Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-10-GDPC-rpt.pdf VW- VD 5sMORNfN f='3 Town of Lexington, Massachusetts L - 3; a PLANNING BOARD aa�a^ a 4!'XIN GIP'‘ Kenneth G. Briggs November 1, 1976 TOWN OFFICE BUILDING Planning Director Lexington,MA 02173 617/862-0500/Ext.24 Mr. Frank T. Keefe, Director Office of State Planning John W. McCormack Building Room 201 One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 Dear Mr. Keefe: In accordance with Chapter 807 of the Acts of 1975, the Town of Lexington Local Growth Policy Committee hereby submits to the Office of State Planning Its Local State- ment of Growth Problems and Priorities. Lexington's final statement is based on its tentative response to the Growth Policy Questionnaire, as submitted to your office on October 6, 1976, which was revised to reflect comments and suggestions of attendees at the public hearing on October 21, 1976. // ,7 Sincerely, f ,% . nneth G. Briggs lanning Director KGB:ms cc: MAPC Lexington Town Clerk XL(3kat-e_.0.- Z I, .v .„ .z JS MORN_/NC' '�' P v., Town of Lexington, Massachusetts Q oe ~ � t PLANNING BOARD �E:CI\liK 9 Kenneth G. Briggs TOWN OFFICE BUILDING Planning Director Lexington,MA 02173 61 7/862-0500/Ext.24 TOWN OF LEXINGTON LOCAL GROWTH POLICY COMMITTEE Eric T. Clarke Lexington Planning Board Fred C. Bailey Lexington Board of Selectmen Angela E. Frick Lexington Conservation Commission James W. Lambie Lexington Board of Health Daniel P Busa Lexington Recreation Committee Elizabeth. W. Reinhardt Lexington Historical Commission George P. Wadsworth Lexington School Committee Mary E. Shunney Lexington Housing Authority Kenneth G. Briggs Planning Director Robert W. Connelly 87 Simonds Road Susan C. Hodgkins 33 Prospect Hill Road Frank Sandy 353 Emerson Road Donald D. Wilson 36 Fern Street .4 QTo� N\3fA ifop a 1 !z\i a l�a %n!I LFXf.VGT�% Lexington Local Growth Policy Statement Prepared by The Local Growth Policy Committee Growth Management Problems and Priorities Pursuant to The Massachusetts Growth Policy Development Act - Ch. 807, Acts of 1975 October 1976 PART IV SUMMARY ® 4.1 Goals/Objectives/Values: What are the major goals, objectives and values which your community feels should guide the future growth, development and change of your community of your region, and of the State as a whole? r The primary objective of local growth policy in Lexington as identified by most responding committee members is to preserve the character of the Town. Factors contributing to the Town's character were specified as the quality of the school system, its active and responsible citizens, its efficient public services, its program of land conservation and its present residential character and density. In order to achieve this objective it seems clear that committee members support active conservation efforts to acquire open land or to limit its development, as well as participate in programs to support continuing operation of the few remain- ing farms in Town and stringent controls for protection of wetlands. Implicit also is support of the school system in its search for excellence Because Lexington's developable land is largely used up, growth is expected to be limited in the near future We anticipate that the present proportion of 88% of our building permits for new units being issued for single family dwellings will continue. Thus housing stock available in the Town will continue to be predomin- ately single family. U.S. census figures for 1970 reveal that the median cost then was $37,000. No doubt it has risen since 1970. Clearly, this predicates a town in Fhich only the affluent can afford to live, a growth expectation in conflict with the expressed values of many on the committee. Many felt that it is neither healthy for the Town nor morally acceptable to permit such limited, 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 objective of a growth policy would be to find ways to encour- age a more heterogeneous mix in the town population by an active moderate and low- income housing program Lexington has a responsibility to the region to provide a mix of adequate housing for a variety of income levels. Some growth in both commercial and industrial uses is desirable to offset the predominantly residential tax-base Lexington's perception of itself as a resi- dential suburb is partially inaccurate. Industry has been attracted to the Rte.2 and Rte. 128 corridors, eighteen new companies settling in Town in the last ten years, the majority since 1970. We have been absorbing new industries with little observable impact. Commercial 'diversification in the center was seen as desirable, the present mix of travel agencies, shoe stores, cut-rate drugstores and banks being inadequate to sustain the vitality of the center as a local community focus. Perhaps the physi- cal boundaries of the center, which are essentially the same as those one hundred years ago when the Town was one fifteenth its present population, ought to be re- considered as well. Smaller neighborhood areas for shops and local services are considered desirable, particularly if linked to recreational areas and schools so that a neighborhood gathering place is created. • Finally, in preserving the character of the Town, it was suggested that the roads be kept as "rural", i.e. as tree-lined, shady and lovely as is consistent with safety. Intertown traffic might be rerouted to major arteries such as Rte. 2 and Rte. 128 and be discouraged from going through the center. Regionally, better public transportation networks created by a more efficient MBTA were seen as a major goal. Co-ordination of bus and train schedules for greatest efficiency, and evaluation of the proposed Red-line extension were cited as neces- sary objectives. Job access in the region would be improved by diminished reliance on the private automobile. Connections with other suburbs were considered to be as significant as connection with the Boston/Cambridge core city. Other regional goals were containment of Hanscom Field air activities and the development of a solid waste disposal facility. It was also felt that a stronger regional economy ought to be developed by the encouragement of business and indus- trial growth in selected areas in the region. Goals for the state's future included a streamlining of state government to reduce the burden on taxpayers, better education and job opportunities particularly for the disadvantaged, a strengthened state economy, and tax reform to reduce community dependence on the local property tax. Finally, a state environmental policy which respected responsible local conservation decisions and contained a state wide land use plan which ensured environmental quality was considered important 0 4:2 ,Major Growth Related Issues• What are the major growth related issues (both positive and negative) facing your community? Local growth related issues were identified as the probable impact on remaining open land should population pressures increase. Thus growth would raise the problem of optimum use of Lexington's remaining open land. How much land should be left open, and for what purposes under what kind of ownership are questions needing serious planning in the Town Directly related to this issue is that of providing a housing mix which will in- crease the heterogeneity of the Town. Increased density in combination with protec- tion of farm land and increased conservation land acquisitions on the Town peripheries is a possible solution. The vitality of Lexington Center was also seen as an issue. If growth is scattered evenly over the total area of the Town, the Center, being beyond walking distance for most residents, will have increasingly difficult traffic problems Since the Center ought to provide commercial opportunities in specialty shops, good restaurants and lively cultural opportunities which would draw people to it, solving the traffic problem in the Center by failing to provide the shopping or cultural activities any citizen can expect in a viable town is scarcely an acceptable solution. Regional improvement of the transportation network, although seen as a desirable goal also creates growth related problems Improved transportation means better access to jobs and to other areas in the region Historically all major improvements in transportation, beginning with the local railroad in 1846, have contributed to population growth. Thus what we need and seek becomes the instrument of what we would like to limit and control. + • Actions of other towns in the region which will have impact on Lexington were also considered to be issues as was the future of Hanscom Field. Finally, the develop- ment of a solid waste disposal facility to serve the area is an issue needing prompt resolution. 414:3 Issue Resolution In terms of resolving or addressing the above issues, what actions would be necessary? By whom? What constraints are there in seeing those issues resolved? Town Meeting, local boards, and Town officials have sufficient power to direct resolution of specifically local issues such as conservation land acquisition, wet- land protection, continued farm operation, creation of a suitable housing mix and maintenance of quality education. Improvement in the vitality of Lexington Center as a suitable commercial area is partly a zoning problem but also depends very much on the decisions of property owners in the Center. It should be remembered that local decis`ons can also be constrained by regional and state policies. For example, restrictions on snob zoning by the state, state man- dates affecting housing policy, and state decisions on highway construction can have an impact on local patterns beyond the control of local decision making. On the other hand, state policies can be helpful in assisting the Town to meet local and regional goals. State and federal assistance in planning and implementing an improved mass transportation system, state policies to encourage operating farms to continue, non-political state conservation policies which would support local wetlands and conservation decisions are among the areas in which state aid would be welcome. Regional goals will require co-operation among affected towns in planning and imple- menting programs. Such issues as solid waste disposal, adequate mass transportation, and desirable policies for use of Hanscom Field will require Lexington's active participation in regional decision making. Only by regional participation and demonstration of a willingness to arrive at the best regional solution can we hope to havethese issues resolved in the most desirable possible way for the Town. ® 4 4 Programmatic and Institutional Changes Proposed. Are there changes in existing programs or in existing institutions (e.g. regional bodies) which would facilitate the resolution of those growth related issues? The programmetric and institutional changes proposed by the Growth Policy Committee were varied and do not necessarily represent a consensus by the committee as a whole. Concerns developed in the following areas 1. New Housing: State development objectives, to accommodate new growth and to respond to the overall housing needs of the state and the region, must cater to a variety of clients and incomes and offer wider choices of residential environments. New housing should also encourage heterogeneous social and class mixing The "New Town" concept should be examined. Legislative alternatives should be developed which would permit such towns and provide for either private or public front-end captial 2. Improvement of Educational Opportunities Development of a new institutional mechanism whereby the more affluent suburbs within the region can help critical inner city areas without losing their own values and identity. 3. Environmental Quality Reduce the authority of the State Dept. of Environmental Quality and Engineering to weaken Wetland Protection orders of local conservation commissions. A second recommendation was that the Town write their own wetland protection act, eliminating state jurisdiction over a local problem 4. Transportation: Program changes should 'be developed to improve efficiency and personnel productivity of the MBTA, with better services provided at affordable prices. 5. Regional Planning: Development of a regional perspective by the Town to promote intercommunity cooperation and coordination of planning for area wide concerns such as solid waste disposal, transportation, parks and recreational facilities. Because the existing thirteen regional planning agencies of the State lackauthority, per- haps a re-organized regional system serving, and elected by an area wide constit- uency could have effective planning for the delivery of these services and other governmental services that may not be within the capabilities of local communities to perform. 414:5 Additional Comments Are there other findings made by your committee upon which you would base recommendations? Responses to this section of the question- naire have been incorporated in Section 4:6 - Recommendations. 414.6 Recommendations• I. Land Use Local Initiative 1. Strengthen enforcement of present zoning by-laws. 2. Continuously update zoning by-laws. 3. Acquire more open space. 4. Intensify dialogue with owners of large parcels of land to map out best combination of land development and land conservation. 5. Purchase development rights for agricultural land. 6. Zone for cluster development, conservation easements, agricultural land and some new couuuercial and industrial development. 7. Zone for balanced community/housing mix. 8. Provide low cost, subsidized housing for local people. 9. Carefully control any new high density housing 10. Exercise more stringent controls over siting and use in new commercial zones. 11. Write our own wetland protection by-law. State Initiative 1. Strengthen State support of local conservation decisions. 2. Reduce Dept. of Environmental Quality's authority to weaken the Conservation Commission's Wetland Protection. orders. • 3-. Preserve agricultural land use by assisting small farmers. 4. Maintain a mix of housing patterns (urban, suburban and rural) within the region without usurping local authority. 5. Develop legislative proposal for "new towns". 6. In order to effect better land use policies, State Agencies should thoroughly re-evaluate current policies for transportation, economic development, funding programs in education (e.g. Ch.70) , housing assistance, and environmental controls. II Transportation Local Initiative 1. Oppose Red Line extension into Lexington at present time. 2. Evaluate Red Line extension - if necessary, work to minimize adverse impact on Lexington. Regional Initiative 1. Increase aid for regional mass transportation 2. Provide regional highway links to minimize us of Town streets for intertown travel. State Initiative 1. Build Hartwell Ave.-Rte. 128 connector. III Solid Waste Disposal Local Initiative 1. Promote regional solid waste disposal system. 2. Locate regional solid waste transfer station. in. Lexington. Regional Initiative 1. Strengthen regional refuse committee. State Initiative 1. Construct Hartwell Ave.-Rte 128 connector. IV Hanscom Field Regional Initiative 1. Prevent increases in traffic pending use of quieter jet engines. State Initiative 1. Enact strict airport noise legislation. V Lexington Center Local Initiative 1. Establish committee to study parking, traffic flow, and transitional zoning to revitalize the Center VI Regional Planning State Initiative 1. Strengthen regional planning authorities. 2. Reorganize the regional planning system, using elected representatives, to plan and provide areawide services such as recreation, subsidized housing, transportation and solid waste disposal. 3. Provide for more regional participation in Boston's educational system. ® 4:7 Next Steps: Are there some specific "NEXT STEPS" which should be taken in order to further these recommendations? By whom? The original Goals and Objectives Committee of Lexington, established before the Growth Policy Committee, could assume the responsibility for periodic review of the Town's goals and objectives as developed by the Growth Polciy Committee for the purpose of developing a mechanism in the planning process to provide for an ongoing re-evaluation of policies for growth and change in the community. 10.7.76