HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 Planning Board report, "The Lexington We Want: Comprehensive Plan, First Four Elements" FINAL DRAFT
January 17, 2002
THE LEXINGTON WE WANT:
Comprehensive Plan, First Four Elements:
• Land Use
• Natural and Cultural Resources
• Housing
• Economic Development
• Implementing Actions
LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD LEXINGTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Anthony Galaitsis, Chairman Glenn H. Garber, Planning Director
Thomas Harden, Vice Chairman Maryann McCall-Taylor, Assistant Director
John Davies, Past Chair Elissa Tap, Administrative Assistant
Sara Chase Deborah Tyson, Planning Intern
Karl Kastorf
HERR&JAMES ASSOCIATES
Philip B. Herr
Sarah James
INSERT SHEET
This document is the
final draft of (the
first phase of)the
Comprehensive Plan. It
will be followed in
the near future by the
final published
version intended to be
the permanent record
document. That final
published version will
contain minor
editorial differences
involving scattered
instances of word
usage, punctuation or
grammar, from the
present text.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
I. OVERVIEW
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HISTORY I-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PARTICIPATION PROCESS 1-2
II. THE LEXINGTON WE WANT II-1
III. LAND USE
BACKGROUND III-1
Current Land Use III-1
Future Land Use III-3
Resources for Management III-4
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES III-7
STRATEGIC APPROACH III-8
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS I1I-9
IV. NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
BACKGROUND IV-1
• Natural Resources IV-1
Water Resources IV-1
Land and Vegetative Resources IV-2
Fisheries and Wildlife IV 3
Resources for Natural Resource Management IV-3
• Cultural Resources IV-3
Resources for Management IV-4
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES IV-6
STRATEGIC APPROACH IV-6
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS IV-7
V. HOUSING
BACKGROUND V-1
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES V-8
STRATEGIC APPROACH V-11
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS V-12
VI. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BACKGROUND VI-1
Jobs in Lexington VI-1
Jobs and Travel VI-1
Job Types and Locations VI-1
Serving the Town: Retailing VI-2
Jobs and Taxes VI-2
Land for Business VI-3
Resources for Guiding Change VI-3
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES VI-12
STRATEGIC APPROACH VI-12
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS VI-14
VII. IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
SELECTMEN VII-2
Cross-Cutting Policies VII-2
Building a Framework for Housing VII-2
Building Resource-Efficiency into the System VII-2
TOWN MANAGER VII-3
Building Economic Development Guidance VII-3
PLANNING BOARD VII-3
Dealing with Town Character VII-3
Creating Regulations to Help Housing VII-3
Promoting Appropriate Business VII-4
"Greening" Development VII-5
Improving Regulatory Speed and Predictability VII-6
Assuring Policy Consistency VII-6
CONSERVATION COMMISSION VII-6
Protecting Open Space and Resources VII-6
HISTORICAL COMMISSION VII-7
Protecting our Legacy VII-7
INITIATORS TO BE DESIGNATED OR ORGANIZED VII-8
Designers: Guiding Town Character VII-8
Supporting Housing Diversity and Opportunity VII-9
Resource Savers: Helping to Reduce Waste VII-9
Building Better Business VII-10
WITHIN THE FUTURE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT VII-10
Explore Achieving Fewer and Shorter Auto Trips VII-10
Other Transportation-Related Actions VII-11
VIII. APPENDIX A: Principles of Sustainability VIII-i
IX. APPENDIX B: Reserved for Public Comment IX-1
LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES
III. LAND USE
Table Ll. - Lexington Land Use 2000 III-2
Chart L1. - Existing Land Use, Parcel acres, Lexington 2000 III-2
Chart L2. - Land Allocation, Lexington Historic and Projections III-6
Table L2. - Land for Homes and Conservation III-6
Table L3. - Dwelling Units Constructed III-6
Map L1. - Land Use Pattern: Continuing Lexington's Balanced Land Use III-16
Map L2. - Preserved Open Space Lexington, 2001 III-17
Map L3. - Recommended Acquisition Land Lexington, 2001 III-18
Map L4. - Desired Future Outcomes of
Under and Undeveloped Land Lexington, 2001 III-19
Map L5. - Open Space and Undeveloped Land III-20
IV. NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Chart R1. - Open Space Acquisition, Lexington 1963 —2000 IV-5
Map R1. - Natural Resources in Lexington, 2001 IV-14
Map R2. - National and State Register
Designations of Historic Significance Lexington, 2001 IV-15
Map R3. - Existing Historic Districts and
Possible Preservation Areas Lexington, 2001 IV-16
V. HOUSING
Chart Hl. - Homebuilding, Lexington 1950—2000 V-4
Table H1. - Capacity for Homes and Conservation V-5
Chart H2. - Housing Construction, Lexington Historic and Projected V-5
Table 112. - Residential Sale Prices V-6
Chart H3. - Sale Prices, Lexington(median) V-6
Chart H4A.- Age: Lexington and MA 2000 V-7
Chart H4B.- Age: 1990—2000 Lexington V-7
Table H3. - Housing Change Analysis V-10
Map H1. - Below Market Housing in Lexington, 2001:
Development Size and Location V-18
Map H2. - Below Market Housing in Lexington, 2001: Source of Affordability V-19
Map H3. - Key to Housing Site Location V-20
IV. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Table El. - Lexington Jobs, Housing and Floor Area IV-4
Chart El. - Jobs per 100 Residents IV-5
1
Table E2. - Job/Population Comparisons, 2000 IV-5
Table E3. - Employment in Lexington IV-6
Chart E2. - Jobs in Lexington, 1985 —2000 IV-6
Table E4. - Lexington Retail Sales, 1997 IV-7
Table E5. - Lexington Fiscal Background IV-8
Chart E3. - Assessed Valuations, Lexington IV-9
Table E6A.- Commercial Build-Out Summary: 2001 Zoning IV-10
Table E6B.- Commercial Build-Out: "Test"Zoning IV-10
Chart E4. - Commercial Build-Out, Lexington major commercial areas IV-11
Map El. - Lexington Center, 2001: Opportunities and Constraints IV-19
Map E2. - Hayden Avenue, 2001: Opportunities and Constraints IV-20
Map E3. - Hartwell Avenue, 2001: Opportunities and Constraints IV-21
2
INSERT SHEET
The final published version of
this comprehensive plan document
will contain a section called
Overview, which brie fly describes
the history and purpose of the
comprehensive plan process and
summarizes the extensive
community participation efforts
that drove the entire project.
This section was not completed
for this Final Draft version.
Comprehensive Plan Participation Process
Public Meetings and Thematic Workshops
Initial Planning Board Meetings on Comprehensive Plan
August 30, 2000
October 16, 2000
November 15, 2000
Planning Board and Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee
January 3, 2001
February 13, 2001
May 2001
June 20, 2001
October 10, 2001
October 24, 2001
Resource Group Meetings
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee
July 25, 2001/August 29, 2001 —Economic Development
July 31, 2001/September 11, 2001/September 19, 2001 —Housing
August 1, 2001/August 30, 2001 —Natural and Cultural Resources
August 23, 2001/September 25, 2001 —Land Use
External Groups
November 2001 —Business Round Table Informational Meeting
November 2001 —Lexington Center Committee Informational Meeting
September 2001 —League of Women Voters Informational Session
Active Participants
Planning Board and Staff
Stacey Bridge-Denzak (former), Steven Coleman (former), Sara Chase, John Davies,
Anthony Galaitsis, Glenn Garber, Thomas Harden, Karl Kastorf, Maryann McCall-
Taylor, Frederick Merrill Jr. (former), Elissa Tap, Deborah Tyson
Consultants
Phillip B. Herr&Associates, Sarah James & Associates
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC)
Lawrence Belvin, William Carlson, Thomas DeNoto, Elaine Dratch, Eileen Entin, John
Farrington, Marilyn Fenollosa, William Hays, Karl Kastorf, Jeanne Krieger, Wendy
Manz, Joseph Marino, Joyce Miller, Jerry Moloney, Anne Ripley, Lee Sinai, Susan
Solomon, Iris Wheaton, Ada Wong
Additional Participants
Sheila Butts, Robert Cohen, Jacquelyn Davidson, Susan Fisher, Andy Friedlich, William
Hadley, Paul Hamburger, Fred Johnson, Alan Lazarus, Candy McLaughlin, Patrick Mehr,
Karen Mullins, Michael Schroeder, Lauren Wood
2
THE LEXINGTON WE WANT
The four Comprehensive Plan elements that follow are the beginning of a broad statement of
collective intentions about the kind of town that those involved want Lexington to be. It both
frames overarching policy and outlines specific actions for implementation. This work builds
upon a strong planning legacy that reaches from the Town's pioneering planning and zoning in
the early 20th century to the more contemporary Long Range Planning Committee (LRPC)
efforts of the 1990's, and the ongoing Lexington 2020 planning process. Over that entire period
Lexington's growth and change have been guided thoughtfully and creatively in a process to
which the preparation of these four elements is one more contribution. This effort will be
followed by many others, most immediately by preparation of the remaining elements included
in the current statutory outline of what constitutes a comprehensive plan.
The current effort has been carried out under the direction of the Planning Board, assisted by a
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) created by the Board, and supported by staff
and consultants. When it has been completed and adopted by the Planning Board, this Plan
won't be a law or regulation or a commitment to funding or organizational change, but it will
provide guidance for all of those, reflecting agreement about intentions among those charged
with carrying out the Plan.
The Lexington which people want has been revealed in many ways through this planning work,
importantly including a range of public activities ranging from small early morning meetings to
large evening forums. There is a healthy diversity of views on the particulars of that future
vision, but there is a clear thread on which there is wide agreement. For example, the LRPC
identified four"Core Values"which continue to have salience:
(1) Quality public education.
(2) Preservation of a level of open space that maintains our semi-rural character.
(3) A public safety establishment which enables Lexingtonians both to be safe and feel
safe;
(4) Affordability to the point where we can maintain and enhance our economic
diversity.'
Strikingly,the"Town-Wide Vision Statement"for the Lexington of 2020 as earlier articulated
by the Lexington 2020 Core Participants Group, can equally well stand as a Vision for this work
on the Comprehensive Plan. That congruence in values expressed provides an affirmation for
both efforts, so it is repeated here.
1 LRPC Draft Report,April 1996,page 1-1 (Strategic Planning and Implementation Group).
The Lexington We Want 01/17/02 Page 1
CPG Town-Wide Vision Statement
(Written in 2000 as if in the year 2020)
The Town of Lexington prides itself on being a great place to live. Residents and
visitors alike characterize it as a vibrant and active community, which places a
high value on learning at all ages. Its residents and employees welcome the
diversity of people who are attracted to Lexington and choose to call it their home
and/or place of employment.
Lexington is, and will stay, a primarily residential community with a tradition of
offering quality, broad-reaching municipal services. It is committed to preserving
and maintaining a sense of community that includes its historic tradition, its
public and private open spaces, and its public support for civic life. It strives,
however, to maintain a range of affordability. Residents recognize that these
qualities are always difficult to balance.
An open and structured process of community conversation and long-term
planning help the town remain forward-looking. Major elements, which are
consistently addressed and evaluated, include:fiscal responsibility; sustainability
of natural and human resources; transportation issues; education; and regional
cooperation and integration. Residents are invested in and rely on this process as
they reconcile competing needs and interests.2
Four Comprehensive Plan elements follow: Land Use,Natural and Cultural Resources, Housing,
and Economic Development. Each begins with a discussion of background information, sets
goals and objectives, describes a strategy for approaching those objectives, then lays out an
agenda of implementing actions to be taken or at least explored. A final element summarizes
those actions and organizes them by the board, official, or committee that is to initiate their
implementation. Some actions by their nature appear in multiple elements. As a result, much of
the Land Use element is an abbreviated restatement of initiatives more fully outlined in the other
three elements. Sustainability was such a pervasive but complex theme that it is further
discussed in an Appendix.
There similarly will be convergence between some items in these elements and items not yet
developed in the Comprehensive Plan elements still to come: Open Space and Recreation,
Services and Facilities, Transportation, and an integration of implementing efforts. For that
reason, adoption of the Plan will await completion of those remaining elements, even then
recognizing that no plan of this kind is ever"Final," and that the process of thoughtful and
creative guidance for Lexington will continue to evolve even after that.
We want-R
January 15,2002
2 Lexington 2020 Vision:A Status Report of the Planning Process,Executive Summary&Volume 1,January 2000,
page ii.
The Lexington We Want 01/17/02 Page 2
LAND USE
BACKGROUND
Each element of the Comprehensive Plan proposes policies and actions that, when implemented,
would have major consequence for land use, and many of those actions rely upon land use
interventions as a means of achieving their goals. Land use is not only the physical trace of
activity; it also can be the medium through which our goals in diverse sectors are reconciled and
achieved
CURRENT LAND USE
Lexington's land use pattern faithfully reflects the history of the Town's periods of greatest
growth. The result is a"classic" suburban community form that serves the Town well today.
• A clear and dominant Town civic and commercial center, focused on the historic railroad
depot, reached by a radial local street network.
• Areas of relatively compact residential development closely surrounding that dominant
center plus a second one in East Lexington.
• Lower-density residential uses elsewhere, having rich variations in character from place to
place that help to give identity to the Town's neighborhoods, differing in typical lot sizes,
house sizes, house styles, extent of tree cover, and other characteristics.
• Neighborhood identity and convenience further strengthened by the location and function of
a number of commercial sub-centers across the Town.
• Major office and R&D uses oriented to regional expressways, chiefly near the Town's
perimeter.
• Protected open space laced through that pattern, reflecting where valued natural resources are
located more than adhering to any preconceived land use form, such as a"greenbelt."
Those are land use qualities that are widely sought by other towns, but few communities have
them to the same extent that Lexington enjoys.
Land Use 01/17/02 Page 1
Table L1. LEXINGTON LAND USE 2000
Categories Acres %
COMMITTED PARCELS BY LAND USE
Residential 4,600 44.3%
Business 700 6.7%
Public, semi-public 3,000 28.9%
Other 1,500 14.4%
Subtotal 9,800 94.3%
UNCOMMITTED PARCELS
Buildable
R Zones 370 3.6%
C Zones 30 0.3%
Both 390 3.8%
Unbuildable
R Zones 220 2.1%
C Zones 20 0.2%
Both 240 2.3%
Uncommitted Subtotal 590 5.7%
TOTAL LAND 10,390 100.0%
Chart L1.
EXISTING LAND USE
Parcel acres, Lexington 2000
Vacant
Residential
Other
Public+
Business
Analytics Land Use\Landuse Data Analysis(3)
Source:Lexington Assessor's data+Planning staff preliminary analysis.
"Other"comprises streets plus other acreage not included in Assessor's records.
"Public&semi-public"includes land publicly owned or otherwise tax-exempt,including Conservation land.
"Vacant"and"uncommitted"are the same.
Land Use 01/17/02 Page 2
FUTURE LAND USE
The eras of major Town form-shaping are past for Lexington, along with most of the Town's
vacant and developable land. Lexington's land use questions now largely center on succession
uses: already developed land again being developed or otherwise changed from one active use to
another, or simply intensifying in the same use.
About 600 acres of developable land remain in vacant parcels for potential development out of
the Town's 10,000 total acres of land, along with a significant amount of"underdeveloped" land
within already developed parcels. Less than 10% of the land in uncommitted parcels is in
commercial zones. Vacant land as zoned might accommodate addition of about 900 dwelling
units, and some of that potential capacity is likely to be put to other uses, importantly including
open space conservation. Despite that small amount of vacant land, home-building might
average close to 100 units per year for several decades as new homes replace older ones on the
same land, and added dwelling units are created within existing houses or through similar
intensifying reuse. That process commonly raises concerns over mansionization, damage to
neighborhood character, loss of relatively modest housing, and stress on infrastructure.
Similarly, a great deal of additional business floor area could be built within the Town Center
although there is virtually no vacant land there. Increased floor area would largely occur through
addition to or replacement of existing structures, presumably supported by structured parking. In
outlying commercial areas the potential for additional activity through use succession and
expansion is tightly limited under current zoning, but would be very large if zoning's
dimensional rules were to be altered to allow growth to occur.
Although there is little remaining acreage in undeveloped parcels, there are a large number of
sites in Lexington on which there is significant potential for building. On such sites lot area,
frontage, and buildable land suffice to make development or substantial expansion possible even
though on many of those sites some development already exists. Close to 400 such sites have
been identified and reviewed by the Lexington planning staff, and 150 of those sites that are
undeveloped or conspicuously under-developed by market and zoning norms have been
inventoried. Those studies make clear that such sites are widely distributed throughout the Town,
and not concentrated in only a few areas.
Thirty-five of the larger private sites were selected for more detailed analysis. Using the 1997
Lexington Open Space Plan,topographic maps,the Massachusetts GIS system, visual inspection
and other sources,these 35 sites were studied and determined to constitute an inventory of the
larger private sites in the community that are considered to be most vulnerable to development.
These parcels range from the most environmentally fragile ones needing priority acquisition, to
those that can accommodate development, but only with imposition of special protective
controls. The Town's present regulatory kit contains tools that enable landowners to achieve the
"best case" futures for those parcels. However,there are only weak incentives for owners to do
so, since the tools are passive and not obligatory. As a result, many if not most, of the studied
sites are highly vulnerable to development of a kind or extent that would depart from the Town's
apparent interests.
Land Use 01/17/02 Page 3
The overriding assumption in these 35 parcels is that there will never be enough funding to
acquire all of them. Indeed,there may never be sufficient resources to purchase all of the highest
priority sites alone. The strategy, then, is to aggressively employ a hierarchy of regulatory tools
to partially preserve vulnerable lands. Some of these approaches will require the passage of
regulatory amendments or other initiatives by the Town.
CATEGORIZATION OF STUDY SITES
Category Number Acres Description
of sites
Critical Preservation 8 137 Designated for preservation rather than
development. Taken directly from the Lexington
Open Space Plan, highest priority acquisition
category.
Highly Sensitive—Open 12 230 Residential use possible, but only with clustered
Space Residential (zoning housing and lowest feasible densities,as well as
amendment needed) preservation of highest quality open space that
exceeds minimum requirements.Needs an
enhanced preservation tool for highly sensitive
sites that are not practical for acquisition.
Cluster usually preferred 11 181 Benefits accrue from clustering, but with less of
an imperative than for above cases. Cluster
provisions as they now stand are adequate to
accommodate this category of development.
Innovation sites 4 32 Complex opportunities,possibly including mixed
use,with widely varying combinations of
residential and commercial or office activity
closely fitted to the particular site(s). Locations
must be chosen with care, scaled(down)to
Lexington character and possibly linked to transit,
where possible. Enhanced regulatory tools might
be needed, or, at a minimum, some amendments
to the use regulations in zoning.
Total 35 581 All sites are constrained by environmental,
locational, or cultural concerns.
RESOURCES FOR MANAGEMENT
The Town manages land use change through many means. A widely respected array of land use
regulations is one of them. Among other regulations, town meeting-adopted bylaws govern
Zoning, wetland protection, building in historic districts, and building demolitions,joined by
Land Use 01/17/02 Page 4
Planning Board-adopted subdivision regulations, Board of Health regulations, and many others.
Town investments in infrastructure further shape land use, whether through utilities enabling
compact development or off-street parking supporting a dominant Town center. Finally, the
Town itself is a major user of land, whether for active use such as Public Works facilities or
inactive use such as conservation land. Bringing all of those ways of managing use into
harmonious directions is a central purpose of this planning.
A major consideration in managing land use is the context at state and regional levels within
which the Town must operate. State enabling laws in many cases narrowly prescribe what
localities may do, including vested rights rules, limitations on residential controls, and rules
about the status of old roads. Chapter 40B allows local zoning to be ignored when developing
affordable housing, while other State legislation trammels Town authority regarding utilities,
churches, and schools. On the other hand, the State also contributes to effective land
management through its highly sophisticated wetlands controls, administered locally; MEPA
review of most large developments; air quality measures; and other devices that, with skill, can
become part of a town's strategy for management.
At the regional level, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council has worked for decades to
promote better-structured regional development, including efforts through its Minuteman sub-
area planning group known as MAGIC. However, like most other Massachusetts regional
planning agencies, the MAPC lacks sufficient authority to have had as much impact as many
would hope. The HATS (Hanscom Area Towns) four-town planning group has recently
established an advisory project review process for Developments of Regional Importance
(DRIs), but has neither staff nor authority.
Land Use 01/17/02
Page 5
Chart L2.
LAND ALLOCATION
1,400 Lexington Historic and Projections
1,200
1,000
If;
800
.0 600
J
400
200
0 r
1990-2000 Historic 2001-2020 Alternate 2001-2020
❑Available @ end ■Conserved ❑Developed
Table L2. LAND FOR HOMES AND CONSERVATION
Buildable land (acres)
2001 -2020
1990-2000 Historic Alternate
Initially available 1,347 747 747
Developed 411 412 332
Conserved 168 168 349
Available period end 747 183 93
Table L3. DWELLING UNITS CONSTRUCTED
2001 -2020
1990-2000 Historic Alternate
Housing units constructed 730 1,300 1,100
1
On new land 500 500 400
Accessory 30 80 100
Replacement 210 730 600
An a lytics\Perm its-L3!Data B ld
Land Use 01/17/02 Page 6
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The Town's goals for economic development, housing, and natural and cultural resources all
become goals for land use, as well. They include these.
• Housing that is supportive of a community that is diverse in various ways, socially and
economically.
• Economic development consistent with other Town values, and that provides fiscal support
for Lexington's high level of services, provides services and opportunities for residents,
provides nearby jobs for those for whom that is important; and strengthens Lexington's sense
of place and community.
• Protection for and promotion of the character and beauty of the landscape and community.
• Thoughtful and responsible relationship to both local and regional resources, including a
responsible level of consistency with the principles of sustainability, even beyond that
already established.
Achieving all of those diverse goals requires a creative balancing of interests that are affected by
land use decisions. Some numbers can help understanding what"balance"now means for
Lexington.
— Given no change in Town policies and growth management actions, housing
development and new open space protection are likely to continue to annually claim
shares of the Town's declining total of uncommitted land at rates as projected based on
the history of the past twenty years. Under those assumptions, less than 15% of the
currently uncommitted land would remain uncommitted after another twenty years. For
every acre of land protected as open space during that period more than 2 acres would
have been developed. The added protected open space would reach less than half the
total acreage sought for protection by the Land Acquisition Planning Subcommittee of
the Conservation Commission, an objective incorporated in the Vision 2020"Managing
Growth"report.
A more aggressive"Alternate" scenario is possible, and has been quantitatively
simulated. In it the annual percentage rate at which open space is protected is increased
to the rate necessary to reach the 350-acre objective of the Town's earlier open space
planning. The assumed rate of housing demolition and replacement was reduced to
reflect possible stronger Town regulatory intervention, and the rate of development of
accessory dwelling units was increased by a third to reflect possible regulatory revisions.
The results are illustrated in Chart L2 and Tables L2 and L3 on the preceding page. They
illustrate the range of potential differences in land development that policy choice might
make, even at this "mature" stage in the Town's development. Under the "Alternate"
scenario land build-out is much more nearly reached in twenty years than it is under the
status quo, but the amount of land protected during that period is more than doubled.
Land consumed by development is reduced by about a quarter. Housing construction on
Land Use 01/17/02 Page 7
new land and on"tear-down" lots both decline significantly. Those results demonstrate
that it is not yet too late to act strongly, should the Town choose to do so.
— Another quantitative way of considering land use and"balance" deals with jobs and labor
force. Maintaining a stable relationship of local jobs to local labor force—jobs within the
Town growing at about the same rate as the number of resident workers—could be
achieved consistent with either of the above land use allocation scenarios, should the
Town so choose. The implication of commitment to such"balance" would mean no
more than modest growth for either housing or jobs.
Achieving the Town's land use goals also requires more than the above.
— Most of Lexington's "classic" land use characteristics should be maintained: a vibrant
and dominant Town Center, surrounded with compact residential neighborhoods; major
office and Research and Development uses oriented to regional expressways,the
diversity of neighborhood character protected and strengthened.
— The relationship between transportation and land use must be creatively addressed, since
no other single concern is so limiting on acceptability of land use change, or as
threatening to the residential quality of life.
STRATEGIC APPROACH
The following are some aspects of the strategies for implementing land use goals.
• Achieving the goals that have been identified requires skillfully managing growth and
development. It certainly doesn't require stopping change, nor does it necessarily entail
substantially increasing the amount of development that will occur. Something more than the
blunt tool of stopping bad things or pursuing tax-lucrative growth is required to address the
subtler issues that Lexington faces. That places a premium on innovation, since the Town is
aiming high in what it wants to achieve.
• Lexington's Vision 20/20 strategic planning program urged that the Town practice
exemplary open, accessible and strategic processes. Those qualities do not often characterize
land use control,but to succeed in 21st Century Lexington it is essential to make them part of
its land use management approach.
• Given Lexington's circumstances, it makes sense to use incentives and land market power to
support Town objectives, rather than relying only on further regulatory impositions. We
should move towards a sense of partnership among those proposing development,those most
affected by it, and those in government, all working together.
• Land uses and their locations should be shaped to serve the interests of the Town's residents.
These are some of the ways of doing that.
Land Use 01/17/02 Page 8
— Doing what we can to have businesses that importantly provide goods and services to
residents, rather than just incidentally to a wider specialized market;
— Doing what we can to site businesses with sensitivity to residential concerns, making
them easier to reach and less intrusive on residential values;
— Doing what we can to encourage businesses whose employment opportunities include
ones creating opportunities for those persons whose mobility for reaching jobs is limited.
The more specific means of implementing those strategies include some that are familiar.
Mixed-use, for example, has become a standard part of planner's agendas. Mixed use is often
difficult to actually implement, but it is so promising that it deserves prominent inclusion. Even
the continuation of local agriculture can be an important strategy towards a number of our goals.
Another newly standard planner's tool is "transit-oriented development," commonly but
mistakenly dismissed as pointless in communities such as Lexington where the trains stopped
some decades ago, but where the potential for improving the efficiency of movements through
newer means is urgent and is strongly dependent upon appropriate land use design.
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
1. Major departures from the present pattern of land uses, densities, and the present land
management system should occur only for important reasons, and then with as much
predictability as possible. As noted earlier, the Town's land use pattern largely serves us
well, and there is a great deal of reliance by both public and private parties on the future
largely resembling the past, given the mature status of land development in Lexington.
Among other things,that means generally making no more than marginal changes to
configuration of commercial zones versus residential zones on the Zoning Map. Achieving
the balance that is sought among residential,business and open space uses will require
creative efforts to find sufficient means of securing the amount of open space that is sought,
but no changes in the extent of land zoned residentially or for commerce is required for the
desired outcome. Changing conditions might lead to reasonable proposals for change from
one type of commercial district to another or to proposals for marginal revisions to the
configuration of such districts. However, there is no anticipation that new commercial
districts will be created at any location within the Town, or that existing ones will be
substantially expanded. As described in the Economic Development element, the current
configuration of zoning districts nicely matches the Town's intent.
1.1 Build policy guidance for change where regulations now provide unusual flexibility,
without losing the benefits that come with, among other things,the opportunities the
present structure provides for a clear and place-responsive voice on development for the
town meeting. The Planned Commercial district(CD) system in effect invites
development to depart from the provisions of the existing zoning, with virtually no
constraints as long as town meeting agrees. Results to date have been sufficiently
beneficial not to suggest revising the rules, but two considerations raise concerns. First,
Land Use 01/17/02 Page 9
the predictability about change that would serve all parties is notably absent: the Bylaw
only predicts that town meeting will set the rules. That uncertainty can lead to dispute,
deadlock, and disappointment. Second,the invitation for change departing from current
rules eventually gets built into real estate expectations. At that point land values reflect
the expectation that current limits can be changed favorably for development, resulting in
land prices that make development conforming to the current rules at least difficult, often
impossible.
The Planned Residential district (RD) system is similar, although somewhat more
restrained. It has a system of indirect density control through limitations on height and
impervious coverage that aren't open to project-by-project departures, but there is broad
flexibility for individual projects regarding the type of housing that will be developed.
When approved by town meeting,multifamily housing could apparently be developed at
about ten times the usually expected density of single-family housing. Again this system
raises concerns over uncertainty and the escalation of land values based upon land market
expectations that departure from basic zoning will be allowed, in turn making the
departure a prerequisite to any development at all.
No document such as this Plan can bind the discretion of a legislative body such as town
meeting. However,the Plan certainly can articulate expectations that may help give
guidance to both those considering the proposal of new CD or RD districts and to those
whose vicinity would potentially be affected by adoption of such districts. These are a
beginning.
(a) Creation of either a Planned Commercial (CD) or Planned Residential (RD) district
should, except in the most unusual circumstances, respect the following.
— The proposal should, if involving or abutting resources either previously
identified by the Conservation Commission as being of high priority for
acquisition or previously identified by the Historical Commission as a
"Significant Building,"make provision for meeting the intent of those
designations.
— The proposal should in demonstrable ways advance the principles of
sustainability beyond the level expected without rezoning approval.
(b) Creation of a Planned Commercial (CD) district should, except in the most unusual
circumstances, respect the following.
— The location should primarily lie within an area already in a Commercial or
Planned Development district, and if extending beyond such an area, avoid
increasing the length of arterial street frontage within such districts.
— The proposal should clearly advance the intentions articulated in the Economic
Development Element of this Plan.
Land Use 01/17/02 Page 10
(c) Creation of a Planned Residential (RD) district should, except in the most unusual
circumstances, respect the following.
— The district and proposal size, location, and proposed housing type or mix of
housing types should be consistent with the intention that housing which departs
from Lexington's single-family norm should occur in a dispersed pattern across
the Town rather than being concentrated into large single-type districts.
— The proposal should be consistent with the objectives specified at Section 9.1.1
(Residential Development Objectives) of the Zoning Bylaw.
— The proposal should clearly advance the intentions articulated in the Housing
Element of this Plan, in particular the inclusion of units that serve to broaden
housing opportunities.
Finally, the adoption of performance-based controls, as proposed at many points in this Plan,
will give further assurance about outcomes not just in terms of changes in zoning districts but
in the consequences of those changes.
1.2 Establish policy that in acting on the disposition of"surplus"public land (e.g. tax title
parcels, Met State land when it is transferred), priority should be given to the two uses for
which land is key: diversity-serving housing and preservation of important open spaces.
1.3 Wherever possible, implement changes in land management approaches through
adaptation of existing systems rather than creation of new ones. For example, the
improved guidance for business development that is proposed in a number of these
elements might be achieved by drawing on the residential "Developments with
Significant Public Benefit" (Zoning Section 9.6) approach as a model for framing parallel
provisions for commercial development.
1.4 Explore the Zoning Bylaw for opportunities to improve the speed and predictability of
decisions through making decision standards more specific. Coupled with that, explore
the appropriateness of enabling more development applications to be acted upon without
need for special permit review and its related uncertainties and time requirements where
doing so results in no loss of assurance of strong compliance. Few communities are as
near-universal as Lexington in requiring special permits, which it does for all residential
development of more than two dwelling units, and nearly all non-residential development
of more than 10,000 square feet floor area. Some bases for permit decisions have
objectively measurable standards in the Zoning, but many do not. An example is the
sweeping requirement that uses not be "disturbing, detrimental or hazardous ... by reason
of special danger of fire, explosion,pollution of the water ways or ground water,
corrosive or toxic fumes or materials, excessive heat, smoke, soot, obnoxious dust or
glare...excessive noise or vibration" and so forth (Section 4.2 Line 18.2). Many of those
considerations and others could be and in some communities are expressed as
performance standards. Doing so would enable less unpredictable and judgmental
Land Use 01/17/02 Page 11
outcomes. For some circumstances that certainty might allow decisions to be made as a
matter of right rather than as a matter of administrative discretion.
2. Give priority attention to actions serving objectives under multiple Plan elements.
2.1 Manage land use to moderate dependence on auto usage and improve mobility by other
means,thereby reducing traffic and its consequences, addressing a major concern over
development, and lowering our dependence on fossil fuels. This same intention has been
expressed in the Housing, Economic Development, and Natural and Cultural Resources
elements. These are among the land use actions identified for addressing that intention.
(a) Facilitate mixed uses. Bringing different land use activities together makes non-auto
access easier and shortens auto travel when it occurs, even in the small increments
that are all that can be expected in the Lexington context. Among the steps suggested
in those elements are these.
— Allow and perhaps provide incentives for residential uses in the Center.
— More generously allow various forms of low- or no-commute housing, such as
home occupations and other forms of live/work arrangements.
— Reconsider Neighborhood Commercial zoning to encourage more neighborhood
stores and an updated array of allowed uses, enabling such areas to better serve as
service centers for their neighborhoods without being expanded.
— Reexamine commercial regulations to remove impediments to clustered mixed
use, including retail.
(b) Relate density&transportation. More a policy than an action step, the density/land
use connection is so important it deserves restatement. Where transportation services
and facilities are most robust densities higher than elsewhere may often be
appropriate, except where precluded by existing traffic.
(c) Strengthen Transportation Demand Management. Commitments to management
efforts to reduce transportation demand are commonly obliged as a part of the land
use permitting process, but in Lexington the effectiveness of that has been
questionable. The system deserves reconsideration, moving from an emphasis on
providing resources for mitigation of the harm done by traffic towards incentives for
reducing the amount of traffic that is created in the first place. Such actions might
include regional approaches that are of a non-regulatory and pro-active nature, and
support for transit links, car/van pools, ride guarantees, zip car franchises where there
is critical mass, etc.
(d) Refine zoning and subdivision controls to facilitate access by means other than
single-occupant autos. As cited in other elements, current provisions deserving
reconsideration in those codes are the requirement of 100 foot deep front yards in
Land Use 01/17/02 Page 12
some locations, and only minimal provisions regarding access by pedestrians,
bicycles, van pools, or ridesharing.
(e) Accommodate tour buses. Looking on the positive side, tour buses enable more
people to enjoy Lexington's heritage resources with fewer vehicle trips and space
allocation for parking than would be true in their absence. Facilitating tour buses is a
key land use-related action.
2.2 Manage land use to facilitate meeting housing objectives as described in the housing
element, such as these.
(a) Provide incentives for small-scale age-restricted housing.
(b) Explore refining restrictions on creation of added dwelling units within existing
dwellings, such as through accessory apartments,to somewhat increase the current
average of only three such units being granted permits per year.
(c) Facilitate conversion of non-residential structures to residential use.
(d) Provide both mandates and incentives for development of affordable housing.
2.3 Manage land use to protect open space, as provided in the Natural and Cultural Resources
element, such as these.
(a) Gain a local financial commitment for funding of open space acquisition through one
means or another, whether through the Community Preservation Act, capital facilities
plan reservation, or other means. Seek to protect at least a third of the remaining
acreage of uncommitted land, giving priority to holdings serving biodiversity
objectives.
(b) Improve impervious coverage controls, refining how limits are established, especially
for cluster development, and then extending such controls to non-residential and
"conventional" residential development.
(c) Explore measuring and controlling "density" in trips per acre as well as in floor area
per acre, then obliging high trip-density uses to offset that with open space
contributions.
(d) Enhance existing cluster provisions, adding a lower-density but possibly by-right
cluster option as a true open space residential provision.
2.4 Manage land use to encourage compactness.
(a) Strongly encourage or mandate clustering of development.
Land Use 01/17/02 Page 13
(b) Adopt open space requirements and incentives for new construction, including in
"conventional" subdivisions.
2.5 Manage land use to reduce encroachment on or degradation of natural systems.
(a) Consider providing incentives for development that has low non-renewable energy
demand and other resource-efficient design approaches.National green building
design standards such as the Green Building Rating System of LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design, a respected international organization) or
currently proposed Massachusetts green design standards could be included among
the special permit criteria by which projects are judged. The benefits to Lexington
could include improved air quality through reduced emissions, healthy interior
environments, and lower power requirements and costs, as well as making a
contribution towards broader environmental goals.
(b) Use Town facilities & operations as a demonstration of good resource efficiency and
waste reduction practices. Through its own example,the Town could encourage its
citizens and businesses to reduce costs through reducing solid waste generated,
increasing the recycling rate, or making use of renewable energy sources.
2.6 Manage land use to protect the special character and qualities of Lexington.
(a) Adopt provisions to control the adverse aspects of out-of-scale houses. The
consequences of intrusion of incongruously large new houses into established
neighborhood contexts include damage to visual character, change in social character,
and often results in extensive disruption of the existing fabric of the natural
environment. When that process displaces existing homes, the consequences also
include loss of relatively modest-priced housing resources, and sometimes loss of
highly valuable architectural and other cultural resources. A range of approaches
have been outlined in both the Housing element and the Natural and Cultural
Resources element.
(b) Seek a role in land use management at Hanscom. While controversy over air carrier
operations claims headlines,the impacts of other activity there are also of major
concern, especially the traffic impacts of access over Lexington roads to Hanscom-
based office and research facilities. All possible avenues for exerting influence over
those activities should be explored, including creative use of existing land use
authority, and the seeking of both local and regional voice in on-base land use
management.
(c) Manage expanses of asphalt. Experience with the detailed landscaping requirements
of current zoning (Section 11.7.9) suggests that they deserve reexamination,
especially in the case of very large parking fields, where the plantings required have
proven inadequate to overcome the appearance of an unbroken sea of cars and
asphalt. The appropriate remedy in some cases may go beyond landscaping to
Land Use 01/17/02 Page 14
include breaking up parking areas into smaller areas, separated by structures or
extensive green areas to maintain appropriate scale.
(d) Explore techniques for preservation and strengthening of the diverse character that
distinguishes one Lexington neighborhood from another. Possibilities include
creating zoning sub-districts within the RO and RS districts with rules that vary to
reflect the exiting differences, as well as the kinds of architectural controls explored
in the Natural and Cultural Resources element.
(e) Explore how best to encourage businesses that provide goods and services to
residents or that offer employment opportunities especially well suited for mobility-
limited residents. Perhaps the concept of"developments with significant public
benefit" (Zoning Section 9.6) can incorporate this consideration.
3. Maintain a well-structured overview of land use change, and refine course accordingly. It is
critical in times of rapid change that there is an ongoing systematic reexamination of the
consistency between the Town's actions and its stated policies. These items are of special
significance.
3.1 Assure that the results of density increases and land use change authorized by rezoning or
special permit taken together over time maintain the "balance"between residential and
non-residential growth cited above. If over time departures from the policy are
frequently approved, the policy itself should be revisited and following public discussion
it should be either revised or better adhered to.
3.2 Periodically review success in linking land use and the principles of sustainability, as
discussed in"The Lexington We Want," and identify any steps which might strengthen
how Lexington's ability to be selective in its land use development and its interests in
sustainability are being joined.
LUseR3
January 15,2002
Land Use 01/17/02 Page 15
M NM
o ••• Map Ll.
M I L E S (111 ���,� LAND USE PATTERN
N , /2�, Continuing Lexington's Balanced
' 1'�.,''11'.�11 il, limit goy Land Use
11 l. j1jiii
l ,<< � 1
•s[1:11 I
• Ieti }�1ft111"
�i ill ii
4911(
O // �0,1:0!•:/,'41;;;•
•,• • •' II 111111i( ilii
r fdlt „i • .. ., . 1,• 1• 1111 Vol
{ • 'Are...-), ;�., ILII, o
- .^. .111 ��
.A14i.- If .
11
I , fir
`)' • • .1 III {
r�
'! •1� I \ <��s �11P1'� ,touIl, 1111) �/
�, ilk's" -� a ,/ 1.. • - • •• . . • ,i( :`•'7St i 11, i, 11+11
IT, CI , ' ' li !r :;�'- I, 1 m 111111 f l \--.7/1/' '''\h 1s
z' . 1 VA!: ' .:
Li ii ) t ' i • IIIc • . „ _
- _ , , y•ill i'II 1",":Ai:4046'1 ig::>, 4 IA , ,I)11111 1!11( .1 "Ili ,,Ii,r■.1 1111 nii, • ' . , , ,
• .
•
•
1)% . , • ' • Ill)
�1 Ir1�111 •�
11"1
I �•:, �: 11� 1 •i.IT��'••••
. • .1110 : • 7:
�q~<�``7� NE h
, 1 `I l . u �1l
, „c, _—_
LI ,
LEGENDz 11
<1.:::.. ,
Civic and commercial center 17-'1 Major office and R&D uses ij
�'�� 1111111111111111 Protected open space
IDISubcenters
Major roads and interchanges
.1 Compact residential development
`" 0 0 00 Battle Road
Other chiefly lower density
residential development ••••'••. Bikeway
Page 16
0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Miles
N
+ r k• Map L2.
Preserved Open Space
Lexington, 2001
Numerals at sites are keyed to attached
illki\-irb'
Algy� �G� open space/undeveloped land listoe 13 P ( \..
Iii
O� ., 72 ' r. o
t.
0,
ov,,N. a i;ti-.00400 - :4, (v I,
Ai/
sty
.7/ 0.,' �,_ / ---- . .... - :y- .., soitsf .i36_.;
��, �10.� a . _
‘NiP :mr-N4P
' 411, 1 1031P1 -c 8 9, 1 1 I 1:IV,,, 1,,,,r„,,,. N . a rqk
. -: _ , • -.--:---------- - . . - —
-Y•P / tot: 44 .4\"N N . '‘_ ‘
,,----0 ,.., 0 . 4---u,,,..\ 41, , , in .t .r,
4 iti„,
,,..„..,, ,,,, , .. : *W.-;*; 4114 • • '‘ , `'.:Pc,
WI :4 tik ' .4'0' /. °).•;4711: -,144 I r:1;• 4*.P • 1-
1 \ \. bk v,... --. - - ' 1.04
:. .
•)*$ '*Y4 •
r :, �►.�.����`_._, �� 2f.,
fi i; . - .-tot. ,
�It-I-vM0117
' t, -.>-
fi� ,rte
;
69
y t 0,
4' r. Aa„,,,,, 4 #ier
4 a
, 128
N4 ' 1 #411pcmx,,,,, , Airr,, , , fpfro
�
Slit!i►� - Vii•'►. X21 ��
i''''' ,-4 \ - . ,ft 144 A it. . _ , ...,,,n,._..4,..__,,. . 2„,
P-ft% 4 i '°111.- v ''N'''' -, 44j 4P.
4a 14414*;4 -44----- e
„_ 4....4,
4,
•• ,,, L
triT417- A
4. let,. 4.1
4 ',/fr- ,-_-:_-______,T___=:_*'4,4*---
fr
t ' lis - j '„,. Q”
„weerft ita. >, 1v`
.ip• d P4414‘.i/- 1 ,
--,,,,, 44,* 1
f I Private Open Space with Restrictions
and
Conservation,Recreation and
Publicly Owned Open Space
--\ 0 Cluster Open Space
Source:Open Space Plan,1997 Page 17
0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Miles
••• Map L3.
N
•K• Re•,•
commended Acqusition Land
' . Lexington, 2001
ob Numerals at sites are keyed to attached
Q / .� �j^ open space/undeveloped land list
�CO� !`'2C
I.NI 00: • •. 6 .
0,
N.
„,,
40
4..________----------- .\
pfrk► ,T.
•AT 0,„.„. a ID
,•‘441.•
4f,:
V -.411111CIA- , - .alikr
1 4\-.418 AO ' .NA,4
`1
laot �till , \ 44, A”� a A S
/ .-4, -
' • 04*
k-• * • 4,it _14,417,111 , - k. . . , ,
4' W.. . -.t. .1.47041.'‘'' w#14\ e) .'' 3
thi, 100 ,4411.41 , 14.10,44„40 D. 000 4 4...e.
lork_wit"...4--, _41, , - 4,_...... I,n. j‘ iiiW c%
11111' . iko,_ ...... ;_ _. .. .-1.0.\\ ..4,,,,,11, ,. . „..0.‘
z i .,017,4.. 141.e . .
...1 \ ow 41,Ater
B r. tpIrtit%
. ..,wwv,
z fa . ,_ A r . ak/71.
C ,,,, AO lgo I L' ' t
- 1,-,.- N....4. 11 11111Mik solv-- ,
1,40‘. v
Tit tiv
kilik
^ISI:04_ 4,1r, .. . .,.. , i %.0, i 4` . I got,,
..❖••� i� ,t ----0- __ e,
126 \:� •`i'4.VIillkillih . 107`_1I
...\\01
.-- NR) . 411Pro ...A '.
a . -; It, . ., •Ap ---;,--:_____ 111L
tilha *4*.Y/#1
•7444
.J, <12
Conservation Priority(Conservation Commission)
7 ® critical
® Highly Desirable
El Conditionally Desirable
Source:Open Space Plan, 1997 Page 18
0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Miles
N Map L4.
44;'''
Desired Future Outcomes of
• Under and Undeveloped Land
�G Lexington, 2001
eQ .t dia,
��� Numerals at sites are keyed to attached
t, / ^� open space/undeveloped land list
v
VO e OZ
80 .'
,,...„,.4
.„__________-- -- \
.\,,,,,,,,--- ._ __- , .
/4L4s# '
- V -AI V
'lip
��� • 22
Ilk 0
11ir N ' �, ® r04w. pi,.
iii, 4),
l .wq re . ♦,......:„...... _ .,op, 7 Ail / - ------11.-.‘40-11.plit 0111AMIk Cictt\
-1 Ili "74.-c/ --"I - '-'a lir-•r obi(ti .,
...,,, . _
0 . ,,,, • .. . •1Ihr jt "\ lir.4L. . Al*41.* -%Pi
S e tirliiL ? • irk,r
11# . *11 I k . I*,... . , , 2 ds. A. . .
rA 1 0111111k 40•110,- Wait!, lifk 1111*
11*.
i Nlitt 4 - - iii - OA%
lit ,
Iii N./111
1111,
1,�
,,,i, *E4p :1ft_, , J
126 "l►. i. Pa .; ,..,:,:::... . * •� � . O
__44711 .0v
..„.: , ,,„_ ` ■ ���ray
,„,
/ al Lifa'"--.11' • .----. : 444Iik XI' 'S
, I. afiji _ _._, e >_____,,,_
raliti).
01 .
ItaPr *
ty
'9M 1v
l-.'•I Critical Preservation 4
®Highly Sensitive-Open Space Residential Shaded areas represent private under and
®Cluster Usually Preferred undeveloped,GIA/B,and public facilites land.
I I Innovation Sites Preservation categories have been included
t Public Facilities directly from the Open Space Plan, 1997. Page 19
* Special Tax Assesment Open Space(61A/B)
Map L5.
Open Space and Undeveloped Land
Site Name Legend
10 PELHAM RD 1 DPW LAND 47
11 LARCHMONT LAN 2 DUNBACK MEADOWS 48
110 SHADE ST 3 EMERY PARK 49
116 VINE ST 4 ESTABROOK SCHOOL PLAY AREA 50
1265 MASS AVE 5 FISKE HILL CONSERVATION 51
167 CEDAR ST 6 FISKE SCHOOL PLAY AREA 52
171 WOBURN ST 7 FIVE FIELDS 53
202 CEDAR ST 8 FRANKLIN FIELD 54
241 GROVE ST 9 FREEMONT ST. PLAY AREA 55
33 MARRETT RD 10 GARFIELD ST. PLAY AREA 56
336-342 BEDFORD 11 GROVE ST-CARCH 57
39 HIGHLAND AVE 12 HAMMERHILL CONSERVATION LAND 58
397 LINCOLN ST 13 HARRINGTON SCHOOL PLAY AREA 59
430 CONCORD ST 14 HARTWELL AVE 60
435-443 LINCOLN 15 HASTINGS PARK 61
45 CONCORD AVE 16 HASTINGS SANCTUARY 62
540 LOWELL ST 17 HASTINGS SCHOOL PLAY AREA 63
643 WALTHAM ST 18 HAYDEN RECREATIONAL CENTER 84
675 WALTHAM ST-GOLF COURSE 19 HAYDEN WOODS 65
69 PLEASANT ST 20 HENNESSEY LAND 66
877 WALTHAM ST 21 HILL ST- RUGE 67
93 HANCOCK ST 22 HOBBS BROOK CONSERVATION 68
959 WALTHAM ST 23 HOBBS BROOK RESERVATION 69
ADAMS PLAY AREA 24 IDYLWILDE 70
ALLEN ST/WALTHA 25 IVAN &JUSTIN ST PLAY AREA 71
BASKIN PLAYGROUND 26 IVAN ST. CONSERVATION LAND 72
BATES ROAD CONSERVATION LAN 27 JERRY CATALDO RESERVATION 73
BELFREY HILL 28 JUNIPER HILL 74
BELMONT SPRINGS CC 29 JUSTIN/BERNARD CONS LAND 75
BENNINGTON ST 30 KATAHDIN WOOD 76
BLOSSOM ST. FIELD 31 KINNEEN PARK 77
BOSTON EDISON EASEMENT 32 LACONIA SCHOOL SITE 78
BOWMAN PARK 33 LEX. BATTLE GREEN 79
BOWMAN SCHOOL 34 LEXINGTON CLUB 80
BOWMAN SCHOOL PLAY AREA 35 LEXINGTON GOLF CLUB 81
BRIDGE SCHOOL PLAY AREA 36 LEXINGTON HIGH SCHOOL 82
BROOKHAVEN CONSERVATION LAN 37 LIBERTY HEIGHTS 83
BROWN HOMESTEAD 38 LINCOLN ST PLAY AREA 84
BURLINGTON STRIP 39 LOWELL ST-BU 85
CAMBRIDGE WATER BASIN 40 LOWER VINE BROOK 86
CHIESA MEADOW 41 MARRETT RD- DAI 87
CLARKE MIDDLE SCHOOL PLAY AR 42 MARVIN ST. PLAY AREA 88
CONCORD AVE CONSERVATION LA 43 MEAGHERVILLE 89
CRANBERRY HILL 44 MET STATE HOSPITAL 90
DAISY WILSON MEADOW 45 MIDDLESEX CO HOSPITAL 91
DIAMOND MIDDLE SCHOOL PLAY A 46 MINUTE MAN NATIONAL HIST PARK 92
Page 20
MINUTEMAN BIKE PATH 93 Subdivision Legend
MINUTEMAN VOC. TECH. SCHOOL 94 POTTER POND 140
MUNROE SCHOOL 95 ORCHARD CROSSING 141
MUZZEY FIELD 96 MASON'S HOLLOW 142
NORTH ST. SAND PITS 97 CENTRE VILLAGE 143
OLD RESERVOIR 98 TURNBURRY HILL 144
OXFORD ST. PLAY AREA 99 MORROW CROSSING 145
PAINT MINE AREA 100 FISKE COMMON 146
PARKER FIELD 101 DRUMMER BOY 147
PARKER MEADOW CONS AREA 102 LEXINGTON PARK 148
PARKER SCHOOL PLAY AREA 103 COPPERSMYTHE WAY 149
PEACOCK FARMS 104 OLD SMITH FARM 150
PHEASANT BROOK 105
PINE MEADOWS GOLF COURSE 106
PLEASANT ST-W 107
POOR FARM 108
POPLAR ST. PLAY AREA 109
RINDGE AVE PLAY AREA 110
SCHOOL SITE 111
SCOTT ROAD CONSERVATION LAN 112
SHAKER GLEN 113
SIMONDS BROOK 114
STATE DPW1 115
STATE DPW2 116
SUN VALLEY POOL 117
SUTHERLAND PLAYGROUND 118
SUTHERLAND WOODS 119
SWAMMIN LAND 120
THE GREAT MEADOW 121
TOPHET SWAMP 122
TOWER PARK 123
TOWN LAND1 124
TOWN LAND2 125
TRACER LANE 126
TURNING MILL POND 127
UPPER VINE BROOK 128
VALLEY ROAD 129
VALLEYFIELD PLAY AREA 130
VYNE BROOK VILLAGE 131
WALTHAM ST. FARM 132
WEST FARM 133
WESWIEW CEMETERY 134
WHIPPLE HILL 135
WILLARD WOODS 136
WOBURN ST-WIN 137
WOOD ST. CONSERVATION LAND 138
WOODLAND BIRD SANCTUARY 139
GREY NUNS 151
Page 21
NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
BACKGROUND'
Lexington is a place of national significance because of the historic events that began here, and is
equally a place of regional significance because of some natural resource elements that begin
here. The Town gains extraordinary benefit from being where things begin, but that position
also carries extraordinary stewardship responsibilities. They deserve careful attention in the
Town's comprehensive planning.
Natural Resources
WATER RESOURCES
Lexington has no rivers, only relatively small brooks and streams, because the Town is sited
straddling the divides among three watersheds. No extensive streams go through Lexington,
they all start here, traveling to the Merrimack River via the Shawsheen basin if originating in the
north, to Boston Harbor via the Mystic basin if originating in the east, and to Boston Harbor via
the Charles basin if originating in the south. Being at the beginning of river basins carries both
benefits and responsibilities.
• There has been no need in Lexington for building and maintaining major bridges to cross
waters. Lexington has no bridges, rude or not, for arching major floods (the Concord River
starts gathering water more than 20 miles away from Concord in Hopkinton, another three-
basin headwater town).
• Even Lexington's largest streams are of the scale that one clogged culvert or a family of
beavers can create flooding, but also are of a size that large-scale structural damage from
flooding is a smaller concern than is common further from headwaters. Lexington has its
share of sometimes-flooded basements, but has no, even occasionally, raging torrents of
floodwater.
• For the same reason—relatively low flows—waterbodies in Lexington are more sensitive to
man's actions than is the case downstream where local impacts are diluted in larger volumes
of flowing water. Streamflows in Lexington are highly sensitive to changes intervening in
the water cycle, such as new impervious surface, causing streams to dry or flood or both.
Similarly, even relatively small amounts of contamination introduced into a small stream can
easily result in water qualities destructive to that stream's ability to function as a healthy
natural system.
• By virtue of being at the headwaters, water impacts that occur in Lexington continue to be of
consequence for many miles as the waters flow downstream. Among the downstream
I This material draws heavily upon the rich information resources of the 1997 Lexington Open Space and Recreation
Plan.
Natural&Cultural Resources 01/17/02 Page 1
resources affected by action or inaction in Lexington are the Arlington Reservoir and Hobbs
Brook Basin, one important as a recreation resource, the other as public water supply for
Cambridge. Via groundwater as well as surface flows, water flowing from Lexington
contributes to water supplies in Burlington, Bedford, and Woburn.
Lexington residents' use of potable water and disposal of used water are largely isolated from
those natural systems. Virtually 100% of the dwellings in Lexington are served by MWRA
water collected no nearer than Clinton, and all but about 6% of Lexington dwellings are served
by public sewerage disposed into the MWRA system2. Our own water and sewer service is
"invisible" and largely taken for granted. No raging floods occur nearby, and even water as a
recreational or scenic asset is a relatively small part of the Lexington environment. That
probably leads to less awareness of the significance of local actions for water in Lexington than
would otherwise be true, but, in fact,human actions in Lexington are of large importance to
water resources in the region, as well as being of significance locally,where flooding does occur
to some degree, and water quality is not always well maintained in streams and ponds.
LAND AND VEGETATIVE RESOURCES
Statistically, less than 1,000 acres of Lexington's land (out of about 11,000 acres in the Town)
remains undeveloped but developable, suggesting that the Town is essentially wholly built out.
Flying over the Town gives a very different impression. Lexington appears lushly green, with
discernable pockets of development, but the dominant impression is that of tree cover and
ground vegetation. Both of those views are correct. Virtually all of the Town's land resources
are to some degree now urbanized, but that urbanization exists within a vitaland vitally
important natural context.
While nearly 1,000 acres remain developable, another 1,000 aces are unbuilt-on because they are
unbuildable, chiefly because of wetlands. Lexington's relatively flat topography and location
straddling watershed divides has resulted in extensive wetland areas that act as hugely productive
resources for the ecosystem, and even serve development by acting as sponges to mitigate both
flooding and dry spells. Some 1,300 acres, some of them included in the"unbuildable" count
above, have been protected through public or civic ownership and held as open space. That
acreage is not just a heritage from the distant past: most of it has been protected just in the past
four decades. Protected acreage nearly doubled in the past twenty-five years. Since 1985, in
Lexington about 40% as much land has been added to the rolls of protected land as has been
developed.
In his 1961 book Megalopolis geographer Jean Gottman noted"The rockiest pasture ten miles
from Boston is more valuable than the blackest loam in central Illinois."3 He predicted the
persistence of agriculture in megalopitan(his term) areas,but only those types that could benefit
most from that locational value, especially nurseries serving homeowners, and greenhouse and
other space-intensive growing of crops for local sale. Those uses of land indeed persist in
Lexington. The acreage they involve is small, as is the dollar volume of their production in the
regional economy. However,they make vital contributions to the local quality of life,
2 Based on US Census of Housing 1990 data.
3 Jean Gottman,Megalopolis,The Twentieth Century Fund,NY, 1961.
Natural&Cultural Resources 01/17/02 Page 2
community character, and by providing an otherwise missing element in the mix of terrestrial
environments, they can contribute to the local ecosystem as long as their practices reflect
appropriate concern about chemical intrusions.
FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
Fish are stocked in the Old Reservoir and inhabit a variety of other locations where they play a
role in the ecological system, but are not noted as a recreational or food resource. A great variety
of mammals inhabit the Town to the increasing concern of many, since they prominently include
often-troublesome coyotes, skunks, raccoons,possum and occasional whitetail deer. They too
play roles in the balance of natural systems of which we are a large, and perhaps to those
mammals, troublesome, element. Lexington is host to a rich array of birds. Dunback Meadow is
a birding site of statewide significance. A number of rare species are from time to time found in
Lexington, deserving special care, including long-eared owls and spotted and wood turtles.
The significance of wildlife to the Lexington environment underscores the importance of
protecting corridors for their movement among habitat areas. A number of critical corridors
have been identified in the 1997 Open Space Plan and targeted for special protection efforts.
RESOURCES FOR NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Responsibility for management of the Town's natural resources relies heavily upon the
Conservation Commission's authority, chiefly that of administering the State-adopted Wetlands
Protection Act and the companion Town Wetlands Bylaw, and enforcing compliance with the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's stormwater management requirements.
The Town also relies upon the Commission's own initiatives, which go well beyond that to
include leadership in seeking acquisition of land and in public education. The Commission
works together with Citizens for Lexington Conservation and the Lexington Stewardship
Committee in its efforts. The Lexington Nature Trust and a variety of more localized trusts
provide vehicles for financing public interest efforts through private contributions.
Additional authority for natural resource management comes from a variety of local by-laws.
Those include the recently enacted Tree Bylaw and the many resource-protective elements of the
Town's Zoning By-law, including brook and pond setbacks (now overshadowed at many
locations by the MA River Protection Act), the Wetland Protection District, and the Flood
Hazard Insurance District.
Cultural resources
Lexington's stewardship responsibility to its Revolutionary War heritage has clearly shaped the
course of development in the Town for two and a quarter centuries, and will clearly continue to
do so in the future. That stewardship responsibility has been executed with effective care.
History didn't stop being made in Lexington in 1775. The Town has other cultural resources
deserving of careful attention, and they,too, have drawn responsive efforts.
Natural&Cultural Resources 01/17/02 Page 3
Listing of properties on the State or National Register gives recognition to their antiquity,
architecture, or associations as well as being a preservation aid. Designation as a National
Historic Landmark is an even more selective honor,being made directly by the Secretary of the
Interior. Most communities have no such Landmarks, but Lexington has four of them:
Lexington Green, Buckman Tavern,the Hancock-Clark House, and the Minuteman National
Historic Park, in a designation shared with Lincoln and Concord. Eight additional properties are
individually listed on the National Register, as are properties within five National Register
Districts. Approximately 600 properties are protected through inclusion within one or another of
the Town-established local historic districts.
The most recent National Register listing in Lexington was Metropolitan State Hospital in 1994,
and that complex may contain the most recently constructed structures to be listed in Lexington
(unless the Post Office holds that position). Change may be coming. Five Fields, designed and
developed by the Gropius-led Architects Collaborative,just celebrated its fiftieth anniversary,
making it of an age when it is normally eligible for consideration for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places. Moon Hill,produced by the same acclaimed fin-n, is just a few years
older.
The cultural resources of Lexington deserving protection also include those of local importance
but that are not of major importance beyond the Town. For many the character of their own
neighborhood is a cultural resource of great value to them, both deserving and needing protection
against erosion though destructive change. As noted in other elements of this Plan, steadily
growing demand for location in Lexington and dwindling"new land" for development places
many existing structures at risk of displacement,to say nothing of having inharmonious
development occur nearby. Among the neighborhoods that have been noted in this context are
Meriam Hill, Parker/Upper Clarke Street,Follen Hill, Peacock Farm, Moon Hill, and Five
Fields.
At even a more localized scale,there is large concern in Lexington that the character of many
individual streets or blocks is being damaged by the construction of new homes replacing older
ones. The new homes are commonly viewed as being both out of scale and out of context with
the established character of that location. That concern is common not only in Lexington but in
many communities facing development pressures like Lexington's. The prevalence of that
intrusive change is a legitimate public concern.
RESOURCES FOR MANAGEMENT
The Town employs a powerful array of tools for managing its cultural resources. The Lexington
Historical Commission has prepared a nine-volume inventory of historical structures across the
Town, documenting more than a thousand structures. All of those buildings plus certain others
are protected against demolition until the Commission has reviewed that proposal and approved
it or ordered that it be delayed for a six month period to allow alternatives to be sought, including
rehabilitation.
Four contiguous local historic districts have been created by Town Meeting, extending along
Massachusetts Avenue from East Lexington to Worthen Road, and out Hancock Street to the
Natural&Cultural Resources 01/17/02 Page 4
Hancock-Clarke premises, including a substantial area in Lexington Center. Within those
districts development (or demolition) may proceed only following determination of
appropriateness by the Lexington Historic District Commission.
Two advisory groups add to the process. The Design Advisory Committee brings professional
design expertise to assist Town agencies and those doing development in bringing new buildings,
signage, lighting, and other change into a good relationship with Lexington's special context. Its
success through assistance rather than regulation has made it a model for other communities.
Similarly,the Lexington Center Committee, among other roles,provides input into design when
it involves the Center.
Two private non-profit organizations are of special note. The Lexington Historical Society plays
a number of key roles, not least through ownership of the Hancock-Clarke House and Munroe
Tavern and management of Buckman Tavern under lease from the Town. The Museum of Our
National Heritage provides resources and programs that nicely complement the cultural
management efforts of the Town.
The National Park Service is a key actor as an owner and resource steward for the Battle Road
Minuteman National Historic Park, and the educational efforts associated with it.
Chart R1
OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION
Lexington 1963-2000
1,400
1,200
m
1,000
3 800
. 600
cr
tf
w
d
V 400
Q _
200 11111 II
N.-
ANALYTICS CONSER V E-P\CH-O S
01/17/02 Page 5
Natural&Cultural Resources
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
In a refreshing departure from the usual verbiage,the Open Space Plan cites protection of the
physical beauty of the landscape and community as one of its basic goals. That equally deserves
inclusion as a goal in this Comprehensive Plan, as well. "Beauty" is a word that often sparks
derision and debate in planning and design circles,but beauty clearly motivates a significant part
of our concerns for both natural and cultural resources. Some will argue that it is not necessary
to pursue"beauty" as an end in itself since if we manage well from other perspectives the
outcomes will as a result be perceived as "beautiful." So be it. We shall never the less
acknowledge this as a goal, alongside managing well from other perspectives.
The Open Space Plan states as a goal the protection of the region's (our emphasis) vital natural
habitats and biodiversity. To that we would simply add"cultural resources." The Background
discussion above makes clear how interrelated Lexington's resources are with those of its region.
The Battle Road does not stop in East Lexington or at Fiske Hill, any more than Vine Brook dies
at the Middlesex Turnpike. Our actions need to take neighbors into account and, where
appropriate,be executed in unison with them.
The goal of local as well as global sustainability is applicable to all elements of the
Comprehensive Plan,but its salience is especially clear for this element. "Sustainability" means
meeting present as well as future human needs,while using resources efficiently, fairly, and
within Nature's means. The four key principles for achieving that are to meet human needs
fairly and efficiently, giving priority to basic needs,to reduce dependence upon fossil fuels,
underground metals, and minerals;to reduce dependence upon chemicals and synthetics; and to
reduce encroachment upon Nature.
STRATEGIC APPROACH
Having initially listed the"natural" and"cultural" strategies separately, it became strikingly clear
how commonly the same strategic approaches apply to both. Accordingly, that is how strategies
are now being conceived.
❖ Protect and heighten elements characteristic of Lexington, avoiding or using great care
regarding intrusion of"exotics,"whether natural or cultural. Make Lexington more
especially"Lexington"than ever, guarding against any further homogenization into
faceless suburbia. The arguments supporting that for both natural and cultural
environments are profound, not a simple "we like it." So too are the arguments for not
being absolutist about it. Moon Hill in its time was viewed as "exotic," and fortunately
out of the way so not to be intrusive. It has enriched the community's cultural
environment. The Lexington landscape is now enriched through trees and other
landscape materials now common here but introduced from distant lands a century or
more ago.
❖ Preservation and reuse of existing resources. That applies equally to a rainwater cistern
for the garden and the sensitive restoration of a century-old house. Through mindfulness
Natural&Cultural Resources 01/17/02 Page 6
towards this strategic approach both encroachment and degradation can be reduced, while
strengthening what is singular about Lexington.
Use the power of Lexington's locational attractiveness as a tool for achieving objectives.
Communities as different as Cambridge, MA and Londonderry,
ly
succeeding in demonstrating how selectivity in responding to rowth pressures can
provide support for both cultural and natural resources. That power enables Lexington to
be narrowly selective in the development that it facilitates, and to offer demanding
incentives with expectation that they will draw responses.
Heighten community receptivity to proposals through carefully programmed community
education. The level at which discourse in Lexington takes place has allowed this
community to entertain approaches that are demanding in their rationale and basis.
Careful education can allow debate to be well informed.
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
1. Reduce Encroachment on Natural Resources
Encroachment on natural resources remains a vital concern, even in an essentially
"developed"community such as Lexington.
1.1 Pursue open space protection efforts. Bringing permanent protection to open space is a
powerful means of both avoiding encroachment on land, water, habitat and other
critical resources, but also serves to protect community character resources. The goals
that have been discussed for open space protection are dauntingly high, including the
goal of protecting at least one-third of the remaining uncommitted land in the Town: it
will take major efforts to accomplish them. These are among the potential means.
(a) Mandate the preservation of open space in all but the smallest-scale new
development, including "conventional" subdivisions. That is nearly, but not quite,
done under the Town's present residential zoning controls. Following now well-
established Massachusetts examples, that current residential requirement could be
extended in its applicability (through a carefully structured zoning provision), and
extended to apply also to non-residential development, for which the rationale for
open space preservation is no less compelling. A system of fees in lieu of such
provision, if carefully constructed, could provide flexibility for both applicants and
the Town.
(b) Explore enabling development rights to be transferred from one parcel to another
when both Town and applicant find that it serves their interests, resulting in
preserved open space on one parcel and more density than otherwise allowed on
another. Called "Transfer of Development Rights" or"TDR," such transfers have
long been touted as a means of protecting key resources, but have seen limited
usage in New England towns. Even that limited usage demonstrates how
Natural&Cultural Resources 01/17/02 Page 7
potentially effective TDR could be,though in Lexington usage of that device would
likely be limited. In effect, TDR is "clustering"between parcels rather than within
a single one.
(c) Offer open space preservation as a traffic mitigation option. Explore zoning that
measures and controls"density" in trips per acre as well as in floor area per acre,
then obliges high trip-density uses to offset their high trip generation with open
space contributions.
(d) Gain at least policy commitment to adequate local funding for open space
acquisition. Open space acquisition and its funding have been strongly supported
for many years in Lexington, essentially through a series of case-specific proposals.
At this point, however,assurance of having the capacity to achieve the goals now
set out would greatly facilitate planning and budgeting. The Community
Preservation Act is intended to provide such a committed source. For various
reasons that specific mechanism may not be appropriate for Lexington,but that
does not mean that some form of reliably predictable funding over time would not
be an invaluable aid. Predictability of funding could be gained through inclusion of
such funding in the Town's Capital Improvements Program, or perhaps through a
dedicated source, such as CPA provides, or perhaps simply through broad
agreement with a statement of policy in a later version of this Plan.
(e) Establish an aggressive program to encourage and facilitate donations of land or
rights in land, helping owners satisfy both their family fiduciary responsibilities and
contributing to the public interest, which, with skillful guidance, can often be a
benefit to all involved parties.
1.2 Revise zoning and other development controls to protect natural resources against
encroachment or degradation. There are many helpful measures that can be taken to
reduce encroachment on resources from development that takes place.
(a) Strengthen controls over landscaping in both Zoning and Subdivision Regulations
by including provisions regarding chemical use avoidance, controls regarding
importation of invasive exotic species, and requiring water use moderation as a
complement to other existing controls under Board of Health or other jurisdictions.
(b) Further strengthen landscaping controls by restricting the severity of topographic
change that is allowable without a special exception, with change measured either
vertically (changing grade more than X feet) or in cubage (displacing more than Y
cubic yards of earth materials).
(c) Strengthen zoning controls regarding the allowable extent and location of
impervious coverage, improving residential development coverage limits now
applied only to cluster and special residential development, then extending them to
business and"conventional" residential development, and more strictly controlling
the location of such surfaces, such as limiting paving in front yards. No amount of
Natural&Cultural Resources 01/17/02 Page 8
stormwater management ingenuity can really replicate the original context when
impervious surfaces comprise a large share of the ground surface.
(d) In that same spirit, revise subdivision regulations to allow narrower streets in
subdivisions. The Planning Board commonly does so on waivers. Revision would
make clear that the Town really prefers a smaller scale for its residential streets.
(e) As suggested in the Land Use element, consider revising zoning to offer"green
building" some form of bonus in new development upon its demonstration that it
meets specific standards for performance regarding site design, energy, water, and
interior environment. That might use the LEED (Leadership in Energy &
Environmental Design)rating system or the standards of a tax incentive bill
currently under consideration in the Massachusetts legislature.
2. Moderate Auto Usage.
Less auto travel would result in reducing fossil fuel dependence as well as protecting town
character. This type of effort is discussed at length in the Economic Development Element,
so its parts are only briefly cited here.
2.1 Promote mixed use. Mixed uses can materially reduce the number and length of trips.
Mixed use can mean an array of things in Lexington ranging from more appropriately
allowing occupations within homes, through revising rules to allow residential uses in
more business districts (including the Center's BA district), to refining rules to enable
more business districts to effectively serve nearby residents.
2.2 Strengthen transportation demand management. As cited above, uses can be obliged to
reduce their trip generation below usual norms (or doing so can be encouraged through
incentives), and better site design to encourage access by other than individual autos
could be facilitated, encouraged, and in some aspects required. Requiring pedestrian
and bike access efforts in new development is one potential part of that.
2.3 Explore further ways of reducing auto trip making, such as creation of a regional
Transportation Management Organization through which public and private efforts can
be joined to gain scale and effectiveness.
3. Address Pollution and Other Natural Resource Concerns
Natural resource concerns go beyond open space protection and addressing the automobile.
These are some further measures towards implementing our goals, most of which are also
cited in other Plan elements or are already underway in the Town.
3.1 Have Town facilities and operations serve as a demonstration of good resource
efficiency and waste reduction practices. The Town already reflects sustainability
principles in its facilities and operations. It could go a step further. In adopting and
integrating such objectives in its own practices, the Town could serve as a
Natural&Cultural Resources 01/17/02 Page 9
demonstration in areas such as maintaining,powering,rehabilitating, or developing its
buildings, facilities, land, and recreation areas, and also in carrying out ongoing
municipal operations and services. Town actions in these areas could serve to illustrate
what the community's businesses,private residential and commercial development, and
general citizenry might also undertake to reorient their respective activities in directions
that are resource protective.
For example,the Town might make explicit goals for and take steps to reduce,
creatively re-use, or recycle its own solid waste,thereby demonstrating how solid waste
disposal problems and costs can be addressed, serving the principle of meeting human
needs efficiently. The Town could maximize use of alternatives to chemical products in
building and ground maintenance,thereby showing how to reducing chemical and
hazardous waste contamination, disposal, and cost problems, and modeling what cost
and employee benefits result from that reduction in dependence upon chemicals. The
sustainability objective to reduce encroachment upon nature could provide a basis for
efforts at reducing and reusing graywater and stormwater, retaining and protecting
shade trees, and further protecting remaining wildlife areas.
3.2 As cited in the Economic Development element,the Town might explore the creation
of a Business Improvement District in Lexington Center, undertaking among other
things solid waste management efforts, possibly involving a regional effort to deal with.
commercial use solid waste recycling.
3.3 Continue supportive programs already in place, including the annual tree planting
program, an aggressive solid waste management program, and the implementation of
parts of the Town's Open Space Plan not specifically cited here.
3.4 Conduct a program for periodic monitoring of environmental quality parameters as
proposed in Vision 2020 to provide a basis for ongoing corrective action.
3.5 Explore creation of a new organization, provision of new resources to an existing
organization, or take other structural measures to provide leadership for the actions
listed above and others relating to making more efficient use of resources and reducing
waste.
4. Celebrate the Town's Place in National History
All communities have stewardship responsibilities to the legacies of their pasts. For Lexington,
that stewardship includes elements of far more than local significance,towards which there are
special responsibilities, entailing both protection of surviving resources from the Revolutionary
era and also providing a setting for them that is appropriate to that legacy.
4.1 As suggested by Vision 2020, continue efforts to document and archive information
from that era, provide educational resources about it, and promote awareness of that
time and its events even among Lexington residents, many of whom know little about
them.
Natural&Cultural Resources 01/17/02 Page 10
4.2 Seek resources to explore creation of a "Battle Road Corridor Overlay" district. A
small part of the Battle Road in Lexington is within the Minuteman National Historic
Park. A large portion but by no means all of the Battle Road in Lexington is included
within one of Lexington's four Historic Districts. The remaining portions are not
identifiable in relation to that history in any way except by reading maps, nor are they
protected against inappropriate development actions in any way. Surely that which
perhaps is American history's most celebrated route should be legible on the ground in
its entirety, at least through Lexington, and perhaps through the other towns through
which it passes, as well.
Exactly what would constitute appropriate measures for providing that legibility and
recognition requires careful consideration. Distinctive street signs would be a small
step beyond the present lack of attention. Perhaps there could be distinctive
landscaping, at least within the public way, and possibly beyond it. Milestones? More
commemorative markers? Banners on Patriot's Day? Demanding regulation of
abutting architectural change might go too far. Finding the right mix and extent of
actions (all the way to Charlestown?) deserves effort.
4.3 Develop a program to articulate the entrances and, perhaps, symbolic small spaces
within Lexington. Lexington has a wonderfully clear Center, but it no longer is clear
where historic (or contemporary)Lexington begins or ends. Such a remarkable
community should be recognizable immediately upon entry, ideally not by yet another
painted sign, but perhaps in some other more direct way. In fact, it would be even
better if one could recognize being in Lexington throughout the Town, at least on major
arteries. That might be achieved if there were an exemplary program of street design
and green space adoption and management by civic groups, resulting in a distinctive
pattern of special plantings at the Town's most visible spots, which are those within
intersections.
5. Address Other Cultural Resource Concerns
Lexington's cultural resource concerns cover the entire Town and are not bound by historical
era. Accordingly, there are a number of further cultural resource management efforts that are
important to pursue.
5.1 Prepare, adopt, and pursue a Town-wide Preservation Plan. Inventories of existing
resources have occupied preservation planning energies for some years, but that does
not constitute a plan. Just as the Town's open space and recreation actions are
supported through a detailed Open Space and Recreation Plan, cultural preservation
efforts would benefit from a well-developed plan.
5.2 Develop controls protecting special locations within the Town.
(a) There are many areas of the Town that contain architectural resources that deserve
protection, but perhaps should not be at the same level of regulatory control that is
Natural&Cultural Resources 01/17/02 Page 11
normally exerted within an historic district. Such relatively light-handed districts
might prove appropriate to areas already cited, such as Meriam Hill, Parker/Upper
Clarke Street,Follen Hill, Peacock Farm, Moon Hill,Five Fields, and the Manor.
The potential for such districts should be explored.
(b) There are areas in which design specifics are not of concern, but the prevailing
scale of dwellings is very much so, as tear-down and replacement result in change
that is badly inconsistent with the context,both physically and socially. A
possibility for protection against that could be the establishment of powerful
controls over both the demolition of existing dwellings and the reconstruction of
their sites, applicable Town-wide but of special utility in these areas.
(c) The character of Lexington is powerfully influenced by the character of its roads,
some of which retain a traditional canopy of trees and bordering stone walls. The
Scenic Roads Act(MGL Chapter 40 Section 15C) authorizes towns to designate
roads it selects as "scenic," following which destruction of stone walls and trees
requires Planning Board review and approval, including compensatory
replacements. Explore whether that or some alternative means would be
appropriate for protecting such roads in Lexington.
(d) Undertake a process to identify places in Lexington that importantly contribute to
the Town's character, attractiveness, or scenic interests,then devise means of
protecting their contributions, whether through acquisition of easements,
requirements or incentives for sensitive siting of potentially intrusive development,
commemorative plaques, or other means.
5.3 Develop regulations applying Town-wide to protect cultural resources.
(a) Address out-of-scale houses. The continuing loss of existing homes and their
replacement with far larger ones has been destructive of community character and
housing resources. It has engendered a great deal of discussion and debate about
what, if anything,the Town should do about it. That issue should be brought to
resolution, whether through the adoption of carefully designed controls or through
clear resolution that regulation is not an appropriate avenue. That effort is well
under way, including "House Impact Provisions" currently being considered.
(b) Strengthen Zoning's present incentives for preservation. Lexington zoning has a
unique set of incentives for the preservation of existing structures (Section 4.4).
That promising initiative deserves review and, if possible, strengthening to be a
more commonly effective tool.
(c) Explore adoption of local protection for archeological resources. There are federal
and state controls that often protect archeological resources, but in many instances
neither of those apply. This is a complex area for local control, but there are some
promising models that deserve being considered.
Natural&Cultural Resources 01/17/02 Page a2
(d) Strengthen & refine demolition controls. Lexington has a local bylaw requiring a
delay before demolishing any building that the Historical Commission deems
important to preserve (except within historic districts, where the Historic District
Commission plays that role). Experience has indicated some aspects of that bylaw
are in need of refinement. That bylaw is a highly useful one, and its refinement
should be a priority undertaking.
5.4 Explore how to fund achievement of preservation objectives. For example, through
adoption of a Local Option Property Tax Assessment system, as authorized by MGL
Chapter 59 Section 5J, the Town can delay the full tax impact of increased historic
building value resulting from historically compatible restoration efforts. Bedford is one
of the towns that has done this. The cost to the Town would be minor, but such tax
impact relief, though temporary, has proven to be a useful tool in preservation efforts
elsewhere, especially when joined with State and federal historic preservation tax credit
devices. Use of Tax Increment Financing, where improvements are financed through
dedication of a portion of the increase in tax revenues that will result, is another
example, this one authorized under MGL Chapter 40, Section 59. The Community
Preservation Act (CPA) is another.
NatCult-R3
January 15,2002
Natural&Cultural Resources 01/17/02 Page 13
Ir.
/0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Mles ♦♦/
♦' MapRl.
00 ♦' ill, /
A
�� •♦'
' lot./
' ♦� Natural Resources in
I I� 40/1,' � ' ♦ � Lexington, 2001
♦� Incudin major
Top:••••••••,>•00,:goolptIk11111.40: , ,
#1.
'� ' ♦� g watersheds,wetlands� ' ♦' and vernal pools
' 4,.‘7, : / r- __-_--- ----) -- - I
, logo. _________:_--------
-411,_.,,,,. -Ier .
,:, . -T.
° • Al .s�)or a ����
;0/
oe e� IA
G� ,00.00001a. 4i
0 A A
,00, 4404
At, e v��
o f e
i
16<i)(/ 0
I ti
.d 1
. °
- r----------------::. // \ _.41/•A A 111( ., ' ....2* .(,) , 0
e
D
IL
'data :` _Yak-
:..
J . /�
O Q .��e /� ala 411'
� - F6'
ZQ
Z �li. / mac ala-11--`70
A 411- A
`I ° I` °se ,la al/. n0
r kr
ry
ala Ie �`�„ al,. �S
A
mal,. -
WVCertified Vernal Pools '
� Potential Vernal Poots e l.}i,� /��� �
a• Wetlands 'A W%�
KA Shawsheen Watershed C
CO
Mystic Watershed i•` Q p
Charles Watershed O
1 l Page 14
z\A
v. °
0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Miles
Map R2.
N National and State Register
Designations of Historic Significance
Lexington, 2001
• - elk a .
�O
Shi . '/,/
Apke \-4—, _ s , >al,
lli#,Y 4", 4
7 „ArAtokelk, ii, -
4.„ . A X . ri _ # NA
•
•,. / 44%44 •
..,„„a 4
/ • ,t 'I% ' •
lippr-'
VP
4 4rEV ' 1*' . .- ' A
ki
,‘, 411,... V 110- a& m � k -
�� i1,,A#._ //Z 2\ A___..wip,- SWALWIttV- ,- 41/ . ''-". \ 4,
Lk �Ito
,..., „f orY v ��
•A104. ,, 144( tp- _v. , ir -*AN- ,
7
_ _ 1 , tom_4:4 w .
--%0, . .v___.- . - , .
7
ifik* p
n . ___
Is ilti,:,
-c:), , i #ft 'r.-_ - o.,:c .
.z.
' li , ' *4%4,6 fp' II' .iii0
-,..-a
alit.:,,, #4, • ..)
A -7,, ,,,..,,,_ v
,....
-.1.* . al,
iiv ,_,,,
ki
,e*w. . p4v,, v
/ 4 . ,k,,,,
fr ' 461/1111: . , iely
/ • -
. b IIP,
/ '- -*Ale NIP"
iliiika * 0
0 Individual National Register Listings4.
1.Sanderson House-Munroe Tavern
2.Warren E.Sherburne House ���T4/ , �' �j �./�°
3.Simonds Tavern
4.The Stone Building M �`V4
5.U.S.Post Office. Other Distinction/Natio a and State Register
6.Follen Community Church `
7.Hancock School, Minuteman National Historic Park
ncock Clarke House Metropolitan State Hospital
8.Hancock
n Mason House, Town-Created Historic District
Hancock-Clarke Historic District
10.Buckman Tavern Battle Green Historic District(includes N tional Districts Page 15
1 1.Gen.Samuel Chandler House Munroe Tavern Historic District
East Village Historic District
0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Miles
N Map R3.
Existing Historic Districts and
Possible Preservation Areas
Lexington, 2001
�� o ZC
tg '
xOe
i
>� 2
:0
iii°111°1` ��
v
tel, 1 * &
N.
/ 4: 7
i 14\A.N.4.,.\
.., ii------A , .
" . . )ii ....
. ' -IC PAT -' ii 4- * %
-,,
\ . . lio-•N, . _ . .
li
\ \.. ./ e , 4,401*• -, - - . ..
4,- I Afig,_,,p - )..,-miofri , ' \ , - ----'
littlb'' 4 , •.1,..,,,,, t,t, 04
."141 ',41.41010.
- 0,1 I.. ,0
sachus11111r • e._
,,.;,„"7,4„,...„1„
� • &111° —
FZ , 'AI 14"-- lik eV : i ZnSW
Z
0 r "2- 4. . ei .ett s•-t.l. -V w ') -M
110.1 ,
*„
4 If
111. r
k% 4 Ar -, ,
' ii ,,.,.
-4 ).- ;.;40 . . oi
,..,
. ,,,...„„, . i .,
4,,
. .
. - 8 . 7,----- -'' Il _Ai
b QC
Possible Preservation Areas --_v )::'----:------ Y
-
1.Paint Mine Area
2.Merriam Hill Neighborhood AI,
3.Parker/Upper Clarke �,9 h
4.Follen Hill Neighborhood <Tjy'9 y
5.Peacock Farm Development 4,j �`
6.Moon Hill Development lir
�
7.Parker School Vicinity / ��
8.Five Fields Development
Existing Local Historic Districts
9.Battle Green District
10.Hancock Clarke District
11.Munroe Tavern District Page 16
12.East Village District
HOUSING
BACKGROUND
Lexington's housing circumstances are in some ways very comfortable compared both with other
communities and with other periods,but at the same time those circumstances are very
challenging by the same comparisons. The Town has largely exhausted its vacant unprotected
land supply(with less than 1,000 acres remaining), so the era of struggling to accommodate 400
or more new dwelling units in a year has gone by. Both land development and a strong program
of land conservation have resulted in striking reduction in the remaining building capacity of the
Town (see Chart H1). Added housing now comes relatively slowly, but the demographic change
that is transforming the Town is rapid and sharp. Regional housing market forces have escalated
housing prices with resulting rapid demographic change making Lexington a community highly
stratified in income, with an older population in smaller households than is common in other
communities. Those socio-economic changes alter the community in ways made more difficult
to address as a result of the Town's now-modest growth potential.
The Town had a net addition of only fewer than 500 dwelling units over the past decade, and the
expectations for net housing growth in the future are for even slower growth. Population change
in Lexington now depends more on the changing demographics of household size and other
characteristics of those who will occupy units already existing than on the small number of
added dwelling units occurring through new construction. The homebuilders, however, are
likely to remain busy, since there is much more homebuilding in Lexington than there is net
growth, with work supported by constructing tear-down replacements and additions to existing
homes, often eclipsing the existing unit in size.
Over the past decade, more than a quarter of all new dwelling units given building permits in
Lexington (about 655 units) were for construction replacing an existing house on a lot (about 150
units) or for an accessory unit added to an existing building (about 30 units). Neither of those
involves previously vacant land(see Table H1 and Chart H2). In the most recent years the share
of replacement and accessory units has approached half the total units constructed. Town
choices can and may heavily influence the rate of creation of both replacement and accessory
units. Under continuation of current policies and rules it is likely that the rate of homebuilding
on vacant lots will sharply fall as land disappears, but the rate of building replacement housing
and accessory units might remain little changed. Barring unforeseen regional change, demand
for housing in Lexington seems likely to grow. Stable supply and growing demand make it
likely that price escalation will continue, making existing modest homes targets for upgrading or
replacement. As land becomes an ever-growing proportion of the value of residential premises,
existing buildings, sadly,become dispensable to many owners in many circumstances (see Table
H2 and Chart H3).
Fiscally, this housing dynamic is beneficial. Residential property represents about 85% of the
Town's taxable assessed valuations, and pays about three quarters of the tax levy, the difference
being attributable to a"split" tax rate favoring residences. As residential values rise, the tax rate
may well continue its long-term decline, since Proposition 2 %2 constrains the tax levy to slower
Housing 01/17/02 Page 1
growth than the recent rate of appreciation in real estate values. Even though tax bills will
presumably continue to grow, the fiscal strength of the community is unquestionable, and is
heavily based in residential valuations.
The change that is taking place in Lexington's housing is profoundly altering the nature of the
community. The year 2000 census figures, still partial, are already revealing. As recently as
1990 the age profile of Lexington was little different from the average across Massachusetts.
However, in 2000 the number of young adult residents aged 20-24 had plummeted to one-third
the number"expected" on a Statewide basis, and the number aged 25-34 was less than half that
"expected" (see Charts H4A and H4B). Apparently, few young adults can now afford to live in
Lexington and few choose to do so. Offsetting that, the share of Lexington's population found in
all age groups over 45 exceeds statewide norms. The cost and available types of housing in
Lexington have clearly altered the age profile of the Town. The departure is not typical of all
suburbs. In Massachusetts, only Sherborn and Dover were found to have a smaller share of
young adults aged 20—34. Such socio-economically-similar communities as Hamilton,
Wakefield and Newton much more closely parallel statewide norms than does Lexington, as does
all of Lexington's abutting municipalities.
Lexington's housing stock is dominantly owner-occupied (83% in 2000) and single-family (not
yet reported for 2000, but similar). Units in poor physical condition are increasingly rare. Year
2000 Census figures on value and rental cost are not yet available, but clearly both are extremely
high and still climbing. That existing stock will likely comprise 95% of the housing in the Town
in 2010 and more than 90% of it in 2020. That strongly shapes the potential of various
interventions the Town might choose to make. For example, requiring that 10% of all new
housing must be "affordable"would probably bring affordability to no more than 1/2% of the
Town's 2010 housing stock. Existing housing has to be a major resource in any housing efforts
the Town might choose to make unless the Town is willing to make regulatory change enabling
much more housing production, an unlikely step given the major"cost" any such move would
entail.
The Town long enjoyed a reputation as one that actively seeks to guide change to serve goals of
community diversity and housing opportunity, but in recent years performance has failed to
match that promise. The Town has an enviable infrastructure for doing so. In 1985 the Planning
Board adopted a"Housing Element" for a comprehensive plan, articulating goals and approaches
that still sound largely appropriate. Those policies, when firmly supported, resulted in
substantial gains in units reserved for that purpose or financial contributions in lieu thereof.
Lexington's Zoning codifies that policy within its Section 9.6 Developments with Significant
Public Benefit (DSPB). In those ways, while not mandating that development include affordable
units, the Town made clear that doing so is key to gaining any discretionary approvals. During
the period when there was a substantial amount of relatively large-scale development in
Lexington that policy approach was highly effective. More recently, that has no longer been the
case for a variety of reasons ranging from obstacles in the Town's own regulations to change at
state and federal levels.
The Lexington Housing Authority serves housing needs through units that it owns and through
administration of vouchers providing subsidies for individuals and households to rent private
Housing 01/17/02 Page 2
housing with a cost to them that they can afford. In total the Authority is dealing with about 340
housing units. The Authority's waiting list for rental vouchers alone is more that 200 applicants,
evidencing how far the Town's supply of affordable housing is from meeting current needs.
The Lexington Housing Assistance Board (LexHAB) is an organization unique to this Town. It
acts to assist through administering affordability restrictions placed on housing developed
through the Town's efforts, and also acts as a developer of affordable housing, funded through
developer payments in lieu of affordable units and from other public sources. Through those
efforts it now owns and rents 46 dwelling units, both attached and detached single-family.
Since 1990 a total of more than 100 affordable housing units have been created in Lexington,
equivalent to about 20% of all the new housing approved over that period. That is an admirably
high ratio, but those units represent less than 1% of the Town's current housing stock. The
Commonwealth in a variety of ways has established having 10% of the housing stock securely
"affordable" as a policy goal. Under current State counting practices, Lexington has 796
"subsidized"or"affordable" units out of year-round housing stock of 11,274 units per the 2000
Census, or about 7.1% of all housing"counted"by the State as being affordable'. Achieving
10% affordability (without "counting"unrestricted units rented to low or moderate income
households having rent vouchers) is a reasonable target, and would require 332 more affordable
units than existed in 2000, plus 10% of all the additional housing units created. Assuring
affordability in 10% of all the new units that get developed, creating perhaps 100 affordable units
over the next two decades, would keep the Town from falling further behind on that objective,
but would not do anything more. To achieve 10% affordability including the present housing
stock would require bringing affordability to 330 units in addition to those that might be gained
by a"10% rule." That would have to be accomplished either within the new housing being
produced (requiring an unlikely 57% inclusion rate if achieved within 20 years) or by bringing
affordability to housing that already exists, or some combination of both (see Table H3 below).
The system for"counting"has recently been changed through new DHCD regulations, and is proposed for further
change under pending legislation. The Town has been in dialog with State officials over"correcting"the official
count,with results that increased the number of credited units from 537 to 796.
Housing 01/17/02 Page 3
Chart H1
HOMEBUILDING
Lexington 1950-2000
500
450 .
•
400
• •
350
10-year average
300 • '
• • .
250
c •
• i
200 Annual •
• •
.
•
• -
o •
150 •
•
•
100 • '
•lvry
.
. •
50 .1hop
. • '
.•
•
0
CgOO 43'1' C34 N N NC:b 0 0 0 �Oj�b b
t\'� t\Ojc° t\cb' t\();\ ,\°;\ r\c;\� t\q'1� e 09) eD� 04) 093.b t\c)c0 Ocbg' t\c3c4'' PO-) t\c5cP nOO�
AnalyticsTenmii is-L3!CH-LT
Housing
01/17/02
Page 4
Table H1. Chart H2
CAPACITY FOR HOMES AND CONSERVATION HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
Housing units capacity Lexington Historic and Projected
2001-2020
1990-2000 I Projected Alternate 1,400
Initial capacity 1,623, 900 900
Developed 495 497 399 1,200
Conserved 202 203 420
Available period end 900 220 112
1
Housingconstructed 1,000
1 734 1,305 1,100
On new land 495 497 399 in
Accessory 33 77 102 E 800
Replacement 206 731 598 '
rn
c
y
0 600
z
400
200 :::'1-1:..1..- :; ?:!:::: :::
TITTTTITI
0
1990-2000 Projected Alternate
D On new land BAccessory units 0 Replacement
Analytics\Penniis-L3 iDataBld
Housing
01/17/02
Page 5
Table H2
RESIDENTIAL SALE PRICES Chart H3
Year 1-family Condo SALES PRICES
Lexington (median)
2000 $ 451,000 $ 330,500
1999 $ 410,000 $ 288,950 $500,000
1998 $ 369,000 $ 280,000
1997 $ 354,500 $ 226,000 $450,000
1996 $ 310,500 $ 235,000 •
1995 $ 290,000 $ 223,000 $400,000 •
1994 $ 279,000 $ 172,000
1993 $ 256,000 $ 180,000 •
1992 $ 250,050 $ 170,000 $350,000
1991 $ 239,000 $ 188,333 ■
1990 $ 248,000 $ 78,000 $300,000 •
1989 $ 270,000 $ 164,000 • • • ■ In
1988 $ 260,000 $ 191,450 $250,000 •• ••
• • •
■ ■ ■
$200,000 • ■
Source: The Warren Group website ■ ■ ■ ■
$150,000
$100,000
■
$50,000 Source.The Warren G uup
$0
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Analytics\House\Subsidv!Sheet3 -0-1-Family -0-Condol
Housing
01/17/02
Page 6
Chart H4A
AGE: LEXINGTON &MA Chart H4B
2000 AGE: 1990 -2000
Lexington
85 years and over IIIIIIIII
85 years and over IIIIIIIIIIIII
75 to 84 years 1111111,1111111111111
_ 75 to 84 years 111111111111=
65 to 74 years Ilillllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
65 to 74 years 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
MIMI60 to 64 years 11111111111111111
60 to 64 years 11111111111111111111111111111111
55 to 59 years IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIII,
55 to 59 years 1111IIIIIIII11111
45 to 54 years 111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1,111111111111111111111111111111
45 to 54 years IIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIII�1111111111111�
35 to 44 years IIIIIIIt1IIII111,IIIII111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111IIIIIIIII11111111111111111 35 to 44 years
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
25 to 34 years 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111„11111111111111111111 25 to 34 yearsMUM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Milli20 to 24 years 111111111111111111111111111111
20 to 24 years 111111111111=11
15 to 19 years 111111111111111111111111111111
_ 15 to 19 years Illlltllllll1111
10 to 14 years 11111111111111111111111111111111
10 to 14 years IIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIII
5 to 9 years 111111111111111111111111111111111
5 to 9 years Illlllllllllllllllllllltllllllll
Under 5 years 1111111111111111111111111111
Under 5 years 11111111111111111111111111111
0 5 10 15 20
0 5 10 15 20
Percent of population Percent of population
I11 Massachusetts •Lexington I I m 1990 ■
2000
Analytics\House\Lex-90-00-Hse!2 AGES
Housing
01/17/02
Page 7
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Lexington seeks to have a socially and economically diverse community, both over the whole of
the community and within its neighborhoods. In support of that fundamental social goal, a basic
housing goal is to provide housing opportunities supportive of the population diversity we seek.
As pointed out in the 1985 Lexington Comprehensive Plan, and as is still true today, we seek a
better fit between our housing supply and the emerging needs resulting from demographic
change. Even as Lexington's average household size has steadily grown smaller our housing
units have continued to grow larger. Young adults are largely priced out and disproportionately
so, too, are most ethnic minorities. We applaud diversity, but we are losing it along a number of
dimensions. One clear housing goal is to seek to enable at least our own children to live here,
and more broadly to provide housing opportunities for a broad social and economic spectrum.
We want to accommodate not only the classic American husband/wife/kids family but also
individuals living alone, seniors, young adults, those with physical or mental disabilities, and a
variety of others.
Given housing data that is twelve years out of date but about to be updated by a decade, this is an
inappropriate time to set quantitative goals for housing, but some sense of scale can reasonably
be provided.
For Lexington, meeting our housing affordability needs will not only require attention to the
needs of lower income groups but will also require attention to the needs of a growing segment
of middle income households who also are being priced out of Lexington. Our community is
less complete without that diversity. The beneficiaries of our efforts to accommodate diversity
are not only those who otherwise could not live here but are all of us, enriched by having a more
complete community for ourselves and for our families to the extent that efforts towards
diversity succeed.
We need to achieve that diversity of opportunity through appropriate means. Importantly, that
diversity should be achieved without sacrificing the qualities of existing residential environs
through unreasonable density departures, introduction of disruptive traffic or other impacts, or
building in a way that is inconsistent with its context. Diversity should exist throughout the
Town in all of its neighborhoods, not just within some. The principles of sustainability are not
inconsistent with these goals, and they should be respected in housing,just as for other efforts.
The small number of additional units for which there is land capacity within current zoning
makes achieving housing goals difficult, since almost all of the housing that the Town will
contain at "build-out" already exists. Change through trends in occupancy of existing units will
be a far more powerful determinant of the Town's future demographics than change through
shaping the relatively small increment of new structures that is projected. Analyses made for this
Plan indicate that Lexington will have about 12,000 housing units at"build-out, an increase of
fewer than 1,000 units.2" While this planning process has not resulted in firm quantitative goals
2 In the Land Use Element two analyses are show: a Projection based on continuation of past policies and trends,and
an Alternate analysis reflecting choice of more aggressive open space protection and support for creation of units
Housing 01/17/02 Page 8
for the housing profile that is wanted, the directions wanted are clear. For the Lexington We
Want, the proportion of housing affordable to households now priced out of Lexington would be
larger, serving not only the elderly but also families, including but not limited to young adults.
The share of housing that serves renters would be not lower than at present, and ideally
somewhat larger. To illustrate how limited growth capacity makes achieving those goals more
difficult, we have analyzed an example of possible (but not adopted) numerical objectives.
— Housing that is "affordable" as the State defines it (costing not more than 30% of the
income of a household at 80% of the regional median income) might grow from the
present 7% of Lexington's housing stock to the State's objective of 10% of all units
being affordable.
— Half of that "affordable"housing might serve families, compared with less than 40%
at present.
— One fifth of all housing might be available to renters, compared with about 17% at
present.
To achieve those seemingly"easy" objectives through shaping the roughly 700 units to be added
within the"build-out" limit would require heroic efforts. The numbers are in table H3.
Reaching those objectives would require more than half of all added housing units being
affordable. It would require three-quarters of the added affordable units being provided for
families. It would require a majority of the added units being provided for renters. There is no
likelihood that those figures could be achieved, or even that the Town would want its housing
increment to be so-shaped.
Two things mitigate the concern. First, some of the change might take place through change
within the existing housing stock. For example,bringing affordability to existing dwellings can
help in meet affordability goals without drawing on limited capacity for new construction.
Second, the actual"build-out" limit may not actually be as constrained as the figures suggest.
The calculation of 12,000 ultimate units is based on current zoning, but town meeting can and
often does change that. For example, rezoning to RD can result in more dwelling units on a
parcel that would otherwise be achievable. Even without legislated change in zoning, some
additional units can be created through special permit incentives, such as those allowed for
"Developments with Significant Public Benefits." More dramatically, it is possible for
development to go outside of the Town's regulatory scheme either through variances or through
"Comprehensive Permits" granted for subsidized housing under Chapter 40B, MGL. In some
communities,that currently is the largest single source of housing production. Finally, new
opportunities for development of housing might arise that are not reflected in the existing
analysis. Should the Town discontinue use of four elementary schools, as currently being
discussed, those buildings or their sites might provide housing opportunities. All of those
avenues could, and to some degree are likely to, increase the ultimate level of housing in the
Town.
through conversion of existing structures. The following is based upon the basic Projection,but the figures are
essentially similar for the Alternate analysis.
Housing 01/17/02 Page 9
The experience of communities that have approached full build-out in the past is instructive.
Development truly does typically slow as build-out is approached, but it doesn't stop, and the
"build-out ceiling"keeps being raised through one or more of the avenues noted above. Unless
the World changes, Lexington some day will exceed its currently estimated build-out capacity.
Departures through creative use of existing controls (e.g. special permits), changing the controls
(zoning amendments), getting variances from the controls, and gaining freedom from the
controls (Chapter 40B), and currently unforeseen opportunities will in time account for more
added housing units than does the remaining capacity nominally calculated within current
zoning. In designing a strategy for housing, it is critical to not only address actions within the
current "envelope"but also to assure that actions outside of that envelope consistently serve
housing concerns, and in fact become a major means of reaching housing goals.
To illustrate that, we have analyzed a hypothetical future in which Lexington's build-out reaches
13,000 units rather than the 12,000 indicated by current rules, probably stretching reasonable
reality, but illustrative. In Table H3 that scenario is shown under"Build-out total with special
units." In that scenario the share of added units represented by affordable ones is cut in half
from the basic projection to about 30%, still difficult to achieve but credible. The needed share
of added units serving rental needs falls to less than 40%, again difficult but possible. Most
importantly, that tabulation clarifies the importance of assuring that any exceptions to the usual
regulatory"envelope"whether school site reuse or rezoning or special permit should be firmly
guided to serve the Town's basic housing objectives.
Table H3. HOUSING CHANGE ANALYSIS
1Total Affordable units
units I Total I Elderly ] Family Rental
Year 2000 Total units
Total units 11,300 800 500 300 1,970
% of Total units 100% 7% 4% 3% 17%
Build-out total: current rules
Total units 12,000 1,200 600 600 2,400
% of Total units 100% 10% 5% 5% 20%
Increase over 2000
Added units 700 400 100 300 430
% of added units 100% 57% 14% 43% 61%
Build-out total w/special units _
Total units 13,000 1,300 650 650 2,600
% of Total units 100% 10% 5% 5% 20%
Increase over 2000
Added units 1,700 500 150 350 630
% of added units 100% 29% 9% 21% 37%
Analytics\House\Policy
Housing 01/17/02 Page 10
STRATEGIC APPROACH
The housing problem that Lexington faces is the result of regional dynamics more than the
specifics of this place, and its resolution will require approaches that are inclusive of efforts that
are larger than local: regional, state and federal. Further, as is true for any metropolitan
community, Lexington can't possibly bring housing benefits to all parties. At best its efforts will
mitigate the concerns experienced by some,but not all, potentially affected households.
At the same time, Lexington's singular circumstances suggest a set of strategies that are
reflective of this particular place. These are those strategies.
❖ Housing development is the single most important means through which housing goals
are to be met. New opportunities for compatible and policy-serving housing
development need to be explored. Actions that would limit housing production or add to
its costs should be carefully examined for justification in light of this consideration. In
this context, approaches are needed for working with property owners, not as their
adversaries, in together seeking ways to meet housing objectives, emphasizing enabling
at least as much as requiring, while also respecting the Town's other legitimate concerns
such as environmental protection.
In the spirit of support for housing production and working with property owners, devices
such as the Local Initiative Program (LIP) might be used as a positive tool. They utilize
Chapter 40B, MGL (which authorizes Comprehensive Permits) to enable departure from
zoning for locally supported affordable housing efforts. Those approaches can be
valuable,just as they can be disruptive and damaging when used in an adversarial
context.
❖ To achieve the various kinds of diversity that we seek, much of the accomplishment must
occur within existing housing, not simply through obligations placed upon new housing.
With new development producing a small and declining share of our housing stock, no
imaginable requirements placed upon new housing alone can enable us to reach our
goals.
❖ We need to assure that new development doesn't make matters worse. A"monoculture"
of new housing comprising only large, very expensive, single-family homes would
simply accelerate the troubling change that is occurring in our community's profile.
❖ Helping people to afford housing costs without subsidy is an important means of
addressing the wish to preserve housing opportunities for households having incomes too
high for government subsidies but too low for the Lexington market. New sources of
income (from such potentials as modernized rules about working from the dwelling or
rental of an independent housing unit) or reduced expenses (from such means as energy-
efficient design or financing and design reflecting willingness to forego an automobile)
can be the means.
Housing 01/17/02
Page 11
Even with all of the above, new financial resources for achieving affordability need to be
found, including use of a permanent dedicated revenue source, such as the Community
Preservation Act, "linkage" funds from business to compensate for the costs of making
housing affordable to its employees, and similar sources.
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
1. Broaden opportunities for producing housing, especially where that production is likely to
include housing that is relatively affordable and that is likely to serve other diversity
concerns, such as serving small households.
1.1 Explore allowing housing in most or all commercial and industrial districts, including
Lexington Center. Only the relatively small Neighborhood Commercial (CN) districts
now allow residential uses. The other zoning districts uniformly prohibit residential
use, reflecting the once-prevailing view that residences and businesses could not make
good neighbors, and that it was critical to prevent residential usurpation of business site
opportunities. Both of those views remain true in some circumstances, but not all, and
less adamant segregation of uses has proven to be a means of creating not only housing
but a mix of activities that benefits all parties.
1.2 Explore allowing higher residential densities near retail and good transportation. The
logic is clear: those are locations where compact development can really result is
somewhat lower auto trip generation per dwelling unit and per job, and more compact
development is inherently lower in cost, making affordability somewhat easier to
achieve.
1.3 Provide incentives for small-scale age-restricted housing. Such housing would serve a
salient housing need in this Town, and would have relatively light impact on the
Town's fiscal capacity, traffic, and infrastructure.
1.4 Explore reducing the restrictions on creating additional housing accommodations
within existing dwellings, whether for accessory apartments or other arrangements.
Current rules (chiefly Zoning Section 5) are highly detailed in often-difficult
specification standards, resulting in fewer than three units of such housing per year
being built annually in recent decades. With care, impediments to more production of
such housing could be removed without damage to neighborhood values, character,
traffic or other qualities.
1.5 Explore facilitating the creation of diverse dwelling types, such as congregate housing,
co-housing, and other cooperative types. Again Section 5 of the Zoning Bylaw
commendably recognizes a variety of allowable housing types, but the cumulative
effect of the many restrictions may dim the prospects of achieving the housing that is
nominally allowed.
Housing 01/17/02 Page 12
1.6 Facilitate conversion of existing non-residential structures to residential use through a
careful but not onerous special permit procedure. School conversions to such use,
authorized under Zoning Section 9.8, have been widely accepted as compatible with
existing neighborhood fabric. More opportunities for compatible reuse may exist with
other types of structures,but zoning designed to facilitate that doesn't exist.
1.7 Make diversity-serving housing one of the presumptive future uses of any"surplus"
public land proposed for disposition, along with open space. Consistently allow
organizations producing such housing an opportunity to evaluate its potential for
housing use. Metropolitan State Hospital is the outstanding example of this.
Lexington's 38 buildable acres within that site might accommodate up to 300 housing
units,with more than a third of the units being reserved for affordable housing or
DMH-sponsored units. Some have suggested that because of the isolation of the site it
should not be used for housing at all. However, given the pressing needs for more
housing supply and for the kinds of diversification the planned housing would provide,
diversion from long-planned housing use would be unacceptable.
1.8 Explore requiring a housing affordability quid pro quo where relief from usual rules is
being sought. Review existing regulations for provisions where discretionary relief is
being provided for the development of housing, such as with"Frontage Reduction
Subdivisions." Identify whether it would be reasonable to seek service towards
meeting Town housing goals to balance that departure, such as using the site to develop
a housing type that is especially sought, or providing funding to help support diverse
housing on other sites. Explore replacing or complementing broad exhortations, such
as the"Developments with Substantial Public Benefit" considerations, with specific
housing benefit requirements.
2. Protect existing housing that is important for the maintenance of diversity. Over time,
demolition and replacement is eroding the Town's once-rich diversity of housing, threatening
to virtually eliminate the small freestanding single-family dwelling as a significant Lexington
resource. Actions to manage impacts of unusually large houses are included in the Land Use
Element (at action 2.6(a)) and the Natural and Cultural resources Element (at action 5.3(a)),
and are scheduled for consideration at the 2002 Annual Town Meeting. Those actions would
address this concern as well as other land use and community character concerns. The
following are further potential actions.
2.1 Consider adopting a mandatory delay in the demolition of any residential structure,
regardless of its age, design qualities, or historical associations in order to allow time
for the reuse of the structure as a housing resource to be explored and, if feasible,
initiated. Currently demolition of structures is substantially delayed only upon finding
by the Historical Commission that the structure has value from an historic preservation
perspective. This complementary provision would delay demolition simply because the
structure represents an important potential housing resource if saved, thus warranting
time before demolition is allowed. Such provision has served Nantucket well.
Housing 01/17/02 Page 13
2.2 Consider a mandatory delay in the permitting of a new structure on the site from which
a residence has recently been removed, other than for housing meeting Town housing
needs criteria. Since redevelopment is the common reason for demolition, a delay in
site availability post-demolition would diminish the incentive to undertake demolition,
and would provide an incentive for serving housing goals.
Effectively, this pair of actions means regulating the tear-down and replacement process
from a housing needs perspective, in addition to the present regulatory basis rooted in
"historical or architectural heritage or resources" (Article XXXIII Section 3.4 of the
Lexington General By-Laws).
3. Assure that new development doesn't indirectly exacerbate the housing problem
3.1 Revise the Zoning §9.6.3.1 Maximum Development Incentive to provide affordable
housing with a permitted impact "bonus,"rather than affordable housing being only one
of a menu of items in effect"competing" for a maximum allowable bonus. For
example, a formula in the Bylaw might reward affordable housing by allowing higher
impervious coverage or dwelling unit count impacts than otherwise, regardless of what
other bonuses are sought or awarded. To reflect that, the total increase in impacts
allowed as bonuses for other benefits would be "capped" at a commensurately lower
level. Any developer seeking to provide affordable housing in Lexington pays a
substantial financial price for doing so. For impact bonuses to be equitable for those
developing affordable housing and to be effective in encouraging developers to choose
that option, they need not to be in "competition"with other benefits in seeking a limited
overall bonus.
3.2 Categorically mandate inclusion of affordable housing. With a density bonus as
described at 3.1 mitigating the financial "penalty" of choosing to develop affordable
units, it becomes a relatively small step to mandate that such units be included in all
except the very smallest developments. Lexington has had substantial success in
negotiating affordable housing in return for, or as a condition of, site rezoning or
purchase of Town-owned land, but the option of gaining density as an optional
"Development with Significant Public Benefits"hasn't been comparably effective.
That mirrors the disappointing experience of other New England communities3. A
broad mandate, however, would be different. All developments above some threshold
size would then include enough affordable housing so that they have the proportion of
such units that is sought for the Town at large. Otherwise, new development simply
adds to the "deficit"of affordable housing in the Town, helping by increasing overall
supply, but further skewing the cost distribution of housing.
Developers might be offered the option of making financial contributions to a dedicated
housing trust fund in lieu of including such units on their site, foregoing some or all of
the impact bonus suggested at 3.1 above. The option would need to be crafted with
care to avoid becoming an unallowable fee, and to protect the intention of the Town
3 For a review of experience across four New England states see Herr Associates,Zoning for Housing Affordability,
for the Massachusetts Housing Partnership Fund,Boston,2000.
Housing 01/17/02 Page 14
that affordability be widely included,not found only in a few publicly sponsored
projects.
3.3 Support regional or State-level initiatives to require "linkage" through which large
commercial projects would support a fair share of the costs of addressing the affordable
housing needs of the workers they add to the region. Boston, Cambridge, and a few
other Massachusetts municipalities impose such"linkage" through local requirements.
However, only about 15 out of 100 workers employed in Lexington live in Lexington,
which means that any local linkage program would fail to serve the great majority of
workers, and that is true in all but the largest metropolitan municipalities. For that
reason, a regional approach is a much fairer and more effective way of gaining direct
employer support for the housing needs their employees create.
4. Develop new resources and approaches for reducing the costs of housing that limit the ability
of a diverse population to meet housing costs. For example, enable homeowners to better
afford their housing costs by allowing the use of those homes for work as well as residing,
doing so more generously than do the present home occupation rules. Explore where the new
concepts of"live/work" spaces might be applicable in Lexington.
5. Develop robust sources of funding to support housing affordability.
5.1 Commit a stream of Town funds in support of affordable housing, as the Community
Preservation Act would do if locally approved, or through a different mechanism if
more appropriate for Lexington. The Town has been resourceful in finding ways to
support housing,but direct financial commitment by the Town itself would be of both
symbolic and practical value, even if the level of funding were modest.
5.2 Explore gaining eligibility for federal housing subsidy funds through joining an eligible
regional consortium. Neighboring Waltham and Belmont are regional consortium
members together with Brookline,Newton and Watertown. Being in such a regional
group would make Lexington for the first time eligible for federal funding under the
HOME program, including funds in support of administrative costs. Although funding
levels at present are modest, they could mean real benefits for meeting housing needs,
and may grow over time. Benefits of being part of a regional partnership go beyond
funding to include the clout of advocacy as a region, and provision of another setting
for discussion of inter-community questions, such as the location of and zoning for
housing at the Metropolitan State Hospital site.
5.3 Pursue other creative potentials. A first-time homebuyer program, especially if
regionally supported, can trigger financial support from both the Massachusetts
Department of Housing and Community Development and mortgage lenders. Banks
might be lobbied to focus some of their Community Reinvestment Act(CRA) activities
within Lexington, where the reality of real need may not be apparent to them. For
example, a consortium of local banks could provide vital support for a first-time
homebuyer program aimed at enabling such people as young adults and a range of
Town employees to live in Lexington. Explore establishing a program to solicit
Housing 01/17/02 Page 15
voluntary deeded restrictions on resale assuring long-term limitations on resale price
and even building size, in return for which the donor of the restrictions gains tax
benefits as well as the satisfaction of contributing to a vital quality of the community.
6. Strengthen institutions and administrative systems to facilitate the process of developing the
housing that the Town wants without sacrificing attention to other important considerations,
such as neighborhood impacts.
6.1 Explore organizational change to assure that the roles needed for addressing housing
needs will be effectively filled in the future. The Lexington Housing Authority,
LexHAB, and to a lesser extent the Selectmen and the Planning Board all actively
promote the meeting of housing needs. However, in each case there are limitations on
their ability to take on some roles, such as undertaking non-profit housing development,
or actively advocating a pro-housing position in Town government. Perhaps existing
organizations could, with some adjustment, play those or other needed roles, or perhaps
new organizations are needed, locally or regionally. A private non-profit housing
development organization has been suggested to actively seek out housing development
opportunities. LexHAB acts as a mini-developer, and does that well, but has some
constraints by virtue of its relationship to Town government and other ongoing
management responsibilities. An aggressive private organization could complement
the efforts of other existing groups. A Lexington Housing Partnership Board appointed
by the Selectmen could act as an inside-government housing advocate, as a project
liaison, review, and support group (yes, the roles appear to conflict), and as liaison with
State agencies on behalf of the Town.
6.2 Explore means of improving permitting processes, especially for affordable housing.
Some system choices have been made in Lexington that work better for luxury housing
than for modest-priced housing. For example, Lexington offers extraordinary
flexibility to developers that are willing and able to go through a Planned Residential
(RD)process that includes both Town Meeting and special permit approval. Those
transactional and time costs are inconsistent with producing affordable housing given
Lexington's land costs. Perhaps innovative approaches can make Lexington a more
welcoming locus for those seeking to do affordable housing and can do so without
compromising protection of other values.
7. Achieve housing progress in ways that promote sustainability.
The above actions promote sustainability - meeting present as well as future human needs,
while using resources efficiently, fairly, and within Nature's means. Virtually all of them are
motivated by concerns over meeting human needs fairly and efficiently. Many have the
effect of making development more compact, reducing travel and demands on fossil fuels,
and reducing encroachment on nature. Many involve productive reuse of existing structures,
reducing dependence on many resources, including fossil fuels, chemicals, and synthetics.
Two further housing actions are suggested in consideration of sustainability.
Housing 01/17/02 Page 16
7.1 Develop an education program regarding how to build with a smaller ecological
"footprint,"making materials easily available for all involved in the process: prospective
home owners, builders, lenders, designers and officials.
7.2 Explore creating a wonderful yard for the recycling of building materials, thereby
reducing resource waste and pollution at the same time as reducing costs.
Housing-R3
January 16,2002
Housing 01/17/02 Page 17
0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Niles
Map Hl.
N
BELOW MARKET HOUSING in Lexington, 2001
+ . Development Size and Location
Z " , , . Numerals next to sites are keyed to attached housing site location list.
S
/
3448 t
�,
e° i tic
'/� ti
nk
47 Alb,..# 4116 .
fr ...4 . , IC
' fli..-%, ,t, i • \a4,,,I .
., -\,,:,..- .0,0,,,
, ,mcf2 2 dd.'
, _ 44pit. , .
.� 11, •, � _
- _....1 " Le_
Av. - 4-7,,t-,- 324/
i _ , \\ .
t • 7 ' . .4.
-A 7 ATOdt - ; r- - '61G
3 i .\': ''1) alltk- Ai ' \:- ' * ' - ' - .
, 4 c-i my) ow ---- - , .. ..
. # 1 \ ' ..4_ . , s4 , it*, . N tat s .. , ..
Ilik '.° 41 "0.4.* #1-----( 11, . .
0
iiiiik
1 Nr '.5i<%z I 1-4411 ii1Ple ' '' . .0.111,' 45t 4 ''. -1*. • ‘A%N8 e plik• . Ark-,.-.(.**,
.. 4 -„tii. .--- : ' . .-- _A • '
7.1
,, ,f titrilpb \14# '
36
,, , .1 elkgilt
NO'
`r' 47
i'
����I �3 4- A*
`, 9 A �8, .e
,j ,4 '0,
.. 'NRip,° a -r,L_ .-..xi".• 4oA__'_'__A4_*1tu4_u__a.4
411`� v
c.
_vim. •.
Number of Units r
7 38 �ACTy1M 0
39-71 AI* �4v
72-128
it 129-198
Page 18
0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Miles
Immo
N Map H2.
BELOW MARKET HOUSING in Lexington, 2001
Source of Affordability
Numerals next to sites are keyed to attached housing site location li .
�O�° 111.:
18 �G�`'
z,V Ae400 •s OA_
4*- /4 .\\„,,,,,.....
# .
,. \„.,,,,„.„.• . . ..
, . A A t kil Mk liIU • .
yk. ik VP'. \bi. A 04
1 ' 4" A4111 ' V 41 .(0).t:11101
..
o ��. •,,t..,,,t, ,,
3.. , ,._
, _ ....„„,,, „h..
..________ 0
,�,.' F �• 3 33 `�� '''0407 � O4P+
'4 lb /0\ . 44- al*, _,, , .
C
„ Air A 'VALI*. A • 4 iii‘\\ AKA
kii, V 0.91: 40,41,... IF* 0/104\"44 40 11690,; #4 - '
Ito.Itir14.777--47 Jr., , , .,,..,4„; ,,rti n ree,t_______
' "Nr. ' j>,
6 i /to , eiy frrA4A, ---. 4 e%k , • . `',P
z .,.., 0 . , 4=4 u'\4 w A V No 1. •
=1 ' f - ,k, ...._.41\1..41 IP , A .
i 49-1W4.: '.. ,•.--, Hrtik-,..\38
- .,,,o.. or , , :0.
II‘
t - 1
aik
-1\11 ‘.
4 .,„: .1 il iE .ioute .,,,,____ _ 7\, ._.,, _ 1 Nif. 1 p . s r.
1%. 9 lir
o
Jill4516�.. �,�a ,�
, , ____ . . , Tik#11<, ." .07isatf
•
IM vim. •t
x'14Ty
11, * `�
Sources of Housing �,
0 Mortgage Subsidies
o Housing Production:Public
A Inclusionary Policies
* Rental Subsidies Page 19
Map Key H3.
Key to Housing Site Locations
ID Address of Parcel Number of Units 40B Units Production
1 1 Shirley St/William Roger Greely Village 102 100 Public
2 Vynebrook Village 48 48 Public
3 42 Garfield Street 6 6 Mortgage Sub
4 Judges Way/Pine Grove Village 16 16 Mortgage Sub
5 96 Wood Street 1 1 Public
6 39 Garfield Street 1 1 _ Public
7 15 Earl Street 1 1 Public
8 31 Tarbell Avenue 1 1 Public _
9 5 Davis Road 1 1 Public
10 7 Avon Street 1 1 Public __
11 11 Ash Street 1 1 Public
12 90 Wood Street 1 1 Public
13 50 Wood Street 1 1 Public
14 3 Alpine Street 1 1 Public
15 39 Spring Street 1 1 Public
16 88 Wood Street 1 1 Public
17 120 Reed Street 1 1 Public
18 5 Rangeway 1 1 Public
19 134 North Street 1 1 Public
20 130 North Street 1 1 Public
21 132 North Street 1 1 Public
22 10 Avon Street 1 1 Public
23 314 Bedford Street/Parker Manor 28 7 Inclusionary
24 299 Woburn Street/Countryside Village 60 60 Rental Sub
25 1475 Mass Avenue/Muzzey High School 71 71 Inclusionary
26 8 Emerald Street 1 - Public
27 159 Bedford Street 2 51 Public
28 425 Woburn Street/Countryside Manor 51 - Inclusionary
29 225A Waltham Street/Centre Oak 4 - Rental Sub
30 7 Stedman Road/Franklin School 38 38 Mortage Sub
31 365 Waltham Street 3 - Public
32 307 Wood Street/Katandin Woods 128 128 Rental Sub _
33 87 Hill Street/27 Tewksbury 8 8 Public
34 31 Skyview Road 1 - Public _
35 987 Waltham Street/Lexington Ridge 198 198 Mortgage Sub
36 1 Emerson Gardens 150 - Public
37 165 Waltham Street 1 - Public
38 561 Massachusetts Avenue 2 2 Public
39 3 Stedman Road 1 - Public
40 8 Bruce Road 1 - Public
41 18 Banks Avenue 1 - Public
42 663 Lowell Street/Locke Village 62 6 Inclusionary
43 14 Woodland Road 1 - Public
44 15 Grandview Avenue 1 - Public
45 16 Philip Road 1 - Public
46 10 Pelham Road/Grey Nuns 90 90 Inclusionary
47 2 Spencer Street 2 2 Public
48 6 Sedge Road 1 - Public
49 45 Forest Street 6 6 Public
Total 1103 855
*40B column represents units accepted in 40B as of November 2001 (-not yet accepted as 40B)
Page 20
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BACKGROUND
Traditionally, economic development has centered on job creation, especially those jobs that
through "multiplier effects"will result in still more jobs for the target area, or jobs serving those
who otherwise would have limited opportunities for employment. More recently in metropolitan
areas the search for job growth has been motivated by concerns over support for municipal
finances. Still more recently the motivations for economic development efforts have often been
questioned sharply by residents who view the negative impacts of business activity as
threatening to the local quality of life. All of those motivations are in play in Lexington. The
challenge is to serve all of them.
Jobs in Lexington
Lexington is often characterized as a"bedroom suburb,"but in fact it is rich in local jobs. With
about 20,000 jobs located in Lexington and only a little more than half of Lexington's 30,000
persons in the labor force, there are about a third more jobs in Lexington than there are job-
holding residents (see Tables El and E2 and Chart El). Some neighboring communities are
even more "job-heavy"than Lexington, notably Burlington with more than three jobs per
resident worker. Others are notably more "resident-heavy," such as Arlington, with perhaps as
few as a third as many local jobs as resident workers, but with an appearance that seems more
business-centered than Lexington's as a result of differences in the types and locations of the
jobs between the two towns.
Jobs and travel
Despite there being more local jobs than locally resident workers, the great majority of
Lexington residents commute out of town for work. In 1990, the most recent year for which
there is reliable data, fewer than one out of five of Lexington's resident workers were employed
within Lexington, the other four workers commuting outward. In 1990 Lexington residents held
barely more than one out of ten local jobs. To gain one job for a Lexington resident, the Town
would have to expect to add ten jobs overall. The effects of dispersion of where people work on
means of travel to work are clear. Eighty-five percent of Lexington workers in 1990 drove alone
to get to work. The share is almost exactly the same for those working within Lexington as it is
for those commuting from Lexington to elsewhere.
Job types and locations
Types and locations of jobs in Lexington have changed dramatically over the years despite
relatively modest overall change in the total number of jobs. As shown on Chart E2, from 1985
through 2000 jobs in Lexington have risen and fallen within a narrow range, reflecting the
regional economy. Individual sectors, however, have experienced large change. In common
with Massachusetts and the US,jobs in manufacturing have steadily declined. Jobs in wholesale
Economic Development 01/17/02 Page 1
and retail trade have also fallen steadily,but those declines have been more than offset by growth
in employment in services, much of it technical and professional.
Jobs in Lexington Center have probably declined, while jobs visually less prominent along
Hayden and Hartwell Avenues have grown by large amounts, with the jobs focus moving from
the Center outwards,just as is happening at a larger scale for the metropolitan area as a whole.
Serving the Town: Retailing
Retail sales and services are of special significance in Lexington. Retailing serves not only as a
job source and a fiscal support, but it also provides convenient and valued service to residents.
Through location and design, retailing is the most visible sector of the local economy, and the
one with which residents have the most contact. For those reasons, it is a major element in
shaping the perceived character of the community and of its business sector despite representing
only about 10% of local employment.
Retail sales per capita in Lexington in 1997 were less than half the statewide level, despite high
local incomes (see Table E4). Even for so-called "convenience goods," such as food and
beverage sales, purchases within Lexington by all customers are far lower than the amounts
spent by Lexington residents at all locations. The sole sales category for which that is not true is
health and personal care. As reported in US Census figures, retail sales in Lexington fell by
nearly a quarter between the 1987 and 1997 censuses of retail trade, even measured in current
dollars. Lexington's jobs in retailing fell even more over that same period. Clearly there has
been a major shift in resident's shopping patterns. The result is not distressed real estate but
rather changing functional patterns. Land on Bedford Street where residents formerly bought
2x4s and shingles now accommodates many more employees, but they work in offices providing
services, not in retail sales. Resident's shopping needs, even for groceries, are increasingly met
in other communities, more than offsetting any growth in sales here to people from away.
Jobs and taxes
The impacts of economic activity on municipal finance are subtle and complex. On average over
the last decade or more, business property has paid about a quarter of the Lexington tax levy.
That is somewhat less than the average for businesses across the Commonwealth's communities
despite Lexington's high employment level in relation to population. That difference is probably
the result of Lexington's residential property values being so high. As allowed by statute,
Lexington applies a higher tax rate to business than to dwellings, and the use of that device has
reduced the fiscal swings that otherwise would have resulted from real estate value fluctuations
over recent years. For example, in 1990 the non-residential share of assessed valuations was
22%, but by 1997 that had fallen to less than 13% as residential property values boomed and
business property values in many cases declined.
The municipal costs of servicing business are commonly documented to be less than the taxes
business pays, though the margin differs between types of development. Because of that, growth
in local business accommodations not only provides "new growth"benefits under Proposition 2
'/z as would any new development, but also helps to reduce the residential share of the tax levy.
Economic Development 01/17/02 Page 2
Analyses made for 2020 pointed out how limited the possible fiscal gains from business growth
are because of spatial limitations'. However, as noted below, the real limitation results from
rules the Town has chosen for controlling such development, not from basic limitations inherent
in location or the land.
Land for business
Business commonly occupies about 10% or less of a community's developed land area.
Consistent with that, about 900 of Lexington's 11,000 acres of land, or 8%, is zoned for
business. Roughly 4.5 million square feet of business floor area has been developed within those
districts. Few vacant lots exist within them, and most of those remaining parcels are limited by
virtue of public or institutional ownership or land qualities. However, many parcels now
developed for business have a substantial expansion capacity remaining within zoning limits. In
the five major business areas that largely serve a wider than local area, nearly 4 million square
feet of business floor area exists (see Table E6 and Chart E4). Under current zoning, if floor area
per job were to remain constant about another one million square feet of floor area could
theoretically be added within those districts, enough to add another 4,000 jobs to the 20,000 jobs
existing in Lexington.
The key limitation on the ability for business floor area to expand in the Center is parking.
Development on none of the lots there currently completely fills the "envelope" of floor area
allowed by Zoning. Elsewhere, the key limitation on added business development is the allowed
ratio of building floor area to lot area, or"FAR." All other requirements of allowable building
coverage, setbacks, parking, and height are much more easily met than the FAR rules. We
modeled a test of regulatory change to explore the limits. Increasing allowable FAR by 50% in
outlying business districts greatly increased allowable floor area despite no other regulatory
changes being made. In the Center, removing on-site parking requirements and changing
nothing else resulted in the ability of properties to reach the allowable ratio of floor area to lot
area, almost tripling the floor area feasible under current zoning. Between them, those two
changes would more than double the potential for new business development in Lexington
without change in the zoning map.
Resources for Guiding Change
Despite its business centers being largely "built out" and having many constraints ranging from
locational through technical to political, Lexington has a strong capacity for directing its own
economic future. It has done so in the past. When decades ago the Town declined rezoning for a
shopping center(now in Burlington) at Routes 2 and 128, it took a giant step towards shaping the
Town's present economic structure. It reinforced that with the planning and infrastructure
actions (and selected inactions) taken a few years later in reshaping Lexington Center. Further
reinforcement came in the Town creating large-lot industrial and office districts along Hartwell
and Hayden Avenues but excluding retailing from them. Lexington's zoning limits business
development far below the level that the market would support if regulations permitted. That
gives the Town the capacity to choose what it wants and where it wants it. The power of land
use controls under these circumstances is awesome.
"Managing Fiscal Stability,"Final Report,June 8,2000,page 13 and citations there.
Economic Development 01/17/02 Page 3
Less dramatically but still powerfully, other actions can shape the Town's economic future.
Fiscal policy can be powerful. Raising business taxes as high as is allowed and aggressively
imposing development and operations fees at levels as high as possible would have a very
different impact on the economic future of the Town than would a more moderate set of fiscal
approaches. The Town's relatively new Economic Development Office is another resource. It
sees its mission as largely that which elsewhere is sometimes termed"economic gardening,"
more importantly working to support businesses already here than in reaching out to induce new
arrivals. Finally, Town infrastructure and service efforts can be instrumental in shaping the
Town's economic future. Once that meant extending sewerage. Recently it has meant
facilitating broadband communications. Tomorrow it may have meaning as unimaginable
currently as "broadband"was a few short years ago.
Table El.
LEXINGTON JOBS, HOUSING AND FLOOR AREA 1/12/02
Labor Housing Workers/ Local Jobs/ Business floor area
Year Force units hsinq unit Jobs labor force Total Per job*
1985 16,936 10,144 1.67 18,846 1.11
1990 15,735 10,841 1.45 19,411 1.23
1995 15,462 11,224 1.38 17,838 1.15
2000 16,007 11,347 1.41 21,600 1.35 4,500,000 260
2005 16,270 11,533 1.41 21,954 1.35
2010 16,461 11,669 1.41 22,213 1.35
2015 16,589 11,760 1.41 22,385 1.35
2020 16,677 11,822 1.41 22,505 1.35 5,900,000 260
Includes only jobs occupying busines floor area,estimated at 80%of total jobs.
Sources: Jobs&labor force-DET
Housing units:US Census Decennial reports&building permit data.
Business floor area:Herr Associates estimate.
Projections:Herr&James Associates.
Analytics\Permits-L3!Labor
Economic Development 01/17/02 Page 4
Chart E2.
JOBS PER 100 RESIDENTS
Massachusetts IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Burlington IIIIIIIIIIIill1111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�lllllll[IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFFIII!1liii1111I111
Bedford IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Woburn 1111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11IIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Waltham IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ill
LEXINGTON
Winchester 'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Belmont IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Lincoln 111111IIIIIIIIII
Arlington IIIIIIIIIIIIII
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Jobs/100 residents
Table E2.
JOB/POPULATION COMPARISONS, 2000
Resident Jobs per
Municipality Population Local Jobs 100 residents
Arlington 42,389 6,949 16.4
Lincoln 8,056 1,502 18.6
Belmont 24,194 5,466 22.6
Winchester 20.810 6,714 32.3
LEXINGTON 30,355 20,265 66.8
Waltham 59,226 61,289 103.5
Woburn 37,258 38,985 104.6
Bedford 12.595 16,810 133.5
Burlington 22,876 38,591 168.7
Massachusetts 6,349,097 2,915.478 45.9
Sources:
Population: US Census of Population,2000.
Local jobs: MA DET website,4th Quarter, 2000. Excludes Government.
Analytics\Commercial\Job-Pop-Lex
Economic Development 01/17/02 Page 5
Table E3
EMPLOYMENT IN LEXINGTON 1/12/02
EMPLOYMENT
Agriculture
Forestry Govern- Const- Manufac-
Year Total Fishing ment ruction turing TCPU Trade FIRE Services
1985 18,846 65 1,361 670 4,701 261 5,504 643 5,641
1986 18,457 59 1,370i 718 4,383_ 146 4,695 864 6,223
1987 18,197 75 1,366 449 4,963 306 4,440 838 5,760
1988 18,803 75 1,386 443 5,141 360 4,412 931 6,055
1989 19,428 80 1,389 421 5,143 380 4,749 877 6,389
1990 19,411 84 1,393 309 5,007 495 4,072 997 7,054
1991 16,823 83 1,362 271 4,630 439 3,462 1,112 5,464
1992 15,838 79 1,254 240 4,158 434 2,794 1,225 5,654
1993 16,153 82 1,416 237 3,978 293 2,815 1,320 6,012
1994 16,335 89 1,484 373 3,623 302 2,758 1,377 6,329
1995 17,838 99 1,514 329 3,515 335 2,466 580 9,000
1996 18,037 99 1,578 296 3,150 354 2,363 629 9,568
1997 19,078 109 1,647 302 2,966 325 2,663 667 10,399
1998 20,566 106 1,658 308 2,623 408 2,860 683 11,920
1999 21,427 123, 1,693 328 2,342 448 3,110 715 12,668
2000 21,600 161 1,700 426 2,155 539 2,662 757 13,172
TCPU=Transportation,Communications,and Public Utilities.
FIRE=Finance, Insurance and Real Estate.
Changes in industry definitions in 1988 and 1997 limit comparability with earlier data.
Source:MA Division of Employment and Training,except 2000 Government estimated by Herr&James.
Chart E2.
JOBS IN LEXINGTON
1985-2000
25,000
20,000
_ - _ _ _ _ = = = e Services
E = _ E-_-- _ - _ _ _ _ = Fin, Insur, RE
c 15,000 - - - - - - - - °Trade
• , II
_ ■Transp,comm
U I- - - - - - - - - - 0Manufacturing
c 10,000- ' _ _ _ _ II Construction
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ °Government
., U ■ U
"� S. �, NI Agriculture
•
5,000 :1- ,-'i. - -4�
■ 1 r ■ r 6 ^ r •I ii • • • • ■
Source:MA DET
0 - , / III
063 006 00 066 060 000 00j^ 0,0 006 001 0,0 0, 0 000 00 000 X000
Analytics\Commerce\DET-Lex!Edited
Economic Development 01/17/02 Page 6
Table E4.
LEXINGTON RETAIL SALES, 1997
Sales in 1997 Per capita sales
Lexington MA Lex
x1000 x1,000,000 Lexington MA of MA
Furniture, furnishings $ 8,448 $ 1,857 $ 278 $ 292 95%
Electronics, appliances $ 1,099 $ 1,574 $ 36 $ 248 15%
Building materials, garden $ 2,731 $ 5,053 $ 90 $ 796 11%
Food & beverage $ 21,251 $ 11,294 $ 700 $ 1,779 39%
Health & personal care $ 18,948 $ 3,520 $ 624 $ 554 113%
Gasoline $ 12,655 $ 3,814 $ 417 $ 601 69%
Clothing $ 11,387 $ 4,309 $ 375 $ 679 55%
Sporting goods, books, etc. $ 7,335 $ 1,904 $ 242 $ 300 81%
Other $ 47,546 $ 25,253 $ 1,566 $ 3,977 39%
Total sales 1997 $ 131,400 $ 58,578 $ 4,329 $ 9,226 47%
Total sales 1987 $ 172,027 $ 44,818 $ 5,937 $ 7,876 75%
Population 2000 30,355 6,349,097
Population 1990 28,974 5,690,369
Sources:
Retail sales: US Census of Retail Trade, 1997 and 1987.
Population:US Census of Population,2000 and 1980.
LexingtorMnalytics\Commercial\RetaiI.XLS
Economic Development 01/17/02 Page 7
Table E5..
LEXINGTON FISCAL BACKGROUND 16-Jul-01
Year Residential Commercial Industrial Personal Prop Total % Resid Other%
ASSESSED VALUATION BY CLASS
1990 2,928,897,300, 628,404,800 169,707,600, 45,372,200 3,772,381,900 77.6 22.4
1991 2,620,862,100 453,302,000, 111,683,000 21,635,600 3,207,482,700 81.7 18.3
1992 2,519,321,000 379,126,000 98,899,000 54,052,800 3,051,398,800 82.6 17.4
1993 2,574,645,700 329,673,000, 89,196,000 41,747,200 3,035,261,900 84.8 15.2
1994 2,633,197,000, 300,199,000 77,172,000 43,156,200 3,053,724,200 86.2 13.8
1995 2,801,492,000 297,404,000 72,673,000_ 45,468,200 3,217,037,200 87.1 12.9
1996 2,975,007,040 310,888,960 76,259,000 46,710,800 3,408,865,800 87.3 12.7
1997 3,099,278,410, 313,486,740 82,025,000 50,047,000 3,544,837,150 87.4 12.6
1998 3,300,687,100 345,212,000 85,747,000 63,451,360 3,795,097,460 87.0 13.0
1999 3,523,737,000 399,289,000 102,171,000 64,517,160 4,089,714,160 86.2 13.8
2000 3,761,567,000 541,307,000. 114,841,000 88,562,290 4,506,277,290 83.5 16.5
2001 4,200,706,000 582,453,000 124,645,000 107,509,290 5,015,313,290 83.8 16.2
TAX LEVY BY CLASS
1990 26,945,855 10,016,773 2,705,139 723,233 40,391,000 66.7 33.3
1991 29,248,821 10,099,569 2,488,297 482,041 42,318,728 69.1 30.9
1992 30,811,296 9,023,199 2,353,796 1,286,457 43,474,748 70.9 29.1
1993 35,118,167 8,766,005 2,371,722 1,110,058 , 47,365,952 74.1 25.9
1994 37,286,070 8,138,395 2,092,133 1,169,965 48,686,562 76.6 23.4
1995, 39,220,888 7,902,024 1,930,922 1,208,090 50,261,924 78.0 22.0
1996 41,679,849 8,244,775 2,022,389 1,238,770 53,185,783 78.4 21.6
1997 43,017,984 8,229,027 2,153,156 1,313,734 54,713,901 78.6 21.4
1998 44,328,228 8,806,358 2,187,406 1,618,644 56,940,636 77.8 22.2
1999 45,068,596 9,778,588 2,502,168 1,580,025 58,929,377 76.5 23.5
2000 46,079,196 11,037,250 2,341,608 1,805,785 61,263,839 75.2 24.8
2001 50,870,550 12,773,194 2,733,465 2,357,679 68,734,888 74.0 26.0
TAX RATES BY CLASS (Shift
(Composite) factor)
1990 9.20 15.94 15.94 15.94 10.71 149%
1991 11.16 22.28 22.28 22.28 13.19 169%
1992 12.23 23.80 23.80 23.80 14.25 167%
1993 13.64 26.59 26.59 26.59 15.61 170%
1994 14.16 27.11 27.11 27.11 15.94 170%
1995 14.00 26.57 26.57 26.57 15.62 170%
1996 14.01 26.52 26.52 26.52 15.60 170%
' 1997 13.88 26.25 26.25, 26.25 15.43 170%
1998 13.43 25.51 25.51 25.51 15.00 170%
1999 12.79 24.49 24.49 24.49 14.41 170%
2000 12.25 20.39 20.39 20.39 13.59 150%
2001 12.11 21.93 21.93_ 21.93 13.71 160%
Lexington\Analytics\Commercial\Fiscal DatalData
Economic Development 01/17/02 Page 8
Chart E3.
ASSESSED VALUATIONS
Lexington
6,000
5,000
k
4,000 •
c —
o
to = .•... ,
m3,000 me nn; pp ii ::,.: .::u -
w
— EEi
ii ii
2,000
a
1,000 II iiii iiiiii iiiiii
Mg 1111 L.
�'
nu; iiii ii
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
°Commercial 0 Industrial •Personal Property :"Residential
Analytics\Commercial\Fiscal Data!CH-Assess
Economic Development 01/17/02 Page 9
Table E6A 1/12/02
COMMERCIAL BUILD-OUT SUMMARY: 2001 zoning
Floor area square feet)
Lot area Allowed Potential
Location (sq. ft.) Existing by zoning Increase Total
Hartwell Ave. 11,060,000 2,020,000 1,570,000 280,000 2,300,000
Hayden Ave. 9,180,000 1,010,000 1,360,000 480,000 1,480,000
Lexington Center 560,000 390,000 420,000 140,000 520,000
Bedford/Worthen 1,070,000 270,000 340,000 130,000 400,000
Rte. 2A/Mass Ave 1,130,000, 170,000 180,000 10,000 180,000
TOTAL 23,000,000 3,860,000 3,870,000 1,040,000 4,880,000
Table E6B
COMMERCIAL BUILD-OUT SUMMARY: "TEST"zoning
Floor area (square feet)
Lot area Allowed Potential Test zoning
Location (sq. ft.) Existing by zoning Increase Total added
Hartwell Ave. 11,060,000 2,020,000 2,320,000 670,000 2,690,000 390,000
Hayden Ave. 9,180,000 1,010,000 1,920,000 940,000 1,950,000 460,000
Lexington Center 560,000 390,000 1,120,000 740,000 1,120,000 600,000
Bedford/Worthen 1,070,000 270,000 460,000 210,000 480,000 80,000
Rte. 2A/Mass Ave 1,130,000 170,000 200,000 30,000 200,000 20,000
TOTAL 23,000,000 3,860,000 6,020,000 2,590,000 6,440,000 1,550,000
Land in residential use or districts and lots in public or institutional ownership excluded.
Land in CD districts assumed to be restricted to existing floor area.
2001 Zoning: all rules as current 7/01.
Floor area constrained by FAR limit except in CB where required parking and
allowed height are the constraint. In CB parking assumed to be two story half
the time, one story the rest.
TEST Zoning
FAR increased 50%except in CB and CD districts.
In CB no offstreet parking required.
Potentials not reduced to reflect site circumstances such as wetlands.
Lexington\Analytics\Commercial\Buildout Analysis!Data
Economic Development 01/17/02 Page 10
Chart E4.
COMMERCIAL BUILD-OUT
Lexington major commercial areas
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000 -1111
CO
L
O
O
Er-
1,500,000 1,500,000
w
co
1,000,000
500,000 .
0
Hartwell Ave. Hayden Ave. Lexington Center Bedford/Worthen Rte.2A/Mass
Ave
TEST zoning added potential
112001 zoning potential
0 Existing floor area
Analytics\Commerce\Buildout Analysis!Ch New Z
Economic Development 01/17/02 Page 11
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Better, not Bigger is the title of a book currently popular among planners2. That might be the
bumper sticker for the intent of economic development in Lexington at this point. There is no
envy here of the neighboring communities that have more jobs or higher job-to-resident ratios
than Lexington, nor would we choose to emulate the more purely"bedroom-like"places in the
region. What we do want to do is to join with the business community that is here to find ways
of making this a better community for residents, workers, and enterprises, taking advantage of
the wonderful benefits conferred on the Town by its location and legacy.
Four goals stand out as the reasons for the Town to engage in economic development.
• First, a strong local economy can help provide necessary fiscal support for the high level of
public services residents of Lexington seek. Tax support from business in Lexington fell in
the weak economy of the mid-nineties even as more business floor area was being added.
Helping business to thrive here helps the municipal economy with or without physical
expansion of land or building area devoted to business.
• Second, some of the businesses here provide important services and opportunities for
Lexington residents. Having to travel to other communities for goods and services is a loss to
the local quality of life and sense of community, so defending and building local service
opportunities is an important goal.
• Third, nearby jobs play an important role for some whose mobility or time is limited. For
kids, seniors, the handicapped, and any whose employment is part-time, having jobs nearby is
a major concern. Having jobs easily accessible for Lexington residents is an important goal,
even(or especially) in an auto-centered and Internet-connected world. It benefits those who
thus are facilitated in getting and holding jobs. It benefits everyone by reducing to some
extent the amount of travel involved in connecting jobs and homes and with that, the
inconvenience imposed on others, dependence on fossil fuels, and degradation of air quality.
• Fourth, economic change can strengthen Lexington's sense of place and community. Having
locations that we all commonly use and within which we can enjoy the benefits of
serendipitous exchange and multi-purpose visits is an important element in building
neighborhood and town identity and community. Current trends are eroding that. Economic
development efforts, if appropriately directed towards creation of real centers of community
and neighborhood activity, can perhaps achieve a reversal.
STRATEGIC APPROACH
Not only is the selection of goals important but so too is the selection of strategies for
approaching those goals and identification of constraints within which efforts should fall, since
the strategies themselves have important consequences for broader community objectives.
2 Eben Fodor,New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island,BC,Canada, 1999.
Economic Development 01/17/02 Page 12
•3 While business invigoration is an essential part of any set of economic development
strategies, emulating Burlington within Lexington is neither necessary nor sought-after.
Clearly economic growth should not overburden transportation or other infrastructure, or
transform the carefully established image of the community. Current zoning would
theoretically allow addition of about a million square feet of business floor area. In
actuality, somewhat less is probably feasible.
The Town's zoned potential for housing growth allows another 700 or so housing units,
accommodating about 1,000 workers given household size and labor force participation
rates similar to the present. The Town now has about one-third more local jobs than it
has locally resident workers, offset by net in-commuting. To maintain that relationship
from now until "build-out"would mean adding about 1,300 jobs. About 20% of
Lexington-based jobs are not located in business buildings, but rather in schools, houses
and many other non-commercial places. Adding 1,300 jobs overall would therefore mean
adding about 1,100 jobs in business quarters, requiring about 280,000 square feet of
added business floor area. The current zoning could accommodate more than triple that
amount before accounting for some "spreading out" to occupy more floor area per
worker. After accounting for growth in space per worker and theoretical capacity that is
unrealistic to achieve on the ground, current zoning appears to be adequate to
accommodate the present relationship of jobs to housing at residential build-out, with a
modest margin to spare.
That analysis suggests that current zoning is very close to perfectly balanced for a policy
of accommodating growth in jobs within Lexington in proportion with the anticipated
growth in resident workers in Lexington. In turn, that suggests a balanced approach to
change in business regulation. The aim of any regulatory change should be better growth
than current zoning would be likely to result in, but not more growth than would now be
allowable and expected.
❖ Any removal of regulatory and other constraints on economic development must be
joined with measures to assure that any harmful impacts of the resulting activity increases
such as traffic burdens will be avoided or fully mitigated.
❖ Efforts should importantly include support for businesses already here in Lexington,
since they are (or should become)part of our community, and are critical to our achieving
the goals we seek.
❖ Efforts should reflect and take advantage of the profound interconnectedness of economic
activities and initiatives within Lexington and those in the surrounding region.
❖ In this topical area, no less than in others, respect for the principles of sustainability
should guide our initiatives. Those efforts can be proactive in providing support for
economic activity that is healing in its effects, not merely benign. When workers who
formerly drove to work commute by foot, or when a"green-committed" Lexington
business achieves a niche in a market lacking such approaches, there is a net gain for a
Economic Development 01/17/02 Page 13
multitude of interests: economic, environmental, and social, both locally and more
widely.
❖ A key aspect of our approach should be to recognize the value of the high demand for
business location in Lexington, and to work with that demand to help achieve the goals
articulated, including"better, not bigger." With care and skill, that can be achieved.
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
1. Better accessibility, less auto dependence.
Encourage economic development that will moderate auto usage and promote accessibility
for Lexington residents to jobs and services. That will reduce traffic impacts, the single
objection to business growth most commonly cited locally. It also will strengthen positive
connections between business and the Lexington resident population, and reduce dependence
on fossil fuels. Moderating auto usage can be approached both through how business
activities are located within the Town, and by strengthening how they are operated.
"Mixed use" is an old idea having new currency for these purposes, whether mixed within a
building, within a site, within contiguous sites, or within a district.
1.1 More generously allow use of homes for work as well as residing. Home-based
business is the ultimate mixed use, now sometimes termed "zero-commute housing."
An extreme version is live/work arrangements, where neither residential nor business
use is accessory to the other and therefore limited, but rather there is flexibility over
time in the allocation of space within the building for either. Lexington's home
occupation rules reflect a long-ago era. They urgently require modernization to reflect
contemporary technology and work patterns, to enable economic growth with minimal
adverse impacts, and to accommodate an emerging lifestyle shift. Supporting home-
based business also means making efforts to assure the timely availability now and in
the future for state-of-the-art telecommunications.
1.2 Explore revising zoning to allow residential use in Lexington Center. The
transportation benefits of mixed functions in close proximity is exemplified by
Lexington Center, where a single vehicle trip provides access to multiple activities
within easy and attractive walking distance. Over the years residential functions have
been pushed to the periphery of the Center in part by real estate economics but also by
zoning. Modifying zoning to allow and facilitate residential use in the Center Business
district could substantially benefit economic development, housing, and transportation.
The Massachusetts Downtown Initiative website features a large photo of Lexington
Center opposite its "Seven Basic Building Blocks of Downtown Revitalization."
Lexington scores well on six of those seven building blocks. "Living downtown" is the
seventh, and on that the Center doesn't meet the guideline3.
3 www.state.ma.us/dhcd/components/dcs/downtown.
Economic Development 01/17/02 Page 14
1.3 Review Zoning to identify impediments to mixed use elsewhere. Compact multi-
functional development could occur elsewhere in Lexington, given supportive
encouragement by the Town in its regulations and facilitation efforts, again producing
proximity that enables moderation of the auto impacts of business to the extent that
walking replaces driving.
1.4 Modernize CN District regulations. Neighborhood stores, by definition, provide mix
by being near the residents they serve and often near the residences of some of their
staff. Regulatory impediments to such enterprises should be identified and remedies
proposed, such as modernizing the regulations on allowable categories of use in
neighborhood commercial (CN) districts, and perhaps revising the zoning map to create
new CN or similar districts.
Even without pedestrian-scaled proximity between business and related activities, it is
possible to have economic development without the usually expected level of traffic impact.
Strengthening Transportation Demand Management (TDM) can do that. Zoning (§ 12.3.4)
authorizes the requirement of such efforts in certain cases, but more could be done.
1.5 Explore a requirement that no large trip-producing use shall be allowed unless it
documents that the trips it will generate will be a specified amount below that
customarily expected from that type of use. Reductions could be the result of
employer-arranged ride-sharing, vanpools, and similar efforts or, failing that, through
compensatory reduction in potential trip generation through reserving open space on
that or other sites.
1.6 As a less forceful fallback alternative to the above imperative, such trip-limiting efforts
might be encouraged rather than required. Incentives might be offered in return for
excellence in similar transportation demand management efforts.
1.7 Explore transit-oriented design rules for commercial and industrial districts, especially
Manufacturing and Regional Office districts, such as those along Hartwell and Hayden
Avenues. Current rules there make efficient operation of vanpools or mini-buses as
difficult as possible. Clustering of adjacent buildings is prohibited by wide side and
rear yard requirements, and front yard rules force buildings to be distant from the street,
frustrating trip efficiency for vehicles picking up and leaving off passengers. Sixteen
pages of zoning text and graphics specify in fine detail parking and traffic arrangements
with barely a mention of pedestrians or bicycles. Revision is overdue.
1.8 Explore further ways of reducing job-related travel. Even without facilitation by the
Town, private businesses have begun providing van links for their employees, often
connecting to Alewife. There is a wonderful potential there and perhaps elsewhere,
such as Lowell and Montachusett, for two-way van links, such as Lexington resident
commuters being brought to Alewife on their way Downtown, and in-town residents
being brought from Alewife to Lexington jobs.
2. Strengthen Lexington Center's retail service function.
Economic Development 01/17/02 Page 15
Lexington Center's economic health is unquestionable. However, the Center no longer as
strongly as before plays the traditional role of being the unique place where all residents
come for a variety of goods and services and, through that, being the place of shared
experience, supporting both serendipitous and planned meetings and exchange. Trends in the
retail industry, real estate economics, and transportation all contribute to the shift from
retailing that chiefly serves a local market to specialty retailing serving a broader region and
to non-retail activities. What is at stake is not just a nostalgic wish for things to be as they
were, but rather the preservation of a vital element in the mix of things that have made
Lexington such a cohesive community.
2.1 Focus administrative efforts towards this objective. The Economic Development
Office and others should be supported in their efforts to facilitate the establishment and
healthy continuation of the types of business that promotes the vibrant activity center
that is sought. That means, most importantly, serving Lexington residents, supported in
doing so through welcomed business from tourists and from participants in a possible
strengthening of the Center as a place for evening leisure activities.
2.2 Facilitate flexibility in changes of land use. Shifts between categories of retail use,
even within the same floor area, are made difficult in Lexington Center because of the
regulatory system, especially regarding parking. That affects retail use particularly,
since permit-triggering change is more frequent for that use than for office or financial
uses. Further, since retailing is a more intensive use than are most others, those
obstacles are more likely inhibitions for retailing than for other uses. That
inadvertently promotes less intensive office or financial uses in its place, the opposite
of what would benefit the Center's traditional role. Rules inhibiting the uses we want
should be systematically identified and remedied.
2.3 Support an initiative of the business community, should it come, to create a Business
Improvement District ("BID"). Such a district, if petitioned by a majority of affected
property owners and approved by the Town, can perform a variety of functions on
behalf of the businesses collectively. In Lexington, that might critically include
provision of solid waste management services, creative approaches to parking,
organizing transportation demand management efforts, and various other supporting
programs better enabling Center interests to enhance their district. A BID might be the
ideal entity to explore the possibility of a regional recycling program for commercial
wastes. Fees assessed through the Town but managed by the participating businesses
would support the efforts of the district. Such districts are authorized under Chapter
40-0 of the Massachusetts General Laws.
3. Manage economic development in other ways to protect our shared environment.
3.1 Explore creation of a system for non-residential "Developments with Significant Public
Benefit,"parallel to the Zoning § 9.6 provisions for residential development. Section
9.6 specifies with detail and clarity what the Town expects from residential
development that seeks flexible treatment, bonuses, or other discretionary approvals.
Economic Development 01/17/02 Page 16
The same could be done for business development,with a simplified and expedited
decision process as one possible incentive. In addition to items mentioned earlier in
this set of implementing measures, "significant public benefits"might include:
(a) Scoring sufficiently high on an objective environmental sensitivity scoring system,
such as the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green
Building Rating System or the MA environmental tax credit system proposed in
2001 House Bill 3840, "A Green Building Income Tax Credit."
(b) Conducting "eco-friendly operations." The above two are "scoring systems"
centered on the development itself, not what is done inside of it. A company whose
primary inputs are materials otherwise likely to be waste and whose products are
environmentally no worse than benign might earn credits for providing significant
community benefit, over and above any benefit from having a building whose use
of resources in construction and operation is noteworthy.
(c) Achieving trip reduction significantly exceeding the levels required under other
measures.
3.2 Maintain a well-structured overview of change, and refine course accordingly. It is
critical in times of rapid change that there is an ongoing systematic reexamination of
the consistency between the municipality's actions and its stated policies. Two items
are of special significance.
(a) Assure that over time business floor area and trip generation increases authorized
by rezoning or special permit are offset by commensurate resulting decreases in
floor area and trip generation expectations elsewhere, in order to maintain the
"balance"between residential and non-residential growth cited as a basic strategy
above. If over time it frequently seems appropriate to approve departures from the
policy, the policy itself should be revisited and, following public discussion, either
revised or better adhered to.
(b) Periodically review tax rate policy. Lexington has chosen to "classify" its tax levy
or to utilize a"split tax rate"in order to maintain an appropriate balance between
residential and non-residential tax burdens. The share of the tax levy to be borne
by business is annually set to reflect Town policy. It appears that variations in the
"split" over time have been used to mitigate fluctuations in the residential tax
burden that might otherwise occur because of differences in rate of change between
residential and non-residential real estate values and the resulting change in shares
of the Town's assessed valuation. Those annually reconsidered shifts also send a
signal to business, and influence the kinds of business that can prosper in
Lexington. There are also a few other tax policy options affecting business,
including optional exclusion of business from the Community Preservation Act tax
surcharge, should the Town approve use of that Act locally. Tax policy should be
explicit, accessible, and frequently revisited.
EcDev-R2
January 16,2002
Economic Development 01/17/02 Page 17
Map E1. /4 ` v - 3 '
4° ` . "'
Lexington Center, 2001 ♦ ! • * + .44 .** ,*
va
Opportunities end Constraints ♦♦ • '�
+ E=11111111=1111111 Miles 1•q. 7 ,* 4* ,
o
• �a • l �� * I
�► N* 4f .• RSC 4; ***' ! 0,
a
44 .rilill Nr 4 or .111 4r
Man 4N a♦ * 2114,1 ■
a : 4
4 • 4P' * N . , *4. * k
. , .,„,,,„ . . II '
%4: #i& CB ., , *\ f a► R 1 .1$"-:w w f ♦ r
ek
,....---;:: .
alt'
4* 4 */ CB .Street is
4. 4 stiii?
0 .• 4t# !y . alt � \ r4 ` ill , ** TR
• 4p 4riiiiiiirrt. sar airat Ali 4 *
RS . 4,4 �' " '�
#010
N 1r
• J. 1 Prial 4 - • #
is, im mei I I,
Zoning Districts • Abr • ** 1 •
•
.IL Wetlands S . ' ' ` •
'
® . s _ • �. _ ♦ _ • Page 18 v,
•
1vtu1/ 1.iL.. \\N It\\r v '%V. r �' * w, t'► r� �, « --r K, s -� •,�. (/\`•
�' • Al 4t ________...____,..4.
s \
Hayden Avenue, 200] ♦` ; + •• :•• i •� ••,•., : .�
Opportunities and Constraints •♦ i �a. '- <•
•'
N
+ 0 vi
•
' + _� Miles r w I' I ;�: s t. ' s i ,. r 1F �` 1
L -1- . -1L- .. . t , + t •i : t r 4. r► # ' 1
•
.1, ♦ N %4 t I ! ♦ s ♦ : .
4L4r
.84
! 4 * . f s 1 . ♦ «
�` 0* S / r ,� Z,1p I t d f i i ' . i A. •
S • j t 411 �� t
'•., •• s • ., ‘ • ' • • •
L.
CRO ~�` ~'`1.. ± ` �• �F .. ms 's
_LLQ. 4.. *. 1 / .•# r . I s
It
.i I .t w 1 •
♦.I . ♦ i ! 4* 4i-
.■
it lk
CRO -
4ee -b1h-
.#\44110o .
4
• CD-9
i t _ ,._,..,....,_ _ 4 _ .
•
. 'IL if __,,a,
___
il . t _ ...., ,......._______
•-• , - _ ________ \
CD-8 i.
\ II " drillillh.. 414, • •40 4,
• % r ..
111 IF. 4.i
ilk
- (- 1 t. �', as f i f� — —
Oa
Zoning Districts 7 414, ^ • 41- 44- . . s • t • ! it _�
1 I. 411
.L[. Wetlands II .1• •1' -1b.
MapE3.
\`
�. t� r �► $�!'w � ` �, � �'� •s• `� ". •; -C i`«� a ..- ,*____11:_--'1 • i
Hartwell Avenue, 2001 % • ♦ J a, * . �..4". ••• '•• F"«•• ;, `'�
Opportunities and Constraints �► • j �'�` +t� '•� f I '• -
N •
, r • • I 41.♦ . '• �•
+ 0 yi 1 got # 0 * * • 1. II * " 40P *4*a ' . • 1
• I' I :�� t s h I * *i 1r • 1
Miles ‘ 44 v r
,.I L. N7./ - t * I4. ♦ t • s. , ,! I t' ♦ IS rt « •
ijl •► 41' •
s e • f ! ! . ♦ , w
•
4%*
t •i rt 40 ♦ • 4 . t 1' • It 41t
f ‘.ii, * ill
' !� « I i Z• +' 91I I ! ♦1
• •+4 .i • s • 4 ♦ ♦ ' I ♦ I�
41 L_. •► 14s • �: w •♦ F 1111 ♦ *
CRO ! ti. IL
•; e �• ,,. si♦ r 1111' I ♦ vs
.1 • E >r • -1-
lit t
CRO ali-
-1,e .,L,
/ elli4410.4t,iii, .21k. 41‘. -1-
CD-9
i It * _ . je
----'------- - .411' illit
lir
... - 06
f ' -11-t. ♦ '� Sr r
_ •t 4,
II
1 Zoning Districts 1'X 414 414- 414 s o 4 rr
-IL- Wetlands . • ' i• . . —
414. 41.4
I r att. r '•'•- sl. 1 * r i. s '`• I t4 • -
■ -1 ,I, '.. ..`•'.. ..`•.,'.. ..`•., , 1114 >r *;M
•. �=� .� z Page 20
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
The four Plan elements preceding this chapter contain an array of actions through which it is
intended that the Plan be implemented. Those actions are organized below not by Plan element
but rather by the board or official that is expected to guide at least the initial steps towards each
of those actions actually being taken. Not surprisingly, the Planning Board has the largest agenda
to initiate, but the Selectmen, Town Manager, Conservation Commission, and Historical
Commission all are also intended to play initiating roles. For a number of the actions the initiator
has not yet been designated or perhaps is not yet in existence. Further, designating initial
responsibility for certain of the actions is appropriately deferred until the Transportation Element
of the Comprehensive Plan is undertaken, as is scheduled for the near future, along with the
(Public) Facilities and Implementation Strategies elements. As these action items move forward,
efforts will also involve virtually all the agencies of Town government, some standing
committees and several other community service and advocacy organizations.
Listed at the end of each action item are references for where within the four elements a more
complete context for and description of the action can be found. Also listed is an indication of
the time period within which the action appropriately might be undertaken:
— "Near Term:" items to be undertaken and perhaps completed within the next year or so.
— "Intermediate Term:" items to be undertaken within the next three years or so.
— "Long Term:" items that can or must take longer than three years, reflecting level of
difficulty, prerequisites, or level of priority.
— "Ongoing:" items that by their nature are not point in time ones but rather are carried out
continuously over time.
When the preparation of further elements of the Comprehensive Plan (particularly
"Transportation") draws towards completion, additional implementing actions will be added to
the Town's agenda. That will create an appropriate point at which to systematically look back on
the implementation accomplishments of the year or so between now and then and to reassess who
should do what, when they should do it, and what resources should be provided. Similar
reassessments should be repeated from time to time in the years following that to assure that the
Plan remains an importantly relevant part of the Town's activities, and not just part of its
literature.
Implementation 01/17/02 Page 1
SELECTMEN
CROSS-CUTTING POLICIES
Two actions, one dealing with land and one dealing with taxation, are to be initiated by the
Selectmen, reflecting their unique role in relation to policies that cut across narrower interest
areas.
• Surplus land. Establish policy that in acting on the disposition of"surplus"public land
(e.g. tax title parcels, Met State land when it is transferred), priority should be given to the
two uses for which land is key: diversity-serving housing and preservation of important
open spaces. [Land Use 1.2, Housing 1.7: NEAR TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Conservation Commission, LexHAB, and Lexington Housing Authority.
• Tax rate policy. Establish policy that there will be a periodic long-term review of both
the splitting of the tax rate and other tax rate matters undertaken and publicized to assure
that an appropriate balance is maintained between residential and non-residential tax
burdens and that to the degree possible tax policy is encouraging the types of investment
that the Town seeks. [Economic 3.2(b): INTERMEDIATE TERM]
Possible additional initiators/actors:Assessor, Special Study Committee
BUILDING A FRAMEWORK FOR HOUSING
Lexington's policy commitment to housing and its past housing achievements can be matched in
the future only given new structure and resources.
• Housing infrastructure. Explore housing organizational roles and capacities, initiating
changes in them, possibly including creation of a new body, such as a Housing
Partnership Committee, to fill the void revealed through these studies and the lack of a
suitable vehicle for implementing a number of the actions. [Housing 6.1: NEAR TERM].
• Housing funding. Commit Town funds for housing, whether through the Community
Preservation Act, linkage, or other means. [Housing 5.1: INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: CPA Committee(if affirmatively voted); Lexington Housing Authority;
LexHAB; Fair Housing Committee.
BUILDING RESOURCE-EFFICIENCY INTO THE SYSTEM
Many innovative approaches to avoiding resource waste and thereby reducing costs and
improving the environment are contained in the Plan, and deserve an organizational framework
to assure implementation.
• Resource Organization. Explore creation of a new organization, provision of new
resources to an existing organization, or other structural measure to provide leadership for
the actions listed below under"Resource Savers: Helping to Reduce Waste." [Resources
3.5: NEAR TERM].
Implementation 01/17/02 Page 2
TOWN MANAGER
BUILDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE
Meeting the challenge of appropriate economic development in a mature community with diverse
perspectives on the meaning of"appropriate" will require a careful balancing of interests.
• Economic Development Infrastructure. Explore creation of an organization, whether
short-term or permanent, or provision of new resources to an existing organization or
other structural measure to provide leadership for the actions listed below under"Building
Better Business." [NEAR TERM].
Possible additional actors/initiators: Economic Development Officer, Lexington Center Committee, Business
Roundtable, and Chamber of Commerce.
PLANNING BOARD
DEALING WITH TOWN CHARACTER
The proliferation of out-of-scale houses, tree-cutting, damage to valued architectural resources,
and loss of coherent town form are examples of the range of concerns expressed centering on
sensitivity to desired town character.
• House Impact Provisions. Prepare a package of measures for addressing the Town's
concerns over out-of-scale houses. [Land Use 2.6(a), Housing 2, Resources 5.3(a):
NEAR TERM].
Note: initial package of house impact control measures is nearing completion as of this writing and will go to
Town meeting 2002 this spring.
• Initiating a designer's effort. Hold discussions with various groups having design roles
and capacities, including the Design Advisory Committee, the Historic District
Commission, the Historical Commission, the Lexington Center Committee, and the
Lexington Garden Club to determine how best the actions listed under"Designers
Guiding Town Character"below can be carried forward. That might result in either
creation of a task force or identification of an existing organization to subsequently lead
the effort. [INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: {From the groups in the paragraph above}: Lexington Center Committee,
Design Advisory Committee.
CREATING REGULATIONS TO HELP HOUSING
Zoning and other local regulations are often perceived as root causes of housing problems, but
those measures can also be constructive tools for addressing the concern.
• Inclusionary zoning. Broadly mandate that housing developments include affordable
units. [Land Use 2.2(d), Housing 3.2: NEAR TERM].
Implementation 01/17/02 Page 3
• Housing in business districts. Explore allowing housing in some business districts,
including the Center. [Land Use 2.1(a), Economic 1.2 and 1.3, Housing 1.1:
INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Lexington Center Committee, Chamber of Commerce, and LexHAB.
• Affordability density bonus. Revise density and impact bonuses to strengthen housing
affordability incentives. [Land Use 2.2(d), Housing 3.1: LONG TERM].
• Affordability quid pro quo. Formalize through amendment to regulations that some
contribution to affordability is expected where relief from usual rules is sought. [Housing
1.8: NEAR TERM.]
Possible additional initiators/actors: LexHAB, Housing Partnership or similar new entity, Fair Housing
Committee.
• Small-scale elderly housing. Provide incentives for small-scale age-restricted housing
[Land Use 2.2(a), Housing 1.3: INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: LexHAB, Housing Partnership or similar new entity, Fair Housing
Committee.
• Cohousing and other new formats. Explore rules to assure that they do not
inadvertently obstruct new approaches to housing, such as cohousing. [Housing 1.5:
INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: LexHAB, Housing Partnership or similar new entity, Fair Housing
Committee.
• Adaptive reuse for housing. Facilitate reuse of existing non-residential structures for
housing. [Land Use 2.2(c), Housing 1.6: LONG TERM].
• Modernize house rules. Creatively explore modernization of the rules about what you
can do with your existing house to accommodate contemporary work and living styles,
e.g., telecommuting, computer-based home businesses, live/work arrangements, accessory
apartments [Land Use 2.1(a) and 2.2(b) Economic 1.1, Housing 1.4 and 4:
INTERMEDIATE TERM].
• Protect existing resources. Following experience with House Impact Provisions to be
acted upon in the near term, consider further measures to protect existing modest-price
housing resources,tear-down site reuse delay. [Housing 2.1 and 2.2, Resources 5.2(b):
LONG TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actor: Housing Partnership or similar new entity, Fair Housing Committee.
Implementation 01/17/02 Page 4
PROMOTING APPROPRIATE BUSINESS
Carefully designed regulation can assure that business development serving the Town's interests
is effectively encouraged.
• Modernize Neighborhood Business District zoning. Update use controls to employ
contemporary categories, and to facilitate mixed uses. [Land Use 2.1(a), Economic 1.4,
and Resources 2.1: INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Several existing Civic or Neighborhood Associations.
• Specify non-residential benefit expectations. Create a system mirroring the residential
"Development with Significant Public Benefit"to offer incentive for special trip reduction
efforts, "green building," housing support, etc. [Land Use 1.3 and 2.5(b), Resource
1.2(e), Economic 3.1: INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Business Roundtable, LexHAB, Building Commissioner.
"GREENING" DEVELOPMENT
There are a number of ways in which existing regulations could be refined in ways that are
protective of resources and other Town concerns without imposing substantial burdens.
• Allow narrower streets. Revise Subdivision Regulation standards to allow a lower-
impact design standard [Resources 1.2(d): INTERMEDIATE TERM].
• Mandate subdivision open space. Through use of special permits, authorize
requirement of open space even if applicant seeks conventional subdivision. [Land Use
2.4(a) and (b), Resources 1.1(a): INTERMEDIATE TERM].
• Refined cluster. Enhance existing cluster provisions, adding a lower-density but possibly
by-right cluster option as a true open space residential provision. [Land Use 2.3(d):
INTERMEDIATE TERM].
• Strengthen controls on chemicals, landscaping materials,water use. Revise both
Zoning and Subdivision Regulations to specify such requirements or incentives as a
complement to other existing controls under Board of Health or other jurisdictions.
[Resources 1.2(a): LONG TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Board of Health, Conservation Commission. Public Works.
• Explore enabling transfer of development rights. Consider allowing preservation of
open space on one parcel to permit higher density on another parcel. [Resources 1.1(b):
LONG TERM].
Reexamine impervious surface controls. Extend impervious surface controls to all
residential development, resolve current disincentives for clusters, and address related lot
coverage and recharge issues. [Land Use 2.3(b); Resources 1.2(c): INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Implementation 01/17/02 Page 5
• Limit allowable grade change on residential building sites. Require special review if
change from existing grade exceeds a stated limit. [Resources 1.2 (b): NEAR TERM].
IMPROVING REGULATORY SPEED AND PREDICTABILITY
Unnecessarily burdensome and slow regulatory processes are costly to both applicants and Town
staff, and regulations which fail to have predictable decision outcomes are damaging to both
those who would develop and those affected by that development.
• Expedite regulatory processes. Explore removal of unnecessary delays and burdensome
procedures, in particular for selected, desired uses or land use changes, where doing so
results in no loss of assurance of strong compliance. [Land Use 1.4, Housing 6.2:
INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Business Roundtable, Selectmen, and possible Special Study
Committee.
• Improve planned development commercial (CD) and residential (RD) predictability.
Provide better policy guidance for the creation of planned development commercial (CD)
and residential (RD) districts through, among other things, use of performance-based
controls. [Land use 1.1: LONG TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Business Roundtable, Selectmen, possible Special Study Committee,
Building Commissioner, and Town Manager.
ASSURING POLICY CONSISTENCY
Maintain a well-structured overview of land use change, and refine course accordingly.
• Observe residential/non-residential "balance." Note inevitable departures from the
policies of this Plan over time, and if necessary take remedial action on either the Plan or
actions to be guided by it. [Land Use 3.1: ONGOING.]
Possible additional initiators/actors:Vision 2020 Implementation Committee
• Periodically assess links between land use and the environment. In the same spirit,
note over time whether corrective change to either the Plan or ongoing actions would be
appropriate in light of environmental and sustainability consequences of land use change
over time. [Land Use 3.1: ONGOING.]
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
PROTECTING OPEN SPACE AND RESOURCES
This Plan calls for efforts to protect at least one-third of the Town's remaining land resources, as
well as calling for a number of other resource protection efforts to which these actions are
intended to contribute.
Implementation 01/17/02 Page 6
• Funding for open space. Gain a local financial commitment for funding of open space
acquisition through one means or another, whether through the Community Preservation
Act, capital facilities plan reservation, or other means. [Land Use 2.3(a), Resources
1.1(d): NEAR TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: CPA Committee(if program is adopted).
• Continue and strengthen current efforts:
— An aggressive program for open space land donations. [Resources 1.1(e):
ONGOING].
— An environmental monitoring program, as suggested in Vision 2020. [Resources 3.4:
ONGOING].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Board of Health, Tree Committee/Tree Warden.
— Other natural resource programs, e.g. tree planting. [Resources 3.3: ONGOING].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Tree Committee/Tree Warden.
HISTORICAL COMMISSION
PROTECTING OUR LEGACY
Lexington's rich and still-evolving historical legacy deserves strong efforts towards its
strengthened management.
• Prepare a Historic Preservation Plan. Building on the base of inventory work already
done, develop policies, strategies, and a course of actions for managing cultural resources.
[Resources 5.1: LONG TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Historic Districts Commission.
• Explore how to fund preservation. Potential means include the Community
Preservation Act, special tax treatment for historic home improvements, tax credits, and
tax increment financing. [Resources 5.4: INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actor: CPA Committee(if program is adopted).
• Protect archeological resources. Explore development of local regulations to
complement state and federal ones. [Resources 5.3(c): LONG TERM].
• Strengthen and refine demolition rules. Seek to make the process smoother and more
inclusive. [Resources 5.3(d): INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Implementation 01/17/02 Page 7
• Explore "Battle Road Corridor Overlay District." Seek resources to make the entirety
of the Battle Road a recognizable and well-managed resource. [Resources 4.2:
INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Historic Districts Commission.
• Continue Revolutionary War documenting. Document, archive, and make educational
use of information from that era. [Resources 4.1: ONGOING].
Possible additional initiators/actors:Volunteers in a possible Special Study Committee.
INITIATORS TO BE DESIGNATED OR ORGANIZED
The following dozen or so actions are best carried out through efforts to be led by initiators not
yet formed or designated. In some cases the initiators may turn out to be an existing organization
with a new charge, or a short-duration special task group, or a new addition to the Town's
organizational structure.
DESIGNERS: GUIDING TOWN CHARACTER
The following are items to be initiated by a group having expertise at and interest in design and
management of Town character, created or identified as outlined above under"Planning Board."
• Explore "light" historic districts. Devise a light-handed means of helping to protect
historic resources in more areas of the Town, including relatively new ones. [Resources
5.2(a): LONG TERM].
Possible initiators/actors: Historic Districts Commission, Historical Commission, Planning Board, Design
Advisory Committee,special study committee.
• Strengthen diversity of neighborhood character. Explore how Zoning as well as
architectural controls can contribute to underscoring the diverse character of Lexington's
neighborhoods. [Land Use 2.6(d): INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible initiators/actors: Planning Board.
• Articulate Lexington's identity. Gateways might be given special character, and
identity-providing qualities might be supported throughout the Town making it a visually
identifiable place. [Resources 4.3: INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible initiators/actors: Planning Board,civic and service organizations.
• Protect "special places." Identify and then find means of protecting the special places
that contribute to the Town's character and attractiveness. [Resources 5.2(d): LONG
TERM].
• Avoid unbroken seas of asphalt. As proposed in Vision 2020, explore controls to
supplement current landscaping rules with requirements that will preclude large-scale
Implementation 01/17/02 Page 8
parking areas unbroken except by relatively modest landscaping, using buildings, grade
changes, and major landscaping to maintain appropriate scale. [Land Use 2.6(c):
INTERMEDIATE TERM].
• Strengthen preservation incentives. Zoning's incentives for preservation, though new,
might be strengthened to promote their use. [Resources 5.3(b): Intermediate Term].
Possible initiators/actors: CPA Committee if program adopted, Planning Board.
• Explore the Scenic Roads Act. Trees and stone walls along designated roads could get
special protection through this widely used Act. [Resources 5.2(c): LONG TERM].
• Explore a building materials recycling yard. Saving and finding new life for trim,
doors, mantels, and other useful items saved from inevitable demolition. [Housing 7.2:
LONG TERM].
SUPPORTING HOUSING DIVERSITY AND OPPORTUNITY
These items are to be initiated by a group having housing-related skills and interest in supporting
a diverse Lexington, created or identified as stated above under"Selectmen."
• Explore housing funding potentials. Regulations and good efforts need to be joined
with financial resources. Creative approaches need to be explored. [Housing 5.3:
ONGOING].
Possible initiators/actors: Selectmen, Planning Board, and LexHAB. CPA Committee(if
program is adopted).
• Joining a regional housing consortium. A number of Lexington's neighbors, through
having joined together, now gain funds otherwise unavailable. Lexington could do the
same. [Housing 5.2: LONG TERM].
• Support regional or State "linkage" explorations. This could provide a fair and
effective approach to addressing housing impacts of business development. [Housing 3.3:
ONGOING].
RESOURCE SAVERS: HELPING TO REDUCE WASTE
A group having resource conservation skills and interest in encouraging efficient use of
resources, identified or created as described above under"Selectmen," is to initiate the following
actions, which will also be closely related to the future Comprehensive Plan element on Public
Services and Facilities.
• Use Town facilities & operations as a demonstration of good resource efficiency and
waste reduction practices. Through its own example, the Town could encourage its
citizens and businesses to reduce costs through reducing solid waste generated, increasing
the recycling rate, or making use of renewable energy sources. [Land Use 2.5 (b);
Resources 3.1: ONGOING.1
Implementation 01/17/02 Page 9
Possible initiators/actors: Public Works, Selectmen.
• Consider providing incentives for development that has low non-renewable energy
demand and other resource-efficient design approaches. National green building
design standards such as LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) or
currently proposed Massachusetts green design standards could be included among the
special permit criteria by which projects are judged. The benefits to Lexington could
include improved air quality through reduced emissions, healthy interior environments,
and lower power requirements and costs, as well as making a contribution towards
broader environmental goals. [Land Use 2.5(a): LONG TERM]
• Develop educational materials to encourage home design that reduces environmental
impact. Information provided to prospective Lexington homeowners, builders and
lenders could explain the connections among how homes are sited, designed, and
constructed and their resulting impacts on land, wildlife, water, air, and community
character as well as on long term operating costs and global environmental deterioration.
[Housing 7.1: LONG TERM]
BUILDING BETTER BUSINESS
The Plan's action intentions for economic development emphasize "better, not bigger, and
continuation of directions already being taken, including the focusing of administrative efforts on
supporting retail activity in the Center. The following are to be undertaken through a group
created or identified by the Town Manager as stated above under"Town Manager."
• Flexible use change in the Center. Pursue revisions to cure the inadvertent obstacles
that Zoning creates for change of use within retailing in the Center. [Economic 2.2:
INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible initiators/actors: Economic Development Officer, Lexington Center Committee, Business
Roundtable.
• Help helpful businesses. Explore how best to encourage those businesses that serve local
residents, workers, businesses. [Land Use 2.6(e): ONGOING].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Economic Development Officer, Lexington Center Committee, Chamber
of Commerce.
• Support creation of a Business Improvement District. Such an organization would
bring together business interests in the Center to do collectively what they can't do
individually [Economic 2.3, Resources 3.2: INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Economic Development Officer, Lexington Center Committee, Chamber
of Commerce.
Implementation 01/17/02 Page 10
WITHIN THE FUTURE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The following actions identified in the first four elements of the evolving Comprehensive Plan
will gain stronger context and appropriateness for full consideration in the next phase of Plan
development when a Transportation Element is prepared later in the comprehensive planning
process in 2002-03. At that point, timing (near, intermediate, or long term) can be selected for
these items if they are still being proposed, and lead agencies and initiators identified.
EXPLORE ACHIEVING FEWER AND SHORTER AUTO TRIPS.
Rather than adapting roads to accommodate more cars we can shape development to produce
relatively less travel in relation to activity levels.
• Explore locating higher densities near retail and good transport. [Land Use 2.1(b),
Housing 1.2].
• Explore the feasibility and impact of transit-oriented design. Design rules can
facilitate alternative travel modes, especially for commercial and industrial development.
[Land Use 2.1(d), Economic 1.7].
• Trip generation density rules in Zoning. Explore measuring and controlling "density"
in trips per acre as well as in floor area per acre, then obliging high trip-density uses to
offset that with open space contributions. [Land Use 2.3(c), Resources 1.1(c)].
• Strengthen Transportation Demand Management(TDM). Lexington pioneered in
adopting TDM rules, but their limited effectiveness suggests various ways of
strengthening them, including regional approaches that are of a non-regulatory and pro-
active nature, and support for transit links, car/van pools, ride guarantees, zip car
franchises where there is critical mass, etc. [Land Use 2.1(c), Resources 2.2 and 2.3,
Economic 1.5, 1.6 and 1.8].
OTHER TRANSPORTATION-RELATED ACTIONS
• Accommodate tour buses. Visitor auto trips and parking demand can be reduced
through better bus transport. [Land Use 2.1(e)].
• Seek land use role at Hanscom. Perhaps the Town can act with some degree of
authority on some land use actions within Hanscom. [Land Use 2.6(b)].
Implement P4
January 16,2002
Implementation 01/17/02 Page 11
APPENDIX A: PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABILITY
During the course of this comprehensive planning process, the concept of sustainability and how
the Town might orient policies and practices more in its direction have been extensively
explored. Groups of citizens and officials, in brainstorming how to pursue sustainability, noted
that many of the early proposals emerging from the planning process already moved in the
direction of a scientifically based framework of sustainability principles. In fact, the Town
currently acts in a number of ways that strongly support those principles, LEXPRESS being a
prominent long-established example, PAYT being a prominent new one. Using that framework
of sustainability principles to further organize and clarify actions,participants in that
brainstorming then identified additional supporting proposals.
To move in the direction of sustainability, activities need to be oriented to meet our human needs
efficiently, fairly, and within the means of nature to support those needs. Natural systems—
ecosystems, water, forests, and our atmosphere—are deteriorating at a rate faster than they can be
renewed and replenished. That is occurring largely due to our increasing encroachment upon
and degradation of those natural resources. Encroachment occurs through using up land, water,
woods, and natural habitats faster than those can be recreated. Degradation occurs through our
increasing release into nature of man-made substances, fossil fuel emissions, and other elements
from below the Earth's surface faster than natural systems can reabsorb and break them down.
At the same time, our consumption habits and patterns, as well as population as a whole, are
increasing regionally, nationally, and globally. These two trends—deteriorating natural systems
on the one hand, and rising consumption and population on the other—are like two sides of a
funnel which are converging upon each other. To stabilize, if not reverse, these trends we need
to find more efficient ways to meet human needs fairly, while reducing dependence upon those
activities that are encroaching upon and degrading natural systems.
Four principles can guide our actions to move in this direction. Those principles are based upon
several years of scientific discussion and consensus about what needs to happen to reorient
human activity toward a sustainable society'. The principles are:
1)Meet human needs fairly and efficiently, giving priority to basic needs: In what ways
can we more efficiently and fairly meet the needs of citizens and the needs of the
community—needs such as housing,jobs, food, mobility, municipal services, affordable
taxes, and quality of life?
2) Reduce dependence upon fossil fuels, underground metals and minerals: In what ways
can we meet needs for energy,heating and cooling buildings, moving about from home to
work to shopping while reducing dependence upon fossil fuels? How can we change to
practices that use fewer or no toxic and non-degradable substances such as mercury, lead,
and cadmium?
The principles are based upon The Natural Step approach to sustainability,developed by a group of Swedish scientists led by an
oncologist -Dr.Karl-Henrik Robert. This approach is also the basis of the guiding objectives of the American Planning
Association's Policy Guide Planning for Sustainability.
Appendix A 01/17/02 Page 1
3) Reduce dependence upon chemicals and synthetic compounds: In what ways can we
landscape, garden, farm, build, use or create products and services at home and work, that
reduce or eliminate use of chemical and synthetic substances?
4)Reduce encroachment upon nature: In what ways can we plan and design development
that minimizes encroachment on nature including undeveloped land, woods, and wildlife
habitat, and the quantity and quality of water?
Throughout the Comprehensive Plan we have sought to respect and address those principles.
Doing so is not just a locally altruistic gesture towards a global concern, but rather commonly
involves a local action that is of local benefit as well as making some contribution at larger
scales. For example, LEXPRESS modestly improves Lexington's air quality, but more
importantly to many, it contributes to the mobility of some residents who can't drive, and by
offering transportation choice enhances the quality of life in Lexington, while also serving more
global concerns by reducing reliance on fossil fuels and chemicals. That conjunction of local
and larger-than-local benefits can be noted throughout this Plan in actions that meet the
sustainability principles.
App-A
January 13,2002
Appendix A 01/17/02 Page 2
APPENDIX B: (Reserved for Public Comment)
Appendix B 01/17/02 Page 1