Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-HMP-rpt.pdf HOUSING MASTER PLAN COMMITTEE Albert P Zabin, Chairman, Planning Board Alfred S Buse, Board of Selectmen Robert M. Hutchinson, Town Manager Laura F Nichols, Planning Board Woodruff M. Brodhead, Board of Appeals Mary E Shunney, Lexington Housing Authority Eric T Clarke, Board of Appeals Daivd Reiner, Town Meeting Members Association Kenneth G Briggs, Planning Director Jose to Carter, League of Women Voters William J Sen, Council on Aging Joan Z Clark, League of Women Voters Setha Olson, League of Woman Voters Norma Bogen, Metropolitan Area Planning Council Manuel Trillo, B Judges Road Frank B. Stowell, 498 Waltham Street Adeline Fournier, 21 Moreland Avenue Alan Bedford, 11 Harrington Road Elizabeth G Flemings, 23 Cedar Street David Smith, 6 Locust Avenue Robert Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue 1 4 INTRODUCTION Neither the presence of a housing problem in Lexington, nor the fact that considerable comment has been made about the problem while very little has been accomplished, make Lexington unique. The lack of accomplishment is a national syndrome at both the Federal and local levels What will make Lexington unique is proper identification of its housing needs, and the adoption and implementation of a plan to provide adequate housing to meet these needs The development of public housing is a complex and controversial process Manypeople 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 sen- sitive to the non-housing concerns of the community The issues that must be addressed are the demands for housing of all types both on the local and regional levels, the State and Federal requirements for public housing, community impact, environmental impact, the social and physical needs of those occupying public housing, and the construction and design techniques used in the development of housing. The Lexington Planning Board has long been concerned with the need for the development of housing which meets the needs of all people, at all income levels This concern was echoed in Lexington's Growth Policy Statement. "Clearly, this (high cost of housing) predicates a town in which only the affluent can afford to live, a growth expectation in conflict with the expressed values of many of the committee. Many felt that it is neither healthy for the Town nor acceptable to permit such homogeneous development, thus closing out the young - including our own children should they want to stay, the elderly, - many of whom have lived here all their lives, and Town employees who must not become alienated strangers to the rest of the Town. Thus, one of the objectives of a growth policy would be to find ways to encourage a more hetero- geneous mix in the Town population. " In the Spring of 1978, the Lexington Housing Authority requested the Planning Board to .develop a housing plan for low and moderate income housing 1 The recommendations in this 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 Lexington 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 Authority, 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 and all contributed to its work and its report The committee was divided into three subcommittees 1 Needs and Programs Subcommittee 2 Resources Subcommittee 3 Laws and Procedures Subcommittee The Needs and Programs Subcommittee was given the task of determining the local 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 recommending which of these programs are most applicable in meeting Lexington's housing needs The Resources Subcommittee was responsible for making an inventory of all sites that 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 2 NEEDS & PROGRAMS 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 the mentally ill The committee 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 committee on the issues of subsidized family and elderly housing It 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 satisfy the need of all who live in Lexington. In an effort to give some dimension to the need for housing in Lexington, the Needs and Programs Subcommittee and the planning staff developed data which will sharpen the overall perspective as to the need for housing in Lexington. The Committee established the following criteria to determine Lexington's housing needs 1 Town objectives 2 State and Federal requirements Ii 3 Local needs 4 Regional needs 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 type 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-family 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 3 developments such as Russell Square, East Village and Pine Grove Village are consistent 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 objective was expressed by the Growth Policy Committee that the Town "find ways to encourage a more heterogeneous mix of the Town 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 AND Both State and Federal law mandates suburban communities to make FEDERAL significant contribution to meeting the national need for moderate REQUIREMENTS and low cost family housing 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 housing, since the Federal government has begun a policy of inducing communities to meet Federal housing standards by the use of the stick as well as the carrot For example, Birmingham, Michigan has lost $98,000 in Federal grants and stands to lose an additional $900,000 The loss of these funds resulted from failure to comply with State (and Federal) requirements for the development of low and moderate income housing These monies were slated for capital improvements, sewer construction and mainten- ance. Mr Schwartz, Operations Coordinator for Birmingham, equivalent to the Planning Director here, stated that the Federal government (HAS 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 loss of millions of dollars over the next few years Birmingham is not alone in this situation. Livonia, Michigan has lost $500,000 to date and expects to lose more, because it has made no efforts to meet Federal housing requirements As housing needs increase, it is 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 monies for sewer and road maintenance and construction and conservation reimbursements It is conceivable that these monies could be affected along with any other federally funded programs Other housing 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 housing against the entire family housing picture in a given community Evidence that low income families' housing needs 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 reasons 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.0 D will use when that agency evalu- ates Lexington's compliance with Federal, local and regional housing requirements REGIONAL 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 housing 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 assistance, 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 of households in the state will grow more rapidly than the population as household size decreases A growing number 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 constructed 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 income housing. At the present time only 150, or 1 70% of all dwelling units in Lexington, are classified as low and moderate income housing and these occupy 15 acres or 0 21% of the non-publicly owned land. It is obvious that Lexington has fallen far short of meeting the guidelines mandated by the State Legislature * The legislative reports which prompted Chapter 774's passage demonstrated how local restrictive zoning regulations have set up in fact if not intentionally, a barrier against the introduc- tion of low and moderate income housing in the suburbs Moreover, this barrier exists at a time when our housing needs for the low and moderate income groups cannot be met by the "inner cities " This housing crisis demands a legislative and judicial approach that requires "the strictly local interest of the town" to yield to the regional need for the construction of low and moderate income housing Chapter 774 represents the Legislature's use of its own zoning powers to respond to this problem. D C A. and M.A.P C have also developed guidelines allocating each community its fair share of housing based on the regional need The numbers of additional housing for Lexington are Elderly Non Non Elderly Non-elderly Total Elderly New Elderly Elderly Monetary Monetary Need Rehab. Constr Rehab. New Constr Suppl. Suppl. 1,352 32 76 96 129 504 515 At first glance, 1,352 units seems high, but on closer examination, 1,019 of this total figure is allocated for rental subsidies to families who pay more than 25% of their income for housing This subsidy could apply to families that are now living in Lexington and are paying in excess 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 units for various types of housing assistance amounts to the following 108 units of elderly housing 225 units of low and moderate income family housing These numbers of housing units are not excessive and fall far short of what the law under Ch 774 prescribes as Lexington's responsi- bility Lexington has reduced these numbers by 47 units of family housing and 60 of elderly housing Pine Grove Village (St Brigid's) 16 units Interfaith 6 units Scattered Site Housing 25 units sub-total 47 Town approval of 60 units of elderly housing at 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 meeting 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 homes 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 When one examines the available apartment market, the picture is equally bleak. The turnover rate for apartments in Town has been 7 CU U 44 4.4 w 0 0] 0 O N CO CI m m 400 0 a+ m G 14 x a) a 23 W 22 u ce: H 21 O 20 sn a 59 1 6 O 18 a 17 r w $ 16 °' 15 F 14 - — 5 13 to m 12 g 11 S 0 10 1 9 1 e _ -J 7 6 _ r+_ 5 4 _ r l 3 r y C) § O pO 00 S W H 00 00 O 0 0 C 0 44 LL n .Or uCi Cr n m m a .Oi C N .i N -4 1 8 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 INCOME 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 bedrooms 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 to permit a person 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 @ 100%> 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 chance 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 NOOSING COSTS - 1977 FAMILY INCOME 30.000 40,000 501000 61,000 70,000 $13,000 ---,- a 14.000 'O n 15.000 .--. c h1 0 O. 16,000 p R 17,000 - I I I I a 1 Y 15,000 I I I R •+ 19.000 r 20.600 : I I 21.000 - I I 22.000 - I I I I 23,000 : I I 24,000 _ I __I I- 1 I I MEAN FAMILY INCOME 24.000 25,000 i --L---- 26,000 I I 27,000 : I I 28,000 _ I I I 29,000 - I I 30,000 _ 1 I 10 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 However, 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 POPULATION An 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 prices 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 groups, 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 O 0 N INCOME LEVELS -1:A' No. of 1976 People •2000 0 V 1900 o k" 0 •f O 1800 f e c wa kN 1700 •.o• 'o 2 1600 etn d E500 o .+ 0 I 1400y 1300 S N g o 1200 0 0 o' a M .1100 1000 900 N con 800 — 700 600 500 P P 0 4 400 C. -.- r.r. 300 co C. N C. 200 n el N n n 100 I ' nI ' I 1 1 1o. P P P 0. P P P P0. P P P P P P P P Y 00 P P P P .0. ~1 N „ d 0 •O N i b I 4 I 4 I M N 1 1 1. • 1 O O O O O O w o 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 co 0 0 e a O O O 0 O O O O Source: 9 O O O 0 0 O N N O w O M.A.P.C. 5 N a N a .'d N N N N In 12 Population Strata for Selected Years 1940 SEX RATIO AGE 5861 175 and OVER MALE FEMALE 7771 170-74 76.51 165-69 88.71 160-64 88.01 155-59 84.51 150-54 85.41 145-49 9501 140-44 95.31 135-39 99.21 130-34 92.41 125-29 112.4 120-24 99.8 115-19 102.61 110-14 90.71 '5-9 I I I 1117.81 I ' ,UNDER,4 I 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PERCENT 19!70 SEX RATIO AGE X7'4 47.2—1 85 and OVER 45.2 80-84 53.0 75-79 MALE 64.21 170-74 FEMALE 73.81 165-69 9141 160-64 91.91 155-59 104.71 150-54 94.71 45-49 97.21 140-44 87.81 135-39 82.41 130-34 80.41 125-29 99.81 120-24 105.61 115-19 111r1 110-14 108.01 15-9 1 I 10741 I I I I 1 1UNDER 51 I I 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 PERCENT 13 Source Lexington Planning Office group 45 - 49 now represents the largest segment 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 balance 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 result 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 Nous- ' 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 corroboration 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 Yes No 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? 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 AND The following list provides a description of Federal and State FEDERAL housing programs which the Needs and Programs Subcommittee considers HOUSING applicable for Lexington. These programs were selected from a lengthy PROGRAMS 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 building 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 housing developments Funding from this program could be used for major renovation or rehabilitation 17 of an existing building The development is owned and operated by the local housing authority Section 202 - Housing for the Elderly or Handicapped Low-interest 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 Assistance and New Construction/ Substantial Rehabilitation The rental assistance program operates in a manner similar to the State Chapter 707 program. Rental assistance is presently given to 33 families including seven elderly Under the Section 8 construction program, private developers or the local housing authority apply to HUD for subsidies for construc- tion of low-income housing developments Section 235 - Interest Subsidy for Home Acquisition and Rehabilitation The program is designed to help low- and moderate-income families purchase homes by subsidizing the interest 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 Block Grants The program is designed to help towns and cities provide adequate housing for lower income persons Cities 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 Funds 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 Eligibility would be limited to low-and moderate-income homeowners * Communities considering applying 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 use rental assistance with major rehabilitation (i e , structural renovations, replace- ment of all systems) ; * Taken from State Housing Resource Allocation Plan Low and Moderate Income Housing Programs 24 CFR 600 70 (B) (1) 18 - 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 major rehabilitation; - Then, if all other approaches are not feasible, the community would use new construction. RECOMMENDATIONS The Needs and Programs Subcommittee made the following recommendations 1. Searing 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 unmet need, followed by the needs of the elderly and single persons 2 Developers and non-profit corporations should be encouraged to add to housing stock through subsidy and necessary zoning changes { 3. The Town should encourage and cooperate with regional social service agencies, such as Mystic Valley Mental Health Association ! and similar groups, in the development of half-way houses, and group care programs. 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 housing, accessory apartments, and the re-use of older buildings, etc 5 M.A.P C estimates of housing needs seem realistic and attainable when spread out over a period of years Iin 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 1 1 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 income 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 GUIDELINES FOR Before establishing criteria 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 EVALUATION 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 committee 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 Wet 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 unlikely 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 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 conditions -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 0 Suitable 9 Feasibility of 5 In public ownership development 3 Owners desires are incompatible with present zoning -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 land, town-owned, CR, CH, CM, CO, CG, CB (business, etc ) A map was prepared which located all potential parcels of land In addition, all 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 SITE The Town was divided into super blocks, as illustrated on the EVALUATION 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 economically unfeasible to build just 20 units per site. Each site was evaluated individually 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 serious 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 LAND USE ALLOCATION Town Owned Land Parks 166 acres 1 5% Playgrounds 107 1 0% Conservation, fee 715 6 7% Conservation, easement 50 4% School sites 362 3.3% PUD land 51 4% Other 400 3 7% Roads (approx. ) 1385 13.0% TOTAL 3,236 30 3% Government Owned Land Cambridge 151 1 4% U S Air Force 193 1.9% Arlington 210 1.9% Minuteman Park 101 9% County Hospital 96 9% State Hospital 96 TOTAL9% State D P W 91% 856 8 0% Privately Owned, Recreation, Institutional Lands Golf Courses 264 2 4% Private recreation 32 4% Museum 21 1% Five Fields Corp. 35 3% Christian High 29 3% Hayden 30 3% Churches 96 .9% TOTAL 507 4 7% Undeveloped Private Land Residential, RS 337 3 3% Residential, RO 1302 12 3% Industrial 100 .9% TOTAL 1,739 16 5% Developed 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 SUPERBLOCK MAP TO BE INSERTED ON THIS PAGE 1 ) I 26 LAND USE MAP TO BE INSERTED ON THIS PAGE 27 LAW 41. P R OCEDURES 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 objective. 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 comprehensive 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 CHAPTER 774 The advantages of the 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 advantage 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 Moreover, 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 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 SECTOR 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 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 incentives Allowing developers to increase the density of their developments would substantially lower the land cost per unit 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 them° This same concept would apply equally as well for rental units The new Zoning Act encourages towns to offer such incentives, 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 apartments and congregate living ACCESSORY As housing prices continue to rise faster than income, people are APARTMENTS 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 conversions 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 housing to be provided On the other hand, illegal or inade- quately regulated conversions can result in unsafe units that cause parking problems and could, in some cases change the character of the neighborhood Although there is 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 situation * ACCESSORY APARTMENT One or more rooms with separate kitchen and bathroom facilities in a home originally constructed as a single housing unit designed fon. 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, 1978 30 h ' income 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-family appearance and character of such dwelling; 31 y o (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 Purposes and Treatment of Application This amendment to the Zoning By-Law is based upon the recognition that there is a need for steps (a) to allow owners to afford to stay in their homes; (b) to diversify, as to cost the rental units available within the Town of Lexington Reservation. This section shall not be con- strued to abrogate the right, under Section 25 15 of the Zoning By-Law, to open an accessory apartment in RT, CC, and CB di:tracts CONGREGATE One of the most unique ways of providing housing for people with HOUSING special needs is through the concept of congregate housing It is especially well suited to the needs of the elderly and handi- capped, who need special attention and facilities, but would be unable to afford them on a private basis Congregate housing can mean a variety of things to different people. The subcommittee envisioned the scope of this type of housing limited to those with special needs i e elderly, handicapped A special permit would be required to insure that any housing of this type was consistEnt with Town objectives for public housing and not a detriment to the neighborhood in which it was to be built The committee understands that the Planning Board is working on an amendment to the zoning by-law which will allow for congre- gate living The committee supports this effort, and recommends that it be adopted at the 1979 Town Meeting RECOMMENDATIONS The committee makes the following recommendations 1 That the Town encourage the use of the comprehensive permit procedures of Chapter 774 for developments containing 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 provision for public housing in order to gain Planning Board support at Town Meeting 3 That the public sector be encouraged to participate in the development of public housing by giving incentive, such as higher densities, when a percentage of a development is allocated to sub- sidized housing 4 That the Town adopt provisions in the Zoning By-Law which will allow for accessory apartments and congregate living facilities 33 SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS 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 for people 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 they are paying in excess of 25% of their yearly income for housing 34 M1 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 commit- 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 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