Elders find themselves house-rich but cash-poor, and with no where to go AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 11 Housing for Town and Local Business Employees Another reason to be concerned about affordable housing is that we are dependent upon many people, who are closed out of the Lexington housing market, for basic services Teachers, police and fire fighters, and other town employees need to live a reasonable distance from their jobs (It ' s hard for fire fighters to answer a call back when they live an hour away ) Similarly, local businesses employ far more secretaries, engineers, and technicians than they do high- salaried executives Lack of affordable housing near employment centers like Lexington means long commutes, congested highways and increased pollution The nearest more moderately priced housing is in New Hampshire and west of Route 495, which is one of the reasons that state highways and the Interstates are so congested during rush hours Moreover, if urban low and moderate income families are to better themselves economically, they must have access to suburban employment Displacement of the Less Affluent As former Lexington residents move to other towns and cities looking for shelter they can afford, they displace others who have less income than they We see how displacement works in gentrified neighborhoods in Boston, as the local low-income families are squeezed out, some of them becoming homeless The amount of affordable housing in the suburbs ultimately affects how well the major cities of the commonwealth are able to accommodate their own needy Boston, Lowell, Worcester and Springfield cannot supply ail the affordable housing for the entire commonwealth They cannot supply enough for their mown populations, let alone for those displaced from other communities A Shared Responsibility This is why Chapter 774, the "Anti-snob zoning law" (also known as Chapter 40B) assumes every town and city, even affluent ones, have a responsibility for providing their fair share of affordable housing Clearly, a single community' s efforts can satisfy only a small fraction of the total need for affordable housing; and clearly, too, no community can alter the market forces which have made the need so pressing However, many communities working to the same end will multiply the efforts of individual communities, ultimately creating a significant supply of affordable units It is the belief of this committee that the responsibility and benefit of providing affordable housing extends far beyond the obligation to meet state law (For a more extended explanation of Chapter 774, see Appendix 8 ) AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 12 III CURRENT HOUSING NEEDS After the results of the 1980 U S census were released, Lexington became aware of a number of changes in its demographic and housing characteristics 1984 Housing Study The Planning Department, assisted by the Planning Board' s Housing Needs Advisory Committee, compiled an impressive array of statistics in a document called Snnin-ecnnomir characterictinc of Lelcinatnn Vol 1 Hnnqina This document analyzed census data pertaining to population changes, housing characteristics and values, income and poverty, among other things When this study was published in 1984, there was great concern about how Lexington was changing from a mixed income, family oriented community to a relatively exclusive suburb dominated by small households that were wealthier, older and childless The further concern was how these changes might threaten Lexington' s quality of life For example, would an older, childless majority continue to support excellence in our schools? Would a population that has higher than average income provide workers for essential but not high paying town service jobs (teachers, fire fighters, police, etc ) Rising home prices were considered to be linked to the social changes Increasingly, the population was composed of older households who had bought their homes before the price inflation of the 1980 ' s, or wealthy two-income households, often without children, who could afford to buy into Lexington Of course, Lexington was mirroring what was happening in other suburbs, but the challenge was to make it possible for a more diverse population to live here Current Demographic Trends The Goals and Policies Task Force wanted to find out if these demographic trends were still true in 1989 However, the results of the next major census in 1990 will not be available for several years The Census Bureau does provide interim estimates of population and income for Lexington and the region and these form the basis for this update The source of the future projections for population is MISER (Massachusetts Institute of Social and Economic Research) Between 1970 and 1980 the major changes were a drop in school age children and an increase in people over 55 The 1990 orniectiQD predicts another decrease in school age children and another gain (not as sharp as seen earlier) in the over 55 category The median age in the Town has crept up to over 40 It should be noted, however, that in recent years the school population has been increasing in the elementary AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 13 grades, to the point where the School Committee is debating the feasibility of re-opening one elementary school In 1980 it became evident that even though the population was shrinking, the number of households was growing (up 12%) This was likely due to rising divorce rates, delayed marriages, greater numbers of "empty nesters, " and increasing longevity of elderly people One- or two-person households showed the greatest increase Although the sources for the update do not define their projections by type of household, it can be assumed that these trends continue in light of the larger numbers of people over 35 and the smaller numbers of children Home Prices Compared to Income The graph below plots the median sales prices for Lexington homes between 1970 and 1989, as compared to the increase in mean (average) incomes (The 1970 home sales price figure is a median of the value homeowners placed on their own homes for Census returns The subsequent figures were provided by a Lexington realtor The family income figures for 1970 and 1980 are from the Census; the 1985 figure is derived from the most recent per capita income estimate from the Census Bureau ) LEXINGTON MEDIAN HOME SALES $300,000 275 $274,000 250 225 200,000 175 150 125 Median Sales Price 100,000 $102,000 75 50 $58,000 — — $69 887 Mean Income 32,400 25 owner est,— — $4u 102 0 $L9 221 1970 1976 1980 1965 1989 Although mean family income shows a greater rate of increase in the 80' s than in the 70 's, the cost of housing soared out of reach of even families earning the very comfortable mean income of $70, 000 per year (Note that median family income figures, which are a more accurate reflection of incomes, will not be available until the 1990 census is completed ) The Planning Department ' s 1984 housing study, assembled data that clearly shows the increase in median income of Lexington AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 14 home buyers which occurred simultaneously with the marked increase in housing costs The study reports that the median income of people who bought homes in the Town in 1982 was nearly douhla the median family income in the Town reported in the 1980 census The study went on to estimate that only 15% of Lexington families then living in the Town could afford to buy the average priced home, which, in 1982, was $119, 000 As mentioned earlier in this report, the median sales price in 1989, was $274, 000 A significant number of the Town' s residents can afford to live in Lexington only because they bought houses in earlier times, when housing costs were much lower This phenomenon is not unique to Lexington On a national level, a study by Harvard' s Joint Center for Housing Studies shows that house prices have risen, especially in the Northeast, and that since 1973, homeownership rates have fallen This is especially true for first time homebuyers aged 25-34; this group has seen a decline in real income - since 1973 Rental housing Renters have no protection against inflation in housing costs In 1980, the Planning Department study reported, the average rent in Lexington was $415 per month, the second highest rent level in the study area (Lexington and 9 surrounding towns) At that time, over half of all renters paid more than 25% of their incomes for rent Today, a siihcidized two bedroom rental unit typically rents for $650 to $900 per month, and a market-rate two bedroom unit rents for $950 to $1400 and more A low income family of four earning $22, 500 should pay no more than $563 per month for rent (28% of income) ; a moderate income family of four earning $36, 000 should pay no more than $900 a month for rent Such families would have a difficult time finding a rental unit in Lexington that they could afford The 1984 Planning Department housing study showed that Lexington had the lowest percentage of rental units in the 10-town study (Lexington and 9 surrounding towns) The 1980 census showed that only 14% of Lexington' s housing stock was rental The majority of units available for rent were single family homes, the most expensive source of rental units There were only 333 privately owned rental apartments in 1980 In 1986 that number decreased by 150 units (45% of total) , when Emerson Gardens was converted to condominiums Since the Emerson Gardens conversion, two privately owned developments, Countryside Manor and Katandin Woods, have been built, supplying an additional 179 units However, only 51 of these units are affordable to low and moderate income people In conclusion, most of the trends that were evident between 1970 and 1980 an aging and more wealthy population, smaller households, and rising housing costs, continue into 1990, albeit at a slower pace The steady decline in the number of school age children, however, has bottomed out, and we are AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 15 seeing increases in the numbers of elementary and middle school age children; in the 1990 's we can expect to see increases in numbers of students at the high school, as well Low and moderate income families in Lexington The 1980 census figures indicate that approximately 28% of the families in the town had incomes that qualified them for low and moderate income housing, i e , incomes less than 110% of the Boston area median income As we have seen, since 1980 Lexington incomes have been rising significantly along with housing costs We will not know the number of low and moderate income families in the town until the 1990 census figures are available We do, however, know approximately how many names are on waiting lists for existing affordable housing developments in the Town As of November, 1989, out of a total of 990 on waiting lists (two developments not reporting waiting lists) , 130 were Lexington residents (There may be some duplication of names on lists See Appendix 2) If there were new housing units available, the waiting list numbers would increase dramatically For example, within one week of the Town Meeting vote approving the Muzzey School conversion, and without any advertising, the developer received twice as many applications as there were units At Lincoln's Battle Road Farm development, there are over 700 applicants for 60 units of affordable housing The Affordable Housing Questionnaire is another informal source of housing needs information Although only 12% of the 455 respondents stated that they themselves needed and qualified for affordable housing, 44% said they knew someone now living in Lexington who needed affordable housing, and over half said that they knew people who had moved away from Lexington because they could not find housing that they could afford Comparison with Other Towns When we compare Lexington' s efforts to supply affordable housing with other comparable communities, we find that Lexington sits about in the middle Andover and Lincoln have produced affordable units equal to 6 7% to 7 4%, respectively, of the total housing stock of the town; Burlington, Natick and Waltham have produced from 5 5% to 6 5% of affordable housing units; Lexington about 4%; and Carlisle, Winchester and Weston have produced 1 8% or fewer affordable units (See Appendix 4 ) AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 16 IV CHRONOLOGY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS Probably no other issue of concern to the Town has been the subject of as much study as affordable housing The following is a twenty-year history of the successes and failures in the development of policies (contained in a lengthy list of reports and studies - see the Bibliography) , and the building of dwelling units Our history begins in the mid 1960 ' s when the Lexington Housing Authority was created Greeley Village, a development of 100 apartments for elderly, was built in 1968 The following year, several months before Chapter 774 became law, the Commission on Suburban Responsibility created the Town's first subsidized housing plan This proposal was later withdrawn, to be replaced in 1970 by the Planning Board's subsidized housing plan, which called for the - construction of 850 subsidized units over a five year period Inclusionary Housing Policy of 1970 The Planning Board' s first inclusionary housing policy also appeared in 1970, in conjunction with the creation of a new multi-family zone, the RH zone for developments with 40% subsidized units The Planning Board inclusionary policy stated that the Board would not support a proposal for multifamily housing that did not comply with the RH zone requirements for mixed income developments Although the RH zone amendment to the Zoning By Law easily passed Town Meeting, specific development proposals in years following did not Five out of six proposals were rejected by Town Meeting between 1970 and 1973, ; the sixth proposal was defeated in a town-wide referendum In 1973, the - Planning Board rescinded its 1970 inclusionary policy in the light of cutbacks in federal funding of subsidized housing Housing Developments - Housing Authority and Chapter 774 By 1973, however, the Lexington Housing Authority had built two developments for elderly Greeley Village (1968) , containing 100 units, and Vynebrook Village (1973) , containing 48 units In the next two years, private non-profit developers took advantage of Chapter 774, which allows for the granting of comprehensive permits, which override local zoning regulations, for the construction of low and moderate income housing (A town may be subject to development under Chapter 774 until 10% of its housing stock is devoted to low and moderate income housing For a more detailed discussion of Chapter 774, see Appendix 8 ) The Lexington Interfaith Corporation built six rental units on Garfield Street in 1974; and in 1975 the Archdiocese of Boston developed Pine AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 17 Grove Village, 16 units of cooperative housing on land owned by St Brigid's Parish The Housing Policy Plan of 1979 In 1978, the Housing Authority requested the Planning Board to develop a housing plan for low and moderate income housing The study process culminated in the 1978 Report to the Lexington Planning Board from the Joint Government and Citizen Advisory Committee on Housina Policy This report, in turn, culminated in the Housing Policy Plan adopted by Town Meeting in 1979 The goals of the 1979 plan were more modest than previous plans they called for the production of 25 units of subsidized family housing per year, up to a total of 174 units, and 15 subsidized elderly units per year to a total of 238, by the end of 1983 The Planning Board continues to report yearly to Town Meeting on progress towards these goals The Fair Housing Resolution The Fair Housing Committee, established in September, 1979, completed a Fair Housing Plan in December, 1980 The Fair Housing Committee found that the greatest barriers to having a greater proportion of minority families and elders in the community were a lack of affordably priced housing and a lack of affirmative action goals and plans The Committee recommended goals, objectives and action plans The Fair Housing Resolution, adopted by Town Meeting in 1981, called for an annual report by the Board of Selectmen on progress in achieving fair housing objectives Potter Pond and Morrow Crossing The Planning Board re-instituted an inclusionary housing policy in 1979, which stated that the Board would make a positive recommendation for rezoning only on those housing development proposals that set aside 10% of its units for low-income housing In 1980, the required percentage for low-income housing was raised to 20% Two condominium developments, Morrow Crossing and Potter Pond were approved for rezoning in 1979 under the new inclusionary policy The Lexington Housing Authority was given an option to purchase 10% of the units, for a total of 12 units, at construction cost Difficulty in obtaining funding for the purchase made this option unworkable However, re- negotiation of the Morrow Crossing obligation resulted in the Town purchasing a two-family house off site which was transferred to the Housing Authority; and the Potter Pond developer paid a cash payment to the Town in lieu of housing units of $897, 864 A portion of this money was used by LexHAB to purchase 10 units at Muzzey School and a single- family house on Emerald Street Between 1980 and 1982, the Housing Authority developed a total of 84 units 60 units for elderly at Countryside AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 18 Village; 17 scattered sites units for families; and 7 family units in the converted Parker school Muzzey School Apartments and LexHAB The conversion of Muzzey School to apartments and condominiums in 1983 was a pioneering use of the limited equity condominium concept Sixty out of the 71 units were sold to moderate-income buyers who are restricted both in the resale value of their unit, and in the buyers to whom they can sell, thus preserving the units in the affordable housing stock indefinitely Ten of the units were sold to LexHAB, the Lexington Housing Assistance Board, and are rented to low and moderate income families and individuals LexHAB, a non-profit corporation, was created by an act of the state legislature to support the provision of low and moderate income housing, complementing the work of the Housing Authority Unlike the Housing Authority, which is limited to building housing for low income people subsidized by state or federal funds, LexHAB can provide housing to a broader range of incomes and its financial resources are less limited It has three major roles monitoring tenants or purchasers at various affordable housing developments; owning and managing housing units; and, in the future, developing affordable housing The Planning Board Housing Study, 1984 The Planning Department published a detailed analysis of the 1980 census data, £nrin-prnnnmtc Charanteristirs of Lexington: Housing, in 1984 This publication remains the most comprehensive study of Lexington' s housing stock, and of the socio-economic characteristics of its population Much of the demographic data used earlier in this report draws on that study The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan Building on the 1984 housing study, the Planning Board and its Advisory Committee on Housing Needs produced the first element, or section, of Lexington's Comprehensive Plan in 1985 The Plan' s principal objectives are to preserve the residential character of the town; to encourage greater diversity of housing opportunities; to work towards the elimination of discrimination; and to accept local responsibility for positive actions to carry out its policies The Plan updated the inclusionary housing policy in important ways it recognized the diminished federal role in providing funding for subsidized housing and therefore provided developers a variety of alternatives for meeting affordable housing goals It also recognized a need for moderate and even middle income housing in the town and included these as acceptable options for meeting the inclusionary requirement (The middle income housing option has since been deleted from the inclusionary policy ) AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 19 Franklin School, Countryside Manor, Brookhaven Three developments, two through rezoning and one through special permit, have been approved by Town Meeting under the new inclusionary policy the Franklin School Apartments (38 low and moderate income units, approved in 1985) , Countryside Manor (25 low and moderate units out of a total of 51 units, approved in 1985) , and Choate-Symmes Life Care or Brookhaven (an in-lieu payment of $402, 000, approved in 1986) Katandin Woods A third comprehensive permit under Chapter 774 was approved in 1986 Unlike the first two Chapter 774 developments, Katandin Woods has only 20% or 26 affordable units, out of 128 total units Through negotiations with the developer, the Town set an extensive set of conditions for approval of the development Among these conditions is the right to purchase the low-income units after 15 years essentially at 1987-88 development costs, thus preserving the units in the affordable housing stock indefinitely Leviton Report Funded by a Strategic Planning Grant from the Executive Office of Communities and Development in 1986, consultant Roberta Leviton produced a three volume study (from which most of this history was taken) Lexington' s Experience in producing Affordable Housing; Techniques for Producing 4 • •_ • - • • !• II i! • •; and Analysis of Administrative Reaiiirements for LexHAB. Planning Board Policy Statements, Housing Resolution of 1987 The Planning Board produced two policy statements in 1987 "Criteria for Selection of Sites for Affordable Housing, " and "Suggested Guidelines for the Vacant Public Sites " In addition, in response to the conversion of the Emerson Garden Apartments to condominiums, the Board proposed, and Town Meeting Approved the Housing Resolution of 1987 which required both the Planning Board and the Board of Selectmen to report back to town meeting for two succeeding years on progress towards the goal of increasing the availability of rental housing for elderly and low and moderate income people Condominium Conversion By-Law In response to the conversion of Emerson Gardens Apartments to condominiums, the 1987 Special Town Meeting passed a Condominium Conversion By-Law which established a system for the granting of licenses for conversion of rental units to condominiums, and for the subsequent eviction of tenants due to the conversion The by-law does not prohibit conversions, but it does provide greater protection for tenants under the licensing provisions than are present under state law AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 20 Engler and Abt Associates Reports Consultants Stockard and Engler were retained by the Town in 1988 to prepare an analysis of the feasibility of developing 3 vacant school sites, Young Street, Sutherland Road, and Marrett Road, plus the Monroe School, for affordable housing Their report was presented to the 1988 Town Meeting Having obtained a Challenge Grant from the Executive Office of Communities and Development, the Human Services Committee retained Abt Associates to do a feasibility study of equity sharing as a way of preserving units at Emerson Gardens for affordable housing Because of the requirement of a considerable Town investment to make the Abt proposal feasible, it was decided that this technique was not _ immediately applicable Selectmen - Planning Board Rousing Goals In the fall of 1988, the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen met on two occasions to discuss the Town' s affordable housing policies and to arrive at a consensus as to what are reasonable production goals The two Boards agreed that a reasonable goal was the production of from 150 to 170 units of affordable housing over the next five years In March, 1989, the Planning Board approved its "Policy Positions and Comments About the Construction of Affordable Housing on the Meagherville-Pine Meadows Property " AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 21 Summary of Lexington ' s Affordable Housing Production To Date G \ f e P. } e S F » ' § k & ) ' 0, k 7 7 ® \ ) \ \ ) \ \ k \ \ \ ) ) ) 667 $ \ 2 \ / / \ \ / / \ § \ \ ( \ ) 40 ; E- \« S m / © § - a 4 a g ° ■ . m maq Z F. \ )Clg ) Ix ~ o - - r4et - § \ C., ® u ° _ \ j a. LLI a. ri .[LI III & - / ■ = i . § ) / a PA GT4 \ j % o / ) § S 7 ■ S 2IR C.T. \ 0 \ k / § § f \ / 7 } § m ° m 0 mil r ° .-1 .4 . _ - § 2 ) � it, & ) , § j / F- § „ . ■ . / 3 ) k a } { 0 0 ® ` k = \ a \ \ \ { ) ) \ ] Po - § 3 J 3 0 2 2 , £ ] ; / a ; , AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 22 V WORK OF THE GOALS AND POLICIES TASK FORCE The Goals and Policies Task Force identified a number of issues for consideration in formulating recommendations for town housing policy Population diversity, land use issues, the role of the town in housing development, town financial support, identification of populations in need, the need for rental versus ownership units, the proportion of low/moderate and market rate units, impacts on schools and property values, and integration with other town goals were researched and discussed A series of housing statements pertaining to these topics was framed by the task force and are stated in the following section of this report Affordable Housing Questionnaire A questionnaire, addressing these issues, was distributed to 1500 people through Town Meeting, Lexington churches and temples, and public offices (both libraries and the Town Office Building) About 455 people returned the questionnaire for a high response rate of 30% Although the sample of respondents was non-random and to some degree self- selective, it was large enough to give the committee a reasonably good, informal gauge of public opinion (See Appendix 3) Fair Housing Resolution From the earliest meetings, the task force agreed to embrace the Fair Housing Resolution of 1981, the full text of which can be read in Appendix 5 Population diversity is regarded as desirable for all residents for tolerance and appreciation of many perspectives among people, broadening the outlook and preparation of children to live in a diverse and pluralistic society Enabling people of moderate means and members of racial and ethnic minorities to live in Lexington is to be encouraged Several members of the committee did extensive research on the impact that low and moderate income children might have on the quality of the school system, having learned that this issue is of concern to some parents They have found that there is no evidence to suggest that educational quality in Lexington has been effected negatively by the presence of such children This is a subject that could be explored further in educational forums Questions relating to land use, town financial support, and the appropriate town role in creating affordable housing were considered by both task forces, and will be addressed at greater length in the section on techniques AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 23 Impact on Property Values Residents ' opposition to affordable housing is often expressed as concern about property values As a 1984 Tufts University study and interviews with local realtors and the Town assessor revealed, there is no concrete evidence that affordable housing has the deleterious effect on neighboring property values that people may anticipate and fear A survey of nine suburban subsidized family developments in the greater Boston area conducted by Tufts University (1984) which focused on physical design and maintenance determined the extent to which tenants have ties to the community and considered impacts on property values The results indicate that all developments were attractive and well-maintained, nearly three-quarters of the tenants have direct ties to the area and most realtors and officials perceive no impact on property values All of the Lexington realtors surveyed reported no impact or a positive impact on neighboring properties Some stated that affordable housing developments can have a negative impact if the development is architecturally unattractive or is not sited properly on the lot Lexington building standards and controls preclude this potential drawback, it is believed Integration of Housing with Other Town Goals Part of the original charge to the Affordable Housing Options Committee was integrating housing goals with other Town policies and objectives It gradually became clear that fulfilling this directive was more complicated than it seemed, because first, without a specific housing proposal it is difficult to evaluate whether or not Town goals are being met; second, the Town does not have an abundance of material clearly stating goals and objectives Various departments within the Town have put effort into formulating goals and plans for their specific areas The most complete and precise of these are in Planning and Conservation/ Recreation The Zoning By-law is the most comprehensive statement of Town policies on, among other things, land use, building requirements, and density of housing and population The Planning Board, Engineering Department, Conservation Commission and Health and Fire Departments all have a chance to review and comment on the impact of all commercial and residential rezonings and sub- divisions Furthermore, the Board of Appeals, the Planning Board and the Board of Selectmen act as the Special Permit Granting Authority for, respectively, Residential District (RD) and Commercial District (CD) rezonings approved by Town Meeting, for subdivisions and for school conversions All special permits are subject to meeting extensive criteria specified by the Zoning By- law AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 24 In addition, the Planning Board has adopted a number of guidelines and policies regarding housing, growth and development Some of these are "Suggested Guidelines for the Vacant Public Sites" (1987) , "Criteria for Selection of Sites for Affordable Housing" (1987) , "Suggested Guidelines for the Development of Affordable Housing on Vacant Public Sites" (1989) and the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan This latter document, once fully realized, would likely include goals and policies for land use, public facilities, transportation, economic development and historic preservation, and would be a valuable resource for future decision making The Conservation and Recreation Departments adopted an "Open Space and Recreation Plan" in 1976 and updated in 1984 It is due to be revised by mid-1990 following guidelines from the State Office of Conservation Services This document can be used to determine how housing plans can be reconciled with Conservation and Recreation goals and plans The next section of this report sets forth Affordable Housing Policy statements Specific statements regarding diversity, number of units and populations in need demonstrate compatibility with existing Town goals and policies, by recalling, amplifying and/or further defining the pre-existing statement These common threads will be further explained in the section that follows AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 25 MC AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES DIVERSITY Because heterogeneity in income levels, ethnicity, and in racial and age groups continue to be worthy and desirable goals, the Town should reaffirm its commitment to work towards the elimination of barriers that prevent choice in housing Chief among these barriers is the lack of housing that is both affordable, and designed for particular needs The Town, therefore, should renew its commitment to providing affordable housing TOWN ROLE The Town should take a positive, active role in the creation of affordable housing units through its policy and regulatory powers, through its disposition of resources, and through its ability to encourage private sector initiatives The town must have a multifaceted approach to the problem, because no single program or effort will meet all needs Comment The committee has repeatedly found that in spite of the superb work and extreme efforts by Town staff, the Town' s resources have been insufficient to meet housing production goals because of the multiple responsibilities of staff members and limited hours available We recommend the addition of a professional housing person to the Town payroll This person would not only expedite the Town's housing efforts, and act as a housing information and referral source, the committee believes that such a person would improve our ability to win state and federal grants (See Appendix 12) HOUSING ACTION DEVELOPMENT PLAN This report as well as others completed in past years, should form the basis for a Housing Action Development Plan for the production of low and moderate income housing to be submitted to the Executive Office of Communities and Development (EOCD) Comment Such a plan would afford the Town increased review powers on Chapter 774 development proposals, as well as set achievable production goals for the Town in meeting its need for affordable housing AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 26 NUMBER OF UNITS The production goal set by the Board of Selectmen and Planning Board in 1988 is a reasonable and achievable target number 150 to 170 units of both publicly assisted and privately developed housing, over a five year period (or 30 to 35 units per year) Comment It should be noted that the Executive Office of Communities and Development has set a similar target for all communities, i e , each community should have a three-year goal of providing the number of affordable units equal to 1% of the total housing supply of the community In Lexington, 1% of the housing supply is 108 units, which, built over three years, would be 36 units per year POPULATIONS IN NEED OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING The population with the greatest housing needs are low/moderate income families with children Other populations in need are special needs adults and elders requiring support services (congregate units) moderate income elderly, who do not qualify for Housing Authority units; and low income elderly Comment These priorities are based upon waiting list data collected from all the affordable housing developments in the town , as well as upon responses to the affordable housing questionnaire The committee believes that providing housing for first-time home buyers is a lower priority, but agreed that the town should provide incentives to private developers to offer such housing, as stated in the Inclusionary Housing Policy (See Appendix 21 for information about the Inclusionary Housing Policy ) Town employees who qualify for affordable housing by means of income should receive preference over applicants from out of town, equal to the preference given town residents and minorities RENTAL OR OWNERSHIP HOUSING There is a greater need for rental housing than for home ownership, and therefore, the Town' s first priority should be in providing affordable rental units APPROPRIATE PROPORTION OF LOW/MODERATE/MARKET RATE UNITS The town should sponsor housing developments that contain as many affordable units and as few market- rate units as is financially feasible The most appropriate mix for affordable housing developments is one with approximately 20 to 25% low income units and the majority of the balance should be moderate income units, with only as many market rate units as are necessary to finance the development AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 27 Comment While some committee members object to any market- rate units in a town-sponsored development, the majority of the committee recognizes that it may be necessary to include market rate units in in a development order to finance the affordable units A mix of income levels exists in many of our neighborhoods and is a healthy model for affordable housing developments RESOURCES - LAND Town-owned land, whether in small tax-title lots or larger parcels like the vacant school sites, is a valuable resource for housing, conservation, recreation, as well as other uses The ultimate use, or combination of uses, should depend upon the characteristics of the site and neighborhood, as well as upon what is perceived to be the most pressing town need RESOURCES - TOWN FINANCIAL SUPPORT As it has in the past, the Town should offer financial support to efforts to produce affordable housing This support may be "in kind" donations such as land or buildings, cash from linkage programs, cash from the sale of land, and technical staff support Comment Of these forms of Town financial support, the majority of the committee found the sale of town-owned land the least attractive Some, however, are concerned that using this alternative only as a last resort is too restrictive This policy recognizes that in the present fiscal climate, the use of the Town's tax levy for affordable housing is not feasible The fiscal conditions and policies at the state and federal levels have resulted in a shrinkage of support for affordable housing from these sources Appendix 20 discusses current programs As pointed out in an analysis by Community Builders, Inc , a successful project may have state or federal funds as one part of its financial package but those funds alone will not be adequate The Town has in the past given land to the Housing Authority for its use; it has had surplus schools converted to affordable housing with units given to the LHA and LexHAB With the apparent end to the shrinkage of school enrollment, one does not expect more surplus buildings to become available Open land is the remaining highly valuable asset which the Town might use (See Section 9 for an inventory of town owned land ) AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 28 VII . WORK OF THE TECHNIQUES AND STRATEGIES TASK FORCE SELECTION OF TECHNIQUES The Techniques and Strategies Task Force worked to develop a list of all of the technical and financial approaches to creating affordable housing units (AHUs) which might be applicable to Lexington. In doing so, it was aware of the fact that substantial state funding would not be available and that there would be keen competition for such modest sums as were to be had. The task force also assumed that it would not be realistic to expect that private developers would generate much low cost housing The group took pains not to overlook any method which might prove useful Input was invited from concerned boards and Town citizens through interviews and a public meeting on .November 30, 1989 The task force analyzed a variety of approaches that held the promise of reducing the construction, land or finance costs of affordable housing and organized them under these three headings It then classified these approaches or techniques in terms of their feasibility in Lexington in 1990 Highest priority was given to techniques which were- readily available and for which a town precedent had been established. A second level of priority was given to techniques which looked promising but appeared to require further development The third and lowest priority was for approaches that were thought to be problematical or unpromising and which were dropped from consideration after preliminary investigation This information is shown in tabular form on pages 37 & 38 Most of the information and analysis on use of land is contained in the subsequent section of this report entitled "Potential Sites for Affordable Housing", prepared by the Planning Department A number of the techniques shown in the Table could appropriately have been listed under more than one heading (e g higher density development and Chapter 774 Special Permits could both be considered as land use and financial approaches as well as being listed as construction techniques) One technique in particular, the employment by the Town of a Housing specialist relates to almost all other approaches in that such a specialist could make each of the other techniques more feasible and effective CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES In considering construction techniques, it has seemed most useful to group them in two categories, namely, those which apply primarily to larger, multiple unit developments and those which are more applicable to smaller and mostly single family units Needless to say, there are construction techniques which apply to both multi-unit and single family projects and these will be mentioned under both category headings MULTIPLE UNIT DEVELOPMENTS We will begin with multiple unit developments because these are the construction approaches that can make the biggest contribution to expanding the Town's stock of affordable housing If the Selectmen/Planning Board's annual targets of 30-35 units of low and moderate income housing are to be achieved, most of that housing will have to be through multiple units and on larger sites AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 29 The Four approaches considered by the Task Force for multiple unit development were Construction by a private developer on privately owned land through a rezoning; 2 Construction by a private developer on privately owned land through a comprehensive permit under the provisions of Chapter ii4 of the General Laws 3 Construction through a collaborative venture between the Town and a private developer or a not-for-profit organization, using Town land and possible other Town resources; and 4 Acquisition of existing structures for conversion to multi-unit housing Private Development. The first of these, construction by a private developer using his own resources and through a rezoning approved by Town Meeting, has, in the past, proved advantageous to the Town It utilizes private initiative, management, finances and land and converts these into a product which the Town need. Today, however, owing to the high price of land in single family zoning districts, most private developers find it financially attractive to construct market rate, single family dwellings which offer them the highest rate of return. Any private developer producing AHUs will require an increase in density which is achieved through either a rezoning approved by Town Meeting or a comprehensive permit The Comprehensive Permit (Appendix 8) A more financially feasible alternative for the private developer is to take advantage of the provisions of Chapter 774 and to construct higher density, multiple dwelling units on private land, while bypassing the constraints of the Zoning @CLaw (ZBL) This approach is financially attractive because, under Chapter 774, the developer is able to obtain a higher density to offset high land costs and to build a mixed income development with the larger share of the units being market rate The Town benefits from a comprehensive permit development in that such a development utilizes private know-how and resources and increases the Town's stock of affordable housing The Town is also allowed to take credit, in the eyes of the state, for having expanded its low income housing stock. In the case of rental housing (but not ownership) , 100 percent of the units, including the market rate units, count toward the Town's subsidized housing inventory The offsetting disadvantages of the comprehensive permit approach, from the Town's point of view, are that it allows the developer to intensively cover a site with units which are mostly market rate and that it takes control of the approval process away from the Iown. The Town may suffer the loss of possibly conspicuous open space to a development over whose design it has little influence, while gaining only a modest addition to its low and moderate income housing supply AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 30 Development of Town Land The creation of affordable housing is greatly facilitated if the cost of land does not have to be included in the cost of the housing units This is possible if the land is contributed by the Town Town land is in no sense free land, but it is land which the Town owns and for which the Town may not in the judgment of Town Meeting, have a higher priority use In the case of Lexington the Town owns four parcels which were purchased for school sites but +.ere never used for that purpose It also owns several other parcels in excess of five acres each which might serve for multi-unit housing As previously noted, details on this land are to be found in the potential Sites for Affordable Housing' section of this report The analysis performed for the Pine Meadows/Meagherville (PM/M) Site Development Committee by Community Builders Inc (CBI ) (Appendix 6) provides a wealth of information of the economics of multi-unit, affordable housing development on the PM/M site in 1989-90 The CBI analysis calculated the per unit cost of housing at PM/M to be between 5110,000 and $134,000 depending on the number of units to be built A significant element of those costs is the price of an access road and other infrastructure, which accounts for $6,500- 522,500 if the per unit costs, the precise amount being dependent on the number of units over which the infrastructure costs would be spread. The analysis also showed that the use of state supported SHARP funding would result in a net reduction in per unit costs of about $28,500 Even with the state subsidies of the SHARP and TELLER programs (Appendix 20) and with land at no cost, affordable housing cannot pay for itself In the absence of a real estate transfer tax or land bank (see page ) , lower income housing must be packaged with market rate housing, with condominium development or with sale of land to yield a financially viable package The CBI Analysis has shown that the number of market rate, rental housing units proposed at PM/M alone does not generate enough capital to :ompletely cover its development costs plus its initial operating costs The pairing of condominium housing with affordable housing yields a somewhat better result but still does not cover the financing gap even if the condominium units are equal in number to the affordable units The picture Jhanges if the sale of house lots is combined with the construction of affordable units Given the high sale value of land in Lexington, various financially viable scenarios can be worked out in which the construction of a desired number of AHUs is financed by the sale of sufficient house lots to cover the excess cost of the affordable units. Application to Other Sites With certain adaptations, the CBI calculations are transferable to other locations in Lexington Although no two sites are identical and each has its own unique conditions of size, location, topography, wetland, access, etc , certain common cost factors and financing possibilities may be adjusted to apply to many of them. The largest element of cost by far is the cost of building the structures This will vary somewhat, depending on the type of construction, the density and the number of units being built It will also change over time AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 31 But, for purposes of current comparisons the construction cost figures in the 'BI Analysis and in the PM/M bids should be helpful in making informed judgments The costs of infrastructure will be much more varied and much more site specific In a number of cases they may be sufficiently large to rule out consideration of the site In others, and this applies mainly to the smaller sites, they will be very modest Acauisition of Existing Structures (Appendix 15) 4 major component of the Town's existing stock of multi-unit affordable housing has derived from the conversion of old school buildings no longer needed for their original purpose With school buildings no longer becoming surplus, that source of affordable shelter has dried up The prospect for acquiring existing structures for similar conversions does not currently seem promising in the absence of a major funding source, such as a land bank real estate transfer tax Recently, the Town has been made aware of the -xistence of several dormitory style buildings and the Middlesex County Hospital which the county is now leasing to Bentley College but which it may be interested in selling for a public purpose These buildings might lend themselves to conversion for lower cost housing If a "land bank" tax were to he instituted by the state legislature within the next several years, it might be possible for the Town to acquire these buildings and use them to advance its affordable housing goals Modular Housing (Appendix 14) The investigation of modular housing by the Techniques Task Force has led us to believe that this type of housing construction offers the possibility of considerable cost savings, whether applied to single family dwellings, or to multi-unit developments The major shortcoming of modular housing is the widespread public perception of it as being the equivalent of "mobile homes and of inferior quality That erroneous perception will present, for the near future, and additional obstacle to neighborhood acceptance of any proposed, multiple unit affordable housing package This leads us to the conclusion that, if modular construction is to be used for affordable housing in Lexington, it should probably be introduced first via single family units, successful examples of which already exist in Lexington and neighboring communities (Please see below) SMALLER SITES The Techniques Task Force identified four approaches to creating affordable housing in small, scattered locations which showed varying degrees of promise for application in Lexington Most of these approaches assume the availability of land or of an existing structure, usually at no cost to the developer Based on historic experience, we believe that through a combi-nation of these techniques, a small number of units (i e 2 - 4) might be constructed each year AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 32 That number nith be appreciably increased if the Town were to employ a housing specialist (Appendix 12) to promote and expedite the establishment of such units The more promising approaches are these Accessory Apartments (Appendix 7) or second dwelling units located within a single family house constitute a potential source of affordable housing which has largely gone unrealized in Lexington Despite changes in the zoning by-laws which were introduced in 1983 to encourage the construction of such apartments, only nine such units have been created since the by-laws were changed There are a number of reasons for this lack of conversion activity a) Renovation of a dwelling is expensive and complex; b) The demands of design, construction and financing are too difficult for most homeowners (particularly the elderly) c) Fears of increased property assessment and of landlord responsibility are prevalent d) New houses cannot be built with an accessory apartment Also, although accessory apartments encourage more efficient use of a dwelling, they may not be affordable for lower income families Such units can be made more affordable, at least for persons over 60, by the granting of property tax exemptions to the owners under Chapter 200 of the General Laws In a broader sense, the feasibility of accessory apartment construction could be enhanced through Town sponsored technical and financial assistance to prospective owners This is an area in which a Town housing specialist and changes in the zoning by-laws could play a significant role Donated Structures (Appendix 11) The Town has recently been offered by developers two modest sized houses which were about to be demolished to clear valuable land for larger and more expensive structures These houses were accepted by the Town and moved relatively short distances to vacant, Town owned, tax title lots where they will be used for affordable housing The costs of moving and reestablishing the houses in their new locations were in the range of $50 000 each These costs were well below the expense of creating new units of equivalent size and constituted a real bargain for the Town It is believed that other developers may make similar offers in the future The primary limiting factors on the ability of the Town to accept such offers will be the availability of vacant, Town owned sites nearby and the ease with which the donated structures can be moved A further limitation will be the availability of Town funding which, in the examples cited, has come from payments to the Town under its Inclusionary Housing Policy (IHP) Modular Housing (Appendix 14) As noted earlier, the Techniques Task Force has been impressed with the potential for reducing the cost of housing construction through the use of modular housing The factory construction of housing modules which are trucked to a previously prepared site and rapidly assembled there can yield substantial savings in the costs of the completed units The finished product is in all other ways comparable to a stick built dwelling -in appearance, style, materials used, compliance with building codes and eligibility for bank financing Should opportunities arise for constructing new dwelling units on any of the smaller Town owned sites, the Town authorities should give serious consideration to the option of using modular construction AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 33 Purchase of Lower Cost Units In certain circumstances it would make sense for the Town to purchase existing units of privately owned, modestly priced housing so as to keep this housing in the affordable range (e g at Katandin Woods) While this procedure does not create any new units it does keep the housing affordable Such purchases would be possible if the Town's revenues were to exceed its other perceived needs for those revenues or if Lexington were to have access to land bank" type funding for affordable housing It could also be true, although on a relatively small scale, that the Town could use some of its inclusionary housing funds to buy lower cost units at bargain prices In general, however, it seems unlikely that in the next few years the Town will be in a financial position to justify buying up significant numbers of existing, privately owned housing units Minuteman Voc Tech. Construction (Appendix 13) Another method of achieving below normal construction costs on a single family house is to make the housing a teaching project for the Minuteman Vocational Technical School (MMVT) and to utilize student labor under faculty supervision This has been employed in one successful joint venture on Emerald St which utilized the combined resources of MMVT, the local Rotary Club and the Town This technique is probably not an option in the immediate future owring to budget constraints at MMVT, but it does remain an option for later Years FINANCING TECHNIQUES The third grouping of techniques for fostering affordable housing consists of those which may contribute to or facilitate the financing of AHUs These may be programs of the Town, of the state government, or of privately owned financial institutions In the not too distant past, federal and state programs constituted a substantial and readily accessible source of such assistance Unfortunately, this is no longer the case Federal funds have virtually dried up and the current supply of state housing money falls far short of the demand for it from towns and cities. The picture is not much brighter in the private banking sector, where a host of loans for commercial real estate development have recently gone into default and have made the banking community reluctant to risk its capital on housing projects This has left the Town in the position of having to use its own scarce resources of land and capital as the primary means of providing financial viability to the public housing ventures it wishes to encourage TOWN FINANCING There are a number of ways in which the Town might finance affordable housing It could, at least in theory, pay for such housing out of the tax levy or by the issuing of housing bonds In Lexington today, and for the foreseeable future, these are not real options AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 34 As long as the Town budget must operate within the constraints of Proposition 2 1/2 while the annual rate of inflation is 5 percent or more, there is little or no likelihood that the Town would tap either of these sources to underwrite housing costs LAND BANK TAX The Town would probably respond more positively to the use of a land bank" or real estate transfer tax to finance lower income housing Under the land bank concept, towns are authorized by the state to levy a transfer tax (of say 0 5 percent and with certain exceptions) on each sale of privately owned real estate in the town The money accruing from this tax is placed in an account which can be used, with the approval of Town Meeting, for the purchase of land (hence the name) and/or for affordable housing Town Meeting is on record as favoring such a tax and as encouraging the State Legislature to pass a Local Option bill which would allow Lexington to levy its own land bank tax Up to now the Legislature has been unwilling to authorize that Local Option bill This leads us to two other and more realistic Town financing options, the funds derived from the Town's Inclusionary Housing Policy (IHP) and the proceeds to be realized from the sale of Town land. THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING POLICY Initiated by the Planning Board, the IHP requires the developers of multiple unit residential housing projects, to make a percentage of those units affordable, in lieu of units, or to pay to the Town a sum of money equivalent to the cost of providing such units During the 1980s, several large developments contributed six digit sums to the Town under the IHP This fund, sometimes referred to as 'LEXHAB money", has been used under the direction of the Board of Selectmen to provide the financing of several smaller projects (e g those on tax title lots) and to facilitate the funding of some larger projects It can continue to fulfill these functions but the balances are not large enough for it to play more than a supplementary role in the underwriting of larger projects THE SALE OF TOWN LAND As noted elsewhere in this report, the Town owns several dozen parcels of land of varied quality and dimensions which are not formally or permanently committed to serve Towns use Apart from the former land fill on Hartwell Ave , the larger of these parcels are the four unused school sites In order to finance 40 units of affordable housing on one of these sites, Pine Meadows/Meagherville, the PM/M Site Committee has raised the possibility of selling up to 12 nearby house lots for private development It is expected that, depending on the state of the real estate market when the sales are made, each lot could be sold for up to $200,000 Needless to say, other parcels of Town owned land can also be sold, some for comparably high prices This is not a course of action which is popular in the Town or with the Options Committee The Committee recognizes that some sale of Town land for private use may be necessary to achieve Lexington's housing objectives It would prefer, however, to employ other methods of raising capital AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 35 STATE FUNDING There are three state funded programs for assisting affordable housing which are currently in operation and which could be used by Lexington They are the Homeownership Opportunity Program (HOP) , the State Housing Assistance for Rental Production (SHARP) , and the Tax Exempt Local Loans to Encourage Rental Housing (TELLER) programs (Appendix 20) H.O.P. is a state-funded mortgage writedown program designed to stimulate the production of units for moderate income homeownership Massachusetts Housing Partnership funds are employed to reduce the interest rate of MHFA loans to approximately 5 5 percent for eligible purchasers Permanent resale restrictions apply and at least 30 percent of the units in a HOP development must be affordable SHARP is a state-funded subsidy loan program designed to stimulate the production of privately-owned rental housing in Massachusetts in which at least 25 percent of the units are available to lower-income households Construction and permanent financing for SHARP-assisted developments is provided by the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) with the proceeds from the sale of tax-exempt bonds SHARP funds, supplied by the Executive Office of Communities and Development (EOCD) are then used to write down the effective interest rate on the MHFA loans as to low as five percent for a term of up to 15 years At the end of this time, SHARP funds are to be repaid to MHFA TELLER is a financing program that allows Local Housing Authorities to provide below-market rate mortgage loans to developers for the production of mixed income rental housing Housing authorities obtain the money to lend to developers through the sale of tax-exempt bonds Their tax-exempt status allows the interest rate to be below the current market rate The SHARP and TELLER programs are the ones most applicable to Lexington's housing needs since they are aimed at rental housing Because the supply of these funds does not match the demand for them from many Commonwealth towns and cities, only those projects with the strongest justifications are likely to receive funding from these sources PRIVATE SOURCES OF FUNDING Members of the Techniques Task Force looked hard at private sources of funding for low income housing both in the Boston area and in other parts of the state (Appendix 19) They did not find any easy answers but wish to call attention to the following The Community Reinvestment Act is a Federal law which requires banks to invest in the communities in which they do business The law is expected to affect bank performance but it is not clear what the effect will be in communities such as Lexington where most of the banks are branches of regional institutions Individual banks may offer a variety of packages to encourage home ownership These may include mortgages with lower interest rates favorable terms on down payments and reduced fees The concessions however are not large and they tend to apply more to moderate and middle income applicants than to those lower on the income scale AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 36 Community Loans Funds In western Massaschusetts, community banks not- for-profit insititutions and some of the larger employers have banded together to facilitate easier access to housing through a homeownerhsip loan program for the area In other parts of the state linkage programs have been established in which developers of commercial and residential properties contribute fees which are applied by host towns toward affordable housing Most such arrangements require large inputs of time, effort and leadership if they are to succeed. A summary of the cost reducing techniques which were considered by the Techniques and Strategies Task Force is shown in the following table AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 37 VLH . Table of TECHNIQUES which might contribute to the production of Affordable Housing A numher of techniques were identified in the course of the meetings of the Techniques Task Force For purposes of understanding, they were catagorized into three groups land, construction, and finance Those techniques which clearly relate to more than one group are repeated in this table For preliminary evaluation we assigned temporary priority/ feasibility codes as follows (A) - available, town precedent established ( B) - promising, requires development ( C) - suggested, problematical , not promising Selected techniques have been given extensive writeups which are included as appendicies in the complete report Others are cited by name in this table Construction Appendix Number Town Employee Housing Development Coordinator ( full time) 12 Friendly 774 special permit (A) 8 Modular (manufactured) houses (A) 14 Accessory apartments ( B) 7 Donated housing ( e g single homes to be moved) (A) 11 Use of existing structures 15 non-residential converted to multi-unit (C) large residence converted to multi-unit (C) modest dwelling preserved as moderate housing (B) condo/apartment preserved as moderate housing (B) Minuteman Voc built (A) 13 "Concierge" housing (B) 9 High density development (A) 10 Congregate housing (B) Low cost architectural designs ( B). Donated structures converted to housing ( e g school ) ( B) Non-profit in-kind contribution, e g Habitat for Humanities ( C) Sweat equity (C) AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 38 Finance Appendix Number Town Employee Housing Development Coordinator ( full time ) 12 Town or LHA issue tax exempt bonds (B) 18 State programs (A) 20 HOP Teller SHARP Community loans, loan guarantees, and donated funds (A) 19 Local bank involvement Co-op housing (A) 16 Lease of land to non-profit which would build (B) 17 Inclusionary housing (A) Sale of Town land or units Special town ( LexHAB) funds (A) "Land bank" ( B) Tax credit partnerships (B) Tax incentives and abatements ( B) Home equity conversion (C) Commercial linkage ( C) Pension fund use (B) Land Appendix Number Town Employee Housing Development Coordinator ( full time ) 12 Zoning by-law changes (A) 21 Friendly 774 special permit (A) 8 Donated public ( town, county, state, fed) land (A) Gifts of land from private/corporate owners (C) Land swap between Town and private owner (C) Reclassification of Town owned land ( e g recreation to housing) (C) AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 39 E_. POTENTIAL SITES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING A Status Report to the 1990 Annual Town Meeting Planning Department Town of Lexington March 15, 1990 NOTE: This Report was prepared by the Planning Department which takes full respon- sibility for its contents. This Report does not intend to represent the view of any other Town department, board, commission or committee. This report is considered to be technical and analytical staff work and is intended to provide essential base information about sites. It is a preliminary evaluation and needs to be followed by more detailed studies before any of the sites mentioned here could be developed for affordable housing. It is customary to associate the work of the Planning Department with the Planning Board. The Planning Department was assigned by the Town Manager to provide staff assistance to the Affordable Housing Options Committee which was appointed by the Board of Selectmen. This Status Report was prepared and printed without the endorsement of either the Affordable Housing Options Committee or the Planning Board. As the work on POTENTIAL SITES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING progresses to recommendations about specific sites to be used for affordable housing and ranking sites in priority groups, the citizen boards and committees will have a key role. AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 40 1. INTRODUCTION The charge to the Affordable Housing Options Committee includes the following task: " to assist concerned Town Boards in: 4) assembling an inventory of potential sites for affordable housing. " The Planning Department has been working on a study which is both: 1) an inventory of potential sites, both publicly owned and privately owned, and 2) an evaluation of selected Town owned sites, for affordable housing. The result of the second part of this study will be a grouping of Town owned sites into three categories: 1. PROMISING -- those sites with few significant problems or deficiencies. 2. POSSIBLE -- sites with more substantial problems than those in the Promising group; significant steps are needed to overcome the deficiencies of the site. 3. PROBLEMATIC -- sites which are unlikely to be usable for affordable housing due to major problems or deficiencies. For each of the Promising or Possible sites, the Department will prepare an analysis of the physical characteristics of the site, the feasibility of construction and the potential impacts on public services and facilities and on the ne'ghborhood. For each of the Promis- ing sites, the Department will suggest design and development criteria,for individual sites. One objective of this work is to provide similar information about each of the sites under consideration so that they may be compared with each other. Another objective of this work is to provide answers to the inevitable questions about any site proposed for affordable housing: potential impacts on the neighborhood, on Town services and facilities and on the environment. Another objective of this work is to identify sites for inclusion in a town-wide plan for affordable housing if Town officials decide to prepare such a plan. (If the Town chooses to prepare a housing plan to comply with the new requirements of the State Executive Office of Communities and Development [E.O.C.D.], that plan is called a Housing Development Action Plan.) Completion of the Planning Department's study does not earmark a site for affordable housing. It provides information on which boards and committees can make decisions for further investigation and/or commitment. There are a number of policy questions which Town officials will have to address before selecting sites from this analysis for development of affordable housing. For instance, it is assumed that the Town will choose to develop affordable housing on some, but not all, of the sites for which the Department's analysis is being conducted. The determination of AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 41 which of the sites should be carried to further study needs to be made in the context of other factors, e.g. the target number of affordable housing units to be built, or the mix of privately and publicly sponsored housing, that make up a plan for affordable housing. While the Planning Department could make a recommendation for the grouping of sites into the "promising, possible, and problematic" categories, it would be better if those recommendations were made by one or more citizen committees or boards. The study will be done in stages and, with resources currently available, will take more than a year to complete. The study will focus, in order, on: 1) Town owned land, (scheduled for completion during 1990) 2) land owned by other governmental agencies and tax exempt non-profit institutions, 3) privately owned land. This status report contains a preliminary report on the Town owned land. 2. TOWN OWNED LAND The study focuses first on Town owned land because these sites are under the Town's control; their potential use for affordable housing is the Town's decision to make and is not dependent on the decisions of other governmental agencies or private landowners. The study also focuses first on Town owned sites which are more than one acre in size because: 1) only the larger sites offer promise of production of any significant number of affordable housing units, and 2) so few of the Town owned lots,with less than one acre,are potential building sites, that a "scattered site" program on the small lots would only provide a handful of units. A Series of Steps The Planning Department's analysis of the parcels with one acre or more consists of a series of steps in which various criteria are applied to sequentially remove from consideration parcels which are not suitable for affordable housing. The reasons for removing parcels from consideration range from legal restrictions prohibiting their use, to size, to physical characteristics, to location etc. The Steps in the study and the work completed, to date, are listed below. Work Completed Step One Identify Town owned land Work In Progress Step Two Remove from consideration Town owned land which is legally restricted Step Three Remove from consideration land which is occupied, or unsuitable for affordable housing Step Four Analysis of the physical characteristics and feasibility of construction of remaining parcels Step Five Analysis of locational and policy criteria AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 42 Step Six Analysis of potential impacts on public services and facilities and on the neighborhood Work Not Begin Step Seven Detailed title examination Step Eight Suggest design and development criteria for individual sites Subsequent Stens The preceding have been the steps in a preliminary evaluation based largely on staff review If Town boards or committees decide to pursue the construction of affordable housing on one or more of the sites evaluated, more detailed and technical studies of those sites will be needed. Those studies may include engineering studies, delineation of wetlands, legal questions, building design studies, consultation with the Town boards or committees directly involved in the site, and the like. At the conclusion of the Planning Department study, every Town owned parcel will be accounted for along with the reason that it was removed from consideration. That will provide an answer to why a particular parcel, which some may believe to be suitable, was not considered for affordable housing. STEP ONE - IDENTIFY TOWN OWNED LAND Creating A Data Ea The principal work on the Town owned land, to date, has been to create a data base -- from scratch. Most of the needed information is not in a computerized form. It is in paper records in a number of different departments, organized by the needs of those departments, and is not in a computer retrievable format. The Assessors records show that there are a total of 11,892 parcels of land in Lexington which have a total of 10,650 acres. Land within the rights-of-way of public and unaccepted streets and of Route 128 and Route 2 are not identified in the Assessors records and are not included in this group of parcels. The first step involved separating these 11,892 parcels into two categories: 1) Private, Taxable and 2) Tax Exempt, which is further divided into two categories: a) Owned by Other Governmental Agencies and Other Tax Exempt Entities and b) Town Owned There are 1057 parcels in the tax exempt category comprising a total of 2,952.88 acres. Category #2a contains 157 parcels owned by a) private schools (13 lots), b) churches (17 lots), c) charitable, i.e. non-profit, organizations (30 lots), d) Middlesex County (1 large lot), AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 43 e) the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (13 lots), f) the United States of America (37 lots), g) the Lexington Housing Authority (31 lots) and h) other municipalities, such as the City of Cambridge and the Town of Arlington (15 lots). Category#2b includes only those parcels that belong to the Town of Lexington. The Town has 900 parcels comprising a total of 1,874.9 acres. The remaining 157 parcels which are owned by other governmental agencies and other tax exempt entities will be analyzed separately after the analysis of the Town owned property is completed. Similarly the 10,835 parcels in private taxable ownership will be scanned to determine the number which are: 1) more than 125,000 square feet in area or larger (the minimum land area prescribed for the RD Planned Residential zoning district); and 2) vacant or underdeveloped i.e. currently developed to less than one half that permitted by the Zoning By-Law. Some of the larger, vacant or underdeveloped privately owned parcels may be ones which the Town may want to encourage the development of affordable housing -- most likely through cooperation with the property owners and a zoning amendment. Those parcels will be analyzed separately after the analysis of the Town owned property and of the other property owned by other governmental agencies and tax exempt entities is completed. The first step was, literally, to determine what land the Town owns. The Assessors' records show the Town of Lexington owns 900 parcels of land. In a number of cases, the only information in the Assessors' records is the size of the parcel and the fact that the Town is the owner. The amount of information which the Assessors maintain for tax exempt property, such as the Town's property and that of other governmental agencies, is very limited compared to the detailed information they maintain about privately owned property to which the Assessors send real estate tax bills. STEP TWO - REMOVE FROM CONSIDERATION TOWN OWNED LAND WHICH IS LEGALLY RESTRICTED An important step is to determine what legal restrictions, if any, apply to each Town owned parcel. Aside from policy determinations as to how the Town should use its land resources, there are important provisions in State law, the Massachusetts State Constitution, and Town by-laws and regulations, that affect whether Town owned land can be used for affordable housing. This step has proven to be a far bigger undertaking than originally anticipated. When the Town acquires land, most often through a Town Meeting vote, one or more "public purposes" are specified. Depending on which of the "public purposes" are specified in the original acquisition, the property may not be converted to another use without a super-extraordinary procedure requiring a two-thirds vote of the Town Meeting, a two- AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April, 1990 Page 44 thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature, and the approval of the Governor. Property which is designated, by a formal vote, to be exclusively for conservation. recreation, oak or playground use is protected and may not be converted to another use except by the super-extraordinary procedure described above. Property for which other public purposes are specified and either conservation, recreation, park or playground use are also specified are urn protected by the requirements for the super-extraordinary legislative procedure and may be converted to housing use. In cases where the property is nat in that highly protected status, there are two steps that must be taken before the land could be converted to another use such as affordable housing: 1) the board or officer in charge of the land must determine that the land is no longer needed for the previously specified public purpose and 2) the Town Meeting must, by a two-thirds vote, transfer the land to another board or officer for another specific municipal purpose. For instance, before the so-called school sites, vacant land acquired in the 1950's and 1960's for future school construction, could be used, the School Committee would have to vote to determine the land is no longer needed for school purposes and the Town Meeting would have to vote to transfer the land to the Board of Selectmen, for instance, for other public purposes. In other cases, the Town received the land by gift from private owners or by transfer from another level of government, and conditions affecting the future use of the property were included in the acquisition by the Town. It is necessary to conduct the equivalent of a title examination to determine what restrictions may apply to the use of a property in Town ownership. That involves research into old Town records, to determine the specific vote of the Town Meeting authorizing the acquisition, and may involve research at the Registry of Deeds as well. A preliminary review of most of the lots has been done to determine the public purpose of their acquisition. For those sites which emerge as recommended for Town Meeting action, a detailed tide examination (Step Seven) needs to be conducted by the Town Counsel. Due to the time and expense of that detailed title examination, it is deferred until the final stages of this study. The purpose specified at the time of acquisition is not always the same as the current use. For instance there is land that may appear to be recreation, or open space use, which was acquired for an altogether different purpose. The municipal purpose specified for the acquisition is what controls, not the current use. One of the operating guidelines of the Planning Department study is to defer a detailed analysis of the physical characteristics of a parcel until it is determined that it is free of legal restrictions that would prevent it from being used for affordable housing. The analysis of physical characteristics and potential impacts is a time consuming effort; it would be wasteful to conduct that analysis and later find out the property is legally restricted from use for affordable housing. AHOC Report to Town Meeting - Acril, 1990 Page 45 Progress on Step Two to Date: The study was greatly aided by use of a data base of land in conservation jurisdiction developed by the Conservation Commission which has the data on the public purpose, Town Meeting votes, etc. of the land in the protected conservation category The Commission's inventory, which is believed to be about 95-98% complete, shows that there are 462 parcels of the 900 which the Town owns, comprising a total of 1,120.87 acres in conservation jurisdiction. That means there are 438 parcels that are not in conservation jurisdiction. Since the Conservation Commission was the only agency to have a systematic inventory of land within its jurisdiction, it also means that there are 438 parcels of Town owned land for which research must be conducted to determine the public purpose for which they were acquired and what legal restrictions may apply. PARCELS ONE ACRE OR LARGER The Planning Department concentrated on those parcels which are large enough, i.e. one acre or more, to be a site for several units or more of affordable housing. There are 62 parcels which are 1 acre or larger and are not in conservation jurisdiction. The 262 small parcels that comprise the Meagherville school site land are treated as one parcel in the 62. Research completed to date shows that 10 of those 62 parcels, comprising 97.24 acres, are in recreation jurisdiction, and also may not be used for housing except by the super- extraordinary procedure of obtaining the approval of the Town Meeting and the Legislature to transfer the use to housing. Of the 52 remaining parcels, the jurisdiction and public purpose of 34 parcels have been determined and are not in the highly protected category. Many of those 34 parcels have other limitations, such as various Town buildings or schools, and will be excluded in the subsequent stages of analysis. TABLE 1. TOWN OWNED PROPERTY 900 parcels in 1874.9 acres RESPRICrh ) PROPERTY UNRESTRICTED PROPERTY 472 parcels in 1218.11 acres 428 parcels in 656.79 acres Conservation Jurisdiction Property "Over 1 Acre" 462 parcels in 1120.87 acres 52 parcels (incl. Meagherville) Recreation Jurisdiction Property "Under 1 Acre" 10 parcels in 97.24 acres 116 parcels AHOC Report to Town Meetang - Apris SQ Page 4o PARCELS SMALLER THAN ONE ACRE There are 116 Town owned parcels that are not in conservation jurisdiction and are lgn than one acre in size. However, only 6 of the lots in the RS One-Family district meet the minimum lot size requirements which are 15,500 square feet of lot area and 125 feet of frontage, and none of the lots in the RO One-Family district meet the minimum lot size requirements which are 30,000 square feet of lot area and 150 feet of frontage. Only 24 of the lots in both zoning districts are 5,000 square feet or more in size, including the six conforming lots. A lot of 5,000 square feet,which is a third of the minimum lot size in the RS district, is a bare minimum for a new dwelling. It remains to be seen how many of those 28 undersized lots could be used because, under current zoning, lots less than 15,500 square feet in the RS district and less than 30,000 square feet in the RO district, can only be used if they are pre-existing nonconforming, i.e. "grandfathered" lots. In practice, these small parcels of less than one acre in size would be best suited for a scattered site, individual dwelling, development of affordable housing. There are so few lots, however, that they are not a factor in developing a Town housing plan. Research on the public purpose of acquisition has been deferred on those 116 parcels, because they are less than one acre in size and most are smaller than the Zoning By-Law requires for even a single-family house lot. TABLE 2. UNRESTRICTED TOWN OWNED PARCELS UNDER 1 ACRE 116 Parcels RS ZONE: 76 PARCELS RO ZONE: 36 PARCELS Removed: 52 parcels Removed: 26 parcels < 5000 sq.ft. < 5000 sq.ft. or landlocked or landlocked Accessible sites, 24 parcels Accessible sites 10 parcels > = 5000 sq.ft. > = 5000 sq.ft. Conform to zoning 6 parcels Conform to zoning: 0 parcels Promising: 1 parcels Promising: 0 parcels Probable: 1 parcels Probable: 2 parcels Problematic: 16 parcels Problematic: 8 parcels VARIOUS COMMERCIAL ZONES: 4 PARCELS AHOC Report to Town Meeting — April 1990 Page 47 The tedious process of examining and sorting the parcels by use, public purpose and juris- diction is still incomplete as the research for jurisdiction and the public purpose of acquisition is continuing. STEP THREE REMOVE FROM CONSIDERATION LAND WHICH IS OCCUPIED, OR UNSUITABLE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING There are 52 parcels which are more than 1 acre in size and are not legally restricted by the public purpose for which they were acquired. (NOTE. the list includes 13 parcels for which research as to the public purpose of acquisition has not been completed.) Where a Town building, or a school, is on a large site and has "extra" land not needed for the primary purpose, it will be retained for further consideration for investigation of the "extra" land -- at least through the physical analysis stage. Some of the "vacant"parcels among the 52 remaining parcels include land unsuitable for affordable housing, such as the Battle Green and Olde Burying Ground, and can be removed from further consideration. Table 3 shows the 11 parcels of the 52 that have been removed from further consideration because they are occupied or are otherwise unsuitable for affordable housing. TABLE 3 LAND REMOVED FROM CONSIDERATION WHICH IS OCCUPIED OR UNSUITABLE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING Size place Name Location apin Comment Battle Green Lexington Center 254 Historic site and open space Buckman Tavern Lexington Center 2.86 Historic site and open space Cary Library Lexington Center 1.09 Site occupied by building and parking area Central Fire Sta. Bedford Street 1.38 Site occupied by building and parking area Healy Property 0561 Man Ave. 1.64 frj70.6 acres to be developed by LHA for special needs housing remaining 1.05 acres to be open space/conservation land Meriam Street Mariam Street 2.65 Largest long term public parking lot in Lexington Parking Lot Center business area Munroe Cemetery Off Mass.Ave. 6.73 Cemetery Mersey Play Area Man Ave. 1.06 Informal play area that serves neighborhood and adjoining Mummy condominiums Olde Burying Ground Off Harrington Road 1.39 Historic cemetery School Admin. 1557 Mass.Ave. 1.79 She indedee School Administration Building parking for Town buildings and permit parting for Lexington Center,public aped space at gateway to Lexington Center Town Building 1625 Mass.Ave. 3.07 Site includes Police Station,Cary Hall,Town Office Building and related parking for Town buildings TOTAL 26.20 AHOC Report tc Town Meering — Apral 1990 Page 48 STEP FOUR ANALYSIS OF PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND FEASIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTION ON REMAINING PARCELS After the removal from consideration of the 11 parcels which are fully occupied, or otherwise unsuitable, there are 41 parcels which remain. This step in the analysis focuses on the physical characteristics of a site and the feasibility of development. Natural features such as topography, soil types, or the presence of wetlands, as well as the adequacy of access, which often are a deterrent to development, will be evaluated. The analysis will make a preliminary assessment of the economic implications of the physical conditions of the site for affordable housing development. This evaluation will be based on interpretation of the Town's photogrammetric maps, maps of soil types, and maps identifying drainage systems, as well as site inspection. After a preliminary review, based principally on information available from the Town's map resources, the 41 parcels were divided into two groups: 1) those that initially appeared to be "promising" or "possible" and 2) those that are "problematic", highly "unlikely' or "uncertain" as to the public purpose of acquisition. A detailed analysis is being prepared for the- parcels in the first group. Some of the parcels in the second group will be eliminated because of their physical characteristics and a detailed analysis is not justified. Other parcels in the second groups are deferred until the analysis of the first group of parcels is completed. At this writing (March 15, 1990), the 41 parcels are divided as follows: Preliminarily Placed in Promising or Possible Group - 16 parcels See Table 4. Preliminarily Placed in Problematic or Unlikely-Uncertain Group - 25 parcels See Table 5. The 25 parcels includes 10 parcels on which the research on the public purpose of acquisition has not been completed. The 16 parcels Preliminarily Placed in the Promising or Possible Group, contain 199.38 acres which is 10.63 percent of all the Town owned land. The 16 parcels in Table 4 have been consolidated into 12 parcels for evaluation because several of the 16 abut others to form a larger site. The two Harrington School sites are joined into one. The Marrett Road School site is joined with the two Upper Vine Brook sites to form one site for evaluation. The Old Reservoir site is not the water body or the beach area but the parking lot area off Marren Road. Note that three of these parcels appear to be not subject to the super-extraordinary protection but that needs to be verified by research. The Pine Meadows Golf Course property consists of two parcels, one of 6.2 acres and one of 88.07 acres. Part of the larger parcel is shown in Table 5 as a 71.75 acre parcel consisting of the approximately 43 acres used for the golf course and 28.75 acres of wetlands near Route 128. The remainder of the larger parcel, i.e. the 16.13 acres of dry land, not used for the golf course, is added to the 6.2 acre "panhandle" parcel which is one of the AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April 1990 Page 49 two lots the Town acquired in the acquisition of the Pine Meadows Golf Course property It is shown as a 22.33 acre Pine Meadows (Part) site in Table 4. Later, in Table 6, the 22.33 acre parcel is joined with the 46.6 acres in the Meagherville "school' site to form a 69 acre site, which is labelled in Table 6 as the "Meagherville School Site" even though, technically, it includes non-golf course land from the the Pine Meadows property That 69 acre site, which includes 18 acres of wetlands on the Meagherville "school" site, is the land which the Pine Meadows-Meagherville Site Development Committee has been studying for a proposal for affordable housing. Some of the place names may not be familiar to the reader. The Hennessey land is on the opposite side of Robinson Road from the Estabrook School. The Marvin Street play area, the name used by the Recreation Committee, is off Cushing and Morris Streets near Winter Street; Marvin "Street" is a paper right-of-way and does not even exist as a street. The Route 3 right-of-way site is near the corner of North Street and Lowell Street adjacent to the newly constructed Northgate Circle subdivision. It is land that was transferred from the State D.P,W to the Town after the State abandoned plans to extend the Route 3 Expressway through Lexington and carries a State imposed land restriction. The 3 acre Worthen Road site is near Baskin Road across Worthen Road from the High School Field House; it is adjacent to, but not part of the Lincoln Field site and the fitness trail. TABLE 4. SITE ANALYSIS IN PREPARATION Public Place name Location Size Comment Purpose DPW GARAGE, FRONT YARD 201 BEDFORD ST 1.20 Front yard only HARRINGTON SCHOOL MAPLE ST 12.10 Mostly occupied HARRINGTON SCHOOL SITE MAPLE ST REAR 27.26 Accor,wet HENNESSEY LAND ROBINSON RD 10.00 Mass MARRETT RD SCHOOL SITE MARRETT ROAD 18.52 Aaer,wet MARVIN PLAY AREA CUSHING, MORRIS ST 8.00 Meas,wet • MEAGHERVILLE SCHOOL SITE GARFIELD STREET 46.67 PM-M Site Committee OLD RESERVOIR MARRETT ROAD 1.00 Puking la area PINE MEADOWS(PART) CEDAR STREET 22.33 PM-M Site Committee RANGEWAY ST RANGEWAY ST 1.43 Brook divides site • RTE 3 R.O.W LOWELL ST LOWELL ST 3.12 Star restriction • SUTHERLAND SCHOOL SITE SUTHERLAND ST 24.90 Rugged,access UPPER VINE BROOK MARRETT ROAD REAR 1.89 Mass,wet UPPER VINE BROOK WORTHEN ROAD END 5.46 Man,wet WORTHEN RD. NEAR LHS WORTHEN ROAD 3.00 Wet • YOUNG STREET SCHOOL SITE YOUNG STREET REAR 12_50 Ames? TOTAL 199.33 • Parcels on which research on the public purpose of acquisition bas not been completed. ngrx Report to Town Meeting - April :990 Page 50 Table 5 accounts for the 25 remaining parcels. Many are problematic. The comment for the sites with school buildings is "periphery ?" meaning the factor to be checked is whether there is any surplus land on the periphery which is dry and not needed for current school purposes or school expansion plans. Several sites appear to be wet. Several others have the comment "is purpose Conservation ?" which means that, although they appear to be conservation parcels, the public purpose of their acquisition as conservation has not been documented yet. TABLE 5. SITE ANALYSIS DEFERRED: PROBLEMATIC, UNLIKELY-UNCERTAIN Public Place name Location Size Comment Purpose BOWMAN PARK WATERTOWN STREET 3.91 Park on a gateway street BOWMAN SCHOOL WORTHEN RD. EAST 15.57 Land on periphery?wett? BRIDGE SCHOOL MIDDLEBY ROAD 30.25 Periphery?wet? CLARKE MIDDLE SCHOOL STEDMAN ROAD 20.00 Periphery?wet? DIAMOND MIDDLE SCHOOL HANCOCK ST 35.26 Periphery?wet? EMERSON RD NEAR THOREAU EMERSON ROAD 1.09 Is purpose Conservation? • ESTABROOK SCHOOL GROVE ST 7.50 Periphery? FISKE SCHOOL ADAMS ST 11.55 Periphery? FRANKLIN PLAYGROUND STEDMAN RD REAR 7.07 Periphery?housing next door HASTINGS SCHOOL MASS. AVE. 14.32 Periphery? HEALY PROPERTY MASS. AVE. REAR 1.10 Landlocked, wet? LEXINGTON HIGH SCHOOL 225 WALTHAM ST 56.46 Periphery?wet? LILLIAN ROAD LILLIAN ROAD 1.08 Small, wet? + _ MARRETT RD-IDYLWH.DE MARRE7T RD REAR 2.27 Probably restricted;pub pup? • MIDDLEBY ROAD MIDDLEBY ROAD 1.50 Brook.wet? • MUNROE SCHOOL 1403 MASS. AVE. 1.58 Engler study;conflicting use • NORTH STREET SAND PITS NORTH STREET 2.80 Is purpose Conservation? • PINE MEADOWS(REMAINDER) CEDAR STREET 71.75 Golf course,wet SANITARY LAND FILL HARTWELL AVE. 67.50 Commercial a sub-soil? SANDERSON ROAD SANDERSON ROAD 3.49 Wet? • VILLAGE CIRCLE OFF VILLAGE CIRCLE 3.40 Wet? VILLAGE CIRCLE VILLAGE CIRCLE REAR 2.40 Wet? • WESTVIEW CEMETERY WESTVIEW STREET 42.00 Cemetery Master Plea? WESTVIEW ST WESTVIEW ST 8.50 Animal shelter;cemetery use? WILLARD'S WOODS HAWTHORNE ROAD 3_62 Is purpose Conservation? + TOTAL 415.97 • Parcels on which research on the public purpose of acquisition has not been completed. AHOC Report to Town Meeting - April 1990 Page 51 Preliminary Evaluation of 12 Town Owned Sitej Table 6 on pages 13-15 shows a Preliminary Evaluation of 12 Town Owned Sites, Limiting Factors for Affordable Housing. This evaluation is based on interpretation of the Town's photogratnmetric maps, maps of soil types, and maps identifying utility systems, as well as site inspection. In addition to the evaluation criteria shown in Table 6, the Department's analysis of each of the 12 sites includes information on the following: the public purpose of acquisition, the year acquired, the current use, a description of the area in which the site is located, the zoning district, the presence of historically or architecturally significant structures or sites on or near the site, the distance to the nearest elementary and middle school, and the distance to, and type of, recreation facilities. There are several cautions to the reader in reviewing Table 6. First, all evaluation criteria are treated equally although some are far more important than others. For instance access to a site is critical while a poor solar orientation of a site is rarely fatal. The sites are presented in alphabetical order and there is no attempt to rank them by priority. Finally, Table 6 shows the limiting factors; it does not show the positive features of sites except by the absence of marks for limiting factors. Table 6 shows that no ideal or perfect sites emerge from this analysis and the sites with greater potential are the smaller sites. The Planning Department's more detailed analysis shows that each of the five sites with 10 acres or more, not including the Meagherville- Pine Meadows site, have significant limiting factors. The largest sites, i.e. the three sites with 20 acres or more, again not including the Meagherville-Pine Meadows site, are among the most limited in their prospects for affordable housing. All three have severe access problems, two of the three have less than 40 percent of the site in dry land, and the third, Sutherland Heights, is a topographically rugged site with definite building limitations. Town Meet- :...ng - Apr__ _? Page TABLE 6. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF 12 TOWN OWNED SITES LIMiTINO FACTORS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ■•• Severe problem; requires substantial Town intervention or cost •■ Important limiting factor or cost consideration • Minor limiting factor or cost consideration (No asterisk) Not a limiting factor Name of Site DPW Garage Harrington Hennessey Marren Rd. Size in Acres 1.20 39.36 10.00 25.87 Developable Site Area(Approx) 1.20 10.70 10.00 11.00 EVALUATION CRITERIA PHYSICAL FACTORS Frontage on Street ••• •• ••• Two Means of Access ••• ••• ••• Shape Topography ••■ • Ledge/Rock Outcropping • Soil Types • • Wetlands and Hydrology ••• ►s• Existing Buildings, Roads and Trails • • Vegetation • • Solar Orientation Noise/Visual Impacts •• • Easements or other legal restrictions • • Historical or Arch. Significant ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES Sanitary Sewer: •• Storm Drain: • • •• Public Water. Proximity to Collector or Arterial St. • • PROXIMTIY TO: Public Transportation Lexpreas • MBTA ••• ••• • Shopping/Services • • Recreation Facilities •• Neighborhood Open Space •• PROXIMITY TO: Other Affordable Housing • Multi-Family Housing • Consistency with Other •• Town Objectives POTENTIAL SITE DEVELOP.COSTS Streets ••• •■ ••• Utilities • • ••• Replacement of Rec. Facilities Pep-r` - ;wn "feer_ng - Apr_. S: Page 53 TABLE 6. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF 12 TOWN OWNED SITES LIMITING FACTORS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING **■ Severe problem; requires substantial Town intervention or cost ** Important limiting factor or cost consideration * Minor limiting factor or cost consideration (No asterisk) Not a limiting factor Name of Site Marvin St. Meagherville Old Res. Rangeway Size in Acres 8.00 69.00 1.00 1.43 Developable Site Area(Approx) 8.00 51.00 1.00 0.92 EVALUATION CRITERIA PHYSICAL FACTORS Frontage on Street ■*r ** Two Means of Access *** ** * Shape Topography ss ** Ledge/Rock Outcropping *• *** Soil Types * * Wetlands and Hydrology ** ■ ** ** Existing Buildings, Roads and Trails Vegetation • • Solar Orientation * Noise/Visual Impacts * Easements or other legal restrictions * Historical or Arch. Significant ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES Sanitary Sewer: *** * Storm Drain: ** Public Water: Proximity to Collector or Arterial St. r r PROXIMITY TO: Public Transportation Lexpress MBTA ** *** r* Shopping/Services r* * * * Recreation Facilities * Neighborhood Open Space PROXIMITY TO: Other Affordable Housing • Multi-Family Housing * * Consistency with Other * Town Objectives POTENTIAL SITE DEVELOP.COSTS Streets sr* *** Utilities *** *4* Replacement of Rec. Facilities ** ■ a` Me=' _-y- - ; TABLE 6. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF 12 TOWN OWNED SITES LIMITING FACTORS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING , *•* Severe problem; requires substantial Town intervention or cost ** Important limiting factor or cost consideration * Minor limiting factor or cost consideration (No asterisk) Not a limiting factor Name of Site Rt.3 ROW Sutherland Worthen Rd. Young St. Size in Acres 3.12 24.90 3.00 12.50 Developable Site Area(Approx) 2.95 21.70 3.00 12.50 EVALUATION CRITERIA PHYSICAL FACTORS Frontage on Street ** ** Two Means of Access *•* *s* Shape Topography *** *■ * Ledge/Rock Outcropping *s* ** ** Soil Types ** *ss Wetlands and Hydrology * ••■ *5 Existing Buildings, Roads and Trails Vegetation • Solar Orientation * ■ NoiseNisual Impacts •* • Easements or other legal restrictions ■* *• Historical or Arch. Significant ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES Sanitary Sewer: * ** Storm Drain: •*s * Public Water: ** Proximity to Collector or Arterial St. * PROXIMITY TO: Public Transportation Lexpress MBTA *5* • *5* Shopping/Services Recreation Facilities Neighborhood Open Space PROXIMITY TO: Other Affordable Housing Multi-Family Housing Consistency with Other Town Objectives POTENTIAL SITE DEVELOP.COSTS Streets •*• ** Utilities ** ** Replacement of Rec. Facilities ••• AHOC Pepnr- 'n Tnwn Meeting - April 1990 Page 55 STEP FIVE ANALYSIS OF LOCATIONAL AND POLICY CRITERIA The next step is to evaluate the parcels that remain under consideration for their suitability for affordable housing on the basis of guidelines for the location of such housing and development standards. A principal resource for that evaluation is "Criteria for Selection of Sites for Affordable Housing" prepared by the Lexington Planning Board in 1987 and drawn, in part, from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Affordable Housing Options Committee or other Town officials may want to review those "Criteria.. " or develop additional criteria to be employed in the analysis. Table 6 also includes an evaluation of locational criteria and of policy criteria. These criteria include: proximity to public transportation, shopping services, recreational facilities and neighborhood open space, proximity to an arterial or collector street, and proximity to either other affordable housing or multi-family, higher density, housing which may be either all private or include affordable housing. At the conclusion of this step, some of the parcels will be eliminated from further consideration because physical features of the site, such as wetlands, would bring development into conflict with Town regulations or access requirements, or appear to have such costly site development requirements that the site is not economically feasible. STEP SIX ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES AND ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD As a result of the physical analysis in Step Four, and the locational and policy analysis in Step Five, additional parcels will be removed from consideration. Step Six will evaluate the suitability of the remaining parcels for development of affordable housing based on the potential impacts on Town services, such as water and sewer service, public transportation, and proximity to schools and recreation facilities for family-type housing. The analysis of potential impacts on public services and facilities and on abutting neighborhoods will utilize the data base of comparable affordable housing in Lexington and impact indices which the Planning Department has already prepared. Several of the indices for estimating impacts, particularly school age children, vary with the age and number of projected occupants. Thus it is necessary to make assumptions about the projected type of occupancy e.g. age, household size, and about the size of the housing units, e.g. floor area, number of bedrooms, and the density e.g. the number of dwelling units per acre. Estimates can be made of traffic "trip generation" and the impact on nearby streets and intersections. In addition to the availability of public services and facilities, the analysis will look at the potential impacts on those public services and facilities, and on the design relationship with nearby properties. That will be helpful in formulating guidelines for the type and location of housing, the density of development, and landscaping and screening. AHnr Deport to Town Meet ng - April 19?0 Page 56 STEP SEVEN DETAILED TITLE EXAMINATION Town Counsel has cautioned that identification of the public purpose of acquisition is only one indicator of whether a parcel is restricted and that a detailed examination of all the documents related to the Town's original acquisition,or any change in jurisdiction, from one board or committee to another, needs to be researched. It is advisable, due to the expense, to defer that detailed research to this stage after the parcels have been subjected to tests dealing with physical, locational and policy criteria. STEP EIGHT SUGGEST DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA FOR INDIVIDUAL SITES The parcels that survive the various steps outlined above are those which will be in the "Promising" and"Possible" groups described earlier. The Planning Department will prepare a site specific analysis which will focus on the particular problems and opportunities of a site including: a. an evaluation of the best areas of the site for development, b. a recommendation as to the type, size and number of dwellings, the location and scale of buildings, appropriate densities, c. screening and transition areas, and landscaping standards, d. joint development of other public uses, such as recreation facilities, e. access and pedestrian circulations systems, f. formulating more detailed design guidelines for the site indicating how development of affordable housing can be compatible with the abutting neighborhood. It will also identify the next steps toward development of each site for affordable housing if it is in the "Promising" category. Those steps might include: a wetlands determination, engineering studies, legal steps relative to restrictions, building design studies, consultation with the Town boards or committees directly involved in the site, and the like. ••••••****mms•.sta t...•stat smuss is....; At the conclusion of Steps Four to Six, there will be a detailed site analysis available to be reviewed by the Affordable Housing Options Committee, the Planning Board and whatever other boards and committees may be involved. There are a number of policy questions which Town officials should address before selecting sites from among this inventory for the more detailed legal research (Step Seven) and design and development studies (Step Eight) and the subsequent steps after Step Eight. For instance, it is assumed that the Town will choose to develop affordable housing on some, but not all, of the 12 sites for which the analysis is being conducted. Some of those 12 sites may be removed from consideration due to the limiting factors identified in Steps Four through Six and a few of the 25 parcels in the Problematic or Unlikely-Uncertain group may be selected from more detailed study. The determination of which of the 12 AHOC Peport to T^wn Meeting - April 1990 Page 5- sites should be carried to further study needs to be made in the context of other factors, e.g. the target number of affordable housing units to be built, or the mix of privately and publicly sponsored housing, that make up a plan for affordable housing. While the Planning Department could make a recommendation•for the grouping of sites into the "promising, possible, and problematic"categories, it would be better if those determinations were made by one or more citizen committees or boards. At the conclusion of Steps Four to Six, the study becomes less an inventory of Town owned sites and more a poli y.n•Id tg i.e. a planning, process. Decisions on which sites to examine in greater detail, for what types of housing, at what densities, etc. have important policy overtones in which citizen committees and boards should be involved. Ironically, as the study progresses into the later steps, it also becomes more technical as more specific design parameters, with economic implications, are formed. In conclusion, it should be stressed that completion of the Planning Department's analysis does not earmark a site for affordable housing. The Planning Department study does not replace the political decision-making process; it seeks to make it more informed. It provides information on which boards and committees can make decisions for further investigation and/or commitment. The preceding have been the steps in a preliminary evaluation based largely on staff review. If Town boards or committees decide to pursue the construction of affordable housing on one or more of the sites evaluated, more detailed and technical studies of those sites, as outlined above, will be needed. 3. LAND OWNED BY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AND TAX EXEMPT NON-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS PRIVATELY OWNED LAND After the analysis of the Town owned land, and if Town officials want to have the Planning Department devote the time and resources to it, a similar analysis can be conducted of land owned by other governmental agencies and tax exempt non-profit institutions and privately owned land. The methodology is similar to that for the Town owned land. The major difference, of course, is that the Town of Lexington does not control the use of that land and would need to persuade the owner, whether public agency, institution or private owner to use their land resource for affordable housing. The Planning Department recommends that work on land owned by others not be initiated until the Town has made decisions on the policy choices inherent in the study of its own land. e