Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-04-PB-rpt Socio-Economic Characteristics of Lexington.pdf A;°: - SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF LEXINGTON SUMMARY REPORT: Volume 1 HOUSING A Report of the Lexington Planning Board and its Housing Needs Advisory Committee April 1984 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF LEXINGTON SUMMARY REPORT: Volume 1 HOUSING A report of the Lexington Planning Board Jacqueline Smith, Chairperson Karsten Sorensen, Vice Chairman Judith Uhrig, Clerk Steve Cripps Elizabeth Flemings Laura Nichols (through March 5, 1984) and its Housing Needs Advisory Committee Eleanor Klauminzer, Acting Chairperson Joel Adler Eric Clarke Tina Dirks Sherry Edmonds Arturo Gutierrez William Hays David Kravetz Esther Lobell Ruth Nablo Frank Parsons William Spencer Gail Colwell (former chairman) Paul Farrington (former member) Manny Trillo (former member) Lexington Planning Department Robert A. Bowyer, Director Jehanne Arslan, Assistant Planner Mary E. Trudeau, Planning Assistant Susan Burnell, Intern Lorraine Salto, Secretary April, 1984 /a„~ONN/-,, o �o 'K� ,, \l\ Planning Board t ,� _ .\g .. % Town of Lexington, Massachusetts Robert A. Bowyer TOWN OFFICE BUILDING Planning Director Lexington, MA 02173 617/862-0500/Ext. 24 INTRODUCTION TO THE SUMMARY REPORT The preparation of a comprehensive plan for Lexington requires analysis of factors and trends affecting the town. The principal source of data for analysis is the U. S. Census taken every 10 years. When the 1980 U. S. Census information became available in 1982-1983, the Planning Board began preparing the first in a projected series of reports to be called the Socio-Economic Chl rar,taLiglics of Lexington. The series will include: Volume 1: rousing, Volume 2: Population, Volume 3: Transportation, Volume 4: Education, Volume 5: Income-Employment , and Volume 6: Economic Development. Each of these reports will cgmbine U. S. Census with State and local data to be a reference rsource for the most current, comprehensive information on the Town and to document how the town has c •e. over __ The foremost intent of the Socio Economic volumes is to provide unbiased statis- tical data -- the volumes are not proposals, position papers or policies. The Volume's will provide crucial components of the Planning Board's comprehensive planning efforts: the statistical data will be analyzed by the Planning Board and special subcommittees, as needed who to•ether will • - •ol icv statements an•`- create s ra -s o implement those policies. Lexington has perceived itself as a family-oriented town that value�tbP high quality of life enjoyed by its residents. The troublesome trends in the housing. component of the national economy and shifting demographic patterns, combined with the pressure for growth within the suburban Boston-128 region have raised problems which threaten the town's residential character as we hav- known it. This reali- zation demands that the Town take a fresh look at where it ' a--.-•_, Based on this recognition, the Planning Board formed its Housing Needs Advisory Committee in 1982 to assist with Volume 1 - Housing, and to have a major role in developing a policy framework for the Housing Component of the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Volume 1: Housing is now in the final stages of preparation. The Planning Board and its Housing Needs Advisory Committee believe that the data developed and the ssu_ es raised are of such immedr,lat.P ' '1.. . •. e to warrant •re-release of the Summary Report before you now. This advance report is composed of the Summary to Volume 1, the final Chapter 5: Housing Issues to think about, and selected charts and tables. The reader should be aware that while the Summary does provide a cursory overview of the efforts to compile unbiased data, the reader does not have access to the more than one hundred pages of statistical displays and explanation that lead to Chapter 5. The very title of Chapter 5, Housing Issues to Think About, indicates it is designed to raise issues rather than simply present data. Introduction to Summary Report April 23, 1984 of the Housing Study This Summary Report has been published to spark interest and engender discussion among town residents about current housing trends and how Lexington can best position itself to address its needs and goals. Readers of this report who want to review Volume 1 in its entirety, should contact the Planning Board office at 862-0500, x-23. Copies of the full report will be free for Town Meeting Members and Town officials; there will be a charge for other persons. SUMMARY: HOUSING REPORT • How might the Town provide housing opportunities for pe .pis at each stage of their fami or individual life cycle? Lexington's 1980 population no longer follows`"the- traditional suburban pattern of the '50's and '60's, the period when much of the housing stock was built: barely more than 1/3 of all households in town are fami- lies with children; almost 2/3 of all households have three persons or less; and the median population age is 36.8 and getting older. How should the Town maintain the citizen diversity it has valued for so many years? • Should the Town investigate theneeds of the most rapidly growing segment of the community -- single people, and unrelated �ersons who share ,a o e2 And with the general population becoming significantly older (the median age has risen 20% in ten years) , should more effort be devoted to the housing needs of older, single persons in particular? _y • How aggresively should the Town protect its relatively small number of rental units? The availability of rental housing is an im•or . 0! ___ ila lca.uraai.11g population diversity and responding to the different life cycle needs of current _ residents. In "Tig o t-f"iis�an - e intense pressure on the existing rental supply, should the Town promote the construction of additional rental units? How much em- phasis should be placed on apartments -- whether through the conversion of munici- pal buildings or new construction? • Should changes in the Zoning By-Law's dimensional controls and roster of permitted residential housing types be considered? The need for smaller, more affordable units is clear; also clear is the link between affordability and density. --The question is how best to stimulate construction of different density developments while supporting the open space objectives of the Town. • What steps can Lexington take to meet the housing objectives it has stated and ffirme Cines- A- +•_ a. . . a v7- in. -- provision of affordable housing not just for low, but for moderate income persons as well? This report estimates that only 15% of the families currently living in town could afford to purchase the average home sold in 1982. The question of affordability is one that overshadows all other concerns -- will our children and elders be able to live in town? The data leading to the identification of these issues, which are further discussed in Chapter Five, were not culled from a narrow examination of the situation exist- ing within Lexington's political boundaries: rather, the town was examined against its immediate settin• in the High Technology Belt, an area subject to intensive development pressure and strong housing demand. Chapters One through Three place Lexington in perspective with its neighbors -- the abutting communities of Arling- ton, Bedford, Belmont, Burlington, Lincoln, Waltham, Winchester, and Woburn, in addition to Concord, with whom Lexington shares strong historical ties. These first three chapters define the character of the communities, compare their general and detailed housing characteristics, and offer some indications of their change over time. The ten community comparison has affirmed the traditional suburban housing picture: the 279,269 persons living within the 126 square mile study region reside in a predominantly residential area -- the best available figures show that resi- dential use dominates all other intensive land uses by almost 3 to 1. To study housing is to study the heart of the region. The data of the region yield a succinct picture of the average dwelling: a single family detached home on a 1/3 acre lot, owned and livec_i.n y a family of_ three persons. According to recent sstudies,_84o_of ali ner.i„cans.....-p.relez_the .sing_le family lifestyle; the housing profile of the study region, defined in Chapters One trough Three, reflects this strong preference. Almost 70% of the total number of housing units are single family tachedThomes, and almost 70% of the region's housing units are owner-occupied. Renters, then, are at a distinct disadvantage -- only slightly more than 1/3 of the region's units are available to them. Surpris- ingly, the percentage of rental units has not increased significantly over its 1939 level. This lack of rental construction is set against a backdrop of a 148% in- crease in the construction of single family homes since 1939. This re_nor,, + dcacua eats `the_ iigh cost of housing within the study region: despite the economic diversity of the surrounding communities;`the-ave a area home costs al- most $20,000 more than the average Boston SMSA home. Moreover, the data disclose that high home value does not necessarily coincide with a high percentage of home ownership or to a high percentage of undeveloped lands. Whatever the reasons for home values, it is clear that housing affordability for mi dle-income families is a problem in each community., The Housing Component of the Consumer Price Index .a a in Chapter 3 clearly portray the problem. The Lexington Summary Chart on the following page overviews how the Town compared with the other study communities in many of the data categories presented in the first three chapters. Note that the score - Highest Percent. .. .Lowest Percent - has no relation to notions of "good or bad" but simply reflects the Town's position when compared against a municipal average score. SUMMARY CHART Lexington Compared with Contiguous Towns LEXINGTON SCORES CATEGORY HIGHEST PERCENT Oldest Median Age (with Belmont) % Single Family Detached Homes % Owner-Occupied Homes % of Renter Income for Rent ABOVE AVERAGE % Acres Residential Use % Acres: 2-4 Dwellings/Acre Owner-Occupied Home Value % Homes Valued $80-90,000 % Homes Valued $100,000+ Average Gross Rent Increase in Housing Units Since 1940 AVERAGE Persons/Household % Single Family Attached Units % Residential and Open Acres Res. Acres as % Developed Acres % Open and Recreation Acres % Single Family Attached Homes BELOW AVERAGE 1971 Net Residential Density (Homes/Residential Acre) '70-'80 Homes/Square Mile 1971 % Commercial/Industrial Acres % Hi-Density Units % Two Family and 3-4 Units/Building Low/Moderate Income Housing LOWEST PERCENT % Renter Units % Homes Valued less than $50,000 % Homes Valued less than $79,000 % Apartment Units (5+ Units/Building) *Scores do not imply any degree of desirability, but merely represent the distance from a municipal average score. Chapter Four zeroes in on the changes that Lexington has experienced in the past 10 years. The figures below capsulize the Town's 1980 Housing Characteristics: 1980 LEXINGTON HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS: CAPSULE PROFILE Total Population -- 29,479 Median Family Income -- $34,989 Families -- 8,113 (7,981*) Mean Family :Income -- $40,102 Households -- 9,758 (9,673*) Mean H.H. Income -- $36,521 Mean Persons/Households -- 3.04* Median Population Age -- 36.8* years Total Year-Round Housing Units -- 9,767 (9,777*) Occupied -- 9,673 (9,673*) Vacant -- 94 Renter Occupied -- 1,360 All Units: Type Single Family Detached -- 8,425 Single Family Attached -- 334 Two-Family -- 374 Three-Four Family -- 301 Five+ Units/Structure -- 332 Mobile Home/Trailer -- 0 Condominia Units (All Types) -- 310* Mean # Rooms, Year Round Units -- 6.9 Mean Monthly Gross Rent -- $415.00 Median Monthly, Selected, Home Owner Costs -- $571.00 Mean Value, Specified Owner Occupied Unit -- $92,293 ($92,500*) * indicates complete count figures The past ten years have been ones of great change. Lexington is no longer a young, g family-oriented community. • Although town population has declined 7.5%, the number of households has increased. This 11% rise in households is primarily in non-family house- holds -- single persons, and unrelated persons living together: the raw number of non-family households has risen 64% in these ten years. • Since 1970, there has been a 54% increase in the number of one and two person households. Now, 64% of all the households in town have three or less persons. • Married couple families_have declined. In 1970, 82% of the town's families were married couples; today, that figure is only 73%. And in 1970, 2/3 of those married couples had children; today, more than 1/2 are child free. • In the past ten years, the over 55 population increased 39% and the town's median age rose 20%, from 30.7 to 36.8 years. It is certain that this trend will continue. • The 1980 Lexington famil is smaller, more matu - and b- • - _'_m __ has signs scantly more- income to dispose of than its 1970 counterpart: fami- lies-earning more than $56,000 rose 21% and the mean family income has slightly more than doubled. This may be due in part to the fact that 64% of families have two or more workers. But when the average family income has been adjusted for inflation, it has fallen approximately $1,500. When adjusted for inflation, the average sales price of a Lexington home has risen approximately $6,000. • The inability of income to match inflation, coupled with a demand for housing that has set housing above inflation, has produced what national economists term the "ever-widening affordability gap." It has hit home: calculations reveal that only 15% of those now living in town could afford to buy the average home sold in 1982. Lexington is in a period of significant change -- change which challenges the center of the American dream: housing choice and home ownership. Will the Town be able to house its children and its elders, to regain the diverse citizenship it has prized since its inception? The changes and the choices before the Town demand serious study and intelligent decision-making: now is the time to see the future and make it secure. SELECTED GRAPHICS The following maps, tables and graphs represent only a small fraction of the statistical information contained in the full Volume 1. These selected graphics portray • The high cost of homes within the study region • The breakdown of owner vs. renter occupied homes within the study region • The changes in Lexington households that occurred during the past decade • The effects of inflation on the sales price of Lexington homes and family income • A profile of 1982 Lexington homebuyers STUDY REGION -a 1980 OWNER OCCUPIED MEAN HOME VALUE SELECTED, NON-CONDOMINIUM * ,, ,(ilill::::;:":11::::1:.:7,HiiiiIiili::;r1-1.bURLINGTON \ - BEDFORD . .•• .• . N _. $125,000 ,;j ::::::. .. •.-ti N ' ,• ,+ .. WOBUR 100-124,000 --_,..--,A..._.-7,--_--- -.--;-_-._..7.=:- . P .p3:,? :.:::i° £ ONC•RD ;' - �- D $90-99,000 D \ .r = - ��-----_ �{ WINCHESTER ..,,,,,,,,.._ -.. .,f-..:,-- ,, LEXINGTON \ O $75-89,000 0. : . .- - A .'- R.LINGTQN El $60-75,000 .. .., wt j ❑ < $75,000 ,. 4. 't.BELMONT:' \;i WALTHAM / _- $0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130140K J , LINCOLN '11i $133,4321 CONCORD i 102,7851 BELMONT ` 94,403 1 WINCHESTER 1 93,904 LEXINGTON 92,293; BEDFORD X80,043 1 I 64,803 ARLINGTON , ..� .... I. • BURLINGTON 361,411•) I 1 WALTHAM 59 i ;540 1 WOBURN52,5461 1 } $64,419 $83,516 SMSA mean Municipal mean *All units on less than 10 acres, not including 2 family or mixed use buildings. Source: U.S. Census STUDY REGION 1980 OWNER-RENTER UNITS % of Total Occupied Housing Units rimmimimmi..... # # owner / renter 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% \ _ 8313 / 1360 LEXINGTON 1 , . lem8 .-6M,E7 •,.....1.-14%. , , ° . 1 5714 / 1191 BURLINGTON 17% : w , ,83 RENTER i " r 5265 / 1535 WINCHESTE 4=23% /16: 2885 / 886 BEDFORD * ! : , 78)6 '11•14•1111"• 1•1124% , 3899 / 1305 CONCORD . mmorrolimminets25V . 1 7546 / 4847 WOBURN 61% 139%i 5821 / 3903 BELMONT 1343 / 994 57% 1 LINCOLN iim im no en4396 10392 / 8160 ARLINGTON 1 44% 45% . 9275 / 11319 WALTHAM Iins mmm is ow ej e55% ! 32% 47%53% ee% muricipal ay. SMSA ay. rnunicOal ay. STUDY REGION DWELLINGS 96,056 TOTAL.. ..... . . ........... . .... . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. .... .--- - - ::::::::::::::::iii::..i:..iiii:.:,...-.:::::::::::: . .. .. ..... . ... .. . . .... .. . . .. . . . . .. .. .. .... . . .. .. ... . . . .. . ................ .. _. ....... . . .. . . ..... -------- -... ... • • . ....... • .% .: . . . ...... ........ .. . .. . .. .. . ............... . ... ....................... _.. . ... . .. ..... . .....63% 0 T ". " • . . "•• - -.• • • •••••• • """" """" . -.... .••- -::::::::::::::..::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . . ., . .. .... ..... . . ..... ...., _ .,• •. .•.. . . .. ....• • ...,. ........•oee•••a•e",...••..eeeaveee•...epoeonace a . . . , • • ' OWNER OCCUPIED: 60,548 RENTER OCCUPIED: 35,472 RENTER OCCUPIED UNITS % TOTAL OCCUPIED UNITS 7.7.. ...... I", ,\ AFFP7c' '''',,-$:' 'B U R L I N QT(iN,::, El 0-20% •77,77.7777.- BEDFORD 1ONEME10,11M1.0U:AV,4g::.,i',,11, . WOBURNj; '‘ • • D 20-40% 441,,IcoNcORDvOiligii:,:7>..EK:LI '" ',;;ri :..:-.•::•-:''.'-er,:.. .:':' lagitE7Mill:V-'::!';;i:i'MIO:P:Iql:40:7S''''..:,-. \::-:-.,.,-. .. -•- .: - :LEx INGToN\.rwHscHisTER AINIMBEIP.,1;06,11', ,,V:Mbitgnt40 40% -R16911'401FEE:iNi'g:Y,,,P'.;0LINCOLN;:. ARLINGTON ',,g....,,,,,,,,.. -*------,,,.:--.;444:,.:,..it.. ,.-',.•:.,•-::..'-,,,,,,X,31,4 WALTHAM.' BELMONT II LEXINGTON 1974- 1982 ACTUAL AND ADJUSTED SALES PRICE OF LEXINGTON HOMES $ 120 000 110 100 SA ES PRICE C 90 F � 80 70 60 ( 1983 Dollars) £, • 50 S 30 $37,833 u a , 1 ADJUSTED 20 ( 967 Dollars) SAL1.ES tRed $ 10' 0 '74 '75 '76 '77 '78 '79 '80 '81 '82 Source : Assessor's Records 1970- 1980 ACTUAL AND ADJUSTED MEAN FAMILY INCOME $41000 4 $40, 102 - ACTUAL INCOME (1983 Dollars) 3 $ 19,221 20 , : 6-111-11. $14,637 Q$ 16,030 ADJUSTED INCOME ( 19 6 7 Dollars) Deflated $ 0 • 1970 1980 Source : U.S. Census LEXINGTON HOUSEHOLD TYPES 1970- 1980 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 1 f ALL HOUSEHOLDS 970 ' ; 111111111111; 1111111E1111111111111111111 ® ! 8748 1970_ 80.. - 9758 NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 12% " ' 1980 '70 : • IlRES ! IIIIJ ®' IiIIar,■ 7857 84% 8113 FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS NON-FAMILY NUMBER OF FAMILIES 3%A ALL FAMILIES '70 ' it 1002 1970 $0 1645 82 0� _ 118%r, NON-FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS 64% A 1 980 _ j73°6 ;27% MARRIED COUPLES �?THER FAMILI E. '7011111 • 1111111111111111111111111111/ 11117136 '80 7071 ALL MARRIED COUPLES MARRIED COUPLES -1% ii, 1970 J66% S4 'i- 1980 �'0 111111111111111111111I 4712 49% ,.... 5196 '80 • ' 3497 WITH CHILDREN NO CHILDREN MARRIED COUPLES W/CHILDREN -26%A ALL HOUSEHOLDS 1970 I. 32% t.: u68% '70 : IWEli 2764 '80 #4256 1980 , 1-2 PERSON HOUSEHOLDS 54%A 4496 I54% i 1-2 PERSONS 3t PERSONS A represents "delta®", difference or change Source: U. S. Census LEXINGTON 1982 HOME BUYERS A STATISTICAL PROFILE ALL BUYERS FIRST-TIME BUYERS REPURCHASERS 100% 56% 44% Demographic: Median Age 34.5 years 32.75 37.5 Married 70% 78% 65% Unmarried 20% 10% 26% Single Householder 10% 12% 9% Moved within town 30% 10% 53% Economic: importance of two incomes 63% 69% 59% Median monthly/ $5,025 $4117 $5,604 yearly income $60,300 $49,404 $67,248 Median net worth $ 142,680 $101,930 $192,500 Purchased Home 62% -- Condo 38% -- -- Source: Derived from two local lending institutions' statistical records on 1982 home purchasers. (Based on a 23% sample of homes sold in 1982) 108 5. HOUSING ISSUES TO THINK ABOUT COMPARISON OF CURRENT POPULATION COMPOSITION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSING SUPPLY Where have our children gone? Most of the housing in Lexington was built to accommo- date theclassic suburban famrl -- father, mother and 2-4 children. The y population composition of the 1980's no longer follows the traditional suburban pattern of the '50's and '60's. Less than half the households in Lexington have children, almost half (44%) of all households have two persons or less, and more than two-thirds of households have three persons or less. With the highest percentage (86%) of single family houses in the study area, and with an average of 6.9 rooms per dwelling unit, many Lexington residents, at least in the statistical sense, are "overhoused", i.e. , they have more space than they need. For a number of residents, particularly older persons, "overhousing" may represent a_ finan- cial or physical burden. For others, large single family dwellings may provide the means to focus leisure activities within the home -- a growing national trend. But the central issue is the lack of housin• choice within Town, f�or persons di-.ff-er- ent phases of their "life :vele. " Put very simply, the "life cycle" concept addresses t e par icular needs of different age and income groups within our rapidly changing society. Rental units and smaller sized units ar—c ucial components of a balanced housing su••-1. -- one t a can res•ond to the var in. life c cle needs of single people, young working' cou•les sin•]--.a ent families on limited inco mess mature couples hoping to lessen their ownership responsties, or moderate income fermi ies with young children seeking_ to_move to Town because of the excellent school system. Everamong the Town's few rental units, more than 1/3 are single family detached homes. In the past, the Town has been proud of its citizen diversity. Today, housing market and supply factors threaten the Town's citizen diversity, and constrict opportunities to ensure its future health and socia a rac "i - ess'. Questions: •Is the "shortage" of the traditional suburban family with children a temporary phenomenon? Will large singlefamily_homes be occupied again pyfamileszTwith children in another generation, perhaps 10-15-20 years from now? Or will high housing costs continue to close off Lexington to new families? •How many small households live in large, one family homes because of the lack of �b4ternative accommodations, or the current costs of financing a new home? o`w trs ong is the attraction of the freergrt1Mn r, - • -ami y ome on .s own lot, compared with a well-designed town house or apartment unit in a "park-like" setting? ▪What should Lexington do about the "oversupply" of large single family homes? Should th-y .e e . , as is or some ,.0 ure_. ,_ .,—F :.. -t..., frWitii ��..h.. :�.._. genera i®n o amilies with children, or should some be carefully modified to address the current "undersupply" of alternative housing types. The By-Law now includes provisions for Accessory Apartments and Conversion of One Family Dwellings. Should these zoning provisions be further liberalized to •ermit more small housing units? Should Lexington even discourage additional construction of new large, single family homes, particularly in light of the Town's remaining land resources? •As there is an apparent "need" for smaller housing units (such as town houses, acces- sory apartments, attached structures, or apartment buildings) to match today's small- er households, should Lexington encourage the construction of those types of housing ,units. - • 109 NON-FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS AND SINGLE PERSONS A "non-family" household is made u• of one •erson living alone or two or mor- •ersons , who are not related, sharin• a housin• unit. In 1970, there were 1,002 non-family households; today, their numbers have increased 64%, to 1,654 households. This trend may be due in part to rising housing and living costs that force persons to join together to afford shelter. Many of these "mingles" are unmarried couples or wor j single persons. In Lexington, most non-family households are single •ersons. Single person households increased 76% over the decade, from 796' in 1970, to 1399 in 1980. Fifty percent (705) of these single person households are persons over ,e age of 65. The-77777-7F men to-women-1n the age groups 65 and over increases noticeably with each five-year age group so that for the group 75 and over, there are 2.6 women for each man (2058 women, 406 men) . This may suggest a greater need not only for small housing units, but for congregate living; shared living and other types of group accommoda- tions. How do these non-family (primarily single person households) match with the existing housing supply? Of the Town's 1360 rental units, 38% (514) are in buildings with three or more units; 20% (268) are two-family homes. Thus, 42% (578) of the Town's rental units are single family detached or attached homes, with an average of 6.9 rooms per unit. Rising utility costs have likely placed single family home rentals beyond the reach of most one _person_households. Also, it should be kept in mind that 22% of the Town's rental units are under LHA management and, therefore, are only available to low income households. To add to the already constrained picture, only 5% (483) of Lexington's units have one bedroom or less; 21% (1,934) have two bedrooms. Surprisingly, 876 (63%) of one person households own their living quarters. Questions: • •What types of homes do "non-family" households live in? How many live in single fam- ily homes? Are there other kinds of accommodations they would prefer? •Do single people in particular have different housing needs? •Why has the development community shown no interest in the congregate housing option of the Zoning By-Law? Is this a result of market factors or due to constraints perceived within the congregate ordinance itself? 110 RENTAL HOUSING Lexington's 1,360 rental units e.ual the lowest percentage (14%) of rental housing �f within the study area. Four hundred eighty-five sing e "amily homes comprise" he largest percentage (36%) of the units available for rent; according to local realtors, 1983 rents range from $600 to upwards of $1,000 per month. Due to the lack of other rental housing, part of the supply of (normal' owner-occu ie 'Homes are use. as a signi scan an. expensive resour ce for rental h,� ous�asag. The diversity of Lexington's rental market is narrowed further when the 305 Lexington Housing Authority (LHA) units, 22% of the Town's rental supply, are subtracted from the total: these units are only available to low income households. When the high cost, single family rentals, and the LHA low income-restricted rentals are factored out, only 570 units are available for moderate income renters: these 570 units equal less than half - 42% of the existing rental supply and only 6% of the Town's total housing units. Taking the broadest view -- 1360 units available for rent -- Lexington had a lower percentage of rental housing in 1980 (14%) than it did in 1939 (17%) before the post-war suburban housing boom. If we delete only the LHA low income-restricted units, the Town's percentage of "unrestricted" rental housing stands at 11% (1055) units. No matter what numbers are chosen, affordable rental housing is a problem for most renters in Town. In 1980, more than half of Lexington renters were paying greater IhAa_aaLsaf, their income for housinq; .one-third were paying more than 35%. The last private rental housing development was bus �n 1x75, Since then the only apartment developments have been for condominium ownership. The three_lArc est_rer tal, housing developments, built in the mid-60'sand,early '7 'G have_waitimg_=..l.i.s±s ct least 12 years. Many present occupants of these developments are long-term occupants w x.mi e rnomes, and are not likely to move on. In many communities, there has been a actual decline in the number of rental units available because of the conver- sion of rental units to condominium ownership. When units are converted, most renters are unable to afford the costs of ownership. One major factor in the lack of new privately developed rental housing, both locally and nationally, has been the combination of high construction and financ'n gc®-sts which has made new rental development economically unfeasible. In Lexington, this scenario is intensified by the -ac a - ere is no Tared zoned for rental apartment �development; the costs and risks in erent in rezoning petitions discourage small or mo era e rental developmen proposa s. -- Questions: . Should Lexington make any special efforts to promote the construction of additional units of rental housing? . Rental units are central to citizen diversity. Excluding LHA units, 6% or less of the total housing units in Town are available for less than $600 (approximate) rent per month. Should special efforts be devoted to promote construction of moderate income rental units in particular? . Would mixed-income developments be an acceptable option for the Town to pursue? . Now that the Legislature has authorized cities and towns to regulate condominium • conversions, should Lexington take any action relative to the few apartment develop- ments that furnish a significant part of Lexington's supply of rental housing? How might the Town best protect its existing rental supply? 111 ZONING: LOT SIZE AND THE EMERGENCE OF NEW HOUSING TYPES The standards of Lexington's Zoning By-Law with respect to lot area and lot frontage were incorporated into the Zoning By-Law in the 1950's, during the peak period of sin- gle family home construction. One objective of the larger lot area and lot frontage requirements was to •ro •enerous ards•ace r child o play. Ot er o•Dec- tives included the attempt to •reserve "o•en ch.racter to provi e sufficient area for septic systems (although in 1983, the Town is primarily sewered) , and in general, to slow tie pace of residential development. Prescribed lot sizes and allowable unit types bear heavily on development costs. Be- cause there is so little land left for development in this highly desirable suburban town, a change in dimensional controls or unit design would not necessarily decrease existing property values. Smaller lot sizes would also lead to the construction of lsmaller units. It should be remembered that "smaller unit," or "compact unit" is not necessarily synonymous with "less attractive." Within the past ten years, the Town has accepted single family _attached homes as an acceptable and aesthetic housing alternative. An attached single family dwelling is a one ami ousing unit with access to the ground, surrounded on three sides by yard and sharin• a .._t wall with one other one-famil housin•_,.__ t. With the start or the condominium development era in Lexington in 1975, represented by Drummer Boy and Fiske Common, there were 255 single family attached units in 1980, a 323% increase from 1970. Since 1980, the development of Potter Pond has added additicn�i—sg?-e, family attached units to the Town's supply. Questions: ■Since a high percentage of households has no children, should the Town reevaluate its lot area, lot frontage and other dimensional controls to make them more in keeping with the more limited open space requirements of adults? ',Should single family attached dwellings become an even more important part of the Lexington housing supply? Should the Town re-evaluate allowable unit types in gen- eral, and permit construction of two family homes (a single structure having one unit on top of the other) or quality design multi- or quadriplexes (2-4 units per structure) ? 112 DENSITY The density (number of dwelling units per acre, du/acre) of apartment developments built prior to 1976 is different from the apartment developments built since 1976. One difference is that all of the privately developed rental apartments were built before 1976. They are quite similar in density, ranging from a low of 10.3 to a high of 11.68 du/acre, with the average being 11.0 du/acre. The four publicly assisted rental units, three of which are for the elderly and are owned by the Housing Author- ity have an average density of 10.71 du/acre. The four condominium developments which were built in RD zoning districts (requiring Town Meeting action to amend the Zoning Map) range in density from 1.5 to 2.9 du/acre, with the average being 1.9 du/acre, less than the 2.8 du/acre density permitted in the RS single family district. The density for condominium developments has to be placed in perspective. A number of single family neighborhoods have a higher density, e.g. , the Manor section at 4.9 du/ acre, the Farmcrest area at 3,9 du/acre, the Woodhaven neighborhood at 3.2 du/acre. The comparable permitted density in the RS single family district is 2.8 du/acre and in the RO single family district is 1.5 du/acre. Attention to the numerical density distracts from the most important characteristic of density, i.e. , how many units can be comfortably accommodated on a parcel of land giv- en site characteristics such as topography, wetlands, relation to the street, views, vegetation and the like. The quality of site design is a major factor in how comfort- ably density is accommodated. Good site design might result in a development of 8 du/ acre being more attractive, preserving more open space and the like, than a poorly designed development of 4 du/acre which can appear to be more dense than it really is. -- Density raises another,land development issue for_Lexington, i.e. , how the remaining rivately owned, now vacant land in Town is developed. Lexington does not have a erste deal of la5'i pm °Hing that is bot privately owned and vacan ; opmen of that land will have important effects on the visual character of the Town. It can be argued that the development of that remaining an 6irT W density, single family sub- divisions, or their counterpart low density condominium developments, are simply a form of suburban sprawl. There is much concern in Lexington about preserving open space; a continuation of the recent development pattern of low density single family subdivisions and low density condominium developments may be contrary to the open space objective. Questions: ®How can Lexington best reconcile its open space objectives and its housing needs in the context of developmentensities that are acceptable to the community 'What is at the root of the concern expressed by residents about new apartment (or condominium) development in Town? Is it density? Is it the type of structure, whose appearance and mass indicate they are different than a single family house? Is it traffic generated by the development? Is it assumptions about the type of people who live in apartments? 'According to the U. S. Census and planning terminology, an apartment building is a structure with five or more dwelling units. Housing units in an apartment building may be either rented or owned on a condominium basis or cooperative basis. In 1980, Lexington had only 332 dwelling units in apartment buildings; that was 3% of the 113 total housing supply. With the apparent "need" for more small housing accommodations and for affordable units, are apartment buildings a desired type of living accommoda- tion for Lexington? =There is an apparent "need" for a significant number of smaller dwelling units. Town house or garden apartment types units are rarely built in conjunction with single family home subdivisions; they are most commonly built in multi-unit developments. Is Lexington prepared to permit the construction of a significant number of smaller housing units in well-designed multi-unit developments? ®Quality architecture, site planning and well-designed functional common spaces offer aesthetically viable alternatives to the single family detached home. As some have put it ". . .compactness can be compatible." Notions traditionally associated with the single family lifestyle -- perceptions of privacy, spaciousness and security -- can be emulated through competent design; existing neighborhood character can be respect- ed through the creative treatment of site entrances and perimeter open space, which can do much to minimize impressions of "high or moderate" density development. What mechanisms exist to encourage "good design?" Should they be investigated as part of the Town's overall housing plan? ®Both the Town Meeting and the Planning Board have expressed concern over the availa- bility of low and moderate housing, and middle-income housing. In the construction of low and moderate or middle income housing, there must be sufficient density per acre to offset fixed costs, such as land acquisition and site development (road, utilities, grading) costs; such developments usually need some number of units to achieve "economies of scale. " Similarly, different types of structures, i.e. , town houses or apartment buildings, may be necessary to achieve "affordability." Is Lexington prepared to accept some higher density, and different types of structures, in order to provide for affordable housing? 114 THE PRICE OF HOUSING, AFFORDABILITY Practically every piece of data on housing economics in this report indicates that housing_ in Lexington is becoming increasing .__expertsive4and_...only_.ho.ug ho1ds_with__high incomes can afford to move to or within Lexington. On a number of occasions, the Town Meeting, or Town boards and committees, have adopted policy statements or objectives aimed at ". . .encouraging a greater diversity in the Town's population, permitting more people of moderate means to remain in and move to Town, providing affordable housing for our parents and our children, . . ." and the like. The information and the trends outlined below indicate it will be more difficult for the Town to achieve those objectives: Within the study area, Lexington has the smallest percentage of homes valued under $50,000 and one of the highest percentages of homes valued above $100,000. Within the study area, Lexington has the second highest rent levels and only 1.8% of the total housing units in Town rent at less than $200 per month (1980 prices) . About 52% of all renters in Lexington pay more than -25% of their income for gross rent. Between 1970 and 1980, the average sales prices of a Lexington house increased by 15% (expressed in constant dollars) while the income of Lexington households declined by 7.2%, resulting in a broadening gap of 22.2% between sales prices and income. Mort- gage interest rates soared during the decade, greatly increasing monthly carrying costs for potential home owners; the percentage of disposable income devoted to hous- ing was higher in 1980 and hence, an even higher income was needed in 1980 to afford a typical Lexington house. The average sales price for a house in Lexington in 1982 was almost $120,000. The mean selling price for Lexington homes increased by 133% in the eight year period between 1974 and 1982, well in excess of the increase in the Consumer Price Index. In 1982, based on a selected sample of Lexington home buyers, the median income of all buyers of Lexington homes was $60,300 and the median income of first time home buyers was $49,400. The median income of all buyers was nearly double the median family income for households in the Town reported in the 1980 Census. By way of comparison, the median income of Lexington home buyers almost equalled the median net worth of buyers in the Boston metropolitan area. The profile of the first time buyer shows that even with a median age of only 32, median income is $49,400 and the net worth is over $100,000. For 69% of the first time buyers, there are two persons working. The necessity of two persons working to meet housing costs can have noticeable effects on child rearing, not only on the number of children, but the age at which parents have children. When the 1982 average sales price, $119,348, is compared with 1980 Census income fig- ures, it is estimated that only 15% of Lexington families and 13% of the total house- holds now living in the Town could afford to buy the 1982 "average home." Apparently, a significant number of the town's present residents can afford to live in Lexington only because they bought houses in earlier times, when interest rates were much lower and sales prices less inflated. If these same residents had to purchase a home in Lexington today, many could not live here, could not afford to buy the 1982 "average home." 115 Questions: ■The ramifications of "economic segregation" could be far reaching: with childless working couples increasing in number, what will happen to Lexington's excellent school system if the Town fails to recapture the citizen diversity it has prized since its inception? .The moderate income guidelines in the recently approved Muzzey School condominium conversion are an important step in the creation of "affordable housing." What other steps can Lexington take to meet its stated objectives of a diverse population, and housing for moderate income families? PUBLICLY ASSISTED HOUSING Lexington is below the average of the ten community study area in the percentage of low and moderate income housing units. Nearly all of the units owned by the Lexington Housing Authority are for the elderly; the LHA owns only 24 units for low income fam- ilies, 2% of the housing units in town. According to the 1980 Federal definition of "poverty" ($3,774 per one person house- hold and $7,356 for a four person family) , Lexington had 1,035 (3.6%) of its popula- tion below the poverty level, a rise of 8% from 1970. There is no current estimate or profile of Town citizens eligible for housing assistance. Question: ■What steps can Lexington take to increase the supply of low income housing units? ■Should effort be devoted to providing low income family units in particular? ®Should a study be carried out to better determine the need for housing assistance within the Town?