HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-HMP-rpt.pdf i .
I �
;
i
�
1
I
HOUSING MASTER PLAN COMMITTEE
i
�
� AlberY P, Zahin, Chairman, Planning Board
� Alfred S. Busa, Board of Selectmen
Robert M, Hutchinson, Town I�Yanager
Laura F. Nichols, Planning Board
�
) taoodruff M. Brodhead, Board of Appeals
� Mary E, Shunneyg Lexington Housing Authority
�
�i Eric T. Clarke, Board of Appeals
�
j Daivd Reiner, Town Meeting Members Association
jKenn���h G. Briggs, Planning Director
iJose� �e Carter, League of Women Voter�
I William J. Sen, Council on Aging
j
� .Toan Zo Clark, League of Women Voters
� Setha Olson, League of Woman Voters
� Norma Bogen, Metropolitan Area Flanning Council
� Manuel Trillo, 8 Judges Road
�
�
� Frank B. Stowell, 498 Waltham Strset
i
iAfleline Fournier; 21 Moreland Avenue
I
' Alan Bedford, 11 Harrington Road
I
�
� rlizabeth G. Flemings, 23 Cedar SL--ree[
�
iDavid Smith, 6 Locust Avenus
� kober.�t: Pressman, 22 Locust Avanue
�
l
,
�
;
;
I
I
�
�
i
i
� « -
INTRODUCTION
Neither the presence of a houeing problem in Lexington, nor the
fect that cox►eidarabla commant hae been made about the problem
while very litCle has been accompliehed, make Lexington unique.
The lack of accompllehment ie a national syndrome at both the
Feder.al and local laveis. What wi11 maka Lexington unique is
proper identification of ite hoaeing needs, and the sdoption and
implemantation of a plan to provide adequate housing to meet
� theee neede.
� The deve�opment of public houeing ie a complex and coatroversial
procese.:Manypeople and agencies wiCh a variety of cnncarns and
� re quiremente must work together to achieve the best poseible
houeing plan. The succeea of any plan lies in the abilieq to
� implement it. Thie impliea that the plan must adequately addrese
the houeing needs of the community, and at the eama time be een-
aitive to the non-houeing concerne of the communiry. The iseues
1 that mueC be addraeeed are: Che demands for houeing of sll types
both on the local and regional levele, the State and Federal
requiramente for public houeing, cominunity impact, environmental
impact, tha eocial and phyeical neede of thoee occupying public
I houeing, and the conetruction and design techniques used in the
devalopmant of houaing.
The Lexington Planning Board hae long been concerned with the need
for the developmant of houeing which meets the needs of al,l people,
� at all income levels. Thie concern wae echoed in Lexington'e
1 Growth Policy Statement. "Clearly, thie (high cost of housing)
� predicatee a town in which only the affluanr can afford tn live,
a growth expactation in con£lict with the expressefl values of
many of tha committe�. Many £elt that it iA neither hea�thy for
tha Tnwn nox acceptable to permlt ennh homogeneous development,
Chue closing out the younq - including oux oam children should they
a+ant to etey, the elderly, - many o£ whom have lived here a11
their livea, and Tovm employeee who mueC not become al3enated
etrangere to the reet of the Town. Thus, one of the ob�ecCives of
a gxowth policy would be to find ways to encourage a more hetero-
geneoue mix in the Toe,m populaCion. . . .°
In the Spring of 197ti, the Lexington Housing Auehoritq rec�uested
the Planning Soard to,.develop a houAing plan for 1ow and modenate
income houein�.
1
i .
.
The secommendations in thia report are the culmination of an
extended study process begun last summer. In June of 1978, the
Planning Board appointed a committee to examine the housing needs
in Lexin�ton and make recommendations to be used in the develop-
ment of a Housing Master Plan for Lexington. The Committee con-
sisted of representatives of the Planning Board, the Board of
Selectmen, the Town Manager's Office, the Lexington Housing
Author:ity, the Board of Appeals, the League of Women Voters,
and the Town Meeting Members Association. In addition, citizens
with an interest in housing responded to the Planning Board's
publicized call for volunteers and served on the committee.
Members of the committee brought different perspectives arid all
contributed to its work and its report.
The commi�tee was divided into three subcommittees:
L Needs and Frograms Subcommittee
2. Resources Subcommittee
3. Laws and Procedures Subcommittee
The Needs and Programs Subcoa¢nittee was given the task of determining
xhe`1oca1 housing needs and determining Lexington's responsibility
in meeting ,the regional housing need. The committee was also res-
ponsible for evaluating the various State and Federal housing
programs and reconm�ending whlch of these programs are most applicable
in meeting Lexington's housing needs.
The Resources Subcommittee was responsible for making an inventory
of :a11 sites Chat could be used for public housing. The subcommittee
also developed criteria for evaluating these sites.
'The Laws and Procedures Subcommittee focused on two major issues.
The first was the procedures under which subsidized housing is
approved. The second issue was the zoning by-law governing congre-
gate housing and accessory apartments.
�
�
a
� 2
<
,
NEEDS & PR � GRAMS
The following discussion provides some insight into the nature
and extent of the housing, problem in Lexington..
The Needs and Programs Subcommittee's initial task was to iden-
tify the general categories in which housing needs exist.
, 1. Subsidized family housing
; 2. Housing for the elderly
� 3. Housing for single persons
4. Housing for the handicapped
5. Housing for �he mentally ill
�
� The comm3ttee determined that it was impossible to deal with all
aspects of the housing problem given its limited time and resources.
It was decided to concentrate.efforts of the coimnittee on the issues
1 of subsid�.zed family and elderly housing, IC was the feeling of
the committee that these were the types of housing of which there
� was probably the greatest need. Also, Lexington has an obligation
under State and Federal law to meet specified quotas for housing
� in these two categories. The committee recommends that other areas
' of housing needs identified be addressed, and that the Planning
� Board plan for ways that will sati$fy the need of all who live in
Lexington.
,
I
iIn an effort to give some dimension to the need for housing in
1 Lexington, the Needs and Programs Subcommittee and the planning
1 staff developed data which will sharpen the overall perspective
j as to the need for housing in Lexington.
I
i
y The Committee established the following criteria to determine
i Lexington's housing needs:
� 1, Town objectives
� 2. State and Federal requirements
I 3. Local needs
i
4. Regional needs
E
i TOWN One objective of Lexington as defined by the Growth Policy Committee
OBJECTIVES is "to preserve the character of the Town". This objective clearly
� places limitations on the tyue and scale of housing developments
� envisioned by the Growth Policy Committee as being in the best
interest of the Town. Any large housing "project" would clearly
not be in keeping with the predominantly single-fam3ly and small
multi-family development found in Lexington. On the other hand,
� such programs as scattered site housing, which sponsors single-
family homes on individual lots, and small multi-family housing
1 3
l
,
,
(
developments such as Ruaeell $quare, East Village and Pine Grove
Village are consiatent with the existing character of the Town.
Larger developments such as Drummer Boy and Fiske Common are also
acceptable if they are well designed and constructed.
A second ob�ect3ve was expressed by the Growth Policy Committee that
the Town "find ways ,to encourage a more heterogeneous mix of the
Tpwn population. ..". Since the availability of housing within the
price range of a variety of people is a key factor in determining
the makeup of the community, it is incumbent on the Town to encourage
an atmosphere in which a range of housing can be developed.
STATE AN D Both State and Federal law mandates suburban communities to make
FEDERAL significant contxibution tq meeting the national need for moderate
RE�UIRE M ENTS and low cost family houaing. In the development of a housing plan
it is naive and short-sighted for the Town to ignore State and
Federal requirements. Failure to work toward meeting housing require-
ments established by State and Federal agencies can lead to loss of
funding by the Federal government for other Town needs, unrelated to
houaing, since the Federal government has begun a policy of inducinp,
communities to meet Federal housing standards by the use of the
stick as well as the carrot..
For example, B3rmingham, Miehigan has lost $98,000 in Federal grants
and stande to lose an additional $900,000. The loss of these funds
resulted from £silure to comply with State (and Federal) requirements
for the development of low and moderate income housing. These monies
� were alated for capital improvements, sewer construction and mainten-
anGe. Mr. Schwartz, Operations Coordinator for Birmingham, equivalent
to the Planning Director here, stated that the Federal government
(H.U.D.) is playing "hard ball" and that if Birmingham fails to meet
H.U,D's minimum guidelines for housing, the result could be the lass
of mi],lions of dollars over the next few years. Birmingham is not
alone in this situation. Livonia, Michi:gan has lost $500,000 to date
and expects to lose more, because it has made no efforts to meet
� Federal housing requirements.
iAs housing needa increase, 3t ie to be expected that the State and
Federal government will put similar pressure on more communities to
meet housing requirements.
How could this affect Lexington? Lexington receives Federal and
State mon�es for sewer and road maintenance and construction and
conservation reimbursementa. It Ys conceivable that these monies
could be affected along with any other federally funded programs.
Other hpuaing programs could also be affected, such as housing for
the elderly. In a publication from D.C.A., Development of Housing
for Older People, it states "Since it is important that all portions
of the population have their housing needs addressed, D.C.A. will
weigh the request for elderly housiag against the entire family
housing picture in a given community. Evidence that low income
famil3es' housing needa are being addressed as well will demonstrate
4
,
.
to D.C.A, that a comprehensive plan for housing has been developed."
Metropolitan Area Planning Council has advised the Planning Board
that one of the reasone that Lexington's request for funding for
60 units of elderly housing at Countryside, the rezoning for which
was approved by the 1977 Town Meeting, was rejected because the Town
has not made serious efforts to meet the need for family housing.
The guidelines that Lexington should consider in the development of
a housing program are those established by the State Legislature
under Chapter 774 of the Acts of 1969 and by D.C.A. in its publi-
cation - Low and Moderate Income Housing Needs in the Boston Region.
These are the guidelines that H.U.D. will use when that agency evalu-
ates LexingGon's compliance with Federal, local and regional housing
requirements,
REQION AL The Plannning Board in 1970 stated in its Subsidized Housing Program
HOUSING NEEDS for Lexington, Mass. "That . . . it is obvious that Lexington is
also a part of the Metropolitan Housing Market and must do its share
in meeting the Metropolitan houaing needs, including the needs for
multi-family and low and moderate income housing." This position
� was reaffirmed in the 1976 Growth Policy Statement: "Lexington has
a responsibility to the region to provide a mix of adequate housing
for a variety of income levels:"
Based on the Department of Community Affairs' figures, the need for
housing assistance in the metropolitan region for 1970 was esti-
mated at over 261,000 households. This figure represents approxi-
mately 27% of all households in the region as needing some form of
ass3stance, i.e.
. they are paying over 25% of their income for housing
. they are living in substandard housing
. they are .living in overcrowded conditions
"Projections by the Office of State Planning indicate that the number
3 of household� in the state will grow more rapidly than the population
� as household size decreases. A growing numher of smaller households
� comprised of single persons, widowed or divorced persons and the
elderly will increase the demand for housing substantially. In
addition, a major increase in the 25-35 age group, which is typically
� associated with family formation and children, will mean a growing
need for family housing," *
What is Lexington's fair share? The State Legislature under
Chapter 774 of the Acts of 1969 established guidelines for each
community so it could determine at what point it has met its obli-
gations in providing low and moderate income housing. These guide-
lines specify that this need will be met when 1) 10% of the total
number of dwelling units, or, 2) 1.5% of the total non-publicly
owned land in the Town is devoted to low or moderate income housing.
In Lexington, these guidelines will be satisfied when 889 low or
moderate income dwelling units are conatructed or 109 acres of non-
publicly owned land in the Town is allocated to low and moderate
� * Housing Massachusetts Summary Report, April 1978 P. 4
5
� 4
t
�
income housing. At the present time only 150, or 1.70% of all
dwelling units in Lexington, are clasaified as low and moderate income
y houaing and theae occupy 15 acrea or 0.21� of the non-publicly
� owned land. It ie obvious that Lexington has fallen far ahort
of ineeting the guidelines mandated by the State Legislature.
* The legislative reports which prompted Chapter 774`a passage
demonetrated how local reatrictive zoning regulations have set
up in fact if not intentionally, a barrier againet the introduc-
tion of low and moderate income houaing in the suburba. Moreover,
this barrier exista at a time when our houeing .needs for the low
and moderate income groups cannot be met by the "inner cities."
Thie houaing crieis demanda a legielative and judicial approach
that requirea "the etrictly local int�reat of the town" to yield
to the regional need for the construction of low and moderate
income houaing. Chapter 774 repreaents the Legislature's uae
of ita own zoning powers to reapond to this problem.
� D.C.A, and M.A.P,C. hav� also developed guidelinea allocating each
community ita fair ahare of housing based on the regional need.
The numbera of additional houein� for Lexington are:
Elderly Non Non Elderly Non-elderly
j Total Elderly New Elderly Elderly Monetary Monetary
� Need Rehab. Conatr. Rehab. New Constr. Suppl. Suppl.
� 1,352 32 76 96 129 504 515
; At firat glance, 1,352 unite seems high, but on cloaer examination,
� 1,019 of thie total figure ie allocated for rental eubaidies to
' families who pay more than 25% of their income for houeing.
Thie subaidy could apply to familles that are now living in
Lexington and are paying in excesa of 25% of their yearly income.
, Thus, the State agencies with the responsibility of carrying out
' the mandate of the Commonwealth have determined that Lexington's
fair share for new construction or rehabilitation of existing
3 unita for varioua typea of housing sesi.etance amounts to the following:
�
108 units of elderly housing
225 units of low and moderate income family housing
These numbers of housinp, unite are not exceaeive and fall far short
of what the law under Ch. 774 prescribes as Lexington's responai-
bility. Lexington has reduced these numbera by 47 unite of family
housing and 60 of elderly houaing.
P1ne Grove Village (St. Brigid's) 16 unite
Interfaith 6 units
Scattered Site Housing 25 unita
! �
� sub-total 47
+l Town approval o£ 60 units of elderly houaing
jat Countryside.
* Comments of the Supreme Judicial Court regarding Ch. 774
� 6
.
This, in effect, would bring Lexington's total allocations to
178 units of low and moderate income housing and 48 units of
elderly housing.
The Federal government and M.A.P.C. and D.C.A. expect Town accept-
ance and commitment to these guidelines. 1) a housing plan which
recognizes the need for the entire population to have their housing
needs addressed and, 2) a commitment on the part of the Town to
work toward meetinQ this need.
The M.A.P.C. planning staff has suggested a goal of 35 units per
year for family housing and 25 units of elderly housing. At the
present time, there are few subsidized units available to lower
income families in Lexington. There are currently 22 units of
family housing: 16 at Pine Grove Village, and 6 at Interfaith.
The 16 units at Pine Grove Village are owner occupied, and only
one vacancy has occurred. The six homes at Interfaith are rental
units. Applications are not being encouraged at this time because
only two vacancies have occurred in the first three years of
operation.
One of the arguments against the development of subsidized family
housing that has been raised in the past is that it fails to meet
the local housing needs. According to the planning staff of M.A.P.C.
this is not true. An analysis of family housing developments around
the Metropolitan area reveals that a majority of the families living
in the varuous developments are either from that community or have
some connection with i.e., family or friends that live in the community.
This also applies in Lexington. Looking at the profile of those
living in Pine Grove Village:
8 - from Lexington
4 - had some connection to Lexington
4 - had no ties to Lexington
LOCAL NEEDS In order to assess local needs, the committee and the Planning staff
found it necessary to analyze the following factors in order to
determine the extent of purely local needs:
Lexington housing market
Income levels
Population strata
A review of all housing sales in Lexington for the year 1977 shows
that the median sales price for a single-family house was $62,000
and that the average price for new construction was $71,000. The
median sales price of hor.ies in Lexington nearly doubled between 1970
and 1976, from $32,000 in 1970, to $59,000 in 1976. As illustrated
on the accompanying chart, housing in the lower price ranges, $30,000
to $40,000, represents only a tiny, (almost meaningless) fraction of
the total housing inventory. Realistically, on must expect to pay
from the mid-fifties and up for a single family home.
iThen one examines the available apartment market, the picture is
equally bleak. The turnover rate for apartments in Town has been
7
� � MR1B8B OP tl�5 SOLD _ 1977 � '
� � Y ' Y V Y J � N.
Y N W P N P V fY V O 1'^ N W P N P m � O Y N V .
S�� e . . e s . . e e • . . • • • • e . a • e .
� PRICE � . � � � �
3D,000
40.000
� 50.000 ' � .
60,000
��
pp � Medien Price — 562.000 ,
70,000
�..� 9. v.�..e ,.e ww x�..,.. — $71.000 , . �
�
80,000
90,OOo
100,000
. 110.00U � "— -
iso,000 Source: Lexington Assessors Office
so low that none of the apartment complexes is currently accepting
rental applications. Emerson Gardens, the least expensive of the
Town's apartment complexes, has a waiting period of from two to
three years. As a result, inadequate supply and excessive demand
has inflated the rentals of these units.
INCOM E A review of rental units in the surrounding communities reveals
that comparable units are renting for up to 30% less. The follow-
ing is a breakdown of rental prices for the various non-subsidized
units in Lexineton.
Emerson Gardens Battle Green
1 bedroom $280 1 Bedroom $325 - 330
2 Uedrooms 315 2 bedrooms 415 - 425
3 bedrooms --- 3 bedrooms ---
. Captain Parker Arms Minuteman Village
1 bedroom $341 1 bedroom ---
2 bedrooms 403 - 413 2 bedrooms $425 - 460
Housing and rental costs only become relevant when compared against
the ability of people to buy or rent. Therefore, the professional
staff computed the minimum income level needed xo permit a peYs�n
to buy or rent a home in Lexington, to determine the income level
below which people are economically excluded from Lexington. The
basis on which this computation was made is as follows:
1. 9% interest on mortgage (25 year loan)
2. 20% down payment
3. $30 @ 100Y> evaluation (tax rate)
* 4. Maximum of 25% of gross income
Based on this criteria, a family would have to earn at least the
following income to purchase a home at the following prices:
$16,000 per year $30,000 home
$17,000 per year $40,000 home
$21,000 per year $50,000 home
$26,000 per year $60,000 home
When comparing the income required for buying a home against existing
housing stock, it becomes apparent that a family would have to have
an income in excess of $20,000 per year to have a reasonable chanp;e
of finding a home in Lexington.
Assuming that a person should not pay in excess of 25% of his yearly
income for housing, the following incomes would be required to rent
an apartment in Lexington.
Average Rent/Month Income
1 bedroom $318 $15,264
2 bedrooms 403 19,344
3 bedrooms 517 24,816
* When one exceeds 25% of his gross income for housing, at the lower
end of the income scale, most financial institutions consider it
to be economically unfeasible.
9
AWSING fq3T3 - 1977
. PAMILY . � .
. . IXCOMe 30.000 I0,000 50�000 6 ,D00 - 70,000 �
. S17,000 � . ---+— .
e
� 14.000 � � . � �O
h
. . 15��� . . � .- � . .
O
16.000 .� i° .
p ¢
17�000 � � � O 1
u
� 18•� �_� �� ¢ .
19.000
C_'_'7 O � <
. . � . ]O.U00 � �
. � � 71.000 � r—� �
37.000 �� C� C.�- .
2)�000 � � �
t4.000 C� �_� ��
. MEAN FAMILY I CAME 24 000
. � ��25�000 r. .� O ��
. 36.000 � O � .
� 27'� � �� I�.J ' .
. � 38.000 . L.�J � � .
� t9.000 ��. �—.J � ' .
]D.000 � � � .
� 1�
Source: Lexington Planning Office
In summary, these figures indicate that any family making less than
$16,000 per year without a substantially greater down payment than
20% could not afford to buy into Lexington. A family making less
than $15,000 per year could not afford to rent in Lexington. Aowever,
because there are so few houses available for $50,000 or less, the
chance of buying a home in this price range is remote. One must
conclude from this that to buy into Lexington one must have an income
in excess of $20,000 per year.
PO PU LATION � income analysis of Lexington, the region, and the U.S, are
shown below:
Median Family Income
1949 1959 1969 1976
� Lexington $3,598 $9,043 $17,558 $24,000
Boston SMSA* 3,516 6,687 11,449 17,950
Massachusetts 3,444 6,272 10,835 15,531
U.S. 3,073 5,657 9,590 14,958
Based on housing costs, these figures indicate that the average
family in Massachusetts and in the United States as a whole would
find it difficult, if not impossible, to buy a home in Lexington.
The average family living in the Boston SMSA could probably not buy
in Lexington because of the relative unavailability of housing at
iprices compatible with that income bracket.
The average Town employee salary is approximately $13,000 per year.
This obviously excludes the majority of Town employees from living in
Lexington, even in a one-bedroom apartment were any available.
It is apparent that $24,000 a year median income for Lexington falls
into the range which allows a family to buy into Lexington. It,
however, is disturbing to note that 42% of families living in
Lexington have an income below $16,000 per year. One cannot draw
hard and fast conclusions from this but it certainly implies that
some of these families could not afford, at this time, to purchase
a home in Lexington based on current housing costs. This material
indicates that only the families that have a reasonably high level
of material success can afford to live in Lexington. This situation
is in direct conflict with objectives of providing housing for a
variety of income levels.
There is a side effect that usually occurs when the median income
of a community increases. The result is that the average age of the
community goes up. An analysis of Lexington's population shows that
there has been a significant shift upwards in the population strata
from 1965 on. From 1940 through the early 60s there was a fairly
even distribution of people within all age g,roups, with the largest
' age group being 35 - 39. By 1965, there was a noticeable erosion in
all age groups from 20 - 39. The 1975 figures show that the age
* Boston Metropolitan Statistical Area.
11
�S O . O S • • • . • • . I+ V 1+ Y Y Y M J M M N q g
� Wp P N P V bl 1p 8 Y W pp .Mp P Wp . b O � O �
'yq O G O S O S O O O O S O p O O O O S q '
n^ . sn
. . �. . .undec 2.000 79. . � .
•2.000 - 2.999 67 ' . � � .
' ],000 - 6.999 � 120 �
5.000.- 6.999 229 � ..
F' �
N �.
N
.7.000 - 7,999 136 � �a �
�
y
'B4O00 - 9.999 325 ' �9,000 lw ineeme . �
Q0,000 - 11.999 788 -
'12.000 - 14.999 767 34,000 mder.te '
� •15,000 - 19,999 � 1�820
•20.000 - t6,999 1.451 medinn fumily inem¢ � . '
20,000
. .45,000- 69,999 .207 .
� ,50,000 6 evm � �95 � �
Population Strata fo= Selected Years
1940
� � SEX RATIO � AGE
. SBb 75andOVER
MALE FEMALE
n.> >oaa
� 76S � AS-69 .
' E8.7 � 60-64 .
� � � BBA � 55-59
aa.s so-sa
. . . 85.4 � - 45-d9 . . � .
� -95.0 . 40-44 -. ' . .
_ . . � . 95.3 35'39 �
. . �99.2 30-34
� 92.4 25'29 .
� � 112.4 YO-24 .
� � . 99.8 - 15-19 � :
. � � � 102.6 10-14 .
� � 90.7 5-q . �
- »�B � UNDER
� � 7 6 5. 4 3 2 1 0 � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 �
PERCENT
. , 7 A!7O . SEX RATIO AGE � - . .
17�/
� - � 47.2 85ondOVER
452 80-84
� 53.0 75J9 �
MALE �p �0_74 FEMALE
73.8 65-69 �
� 92.4 60-64 �
. 91.9 55-59 � �
� 104.7 50-54 �
947 . 45-49 �
� � 9Z2 . 40'4d
� � 87.8 3i-39 � .
' � � 82.4 30-34 �
80d .. 25-29 � �
� 99.8 � 20-24
105.6 15-19
� Iil.l . � - 10-I4 .
108.0 5-9
� . - 1024 � UNDER 5
. 7 6 . 5 � 4 3 2 1 0 I 2 3 4 S 6 7
PERCENT
13
Source: Lexington Planning Office
group 45 - 49 now represents the largest segm�nt of the population,
and the 35 - 39 group has fallen to the fourth group behind the
50 - 55 group. Population projections show that the upward trend
in age will continue well into the 80s.
The obvious conclusion is that the character of the Town is changing
from a community with a fairly good balanee of young and mature
families to one of predominantly mature families, and that the
unavailability of moderately priced housing makes it difficult if
not impossible to achieve the first goal of the Growth Policy
Committee - to preserve the character of the Town,
This trend is interesting in that the United States census shows that
the biggest bulge in the nation's population makeup is 20 to 30 years
of age. The increase in this age group is the xesult of the record
number of births during the 1947 - 57 baby boom.
The difference between Lexington and the United States population
trends is due to the fact that the majority of younger people
haven't yet attained the measure of success that is necessary to
afford to live in Lexington.
One can only conclude that the local need for less expensive hous-
ing can best be defined in terms of those who are being excluded.
1. Average families that have an income below $16,000 per year.
2. People who cannot afford to buy a house but would like to
rent.
3. People who can afford to buy a house but would like to rent.
4. Most younger families who have not reached the upper middle
income bracket.
5. Most Town employees
6. Many of the elderly and disabled on fixed incomes.
In order to quantify the need for housing in Lexington, the Needs
and Programs Subcommittee developed a mini-questionnaire. The
questionnaire, inspired by Mrs. Mary Shunney, Chairman of the
Lexington Housing Authority, and its representative on the Housing
• Committee, was published in the Lexington Minute-Man newspaper.
Because of the small sample returned (50), and the methodology used,
the conclusions which were derived from it must be tentative. It does,
however, give a strong indication that many Lexington residents are
concerned about the need for housing as it applies directly to them,
and provides some empirical corraboration for the statistical analysis
presented above.
The questions are listed below with a compilation of the responses.
Yes No
1. Do you feel there is an adequate 15% 85%
price range of housing units
available in Lexington?
The majority feels that more housing is needed in the $30,000 to
$60,000 price range.
14
,
Y�s r�o
2. Do you feel some multi-family 78% 22%
housing is an acceptable alter-
native to single-family housing
in Lexington?
3. Do you foresee a time when you
may be financially unable to
retain your present home in
Lexington because of:
Retirement 16 24
Decrease in income 14 19
Decrease in family 12 12
4. If you have young adults in your 2% 37%
family, are they able to find
housing in Lexington within (no answer - 61%)
their price range?
Most people felt that housing was needed in the $30 - 50,000 range.
5. If you qualify, would you con- 41% 33%
sider applying for some form of
low cost housing if it were (no answer - 26%)
available in Lexington?
I 6. Do you know anyone now living in
Lexington who needs low cost housing? 57% 37%
(no answer - 26%)
�
7. Do you feel there is a need for 85% 9%
additional housing for elderly? (no answer - 6%)
8. Do you feel there is a need for 76% 24%
the concept of low-cost single-
family homes scattered through-
out the town (scattered site
housing program)?
9. Do you see detrimental effects 24% 74%
to the Town of Lexington caused
by the existing low-cost housing (no answer - 2%)
developments here (Interfaith &
St. Brigid's)?
10. Would you favor modification 65% 33%
of town by-laws which would
encourage private development (no answer - 2%)
to build more moderately-priced
housing units?
11. Would you object to low-cost 26% 70%
assisted housing in Lexington (no answer - 4%)
if the town retained control?
15
The following are summary conclusions indicated by the results
of the questionnaire
1. There is a need real and perceived, for a wider range of
housing with particular emphasis on the development of housing
in the $30 - $50,000 range.
2. Multi-family represents an acceptable alternative to the more
expensive single-family home.
3. Many people foresee a time when they may require some form of
housing assistance.
4. Many young people find it difficult to find suitable housing
in Lexington.
5. While the majority of people would consider living in some form
of subsidized housing, there are many people who are reluctant to
live in this type of housing.
6. There is a general awareness of the need for housing assistance
on the part of most people.
7. The concept of having subsidized single-family homes integrated
into existing neighborhoods on a random basis is an acceptable form
of public housing.
8. Elderly housing is generally the most acceptable type of public
housing.
9. Within Lexington there is no general feeling that the existing
low-cost housing developments have had a detrimental effect on the
Town. This would probably be true of other new developments if
� they were well designed and consistent with the scale of other multi-
unit developments in Town.
10. The Town should encourage development within the private sector.
11. Most people would feel more comfortable with public housing if
the community retained some form of control or influence.
In summary, most people recognize the need for some form of housing
assistance, both for themselves and others. They also realize that
this may require the Town to modify its rules and regulations in
order to accommodate the development of such housing. To ignore the
existence of such a need is to ignore a segment of Lexington's
population.
STATE AN D The following list provides a description of Federal and State
FEDERAL housing programs which the Needs and Programs Subcommittee considers
H OU SIM G applicable for Lexington. These programs were selected from a lengthy
PRO G RA M S list of programs, many of which are not applicable to local conditions.
16
State Programs
Chapter 667 - Elderly Housing Program
Under this program, grants are provided to the. local housing
authority for construction and operating subsidies of housing
developments for the elderly. All developmental costs are
financed through State bond issues. Major rehabilitation of
an existing Uuilding would be eligible for Chapter 667 funds.
Rent for a unit cannot exceed 25% of the tenant's income. To
be eligible, a person may not have an income greater than $6,000
a year ($6,300/year for a couple) with total assets not to exceed
$10,000. The two elderly developments, Vinebrook and Greeley,
were built with Chapter 667 funds and contain 148 units.
Chapter 705 - Family Housing Program
Similar to Chapter 667, this program provides grants to the local
housing authority for construction or major renovation of public
housing for families.
Funding for construction of the 25 scattered site single family
units will come from Chpater 705 funding. In addition, one house,
originally owned by the Park Service, was purchased and renovated
by the Lexington Housing Authority using this program.
Chapter 707 - Rental Assistance
This program provides rental assistance to persons eligible for
public housing but living in private housing. The State Department
of Community Affairs (DCA) pays the difference between the rent
charged and the 25� of income which the tenant pays. There is a
ceiling on allowable rents which makes this program of limited use
with Lexington's high rents.
Chapter 707 provides rental assistance for 16 units, five of which
are occupied by elderly families.
Chapter 708 - MHFA Mortgage Loans
The Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) provides interest
subsidies for housing loans to developments that promote a mix of
economic groups either within the development itself or within a
neighborhood.
The two-family developments - Interfaith with six units, and Pine
Grove Village with 16 units - were built with subsidized loans from
MHFA. Pine Grove Village is a cooperative; owners make a down pay-
ment and monthly mortgage payments thereby building up equity.
Federal Programs
Title II - Public Housing
Under this program, funding is provided to the local housing authority
for construction of public housinq developments. Funding from
this program could be used for major renovation or rehabilitation
17
of an exiating building. The development is owned and operated
by the local houaing authority.
Section 202 - Housing for the Elderly or Handicapped
Low-intereat long-term loans are provided to private, non-profit
groups for the construction of housing for the elderly. Income
limits for eligibility of tenants are similar to the State require-
ments.
Section 8 - Low-income Rental Asaiatance and New Construction/
Substantial Rehabilitation
The rental asaistance program opexates in a manner similar to the
State Chapter 707 program.
Rental assiatance is presently given to 33 families including
seven elderly.
Under the Section 8 construction program, private developers or
the local houaing authority apply Lo HUD for subsidies for construc-
tion of low-income housing developments.
Section 235 - Interest Subeidy for Home Acquisition and Rehabilitation
The program is designed to help low- and moderate-income families
purchase homea by subsidizing the intereat on mortgages and thereby
decreasing monthly payments. A 3% down payment is required with the
maximum mortgage in the $35,000 to $40,000 range depending on the
size of the family.
;� Community Development Slock Grants
The program is designed to help towns and cities provide adequate
housing for lower income persons. Citiea and towns with populations
greater than 50,000 are entitled to funding. Smaller communities
compete for the remaining "discretionary" funds. Community Develop-
ment Block Grants (CDBG) could be used to purchase land for public
housing but not for construction. Eunds could be used to set up a
housing rehab program which would provide loans or grants to home-
owners who needed to repair their homes. Ellgibility would be limited
to low-and moderate-income. homeowners.
* Communities considering applyinp for State housing funds are required
to use the following criteria when determining the appropriate type
of housing program:
- First, the community would try to use rental assistance in
existing standard units;
- Then, the community would try to uae rental assistance with
major rehabilitation (i.e., structural renovations, replace-
ment of all syatems) ;
* Taken from State Housing Resource Allocation Plan: Low and
Moderate Income Housing Programs 24 CFR 600.70 (B) (1)
18
i
Ie
1
- Then, the community would try to use acquisition;
- Then, the community would try to use acquisition with
moderate rehabilitation;
- Then, the community would try to use acquisition with
ma�or rehabilitation;
- Then, if all other approaches are not feasible, the
� community would use new construction.
� RECOM MENDATIONS The Needs and Programs Subcommittee made the following recommendations:
i
I
� 1. Bearing in mind that the Town of Lexington has an obligation to
address all housing needs, the committee recommends that priority
be given to low and moderate income family housing, the largest
; area of unmeE need, followed by the needs of the elderly and
3
� single persons.
2. Developers and non-profit corporations should be encouraged to
j add to housing stock through subsidy and necessary zoning changes.
� 3. The Town should encourage and cooperate with regional social
� service agenciea, such as Mystic Valley Mental Health Association
i and similar groups, in the development of half-way houses, and
� group care programs.
�
1 4. A variety of housing options should be explored for the develop-
� ment of low and moderate income housing, i.e. co-operatives, con-
gregate houeing, accessory apartments, and the re-use of older
� buildings, etc.
a
� 5. M.A.P.C. estimates of housing needs seem realistic and attainable
when spread out over a period of years. In order to meet this need,
the Town should provide not less than 25 newly constructed or rehabil-
itated family units and 10 new elderly units per year for the next
� 10 years.
�
t
�
�
i
�
j . . . . � � . � �
�
!
�
�
{ 19
�
RESOURCES
One of the :most difficult and sensitive issues in the development
of subsidized housing is the site selection.
The Resource Subcommittee was acutely aware of the problem it faced.
In order to create an objective selection process which would en-
courage low and moderate in.come housing, the subcommittee under-
took the following tasks:
1. The development of rational criteria for evaluating and
judging the suitability of sites for subsidized housing.
2. An inventory of all available land in Lexington which has
the potential for use as public housing.
3. An evaluation of existing sites against stated criteria.
4. Recommendation of sites for development of public housing.
GUIDELIN ES FOR Before establishing eriteria for the evaluation of specific sites,
DEVELOPMENT the committee felt that it was essential to develop some broad
guidelines that would make the housing plan compatible with the
overall perspective of the Town, Housing is intimately involved
with the way in which Lexington wishes to express its lifestyle
in terms of social impact, environmental impact, aesthetic values,
historic preservation, and the physical amenities associated with
housing. Thus housing programs influence, and are influenced by,
many of the diverse needs of the community.
The following guidelines reflect the needs of both the housing
program and the desires of the community:
1. Number of units per site.
Small developments of approximately 20 - 25 units were
thought to be most desirable and compatible with the
character of the Town. However, as "Drummer Boy" and
"Fiske Common" show, a well designed development may
be considerably larger and still be acceptable to a
vast majority of Lexington's citizens.
20
2. Density.
In order to make public housing economically feasible, the
Town must be willing to accept densities of 4 - 12 units
per acre.
3. Distribution of units.
Public housing units should be spread as evenly throughout the
Town as possible.
It should be noted that the above guidelines are intended to be
only guidelines and not rigid requirements.
CRITERIA FOR
EVALUATIO N In order to evaluate potential sites for suitability for public
housing, the subcommittee developed a point system. Those sites
receiving the highest points will be recommended by the comnittee
as being the best for development of subsidized housing.
There were three categories, as indicated below, for allocating
points. Points were given to those sites that were located in
proximity to the following services:
1. Shopping, grocery, etc.
2. Transportation
� 3. Playgrounds and recreational areas
4. Density of other subsidized housing units in the area.
Points were taken away from sites that have negative environmental
qualities or a negative impact on the neighborhood. Those negative
environmental qualities are listed below:
1. Noise
2. Steep, slope, or ledge
3. Ldet or poor soil conditions
4. Unsuited to purposes, i.e. aesthetics, natural features,
unusual historical architecture, open space, etc.
Finally, points were given if the site was potentially viable for
development, based on the following factors:
1. In public ownership
2. Owner's desires are incompatible with present zoning.
3. Owner unlikelv to sell.
21
The point system has two positive features. It rates each site by
the same criteria and it creates an evaluation process which is
practical.
The Resource Committee restricted its inventory to vacant parcels
of land suitable for new construction and did not undertake a
survey of homes in which the development of accessory apartments
would be appropriate.
CHART FOR IDENTIFYING PARCELS
Positive point scoring
Points Criteria
1. Shopping, grocery, etc 5 1/2 miles
4 3/4
3 1
2 1 1/4
1 1 1/2
2. Transportation 5 1
4 1 1/4
3 1 1/2
2 1 3/4
1 2
3. Play Area (1 - 12 years) 5 1/4
4 1/2
3 3/4
2 1
1 1 1/4
4. Density of Superblock 5 No units
(Subsidized units - State, 4 10
Federal) 3 25
J 2 50
1 100 or more
Negative Point Scoring
5. Noise -5 Near major highway
or noise
-4
-3
-2
-1
0 No problem
6. Steep slope or ledge -5 Steep and rocky
-4
-3
-2
-1 gentle slope,little rock
0 No problem
22
Negative Point Scoring (cont'd)
Points Criteria
� 7. Wetland or negative
soil condition� -5 All peat, wet or poor fill
-4
-3
-2
-1 very little
0 No problem
8. Unsuited for purpose: -5 Unsuitable for purpose
� -4
-3
-2
� -1 '
1 0 � SuiCable �
� 9. Reasibility of 5 In public ownership
development 3 Owners desires are
incompatible with
present zoni�g.
-1 Owner unlikely to come
to terms.
INVENTORY The committee decided that, while small sites were most acceptable
to townspeople, it would be in the best interests of the Housing
Master Plan to examine all parcels of open space and oversized lots
if they seemed otherwise feasible, leaving open the option of ac-
quiring only a portion of a larger site, or devoting portions of a
site to non-housing uses. Each site should be judged on its merits,
the level of acceptability to the neighborhood, and most important
of all, its contributions to meeting housing needs. It must be
recognized that no parcel will ever be perfectly suitable. This
system provides only a basis for comparing parcels; it creates no
minimum standard.
The types of parcels reviewed were:
1. Vacant land, residential
� 2. Buildings likely to be renovated with a change in use
(Schools, fraternal societies, etc.)
3. Oversized lots/parcels with one house
4. Vacant land9 town-owned, CR, CH, CM, CO3 CG, CB (business, etc.)
A map was prepared which located all potential parcels of land.
In addition, a11 services areas in Town were identified, along
with all transportation facilities. This gave the committee the
capability of evaluating the sites in relationship to various Town
amenities and facilities so important to the success of public housing.
�
23
i
SITE The Town was divided into super blocks, as illustrated on the
EVALUATIO N accompanying map. The super blocks represent areas that are
geographically coherent.
In order to evaluate potential sites in relationship to other
land uses, it was useful to determine the amount, location and
description of all land within the Town. This evaluation allows
one to view, in proper perspective, the effect that any individual
housing proposal would have on a neighborhood, if and how the overall
housing plan will affect the existing character of Lexington.
The chart on page 25 provides an analysis of the various land use
categories, and the map found on page 27 shows their locations
within the Town.
� The committee discovered that it was virtually impossible to spread "
small developments evenly throughout the Town, since some superblocks
had no land available. Therefore, it seemed wise to give preference
to sites which would have as little impact on existing neighborhoods
as possible and where a smooth transition could be effected, pro-
viding the sites were otherwise relatively suitable for housing.
The general lack of available sites means that the Town has little
opportunity to be as selective as it might wish. The result is
that some sites are small and will accommodate only a few units,
while others are large, making it er_onomically unfeasible to build
just 20 units per site.
Each site was evaluated ind"ividually against the stated criteria.
Those sites receiving the highest points were further evaluated by
on-site inspections by members of the committee.
RECOMMENDATIONS The committee recommends that 'the following sites.be given_sexinus
consideration for the devlopment of subsidized housing: *
1. Adams School if it becomes available
2. Muzzey Sr. High School if available
3. Rte 3 right-of-way on N.E. side of Lowell St. (2.7 acres)
4. Land on Lowell St. next to Caldor's (9.9 acres)
5. Land on Waltham St. on Lexington line next to Star Market
in Waltham (16+ acres)
* Since the Board of Selectmen are well into the conversion process
of Parker School, that school was not evaluated.
24
I
1 � LAND USE ALLOCATION
i
�
j '�own Owned Land
I Parks 166 acres 1.5%
jPlaygrounds 107 1.0%
� Conservation, fea 715 6.7%
Conservata,on, easement 50 .4%
Schooi sitas 362 3.3%
PUD land 51 ,4%
Other ' 400 3.7%
; Roads (approx. ) 1385 13.0%
' TOTAL 3,236 30.3%
Government Own�d Land .
Cambridge 151 1.4%
U.S. Air Force 193 1.9%
Arlington 210 1.9%
Minuteman Eark 101 .9%
County Hpspital % .9�
State Hospital 96 .9�
5tate D.P.W. TOTAL 9 •1�.
856 8.0%
PrivatelY Owaed, Recreation,
Institutional Lands
Golf Courses 264 2.4%
Psivate recreation . 32 .4%
� Museum 21 .1%
Five Fields Corp. 35 .3Y
Christian High 29 :3% .
Hayden 30 .3Y
Churches 96 .9%
TOTAL 507 4.7% .
i
Undeveloped Private Land
i
Residential, RS 337 3.3%
Residential, RO 1302 12.3%
industrial 100 .9Y
TOTAL�1,739 16.5%
�
� De�eloped Land
Residential (approx. ) 3902 36.7%
industrial 300 2.8%
Commercial 110 1.0%
TOTAL-`4,312 40.5%
100%
TOTAL AREA OF TOWN IN ACRES 10,650
25
i . .
�
�
�
,
,
�
�
a
� SUPERBLOCK MAP TO BE INSERTED ON THIS PAGE
�
�
j
�
,
I
i
l
I
26
i
LAND USE MAP TO BE INS�RT�D ON THIS PAGE
27
n
LAVV � �� ROCEDURES
If housing needs are to be met, one must realistically look for
ways which will result in the creation of housing. One must
attack the problem in the most direct, creative fashion, using
whatever tools are available.
The Laws and Procedures Subcommittee was given the challenge of
finding those tools which will hammer out solutions for converting
housing needs into housing units.
One's best intentions often hinge on knowing the proper approach
to take for a given ob�ective. The subcommittee, understanding
this principle, focussed its attention on the procedures under
which subsidized housing is approved.
The committee unanimously concluded that developers of subsidized
housing � whether private or governmental - be encouraged to use
the comprehensi.ve permit procedure of Chapter 774 rather than time
consuming, uncertain and politically divisive rezoning. The sub-
committee concluded, as did the State Supreme Court, that local
zoning was a major obstacle to the achievement of the goal of
meeting housing needs.
CHAPTE R 774 The advantages of ihe use of Chapter 774 are many. The Town through
its appropriate Boards - Planning Board, Conservation Commission
and Board of Appeals - can exercise much control over the design of
the development if they approach their duties under Chapter 774 in
a constructive, positive way. In many respects the flexibility of
special permit procedures incorporated into Chapter 774 provides
better opportunities for fine tuning of appropriate conditions and
restrictions than the more cumbersome rezoning procedures. The
comprehensive permit is particularly appropriate when the Lexington
Housing Authority is the developer.
Another major adaantage of the use of Chapter 774 instead of rezoning
is the relative ease, speed and certainty that the former process
provides. Experience shows that the very difficulty of getting a
2/3 favorable vote necessary for rezoning discourages private
developers from making the very expensive and time consuming effort
to rezone a parcel. Moreovex, even after he is successful, the
proposal may face a referendum challenge. Unfortunately, voter turn-
out in referenda is very small so that 13% of the registered voters
could overturn the Town Meeting vote. Indeed, in the past, a tiny
28
n
minority of Lexington voters did overturn such a rezoning
(Flintlock) . While the committee certainly recognized that this
recommendation involves some loss of direct control by the Town
Meeting, it also recognized that Chapter 774 represents a larger
State policy and that low and moderate income housing is too
important to be thwarted by a minority of Town Meeting members.
The committee concluded that Lexington should follow and encour-
age others to follow procedures which implement rather than frus-
trate State policy and the objectives of the Town.
PRIVATE S EC T O R It should be re-emphasized that while there are many State and
- Federal programs for the development of subsidized housing, the
private sector is most often the key factor in the development
of public housing. Most State and Federal housing programs rely
upon the private sector as the catalyst in the development process.
D.C.A, and M,A.P.C. have, therefore, encouraged the Town to
develop a climate where the private sector can invest its money
and time in public housing, and be relatively sure that it has a
fair chance of success. The uncertainty of the outcome of re-
zoning proposals retards such a climate, whereas the acceptance
of Chapter 774 by Town agencies as an appropriate tool to create
subsidized housing will encourage the private sector to participate
in the solution of the housing problem, rather than contributing
to the problem by constructing only extraordinarily expensive homes
on the remaining vacant land.
Compromise and balancing of competing policies and interests is a
necessary part of the process involved in the realization of goals
and objectives. This is particularly true in the development of
subsidized housing. The comprehensive permit procedures of
Chapter 774 encourage that process.
Lexington is one of several communities that enjoys an excellent
position in the housing market. This position has attracted con-
siderable development dollars for the construction of high cost
housing. Lexington's favorable position resulted from hard work
and good planning on the part of the Town over many years. It is
therefore only reasonable that the Town take advantage of its
position by requiring that all developers seeking Town approval
for multi-family development be required to address the housing
problem in Lexington if they expect to receive the support of the
various Town agencies for rezoning. This can be done by having
developers set aside a portion of the development for some form of
low cost housing. This policy would reflect the position that was
held by the Planning Board in the past. The Planning Board abandoned
this position due to a lack of funding for subsidized housing by
the Federal government.
With the possibility of some new housing money being made avail-
able in Washington, and some innovative approaches through incentives,
the committee recommends that this policy be reinstated by the
Planning Board. If Federal funding is available, the developer
29
.
n
can build his project with 25% public housing and expect to be
reimbursed by the Federal government. If Federal monies are not
available, then the Town must make the development of public
housing attractive to the private sector by offering development
incentiveso Allowing developers to increase the density of
their developments would substantially lower the land cost per
unite This would make it economically feasible for the developer
to give or sell at low prices some units to the Lexington Housing
Authority, or to sell some units at cost with some form of resale
restriction on themo This same concept would apply equally as
well for rental units. The new Zoning Act encourages towns to offer
such incentivesy and the Planning Board should adhere to its pre-
vious policy even if government subsidies are unavailable.
There are alternatives to new construction that offer the Town
equally as great an opportunity to meet its housing needs. These
opportunities lie in modification to the Zoning By-Law to allow
accessory apartmen.ts and congregate living,
AC CESSO RY As housing prices continue to rise faster than income, people are
APART M ENTS increasingly creating accessory apartments within their single-
family homes. These apartments generally consist of one or more
rooms with separate kitchen and bathroom facilities.
On one hand, such conversion� can be beneficial to the homeowner
and community by making it possible for larger homes to be preserved,
for owners to afford to stay in their homes, and for a wider diver-
sity of housingto be provideda On the other hand, illegal or inade-
� quately regulated conversions can result in unsafe units that cause
parking problems a,nd could, in some cases change the character of
the neighborhood,
Although there ia a wide range of "accessory apartment" activity
in the cities and towns of this region, there are also many different
conceptions of the meaning of this and other terms. The following
definition is proposed to clarify this situationo
* ACCESSORY APARTMENT: One or more rooms with separate kitchen and
bathroom facilities in a home originally constructed as a single
housing unit designed for the occupancy of a separate household
(or occasionally a comparable apartment in a home originally
constructed for two or three families) .
The committee unanimously favors a more liberal by-law permitting,
subject to appropriate controls, accessory apartments. The object-
ives of such a by-law should be to encourage accessory apartments but
still maintain the character of the neighborhood. Accessory apart-
ments serve two purposes: they provide low-cost housing units for
persons, especially single persons or childless couples, who might
noT. otherwise be able to live in Lexington, and they provide some
* "Regulation of Accessory Apartments in the Metropolitan Boston Region"
MAPC - June, 197H
30
,
n
aincome for the owner, reducing his housing costs, making it possible
for people who find their income shrinking to stay in their homes.
The following by-law was designed to allow for the inclusion of
accessory apartments in Lexington.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING BY-LAW CONCERNING ACCESSORY APARTMENTS
Section 1 of the Zoning By-Law is amended by adding the following para-
graph immediately before the paragraph "Accessory Use of Building".
ACCESSORY APARTMENT: An accessory apartment is a dwelling of one or
more rooms with separate kitchen and bathroom facilities, designed for
the occupancy of a separate household, in a home originally constructed
as a single housing unit, or a home originally constructed for two
families.
The Zoning By-Law is hereby amended by inserting the following Section 42:
42.1 Application and approval process. Subject to the provisions
of Sections 13.1.1 and 13.2 SPGA may grant a special permit for the
opening of an accessory apartment in a single-family or a two-family '
dwelling, at any place in the Town of Lexington, subject to the following
conditions and requirements:
(a) the accessory apartment shall occupy no more than
35 percent of the habitable gross floor area of the
single-family dwelling, the unit of the two-family
� dwelling, or a building accessory to such dwellings
from which it is to be sub-divided, exclusive of any
garage, shed or similar structure of accessory use
attached to the single-family dwelling;
(b) no more than minimum exterior alterations shall be made
to the original single-family or two-family dwelling.
Such alteration shall not alter the single-far.iily appearance
and character of such dwelling;
31
0
n
(c) floor plans of' the original building and the pro-
posed accessory apartment, with a site plan showing the
location of the original single-family dwelling or two-
family dwelling on the lot, have been filed with the
SPGA, which shall forthwith deliver copies to the fire
department and building commissioner, in addition to
those Town Boards, Commissions, and departments speci-
fied in Section 13.1.2 of this By-Law. In addtion to
the requirements of Section 13.2,3 of this By-Law, the
SPGA shall not make its finding and determination until
the Building Commissioner and Fire Department submit
their reports thereon or until 35 days shall have elapsed
since the transmittal of said copies of the application and
site plan to the Building Commissioner and Fire Department
without such reports being submitted.
(d) a certificate of occupancy shall have been issued for the
original structure prior to (enter effective date of
ordinance) , or the Board of Appeals makes a finding that
the original structure was not constructed so as to take
unfair advantage of this section;
42.2 Every special permit issued by the SPGA shall be conditioned
upon the issuance of an occupancy permit by the Building Commissioner.
42.21 Any special permit issued by the SPGA hereunder
may be conditioned upon the owner of the dwelling, in which any accessory
apartment is permitted, residing in the dwelling or on the lot on which
said accessory apartment is located.
32
m
H
Purposes and Treatment of Application, This
amendment to the Zoning Bq-Law is based upon the recognition that there
is a need for steps (a) to a11ow owner;, to aFford to stay in their homes;
(b) to diversifq, as to cost, the rental units avail.able within ehe
Town of Lexington.
Reservation, This �ection shall not be con-
strued to abrogate the righL-, under Section 25,15 of the Zoning By-Law,
to open an accessory apartment in P.T, CG, and CB districts.
CON GRECrAT� One of the moct unique ways of p-rovidittg housing for people with
HOU$ING special needs is through the concept of congreg�te housinga It
is especially well suited to the needs of the elderly and handi-
capped, who need special attention anci facilities, but would be
unable to afford them on a private basis.
Congregate housing can mean a variety of things to different
people. The srabcommittee envisioned the sccpe cf this type
of housing limited to those wzth special needs i,eo elderly,
handicapped. A special permit would be requixed to insure that
any housing of this type was consist�nt. with Toom objectives for
public housing and not a detriment to the n�ighborhood in which
it was to be built�
I The committee unders�ands tha} Lhe Planninp Poard is working on
� an amendment to the zoning by-law which wi11 alioca for congre-
gate livingo The commitcee supports this effort, and recommends
' that it be adopted at th� I979 Town �Ieetin��
RECONiAAENDATI06dS The committee makes t.he iollowing x•ecommendation.s<
1. That the Toc�m encourage che nse of Che comprehensive permit
procedures of Chapter 77[s for developmenT.s coxiea=ning subsidized
housing rather than conventional rezoning procedures.
2. That the Planning Board reinstate its policy that a portion
of any new multi-family development must contain p-rovision for
public housing in order to gain Planning Board support at Town
P4eeting,
3. That the public sectoz be �ncouraged to participate in the
development of public houeing by giving incentive, such as higher
densities, when a percentage of a devalopment is allocated to sub-
sidized housing.
4. That the Town adopt provisions in tha Zoning By-Law which caill
allow for accessoxy apartments and congregate living facilities.
33
�
z
SUMMARY &
RECOIVIMENDATIONS
The objectives of the Housing Study are best expressed by the
Growth Policy Statement - "Lexington should be concerned with
meeting the need for the development of housing which meets
the needs of all people at all income levels."
A planning axium states that the solution to a problem should
not be proposed before the problem has been properly identified.
The following is a list of housing needs identified by the
Hosuing Master Plan Committee:
1. Housing, f.or peopl0 with.�incomes below $16,000 per year.
2. New apartments for people who cannot afford to buy a home
and would like to rent.
3. Housing for young people who have not reached the
upper middle income bracket.
4. Housing for the elderly and disabled on fixed incomes.
The regional need for housing has been estimated by the Department
of Community Affairs as over 260,000 households needing some form
of assistance.
1. Families paying over 25% of their income for housing.
2. Families living in substandard housing.
3. Families living in overcrowded conditions.
Lexington's responsibility towards meeting this need was defined
by the Department of Community Affairs.
1. 108 units of elderly housing
2. 225 units of low and moderate income family units.
3. 1020 families in Lexington receiving some form of rental
subsidy because the� are paying in excess of 25% of their
yearly income for housing.
34
¢
7
Being explicitly aware of the housing needs, and identifying
the basic problems does not mean that they will be satisfac-
torily dealt with. "Magic" answers to housing problems do not
exist. The key factor in meeting the housing objectives is the
recognition of housing needs by public officials and a eommit-
ment on their part to work towards a solution of the problem.
If the Town of Lexington is going to meet its responsibility for
housing on both a local and regional basis, it is going to have
to lengthen its stride and take the initiative in developing
innovative housing programs that meet all our peoples' needs,
and not just a select few. Foot dragging will eventually result
in outsiders determining what housing will be built in Lexington.
The Housing Committee offers the following recommendations:
1. Priority should be given to low and moderate income family
housing, followed by housing for the elderly and single
person.
2. The Town should encourage developers and non-profit corpora-
tions to add to the housing stock through subsidy and
necessary zoning changes.
3. The Town should encourage and cooperate with regional special
social service agencies, such as Mystic Valley Mental Health
Association and similar groups, in the development of half-
way houses, and group cure programs.
4. A variety of housing options should beexplored for the develop-
ment of low and moderate income housing, i.e. , co-operatives,
congregate housing, accessory apartments, and the re-use of
older buildings, etc.
5. M.A.P.C. estimates of housing needs seem realistic and attain-
able when spread out over a period of years. In order to meet
this need, the Town should provide not less than 25 newly con-
structed or rehabilitated family units and 10 new elderly units
per year for the next 10 years.
6. That the Town encourage the use of the comprehensive permit
procedures of Chapter 774 for developments containing subsidized
housing rather than conventional rezoning procedures.
7. That the Planning Board reinstate its policy that a portion of
any new multi-family development must contain provision for
public housing in order to gain Planning Board support at Town
Meeting.
8. The the public sector be encouraged to participate in the
development of public housing by giving incentives, such as
higher densities, when a percentage of a development is allo=
cated to subsidized housing.
35
+
,w . .
0
� �
9. That the Town adopt provisions in the Zoning By-Law which
will allow for accessory apartments and congregate living
facilities.
10. That the following sites be given serious consideration for
the development of subsidized housing:
a. Adams School if it becomes available
b. Muzzey Jr. High School if available
c. Rte. 3 right-of-way on the N.E. side of Lowell St. (2.7 acres)
d. Land on Lowell St. next to Caldor's (9.9 acres)
e. Land on Waltham St. on Lexington line next to Star Market
in Waltham (16+ acres).
�
�
�
36