HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970 Proposal for Multi-Purpose Development in Meagherville /
PROPOSAL FOR MULTI-PURPOSE DEVELOPMENT IN MEAGHERVILLE
A report on the development study of Town-owned land in Meagherville,
prepared for the Lexington Planning Board by Justin Gray Associates
Page
THE BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
_ Purpose of the study 1
Community action leading to housing program 1
Planning Board's Subsidized Housing Program 2
Chapter 774 2
RH subsidized housing district 3
Meagherville study authorized 3
Justin Gray Associates selected 4
THE STUDY PROCESS
Involvement of the neighborhood 5
Public meetings 5
Debate on the issues generated by meetings 6
Response to the issues 7
Analysis of the land 7
Report to Town Meeting Members ' Association 8
Preliminary conclusions 8
Limited work during summer 9
Preliminary land use plan 10
Alternative site plans 12
Problems remaining to be resolved 12
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Adequacy of the Site for Development 15
Physical characteristics 16
Location 17
Town policy on land development and housing 19
Appropriateness of a Mixed-Use Development 22
The Proposed Site Plan 23
Traffic 25
Unit Size and Type Mix 26
Impact on Schools 30
Development Costs 31
Financing 34
The Role of the Developer 39
Zoning 40
Other Related Developments 41
SUIVARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The site is physically suitable for properly engineered development for
the uses proposed.
The site is suitable in terms of location for the uses proposed
The provision of subsidized housing is a Town-wide responsibility, and
the land in Meagherville is a Town resource which should be used to help
meet that responsibility
The uses proposed for the site are mutually reinforcing and can be combined
in a way consistent with good site planning practice, and they will be a
positive addition to the existing neighborhood.
Taking all site planning factors into consideration, JGA recommends the use
of Alternative Al.
Reed Street, with recommended improvements, is adequate to absorb increased
traffic from the development of the Town-owned land.
The development should include a mixture of unit sizes from 0 to 4 bedrooms,
for the elderly and for families, for low-, moderate-, and middle-income
households, and of rental and ownership units.
The impact of the development on public schools will be moderate, and can
be absorbed without major problems.
The costs to the Town of development of the land are moderate, and further
are compensated by the payment for the land by the developer included in
the financing estimates.
The Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency offers the most flexible, quickest
and most accessible source of both interim construction financing and
permanent mortgage financing
The Board should select a potential developer as soon as possible, and
action by Town Meeting should include both rezoning and conveyance of the
land for development if possible.
The parts of the site to be used for housing development should be rezoned
from RS (single-family residential) to RH (subsidized housing district) .
Action on the proposal for use of the Meagherville land should not be post-
poned to await other development proposals
The Planning Board should move expeditiously to implement other parts of
the subsidized housing program.
THE BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
This report is the product of a study contracted Purpose of the
by the Lexington Planning Board in July of this study of Town-owned
land in Meagherville
year The purpose of the study was to explore
the possibilities for development of an area of
Town-owned land in Meagherville for subsidized
housing, a new elementary school, and recreation
and conservation uses The study included con-
sideration of type and density of housing, finan-
cing, arrangement of uses on the site, development
costs to the Town, and other related aspects of
development of the land The events which led up
to the study provide the context in which the
recommendations in this report are made.
During the past several years, Lexington has been Community action
among the few concerned suburban communities leading to program
for subsidized housing
attempting genuinely to find ways to contribute development
to the reduction of racism and of the polariza-
tion of the metropolitan area It was the first
suburban community in the Boston area to create
an official body, the Commission on Suburban
Responsibility, to consider ways the Town could
make a positive contribution toward the overcoming
of prejudices and discrimination in, for example,
employment, housing and education. The efforts
of the Commission and of an organization of con-
cerned Lexington residents known as the
Lexington Association for Moderate Cost Housing
2
(LAMCH) led to a series of events which have
resulted among other things in the current study
In March of 1969 the Lexington Town Meeting
directed the Planning Board (Article 101 of the
1969 Warrant) to study the needs and possibilities
of providing subsidized housing in the Town In
response to that mandate, the Planning Board pre- Planning Board's
pared a Subsidized Housing Program published Subsidized Housing
Program
early this year That report concluded that there
was a need in the Town for subsidized housing.
The Board pointed out that (1) almost half of the
Town's population in 1960 had incomes within the
limits of eligibility for federal and state sub-
sidy programs, and (2) that new residents at
similar income levels could not afford housing in
the Town at present price levels. The Board con-
cluded that a locally initiated program for the
provision of subsidized housing would insure the
greatest degree of control over the nature of
development, and would be preferable to the
Town assuming a passive role with respect to
developers and potential state action. The pro-
gram recommended by the Board established targets
of subsidized housing development, in terms of
both numbers and type of units and a schedule of
actions to carry out the program.
Later that year, the Massachusetts General Chapter 744 enacted
Court enacted Chapter 774, legislation designed by state
to encourage the development of housing for
low- and moderate-income households The law
provides that local codes and ordinances may be
set aside by an appeals board within the state
Department of Community Affairs, if it is
3
determined that such local restrictions would
prevent the development of subsidized housing,
and if 10% of the community's housing stock is
not already subsidized.* A potential developer,
public or private, must first submit a proposal
for development to the local board of appeals
(acting as a single reviewer in place of other
local boards and agencies), and can only petition
DCA to override local restrictions if the propo-
sal is rejected. To date, no developer has used
this appeals process to gain authorization to
build.
As part of the first phase of its subsidized
housing program, the, Planning Board recommended
two specific actions by the 1970 Town Meeting,
both of which were adopted. One was the estab- RH subsidized housing
lishment in the Town's Zoning By-law of a new district created by
Town
district (the RH zone) which would permit the
construction of housing at higher densities
under careful development controls by the Town.
To date, no land has been re-zoned to permit
construction of subsidized housing under the
provisions of the RH zone The other (Article Meagherville study
98 of the 1970 Warrant) appropriated $10,300 to authorized by Town
Meeting
be used by the Planning Board for a study of
development of the Town-owned land in Meagher-
ville for subsidized housing, a future (ele-
mentary) school and recreational uses
*The provisions of Ch. 774 are considerably more
detailed; they have not been described fully
here for the sake of brevity
4
The Planning Board invited consultants, in a
letter of March 31, to submit proposals to under-
take "a preliminary study for the development of
the land located (description of boundaries)
. for housing for people of low or moderate
income, for recreation and play areas, for an
elementary school or for other suitable uses "
Justin Gray Associates submitted a proposal to Justin Gray Associates
the Board on April 10, and was subsequently selec- selected to carry out
study
ted as the Board's consultant. After being selec-
ted, JCA and the Planning Board contracted with
the Department of Community Affairs for $3,000
in technical assistance funds, in order to allow
some aspects of the study to be carried out in
greater depth. To undertake those parts of the
study requiring the capabilities of a profession-
al engineer the Board also retained an engineering
consultant, Thomas Griffin Associates, under
separate contract The results of the work per-
formed by the engineers have been incorporated
into the overall study and this report
5
THE STUDY PROCESS
The study of Town-owned land in Meagherville for
a multi-purpose development including some sub-
sidized housing has become enveloped in contro-
versy Many neighborhood residents are opposed
to any subsidized housing being built in their
area, and other groups in the Town are concerned
about the ecological impact of any housing develop-
ment on the Tophet swamp and the tributaries of
the Shawsheen River In light of this controversy,
as objective a description of the study process
as possible is provided in this section of the
report
JGA's proposal to the Planning Board pointed out Involvement of the
that input to the study from the Town's residents, neighborhood in
study first step
in terms of their feelings about policy issues
and technical aspects of development, is a criti-
cal part of a productive study That approach was
reflected in the process for the study defined by
the contract. Four public meetings were scheduled Public meetings
as the first step in the process, to discuss with
residents their feelings about the proposal to
develop the Meagherville land. These meetings
were held at the public schools nearest the site
(on June 3, 4, 10 and 11) so that residents of the
neighborhoods closest to the land and especially
concerned about development would have the maximum
opportunity to attend and be heard. The meetings
were initially designed to cover issues of how
development should take place -- at what density,
a
6
with how many housing units and for whom, in what
kind of site layout, under what form of subsidy,
by what kind of developer A presentation was
made at the first two meetings by the Board and
JGA which involved graphic and verbal description
of the alternatives for resolution of each issue
and a questionnaire on which those who attended
could indicate their preferred choices.
The response of the majority of those in atten- Debate on the issues
dance at all four meetings was not directed toward generated by public
meetings
the presentation or the issues it focussed on, but
rather to more basic questions -- whether develop-
ment of the land should take place at all and why,
whether use of any part of the land for subsidized
housing was appropriate, whether a plan for housing
on the Meagherville land should be made in the con-
text of an overall Town program for subsidized
housing development. As a result, the formal pre-
sentations were made considerably more brief at
the third and fourth meetings, and the ad hoc
discussion more extended.
The burden of response to these issues fell most
heavily on the Board, since the contractual scope
of the work by JGA was limited to the use of the
land in Meagherville (rather than to subsidized
housing in the Town as a whole) The study was
also predicated on the assumption that subsidized
housing development in some form was one of the
uses to be accommodated on the site unless physi-
cal or financial constraints made it unfeasible
Some of the issues raised during the discussion
7
could not be resolved at all except to reiterate
the arguments posed in the Board's Subsidized
Housing Program and reflected in Town Meeting
action. Other issues were raised to which factual
answers could be made -- the problems of traffic
generation by the proposed development, the physi-
cal characteristics of the land in Meagherville
in terms of its capacity to support buildings, Response to the
and the issue of costs to the Town of development issues
and impact on the Town's schools. Many answers
could not be made at these initial meetings, since
the study literally began with the meetings and
technical study had actually not yet been done.
There was a clear tendency on the part of some in
attendance to suspect that decisions had in fact
been made and were not being disclosed. Others
argued that if decisions had not been made, they
should have been, and that the Board and its con-
sultants should not have come to discuss develop-
ment without having formulated their position.
The major policy and technical issues raised by
the meetings, and the responses which could be
made at that point, are presented in Appendix C.
(Appendices D, E, and F also include materials
resulting from the public meetings, including
results of the questionnaires )
Following the initial public meetings, JGA and Analysis of the land
the Town's engineering consultants undertook begun by JCA and
engineers
analysis of the physical characteristics of the
land and the surrounding neighborhood in order
to identify constraints on development. Borings
and on-site inspection were carried out to
8
supplement other data already available, and a new
topographic map of the site was drawn based on
specially prepared aerial photographs New
traffic counts were made at Reed and Bedford
Streets, and at Cedar and Hill Streets (in antici-
pation of a possible connection of Garfield and
Cedar Streets) . Analysis of the questionnaires
completed by participants at the public meetings
was carried out to determine any strong prefer-
ences about aspects of development that could be
translated into site plans or financing and
management arrangements. Some preliminary site
design work was begun at that time.
The results of the study to date were reported Report to Town
to a sparsely attended meeting of the Town Meeting Members'
Association
Meeting Members' Association at the end of June.
The initial conclusions of the Town's engineering
consultant were described by JGA. (1) no physical Preliminary conclusions
characteristics of the land would constitute a
barrier to development for the uses contemplated;
(2) because of the drainage pattern (water flowing
downhill toward Route 128) and the swampy nature
of the soil at lower elevations, the engineering
consultants recommended -- and JGA concurred --
that development should take place only above the
120-foot contour line; and (3) the land below that
level should be devoted to conservation uses. JGA
noted that traffic was a primary concern, and that
a second access road to the site, in addition to
Garfield Street, might be desirable
9
The discussion at the public meetings earlier in
the month was also reviewed at the TMMA meeting.
JCA pointed out that the public meetings had been
somewhat inconclusive with respect to the form of
development, although a general consensus seemed
to favor moderate-density (no more than 10-12 units
per acre) housing in small, semi-detached buildings
no more than four stories in height. There was
also a preference suggested for "clustered" build-
ing configurations ,that would keep more land area
open.
A limited amount of work on the study during the Limited work during
summer had been scheduled. JGA prepared a report summer
to DCA (see Appendix I), a condition of the tech-
nical assistance grant made for the study. The
Board and JGA met during the summer to review
progress to that point, and concluded that no
major modifications were needed in the original
work program of the study. At the Board's request
(see Appendix J) JGA evaluated the suggestion of
the Meagherville land as a possible site for a
regional vocational school, although a comparative
analysis of alternative land uses was not part of
the scope of study JGA's response indicated
that use of the site for subsidized housing, an
elementary school, and recreation and conservation
was a preferable option. Some preliminary dis-
cussions between JGA and potential developers
for the subsidized housing also took place during
the summer and early fall.
10
In September, a preliminary land use plan (see Preliminary land use
Appendix K) was presented to the Planning Board plan prepared and
reviewed
for review and discussion. Concurrently, telephone
conferences were held with representatives of Town
agencies concerned with development of the site
These included the School, Police, Fire, Parks
and Engineering Departments and the Board of
Health, the Conservation Committee and the
Recreation Committee All of the parties contacted
stipulated that their consideration of the impli-
cations of development on the site had been limi-
ted, but none indicated any negative reaction to
the proposal Specifically, it was established
that there were no plans to acquire the land in-
volved exclusively for recreation or conservation
uses, and that development of subsidized housing
was not anticipated to require acceleration of
school building plans
The preliminary land use plan reviewed at that
point provided for an elementary school site in
the northeastern part of the site, at Garfield and
Earl Streets The site of the school building and
grounds itself was about 14 acres, with another
10 acres immediately adjacent for recreational
uses serving both the school and nearby residen-
tial neighborhoods In addition, six acres were
reserved for future expansion of the main recrea-
tion area Two separated areas for housing were
provided -- one of about 28 acres, six of which
were devoted to open space near the dwellings,
and the other of 13 acres, three of which were in
open space A total of 330 housing units was
11
anticipated for the total development -- a net
density on the land used strictly for residen-
tial building of ten units per acre, and of only
eight units per acre including the open space
"buffer" around the housing. All of the develop-
ment was proposed above the 120-foot contour line,
with the lowland retained for conservation. The
only vehicular street in the development roughly
followed that contour line and the boundaries of
the Town-owned land, so that access to the recre-
ation areas and the school was possible without
crossing traffic.
The preliminary land use plan was reviewed by JCA
and the Planning Board, and representatives from
the Design Advisory Committee, Lexington Interfaith
Housing, and residents from the Meagherville area
at the end of September. Some preliminary figures
on alternative financing methods were also dis-
cussed. The response of the Board and the Design
Advisory Committee representative to the plan at
that stage was generally favorable, with some
specific suggestions for modifications in both
the site plan and housing financing "packages"
Final data from the Board'sengineering consultant
on traffic, the primary concern remaining as a
possible constraint to the development of the
site, was not yet available However, assurance
had been given to 30A by the engineers that traf-
fic generated by the proposed development was
well within the capacity of the Reed and Bedford
Street intersection, and that a second access
probably was not needed.
12
It was agreed by the Board that JGA would proceed
with development of alternative site plans within
the framework established by the preliminary land
use plan, and to reflect the modifications sugges-
ted by the Board. These site plan options were
prepared and submitted to the Board's engineering
consultants for review and analysis in terms of
traffic and on-site and off-site costs of develop-
ment. Concurrently, JGA proceeded with refinement
of financing alternatives Alternative site
plans prepared and
reviewed
Three site plan alternatives were submitted to
the Planning Board on October 19, together with a
detailed analysis of financing mechanisms for an
illustrative distribution of number of apartments
by size and type (see Appendices L and M) This
material did not include (1) estimates of develop-
ment costs, to the Town or the developer, and (2)
traffic data and analysis, since that information
was still unavailable from the Board's engineering
consultant. Estimates of the probable impact on
public school enrollments of the proposed develop-
ment had not yet been completed
Several problems arose as a result of the incom- Problems remaining
pleteness in information available to the Planning to be resolved
Board and the public at that stage in the study
They included.
(1) The suspicion on the part of some residents
that the estimates of the development capacity
of the land, in terms of numbers of housing
units, would not be supported by engineering
0
13
studies since the written analysis of the
alternative site plans by the Board's engin-
eering consultants was not yet available
This suspicion persisted despite statements
that JGA had conferred with the engineers
during development of the alternatives and
had been assured that traffic volume antici-
pated by the preliminary land use plan would
not present a major problem.
(2) A desire on the part of the Planning Board
that the financing estimates include, at
least as an alternative, the provision for
some housing at market rentals or purchase
prices as well as subsidized housing.
Discussions at the public meetings and with
the Board had indicated that a mixed-income
development would be preferable to housing
exclusively for low-income or for moderate-
income families JGA's work on financing had
been limited to the low-to-moderate range of
income levels
(3) The persistent misconception, and in some
cases desire on the part of many residents,
that JGA's work was to include plans for uses
of the site other than subsidized housing, an
elementary school, and conservation and
recreation. Under no circumstances was that
level of comprehensive land use analysis, in
the context of the overall development pattern
of the Town, contemplated or provided for
The uses to be included on the site had been
defined originally by the Town' s Comprehensive
14
Plan (residential, school and recreation),
prepared in 1968, and by each step in the
development of JGA's study The issue of
whether the scope of the study should be ex-
panded to include alternative uses was de-
bated at the 1970 Town Meeting, and the
decision was made not to do so That specific
point was clarified by discussions between JGA
and the Planning Board early in the study,
since it is obviously a key distinction. The
.
scope of JGA's work clearly could not resolve
the problem that some of the Town's residents
questioned that judgement before the fact of
the current study
15
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There has been extensive discussion during the study of the choice of the
Meagherville land as the place to begin implementing the Board's subsidized
housing program. While there may have been other rational alternative
approaches, JCA strongly believes that this study was a necessary one and
a wise choice. The, Board will undoubtedly proceed to study other sites for
housing development and to review proposals by developers which will help
meet the Town goals But there is no question that the decision about
the use of the Meagherville land should be made now, without pointless
debate over whether it is the best place to begin. Enough evidence is in
hand to evaluate the proposal to develop the site, and that should be done
on the basis of this report and the discussion it stimulates.
Adequacy of the Site for Development
Clearly the preeminent question is whether the Town-owned land in Meagher-
ville is suitable for development of any kind, and specifically whether
it is suitable for the combination of uses proposed by the Planning Board.
There are three equally important aspects to that decision. (I) the physi-
cal characteristics of the land itself; (2) the location of the site and
its environment; and (3) the Town's policy on development and on provision
of low- and moderate-income housing.
16
(1) Physical characteristics. Determination of the land's suitability
for development, in terms of the physical capacity of the soil and of
the utilities which would service any development, is contained in
the report of the Board's engineering consultant which is enclosed in
Appendices G and N From the point of view of soil composition and
drainage characteristics, the engineers found no major problem in
construction on the site. They recommended that the swampy part of
the site, generally the area below 120 feet in elevation, be reserved
for conservation since construction here, while technically feasible,
would result in higher site preparation costs. The engineers have
indicated that construction above that elevation of buildings of the
bulk anticipated by JGA's proposal (no more than 3-4 stories) will be
feasible with normal development costs Indications are that the
arguments offered against development based on the present problems
in the neighborhood with control of ground water are the result of
inadequate construction in existing buildings rather than unsuitability
of the land for building. The water table in the area is reasonably
close to the surface, but construction which includes provision for
adequate drainage is a simple solution to any potential problem,
in the opinion of the engineers.
Apart from the absence of physical constraints, the land has some
positive advantages for development. The site is heavily wooded
so
enough, that carefully detailed site planning could preserve most of
17
the natural landscape. That would also avoid the typical unfortunate
barren appearance of many new developments which begin with cleared
ground. On this site, areas where building will take place can be
cleared within the wooded areas, leaving substantial parts of the
natural surroundings as an aesthetic and recreational resource.
Preliminary site planning by JGA has recognized this opportunity and
made it a primary feature of the configuration of developments on
the land. JCA's conclusion is that the site is physically suitable
for properly engineered development for the uses proposed.
(2) Location: Planning by JGA included a review of the previous selection
of the site for a new elementary school and for recreational uses.
Those uses of the site (as well as residential development) were
recommended in the Town's comprehensive plan, and the decision to
implement that recommendation is indicated by Town Meeting action
(Article 45 of the Warrant of 1963) to acquire part of the site for
those uses JGA did not undertake a comprehensive review of the
development pattern of the Town or of the neighborhoods around the
site, and of the resulting needs for new school and recreational space.
The agencies involved have indicated that the original intent to use
parts of the site for a school and for recreation has not changed.
The site is well located, in terms of accessibility, for an elementary
school site and the neighborhood indicated its desire during the study
to• have new recreational facilities.
J
0
18
In locational terms, the land is a reasonably good site for subsidized
housing, in spite of some problems The neighborhood is serviced by
a bus line* to Lexington Center with connections to the MBTA system
as well. Many residents of subsidized housing have found that cars
are a necessity in any case, even on their limited incomes, for access
to jobs that may be widely dispersed. In that context, proximity to
Route 128 is an advantage. It should not be an argument against use
of the site, in any case, that it is not °ideally" located. The site
is close to Hanscom Field (and to Route 128, as noted), and the noise
level is undoubtedly an annoyance The neighborhood does not have
many retail facilities within walking distance, especially for conven-
ience goods and groceries. On the other hand, those same conditions
affect the 250 or so homes now occupied between Bedford Street, Garfield
Street and the boundary of the site, and do not seem to have prevented
current residents from living there and finding it a reasonably
satisfactory environment.
While it is true that there have been too many subsidized housing
developments on grossly inadequate sites chosen exactly because they
were poor and thus unwanted for alternative uses, this is clearly not
*The Middlesex and Boston Street Railway Company operates a bus running
between Arlington Heights and Bedford Center, with a nominal half-hour
schedule during peak periods and hourly during the rest of the day, and
with a fare of 34 between this area and Arlington Heights
0
19
the case in Meagherville. None of the locational problems of the
land present a serious barrier to development JGA's conclusion is
that the site is suitable in terms of location for the uses proposed,
and we recommend that it be made available for development
(3) Town policy on land development and housing: The policy issues in-
volved in use of the land in Meagherville for subsidized housing are
clearly the most critical ones, and the ones most open to debate.
The real issue seems to be whether the Town should make land now
publicly owned available for provision of low-and moderate-income
housing. On this issue, JGA's recommendation is clear and simple:
such action would not only be appropriate for the Town, but it is both
a responsibility and a rare opportunity for public initiative The
Town has acquired most of the land proposed for housing development
at relatively low cost, even considering the taxes lost from land
foreclosed for nonpayment; usually, the cost of land is a major barrier
to development of subsidized housing. The Town already owns the land
(except for a few scattered parcels) and can minimize the usual time-
consuming and cumbersome procedures of eminent domain takings by
housing authorities or urban renewal acquisition for subsidized
housing development
The other issue related to public policy is how much the preferences
of the existing residential neighborhoods near a resource like the land
20
in Meagherville should determine decisions about its use Legitimate
concerns about development of the land have been raised, by those who
live in the general vicinity of the site These concerns include
potential traffic generated by the housing proposed, the impact on
schools, and the off-site capital costs to the Town of making some of
the land available for residential development JGA's study of the
Meagherville tract took into account these concerns as well as the
physical and locational characteristics discussed above Our conclu-
sion is that the development of the land for the uses proposed, and in
particular for some subsidized housing, is feasible Therefore, the
development of the Meagherville site with some subsidized housing
should be implemented as part of the Town's housing program.
JGA is well aware that the history of subsidized housing proposals is
frequently recorded with strenuous neighborhood objections, and that
sound, clear and reasonable technical answers to legitimate concerns
do not necessarily reduce opposition. JGA believes that in such
situations the objectives of the Town as a whole must take precedence
in determining to use a given site for subsidized housing.
JGA's position is that the provision of subsidized housing is a Town-
wide responsibility, and that the land in Meagherville is a Town
resource which should be used to help meet that responsibility
Naturally, a corollary responsibility of the Town is to provide the
facilities and services required to support the new population.
21
The use of the Meagherville land proposed by JCA also reflects two
equally important objectives contained in the "Subsidized Housing Program"
(1) to use selected Town-owned land as a resource to make significant
progross toward the Town's target for subsidized housing while main-
taining good standards of land development; and (2) to provide for
dispersed subsidized housing throughout the Town so that it fits into
the fabric of the community, and avoids concentrating all families
with limited incomes in one place JCA's position is that (1) no
conflict exists between these two objectives in using the Meagherville
land; (2) starting in Meagherville represents the first step since
much more housing than proposed for Meagherville remains to be pro-
vided in implementing the Planning Board's 'Subsidized Housing Program";
and (3) the Town will lose an unusual opportunity if some of this land
is not developed to include a substantial number of subsidized units
If the site plan and mix of unit sizes and types recommended by this
report (discussed in a later section) were implenented, only a quarter
of the Town's target number of units would be provided There is a
fundamental difference between high-density public housing projects
on cramped sites in decaying central city neighborhoods and the low-
density development -- similar to other multi-family housing like
Captain Parker Arms -- proposed for the Meagherville land. Any
comparison between the two is seriously misleading
e
22
Appropriateness of a Mixed-Use Development
Having established that the site is appropriate for each of the uses pro-
posed by the mandate for the study, a related question is whether combining
those uses is a valid concept. We find no reason, in either planning or
site design principles or in arguments raised during the course of the
study, to conclude any incompatibility between an elementary school,
recreational space and conservation land, and housing on the same site.
The land area involved is more than ample to accommodate the space re-
quirements of each of the uses, and to allow for a comfortable separation
of parts of the site- developed for each use. In fact, the size of the
site is an advantage in that two of the most important supporting facilities
for new housing can be provided in proximity to it. The new elementary
school is not scheduled to be built for several years, but in the interim
school children living in the new housing will have access to school
facilities through the same busing program that presently distributes
many of the Town's students among available facilities The area proposed
for recreation is more than adequate to serve both the new housing and the
existing neighborhood.
JGA's conclusion is that the uses proposed for the site are mutually rein-
forcing and can be combined in a way consistent with good site planning
practice, and that they will be a positive addition to the existing
neighborhood.
23
The Proposed Site Plan
The scope of the study undertaken by JGA included development of alternative
preliminary site plans, to illustrate how the proposed uses could be accom-
modated on the site. The appropriate use of these plans should be clearly
understood. More detailed site planning will have to be done by the
developers of parts of the site -- the Town itself for the elementary
school and the public recreation and conservation areas, and the developer
or developers for the proposed housing, The plans at the stage they are
presented in this report represent a framework for that detailed planning,
and should be used as a flexible set of guidelines rather than a rigid
formula.
Taking all site planning factors into consideration, JCA recommends the
use of Alternative Al It offers the advantage of maintaining space for
expansion of the recreation area which Alternative A3 does not, and of
a better choice of directions of movement off the site from all of the
housing areas than in Alternative A2. The latter advantage is important,
since it means residents of the new development could avoid Garfield
Street if school traffic is heavy, and that road maintenance and repair
could take place without causing circulation problems.
The basic characteristics which are important to maintain in more detailed
planning are reflected by the comparision between the three alternatives
24
(1) The area below 120 feet in elevation is undeveloped and retained for
conservation Unless the downstream drainage problem (congestion in
Kiln Brook and the Shawsheen River) is eliminated, that part of the
site will continue to collect and hold water. If it were drained,
which is desirable in any case, that part of the site should be left
as conservation land or used only for recreation.
(2) Vehicular access roads internal to the site should be kept at a
minimum, for safety, efficiency and attractiveness The roads pro-
vided in the alternative site plans all service the school and the
housing areas adequately An alignment that sacrifices pedestrian
access from the new housing to the school and recreation areas without
requiring crossing of a vehicular road (as in Alternative A3) is a
distinct disadvantage.
(3) The areas proposed for housing allow development of the proposed
number of units at a moderate density of 10 units per acre. The
site plans within these areas could be modified for construction of
buildings on individual lots -- either detached garden apartment
structures or single-family houses, although that kind of a plan
would probably cost more than attached townhouses as indicated by
the preliminary site plan. The "clustered', site plan incorporated
in the three alternatives could be developed at lower density than
is indicated. Lower density would obviously mean spreading on-site
25
development costs over a smaller number of units that would make the
financing tighter and low costs to the occupants more difficult to
achieve. It would also require more vehicular access roads to
service the housing as conveniently as a "clustered" plan does
(4) The two separated areas for development of housing (shorn in Alterna-
tives Al and A?) could be merged into one by reversing the position
of the future play arca and the northernmost housing site. The Board
has indicated that it favors separating the parcels, to allow the
possibility of different developers assuming responsibility for each,
of more variety in the design of structures as between the two parcels,
and of different time phasing for each -- for example, of funds for
only some of the units are immediately available. If a single
developer strongly prefers to build all of the units at once, and
can do so, the site plan could be modified with no negative effects.
Traffic
In all site plan alternatives, traffic from the site exits the area by
way of Reed Street to Bedford Street. The Board's engineering consultants
conclude that Reed Street itself, and specifically the intersection of
Reed and Bedford, is adequate (with recommended repaving and signalization)
to absorb the increased traffic, with even more units than Alternative Al
recommends.
26
JGA recognizes that the report of the engineers, and our acceptance of it,
may not reassure residents of the neighborhood who are convinced that
traffic is already too heavy and that any increase is unacceptable JGA's
own preliminary observations raised questions about the capacity of Reed
Street to absorb additional traffic, and the issue was discussed at length
at public meetings during the study. More detailed analysis by the Board's
engineering consultants has resolved the issue as described above (and in
the engineers' report, included in Appendix N) It should be noted that
some increased traffic could be anticipated from the proposed elementary
school in any case Further, the volume of traffic estimated to be
generated from use of the site for a regional vocational school -- which
some residents indicated would be a preferable alternative use -- would be
much greater than the volume of traffic from the proposed housing.
JGA did explore other patterns of vehicular access to the site, but con-
cluded that the additional off-site development costs to the Town could
hardly be justified unless traffic could not be absorbed by Reed Street.
Unit Size and Type Mix
JGA considered a range of combinations of unit sizes and types as part of
the study, and evaluated their effect on development costs, housing costs
to the residents, schools, and other factors. A major element in the work
0
27
on financing was to provide for the market identified during the study as
a key one -- people who now work in Lexington -- teachers, firemen and
policement, and others who are of critical value to the Town -- but who
cannot afford to live in the community in many cases. Based on discussion
with the Planning Board and on the discussions during the public meetings
held as part of the study, JGA has concluded the following:
(1) The development should include a mixture of income levels -- low and
moderate income, and some families paying unsubsidized rents as well.
It should be recognized that including a substantial number of
"market-price" units while keeping the total number constant reduces
the number of subsidized units available. Socially and economically,
a mixed-income development is clearly preferable to concentrating all
families with similar limited incomes in one place. MHFA financing,
recommended primarily because of its faster processing and greater
flexibility, builds in income mixing as an integral part of its
formula.
(2) A mixture of rental units and of units available for ownership is
highly desirable. Hopefully, an initial commitment by MHFA could be
made for a financing package flexible enough to allow the determina-
tion of disposition of the units to await an indication of the pre-
ferences of the new residents at the time of occupancy That is, a
proportion of the units could be designed as suitable either for
{
0
28
ownership or rental (in terms of configuration on the land, facilities,
etc ) and the difference in cost for the two options be presented as
a choice to the prospective residents
(3) JCA has recommended a mixture of units for families and for elderly
households based on the Planning Board's subssdized housing program,
on other similar developments and on general experience in the field
of housing development That precise mix of unit size, type and
income level is not a rigid feature of any development proposal at
this stage, and must be left somewhat to the discretion of the even-
tual developer, who will have ultimate responsibility for marketing
the units when they are built In the absence of any outside constraints
such as financing only for a particular type of unit, the mix of units
should be a relatively open issue The Town, through the Planning
Board, should review the developer's proposals in the light of the
community's objectives, however No fewer than 25% low-income units
and 40% total subsidized units can be provided in any case. The
proportion of unsubsidized units should not be greatly increased (over
the recommendation reflected in the financing estimates) unless the
developer can demonstrate that an increase is strictly necessary to
make the project economically feasible Similarly, the recommended
proportion of units for families with children, who have a harder
time finding adequate units in the private market, should only be
changed substantially under the same conditions
29
The mix of unit sizes and types recommended by JGA is as follows
20 units Studio rental apartments for the elderly
(combination living and sleeping space)
30 units 1-bedroom rental apartments for the elderly
48 units 1-bedroom rental apartments for younger couples
95 units 2-bedroom units for rental or purchase by
families
95 units 3-bedroom units for rental or purchase by
families
30 units 4-bedroom units for rental or purchase by
families
318 total units
The assumption is that all elderly households will wish to rent rather
than to buy, and that one-bedroom units (and two-bedroom units, for
most families) are too small to justify the longer-term commitment
that ownership implies, in light of uncertainty about future family
size and plans for place of permanent residence. The RH zone regu-
lations provide that a minimum of 40% of the units in any development
be subsidized housing (for either low-income or moderate-income
households). Presumably, most or all of the apartments for the
elderly would be occupied by low-income households, and a larger
proportion of the larger units should be made available at lower
cost since larger families must make limited income stretch further.
30
Impact on Schools
The unit size and type mix proposed is estimated to generate the following
number of school children, based on experience with comparable developments
50 units for elderly households No children
48 1-bedroom units for younger No children
couples
95 2-bedroom units 100-120 total children
50-60 preschool children
40-45 elementary school students
10-15 junior high/high school
students
95 3-bedroom units 200-250 total children
100-125 preschool children
80-100 elementary school students
20-25 junior high/high school
students
30 4-bedroom units 100-125 total children
50-60 preschool children
40-50 elementary school students
10-15 junior high/high school
students
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT 400-495 total children
200-245 preschool children
160-195 elementary school students
40-55 junior high/high school
students
It should be strongly emphasized that not all of these school-age children
will be an addition to the current enrollment, since many families who
would live in the proposed housing may already live in the community and
4
31
have children in school Experience with a comparable development (in
Stoughton) is that half of the school children in families applying for
units were already attending school in the community In that development,
more applications have been received than there are units available, and so
a selection policy that gives preference to present community residents
would increase that proportion and reduce the new school enrollment
Development Costs
Another aspect of the development of the Meagherville land of concern to
the community as a whole is the cost to the Town of making the land
available for development The bulk of the cost of making improvements
on the site -- new streets, sewer and water lines, drainage improvements,
site clearance and preparation -- is a legitimate cost of the new housing
development itself, and would be borne by the developer as part of project
financing. There are costs to the Town of two kinds, however (1) the
cost of improvements to local streets that provide access to the site but
are not a part of the development itself, and (2) the cost of on-site
improvements (drainage, water, sewer and land preparation) related to
construction of the new school and the public recreation area Plans to
use parts of the site for the school and recreation areas were part of the
Town's development policy before subsidized housing development on part
of the land became an issue. In that light, development costs associated
e
32
with those uses are in no sense attributable to new housing development,
whether on-site or off-site While the Board's engineering consultants
have not yet completed their analysis, the figures (included in Appendix N)
indicate that development costs to the Town in total would not exceed
$150,000 under Alternative Al (the most expensive, in terms of total
development costs). That figure includes rebuilding Garfield and Earl
Streets to service the site (which would be required for the new school
and playground in any case), repaving Reed and Centre Streets to handle
new traffic, installation of signalization at the intersection of Reed
and Bedford, and some part of the cost of water, drainage and sewers
attributable to the school and recreation uses Without including the
cost of rebuilding Earl and Garfield Streets and the utilities for the
school and recreation area, the cost to the Town of making it possible to
build new housing drops well below $100,000
In comparison with these figures, it should be noted that financing
estimates for the new housing have included a payment to the Town for the
land of $500 per unit, or $159,000 in the case of the recommended site plan.
It would not be unreasonable for a nonprofit sponsor to expect the contri-
bution of the land by the Town without cost, since payment for land does
increase costs to the residents of the new housing If a payment were
made, however, it is clear that it would compensate the Town in full for
the costs of the development Since the total cost involved is so small,
it is obviously a legitimate policy question for the Town whether it wants
33
to recoup its limited costs at the expense of the limited-income residents
of the new housing In conventional developments on privately-owned land
the Town would have to pay for off-site costs without a comparable payment
for land
Another aspect of the costs to the Town are annual costs of providing
supporting services° and facilities. There is no realistic, accurate way
of projecting those kinds of costs on a simple per-unit or per-capita
basis, since they shift depending on density of development (higher-density
being typically less costly to service), efficiency of public services,
and the point at which major new facilities or equipment must be added
because of an increase in population, and similar factors On the other
side of the scale, the financing estimates for the new housing do include
a payment in lieu of taxes to the Town of 20% of gross rental income, or
about $143,000 annually That is clearly more than would be produced in
revenue if the land proposed for housing development were instead devoted
to non-taxpaying uses (which would still require service and maintenance
expenditures) The proposed payment is about 25% less than the same land
area would probably produce if developed for single-family housing under
current zoning, but the chances of that happening are apparently not high.
34
Financing
JGA's recommendation on financing of the proposed development is simple
the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency offers the most flexible, quickest
and most accessible source of both interim construction financing and perma-
nent mortgage financing MHFA can make funds available for rental or
ownership housing, and has the added advantage of being able to combine
FHA 236 interest rate subsidies with its own subsidy. As of this year
(Chapter 855 of the Acts of 1970) MHFA has access to special interest
rate subsidy funds which will reduce interest costs to an effective 1%
rate for rental units and to the rate achieved by the payment of 25% of
the purchaser's income for ownership units (Sections 13A and 13B of Ch. 855)
These subsidies would be used in place of FHA 236 funds on some projects,
not in addition to them. Those funds are expected to be appropriated by
next June, in ample time to be available for the proposed development.
MHFA also offers the advantage of faster and more flexible processing,
which realizes significant savings on overall project costs The desired
mixture of income levels can be achieved by several alternative combinations
of interest rate subsidy, rent skewing or leasing of some units to the
Lexington Housing Authority
The mcterials on financing already prepared for the Planning Board by JGA
as part of the study (and included in Appendix L) indicated the rent levels
that would be produced for different unit sizes using MHFA financing and
35
a combination of rent skewing and FHA 236 interest rate subsidy. The
adjustment to allow for inclusion of a wider range of incomes than reflected
in those figures is a simple one, since the 1% interest rate subsidy
(either 236 or MHFA' s own 13A fund) can be applied to some of the units,
leaving the rest at the rent level produced by the normal MHFA 71/2% mortgage
rate. That adjustment is reflected in the figures below. The figures
also reflect different unit space standards for the three levels of incomes
included in the development. The change in total floor area, and thus in
total development costs, is minor but does allow for a more realistic
assumption about willingness of residents at different income levels to
be part of a mixed-income, rent-skewed development. The financing figures
do allow for on-site development costs as developed by the Board's engineering
consultants other than bricks-and-mortar construction cost The original
financing calculations reflected a total per-square-foot cost figure high
enough to allow for site preparation and improvement costs, and so the total
construction cost is unaffected.
S O
36
Financing Estimates
Land ($500 per unit) $ 159,000
Construction (291,238 square feet at
$20/s f., including on-site
development costs) 5,824,760
Financing
Carrying Charges (1% of total
development cost) 68,928
Construction Financing (8% for 18 months
for 63% of construction cost) 440,352
Construction Fee 0
Other Fees (5 8% of total development cost) 399,784
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST 6,892,824
ADJUSTED TOTAL (2% net savings resulting
from faster MHFA processing) 6,754,968
Cost per unit 21,242
Mortgage Constant (71/4% and 1% for 40 years;
lower rate for moderate- and low-income
units) .084 .0303
Annual Debt Service 1,784 644
Operating Expenses (40% of Gross Cost) 1,195 1,195*
GROSS ANNUAL COST 2,979 1,839
Average Monthly Rent 248 151
*Operating expenses are estimated at 40% of gross cost for units at
7k% interest. They are not reduced for lower-cost units since the 1%
interest rate subsidy applies to the cost of the mortgage and not to
operating cost
37
Rent Schedule
Low Income Moderate Income Middle Income
# units rent # units rent # units rent
20 units 0-BR 20 $ 73 - - - -
(elderly)
30 units 1-BR 15 $ 80 15 $100 - -
(elderly)
48 units 1-BR 10 $100 10 $135 28 $240
(family)
95 units 2-BR 10 $115 39 $155 44 $270
(family
95 units 3-BR 10 $135 40 $183 45 $300
(family)
30 units 4-BR 15 $146 15 $197 - -
(family)
TOTAL 80 119 119
Total Rent Roll Required.
199 units at $151 average $30,049
119 units at $248 average $39,512
TOTAL $59,561
Rent Roll from Schedule Above $59,620
.
38
Low-Income Moderate-Income Middle-Income
# units floor area # units floor area # units floor area
0-BR 20 400 s f - - - -
1-BR 25 500 25 600 - -
2-BR 10 650 39 725 28 650
3-BR 10 800 40 950 44 850
4-BR 15 950 15 1250 45 1075
TOTALS 80 49,250 119 100,025 119 103,975
TOTAL SPACE. 253,250 s.f in dwelling units
291,238 s f including 157. allowance for corridors, service
space, etc.
O
39
The Role of the Developer
The MHFA financing recommended provides the additional advantage of
flexibility in selection of a developer for the new housing. Ml1FA funds
arc available to non-profit or limited-dividend sponsors. JGA has reviced
the project with some development organizations who have had experience
with subsidized housing, although this review has by no means included all
potential sponsors or builders of the proposed housing. In addition, the
Planning Board has conferred with prospective developers. JGA has no
simple summary recommendation to make in terms of choice of developers.
There has been mixed experience with local non-profit sponsors of housing
Housing built by non-profit sponsors has sometimes taken longer to build,
and has cost more as a result, than housing built by profit-oriented com-
mercial builders. Other non-profits have been notably successful, including
some in the Boston area. MHFA provides extensive technical assistance to
non-profit sponsors in exactly those areas of development that have caused
problems in other cases, and that assistance is a great advantage. An
effective combination of resources has often been sponsorship by a local
organization, or coalition of them, who have a foundation in the couuuunity
working together with a development organization who has more experience
in financing, building and management.
One recommendation that JGA does make strongly is that the Board select a
developer as soon as possible, and in any case well in advance of the Town
A
M O
40
Meeting If possible, rezoning of the land for subsidized housing develop-
ment should be concurrent with conveyance of the land for housing to a
development entity, and that can only happen if a relationship with a
potential developer by the Board can be established soon.
Zoning
The site planning work and related development studies performed by JGA
have beencarriedout to be consistent with the Town's Zoning By-Law.
Thedensity of development proposed is substantially lower than permitted
by either the RH subsidized housing zone or the RM apartment residential
zone JGA has not identified any problems in the substantive or the
procedural provisions of the Zoning By-Law that would make implementation
of the proposed development difficult, and does not recommend any variance
from the zoning provisions in order to implement the proposals
The RH zone (see Appendix 0) offers significant advantages over the RM
(garden apartment) zone of two kinds (1) there is greater flexibility
in the substantive provisions -- building arrangements, density, yard
requirements, vehicular access, parking, open space -- that can be granted
by special permit from the Board of Appeals; and (2) there are counter-
balancing procedural safeguards in the provisions for application for
special permit and the requirements for a report of the Planning Board on
41
a proposed project The RH zone allows for a creative use of design controls
by the Town to insure that subsidized housing results in use of the land
under high standards of development The Planning Board should take advan-
tage of that opportunity by building in the Design Advisory Committee
early in the process, as soon as a developer is selected, so that a good
working relationship can be achieved.
e
JGA recommends that the Meagherville land be rezoned from RS (single-family
residential) to RH (subsidized housing district)
Other Related Developments
During the course of this study, the issue of any proposal for use of the
Meagherville land being only part of an overall subsidized housing program
for the Town has repeatedly been raised in discussion with neighborhood
residents and with the Board. JGA's mandate did not include any analysis
of the relative merits of use of this site in comparison to others, or of
the effect of an assumption that other units would be provided on other
sites. JGA does strongly recommend that the Meagherville land be developed
for subsidized housing, and that recommendation would not be changed by
plans to provide additional subsidized housing in other locations
Mr.
42
However, this report cannot be submitted without noting that one of the
primary points of contention in the evaluation of the proposals for
Meagherville by the community, and especially by the neighborhoods near
the site, will continue to be the Board's proposals for implementing
other parts of its overall housing program. It would be extremely
unfortunate if action on the proposed use of the Meagherville land were
postponed pending other studies or proposals that the community feels
could and should be made now, so that the proposals in this report can be
evaluated relative to other opportunities to provide subsidized housing
That is simply not the central issue in use of the Meagherville land.
JGA does recommend that the Planning Board act as expeditiously as possible
to develop proposals to implement other aspects of its subsidized housing
program, so that the overall targets will become a reality It is encour-
aging that another proposal for use of the RH zone provisions -- the
Clematis Brook Village on land owned by Trinity Covenant Church -- is
scheduled to be submitted to the special Town Meeting in January If other
phases of the Board's program should not be activated now for good reasons,
at least the Board would be in a better position that it has been to assure
the community that the Meagherville development is only the first step