Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-10-06 Local Growth Policy.rpt oJS MORN /~G Town of Lexington, Massachusetts PLANNING BOARD Kenneth G. Briggs October 6, 1976 TOWN OFFICE BUILDING Planning Director Lexington, MA 02173 6171862-05001Ext. 24 7 7 Mr. Frank T. Keefe, Director Office of State Planning T­ John W. McCormack Building Room 201 One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 Dear Mr. Keefe: In accordance with Chapter 807 of the Acts of 1975, the Town of Lexington Local Growth Policy Committee hereby submits to the Office of State Planning its tentative Growth Policy statement. As noted on the enclosed legal notice, to be published in the Lexington Minuteman, the public hearing on this statement will be held on October 21, 1976. The final statement will be completed and forwarded to your office following the hearing. Sincerely, enneth G. Briggs Planning Director KGB:ms enclosures (2) cc: MAPC w-T'o Clerk PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE TOWN OF LEXINGTON _. LOCAL GRO14TH POLICY COMMITTEE Pursuant to the Massachusetts Growth Policy Development Act, Chapter 807 of the Acts of 1975, the Lexington Growth Policy Committee will hold a public hearing in Room G -7, Town Office Building, on October 21, 1976, at 8 p.m.. The subject of the hearing will be to discuss the Committee's tentative response to a question- naire from the Office of State Planning, as required by the Act. Copies of the tentatively completed Questionnaire are on file with the Town Clerk's Office, and at the Cary Memorial and East Lexington Branch libraries. Eric T. Clarke, Chairman Lexington Growth Policy Committee 'E' ED 1973 OCT - 6 All 10: 4 9 OVS "ORA), O O ti 9 3 AGRIt IQ *it tE . Lexington Local Growth Policy Statement F Prepared by j The Local Growth Policy Committee Growth Management Problems and Priorities Pursuant to The Massachusetts Growth Policy Development Act - Ch. 807, Acts of 1975 October 1976 C - Ir Massachusetts Town of Lexington, PLANNING BOARD Kenneth G. Briggs TOWN OFFICE BUILDING Planning Director Lexington, MA 02173 61 7186 2- 05 0 01Ext. 24 TOWN OF LEXINGTON LOCAL GROWTH POLICY COMMITTEE Eric T. Clarke Lexington Planning Board Fred C. Bailey Lexington Board of Selectmen Angela E. Frick Lexington Conservation Commission James W. Lambie Lexington Board of Health Daniel P. Busa Lexington Recreation Committee Elizabeth W. Reinhardt Lexington Historical Commission George P. Wadsworth Lexington School Committee Mary E. Shunney Lexington Housing Authority Kenneth G. Briggs Planning Director Robert W. Connelly 87 Simonds Road Susan C. Hodgkins 33 Prospect Hill Road Frank Sandy 353 Emerson Road Donald D. Wilson 36 Fern Street PART I 1:1 General Description of Past Growth, Development, and Change: Describe briefly below what has been happening (or not happening), in terms of growth and develop- ment, to you community over the last ten to fifteen years. ....... General description of growth. Population - The highest growth period, in terms of population occurred between 1950 and 1960. The population went from 17,098 to 27,920 in that period, an increase of 61%. The population levelled out at 31,338 in 1965, with only a .9 percent increase in the last 12 years. Housing - The housing in Lexington is primarily single family residential, with only approximately 10% of the units being multi - family dwellings. The number of new housing units constructed between 1966 and 1976 showed a decrease of approximately 60% from the previous 10 year period. Commercial - There has been a shifting from the general C.B.D. type of activity (I.E., department stores) to the specialty shop within the Town Center over the last 10 years. The Town has only experienced limited commercial growth during this period. Industrial -- Industrial growth has increased significantly within the Route 2 and Route 128 corridors over the past 10 years. This growth has been limited extensively to light manufacturing, corporate and business activities. Conservation - The Conservation Commission is very active and has acquired 417 acres of land over the last 13 years. The Commission was voted a two million dollar bond by the 1975 Town Meeting for additional purchases. Agriculture - The farm land is slowly diminishing to the point that there are only 30 - 40 small truck farms left in the Town, where there used to be hundreds 1:2 Factors Influencing Growth, Development, and Change: There are a variety of factors which might have had a signifcant influence on your commmunity's growth, development, and change in the past. Some of these factors may have stimulated growth, while others may have served to discourage or deter growth. A number of possible factors are listed below. Please indicate whether you feel that each of these factors either: (a) stimulated or encouraged growth; (b) discouraged or deterred growth; (c) had a mixed influence (encour- aging or discouraging only certain kinds of growth, or growth only at certain locations); (d) had no significant noticeable influence on growth; or (e) it is hart; to say what influ- ence it has had on the community's growth. (Again, we are not yet asking you whether that impact was good or bad.) +- i L 7 L C3 • C N }o - D +- o+_ 'o Factors o 0 o m o z. '� w L> (Check one alongside each): � as o z° C 0 Changing birth rates -------------------------------------- 0 /- - -- / -_ El ---- ❑ ---- ❑ Regional development patterns ---------------------------- i- ° -_ ❑ ____ ❑ ____ p ____ ❑ Development in neighboring communities_________ __________ ❑ ---- ❑ ___-4 __- ❑ __ -- ❑ Local property tax rates------------ ------------- -- - - - - -- ❑ - - -- ❑ - - -- V - -- ❑ - - -- ❑ Availability of water supply ----------------------------- ❑ - - -- ❑ - - -- ❑ - - -- ❑ Availability of sewers ----------------- ------------------ - -- ❑ - - -- ❑ - - -- ❑ - - -- ❑ Availability of solid waste disposal facilities ---------- ❑ - -__ ❑ ___- ❑ - -__ V___ ❑ Local zoning ---------------------------------------------- ---- ❑ ° - -_ ❑ - --- ❑ - - -- ❑ Local subdivision regulations ---------------------------- - Availability of developable land ------------------------- ❑ ---- ❑ _ -__ ____ ❑ ____ ❑ Availability of redevelopable land or buildings---- - - - - -- ❑ - - -- ❑ - - -_ V /____ ❑ ___- ❑ Regional highway network ___ __ _______ ____________ ___ ______ ®/____ ❑ ---- ❑ ---- ❑ ---- ❑ Nearby highway interchanges ------------- r_______- __ - -__- ❑ ---- ❑ __ -_ ❑ ___❑ Local street network ------------------------------------- � --- ❑ - - --❑ - - - - 0 7 _ ❑ Railroads--------°------------------------- -------- - - - - -- El -- -- ❑ ---- ❑ --- -V - - -- ❑ Rapid transit services------ ----- --------------- --- - -- --- 11 ---- ❑ ---- V ___p ____ ❑ - Character of local schools------------------------- - - - - -- V 0 - - - -❑ ---- 111 - - -- El - Quality of other local services-- ______ -°------------- - - ____ ❑ ____❑ ---- ❑ ---- ❑ "Character" of community--------------------------- -- - - -- ❑ - --- ❑ - - -- ❑ ---- ❑ "Character" of region------- ------------------- ------ - - - - -- ❑ - - -- ❑ ---- ❑ - --- ❑ Environmental quality of the community ----- - - - - -- Environmental quality of the region______ _____ ___________ ---- ❑ ____ p ---- ❑ ---- ❑ Recreational facilities____ _______ __ _____ ___ __ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ ❑ - -_- ❑ ---- Cl-----o Preserved open space------ ----- --------- --------- -- - - - - -- p/--° ❑ - - -- ❑ ---- ❑ ---- 11 Socio- economic factors ----------------------------------- ❑ ---- ❑ ---- C1 - -_- ❑ Cultural facilities---------------------- ------------- -- - 0 ---- ❑ - - -- ❑ ---- ❑ Nearby shopping facilities -- ------ ------ ----------- - - - - -- pr ---- ❑ ---- ❑ ---- ❑ ---- ❑ Nearby job opportunities---------- --------- ------- - - - - - -- V- - -- ❑ ---- ❑ ---- ❑ ---- ❑ Laborforce--------------- ----- ---- -- -- ---- ---- ---- - - - - -- ❑ __ -- ❑ ---- ❑ _ -_- ❑ ---- ❑ Environmental regulations---- - - -- Availability of health care------------------------ - -- --- E( - - - -❑ - --- 11----o -- - -❑ Other: ----------- ---------- - - - - -- � - - -❑ - - - -❑ ---- ❑ ---- [I Comments (if any): 1.3 Which of these factors has had the most significant influence on growth, development, and change in the past? Two factors stand out as having had the most significant influence on growth, development and change in the past: character of the local schools (90 %) and character of the community (80 %). About half the replies considered develop- able land, environmental quality of the community, regional highway networks, and local zoning as being important. Other items considered important by more than one respondent were regional development patterns, local property tax rates, changing birth rates, and nearby job opportunities. It is interesting that the two designations of "character" captured many more votes than did the much more specific items that go to make up that character. We generally agree qualitatively on what it was that influenced the Town, but have more difficulty articulating its specific components. 1:4 Which of these factors (from 1:2) might by subject to change in the future? All of these factors are clearly subject to some change. However, those which are likely to change enough to appreciably affect Lexington's growth will be schools, developable land, job opportunities in the surrounding area and the local tax rate. 1:5 Analvsis of the impact of Past Growth. Development. and Chances: Past growth has created a middle and upper middle class bedroom community with most residents working outside of the Town. Development of business and service industries has been discouraged. The reputation of the school system (deserved or otherwise) and other attractive features of the Town greatly increased the demand for housing raising property values and screening out low income residents. Rapid growth resulted in large capital outlays for increased Town services and caused an escalating tax rate. As growth threatened environmental quality, the character of the Town, and maintenance of open space, the community responded by becoming increasingly conservation minded. Although more open land has been preserved in Lexington than in most communities inside Route 128, development has progressed too rapidly for a really successful preservation program as has occurred elsewhere in this region. Lexington is now approaching the end of its growth as available, buildable land is nearly used up. Further significant growth can occur only if zoning permits more multiple housing. ID 1:6 The following list of possible concerns might have been impacted by past growth, development, and change. Indicate below whether these issues are of concern to your community, and if # are, what the impact of growth has been upon those issues. a - - - - -- -The impact has been------- - 1 € B t B R _ B t O o Consider the impact of past = i o tn z growth, development, and change �° i a G (D (D c cn c upon the following (below): B L L a 0 — °'r o U ua L C— rc (a ui m m E B + C B Q3 Ll (p U3 O) E C1 C L Q LL CJ a_ z O z - 0 O a. Available Opportunities: Jobs: Construction ------------------- ❑ _ ®V _ _ -_- 0 ---- ❑ ___ �_ ❑ --- ❑ Permanent: Blue-collar --------- �❑ _ _❑ __ ❑ ____ 2 ,t--- C3 ___0 - -- 0 --- ❑ Permanent: White-collar ----------- 0 ❑ ____ ❑ _ -__ ❑ ___ 0 ___ 0 ___0 Housing: Lower-Cost -------------------- ❑ __ -__❑ -_ ❑ - - -- ❑ - - - - -_ ❑ -__ ❑ --- ❑ Medium-Cost ------------------- 0 _ _ ❑ __ ❑ __ -_ C1 ____ _❑ ___ ❑ --- ❑ Higher - Cost-------------- - - - - -0 - --0 - ❑---- ❑---- ❑---❑- - - ❑ - - -❑ Elderly----------------------- Cl -- ❑-- --- ❑---- ❑ --- ❑ --- ❑ --- ❑ Families__ _____ ____ ______ ❑ _- 11-- Recreation------------------------------- ❑ --�_ / -- -❑-- � --- ❑ ---- ❑ --- ❑ --- ❑___0 Shopping --------------------------------- ❑ - L7 °' - -V ❑ - - -- 0 - - -- 0 - -- ❑ - -- 0 - -- 0 Other: -------- El __ ❑ ---- 0_0 - -_- ❑ ____❑ - -_ 0 - -_ ❑ __- 0 b. Natural and Environmental Resources: Water q u a l i t y ----- -- ----- ----------- - - - - -0 - ^Iy --- ❑ - - -- 0 - - - -0 - - -0 --- El - - -0 Present a v a i l a b l e water supply ----------- ❑ _ _0­0 ---- 0 ---- ❑ -__ 0 --- ❑ --- ❑ Future water supply (that is, aquifers, aquifer recharge areas, potential reser- voir sites )----------- -------- ---- - - - - -0­54/ - -0 - -te-' - ❑ - - - -0 ---0 --- C1 - - -0 Wetlands --------------------------------- 0 -- V, - - -❑ - -E -- ❑ - - - °0 - - -0 --- ❑ --- ❑ Prime agriculatural lands-------- - - - - -- ❑_ _� --- ❑__❑ ---- 0 ---- &0t__ ❑ --- ❑ --- ❑ Open space, scenic vistas ------- - - - - -- - - - - -❑ ----- ❑ Air - -❑ --- ❑ - - -❑ - - -❑ quality ---- ---- °--------- - - :::Cl -❑ --- q y- - - - - -- - - -❑ -- ❑ - - -- ❑ - - -- ❑ - -- 0 -- 0 °-0 Mineral resources (e.g., gravel, coal)-- --r,/' ❑-- ❑ ---- ❑ ---- 0 --- ❑ --- ❑ --- ❑ W i l d l i f e habitats ------------------------ ❑ - -5 - - -❑ -- ❑ - --- ❑ - - -- 0---V -- 0 --- ❑ F I oodp i a i n s- ------ --------------- --- - - - - -0 -- --- C -° ❑ - - -- 0 - - - -V— - 0 - -- ❑ ---❑ Coastal areas, stream /river banks -------- ❑_ _ ---- ❑- _❑ ---- ❑ ---- 0___l --- ❑ --- ❑ Other: --- - - -- -0 --❑ - -- ❑ ❑ -__° ❑ - - - -❑ - --0 ---❑ - - -0 c. Character and I dent i tv of the Commun i tv - -0 --,g- - —f ❑ ____ ❑ ____ ❑ ___❑ ___ ❑ --- ❑ d. Fiscal Costs and Benefits ---------------- ❑ _�/_ -_- _ 0 _ -__ 0 ____ ❑ ___ ❑ _ -_ 0 - -_ ❑ e. Other: -------- 0­0 - - - - _ -__ ❑ ____ ❑ --- 0___0 ___ 0 0 1:7 Would vou.sav that the overall impact of growth, development, and change has been (multiple choice): MIXED 1:8 Why is the overall impact seen as good or bad? That is, are there Z,oals which past growth and change has or has not supported? Goals which have or have not been supported by past growth: a. Good residential community has survived in spite of rapid growth. b. Low and moderate income housing did not get provided for. c. Employment in town did not grow proportionately. d. Middle and upper classes were attracted to town at the expense of loss of farmland. e. Excellent school system threatened by too rapid growth. f. Open land reduced by growth. 401:9 Could any of the negative impacts of growth, development, and change have been avoided? Were some of the negative impacts inevitable, or, acceptable in light of other community goals? The school system sustained the most serious damage during this period. It would be better now if we had been a little less eager to change it and to innovate. Earlier preservation of open space Requirement for parking provisions by businesses in Lexington Center An earlier, more developed sensitivity to the quality of land and environment might have enhaced a concern for more balanced land use program /better use/ and improved zoning decisions. Better control of construction in marginal lands (wetlands) If community prosperity is the only goal being considered, then Lexington has not yet suffered from its growth. However, this alone is an inadequate goal. 1:10: Residential Growth, Development, and Change: Describe the residential growth, development, and change of your community over the last ten to fifteen years ..... 1:10 Residential development has declined sharply over the last 20 years, as illustrated in the table below: Year Single Family Two Family Apartment Units Condo Units 1975 47 22 20 14 1974 47 -- - 17 1973 57 - - 1972 62 2 34 ° 1971 59 2 - 1970 73 - ° 1969 73 ° ° - 1968 110 2 1967 136 2 ° 1966 112 2 2 1965 148 8 114 ° 1964 133 2 98 1963 121 - 2 ° 1962 137 2 58 ° 1961 168 - - ° 1960 224 8 ° 1959 233 8 1958 233 8 1957 217 - 1956 308 - TOTAL 2,698 68 328 31 During the --M year period from- 1956'to 1966, 1,955 building permits were issued for the construction of all residential development. During the period from 1956 to 1966, only 783 permits were issued, or a decrease of approximately 603. Of the 868 residential units constructed between 1966 and 1975, 89.43 were single family homes with apartments and two family homes representing 10.63. The same was true between 1956 and 1966, when 86.13 of the construction was of single family homes 1:11 What has been the impact of that residential growth, development, and change? Consider in particular the impact upon: available opportunities, natural and environmental resources, the character and identity of the community, and the fiscal costs and benefits (as outlined in Question 1.6). Despite a rapid growth, Lexington has maintained its general character as a bedroom community during this period. Large capital_ outlays were necessary-for new schools, educational costs and broadening Town services. Thus, land values greatly increased, causing some changes in the character and identity of the Town Increased benefits were not commensurate with the increased costs since the expansion was so rapid. 1:12 Commercial Growth, Development, and Change: Describe the commercial growth, development, and change in your community over the last ten to fifteen years.... There has been a limited amount of commercial growth in Lexington in the last 10 years. This is due primarily to a resistance of the Town to rezone residential land to commercial. In the downtown area, there seems to be a transition from general business activities such as department stores to specialty shops and institutions. The only other significant commercial growth outside the downtown area has been on the Lexington /Bedford and Lexington /Arlington borders. I:13 What has been the impact of that commercial growth, development, and change? Commercial growth within town boundaries seems to have been very limited. Office space near the Center has been added, but no notable increase in the variety or number of shops has been made. What has appeared in East Lexington, along Bedford Street, at the intersection of Waltham and Marrett or of Lowell and Woburn has been of an obnoxiously cheap variety unbalanced by greater choice or better quality in the Center. Lack of quality in a town with as well- educated and well -paid a population as Lexington's has probably not limited growth but could affect the commercial health of the town. 1:14 Industrial Growth, Development, and Change: Describe the industrial growth, development, and change in your community over the last the to fifteen years..... Industrial growth in the last 10 years has developed primarily in three areas, research & development (i.e. Itek), light manufacturing (i.e. Honeywell), and corporate and business headquarters (i.e. Kennecott Copper). These have developed along the Route 2 and Route 128 corridors. There have been approximately 18 new companies which have located in Lexington within the last 10 years, with a majority within the last 5 years. ® 1:15 W at has been the im Pact of that industrial growth, development and change: Local industry is all of the "desirable" sort, i.e. non - polluting, not requiring either masses of low -paid labor or great mechanical installations, has been en- tirely beneficial. More local jobs have been made available; the natural environ- ment has been unthreatened by the corporate headquarters and clean operations of these publishing and electronics companies which have been established in town; tax benefits to the town probably are greater than would have been the case had the land been developed for single - family residences with all the concommitant necessary charges to the town. 1:16 Existing Physical Conditions: Have there been significant changes in existing physical conditions -in your commirity over the last ten to fifteen , years ?...... NO 1:18 Social and Economic Changes: Has your community undergone any significant social and/or economic changes over the last ten to fifteen years ?............ The changes of the last ten to fifteen years have been a development of changes beginning immediately after World War II. The town continues to attract middle- and upper - middle class people seeking homes in a clean, well established community. Property values have risen as land disappeared. 1:19 Development in Neighboring Communities: Has development or development - related. activity in neighboring over the last ten to fifteen years had any significant impact upon your community ?... Growth in neighboring communities has begun to eliminate any sense of differgntiation along town borders. We are all part of the continuing metropolitan expansion of the suburbs. Lexington has at times felt pressured by what it considers to be less desirable land use along the boundaries by the neighbors such as Arlington with a much higher settlement density or Woburn or Waltham both with older, more heavily industrialized traditions. 1:20 Conservation Efforts: In 1964, the Lexington Conservation Commission was established. In the past 10 years the Commission has acquired a total of 417 acres. Additional parcels are presently being negotiated and have been approved by Town Meeting. The Commission holds a variety of lands, about 40% being wetlands. Conservation lands of varying sizes are distributed throughout the Town making a valuabel contribution to Lexington's open space inventory. Presently, there are approximately 1000 acres of Town -owned open space of all types. These lands are considered significant in preserving Lexington's character. Additionally, many important wet areas have been protected in this manner. In 1974, the Conservation Commission hired a full - time Conseration Administrator. By FY 1975 -76, Town Meeting had authorized a $2 million bond issue for conservation purchases, with specific expenditures to be voted in two to three years. 1:21 State and Federal Transportation Investments State and federal transportation investments over the last ten to fifteen years have not been deemed to have had a significant impact upon Lexington. The conversion of Route 2 to a limited access highway has improved traffic flow; however, other components in the proposed access system (Alewife Brook Parkway, Inner Belt, etc.) have not been completed. Therefore, a significant improvement in travel time or access from Lexington to Cambridge and Boston has not occurred. No mass transit improvements. Ch. 90 funds have provided for the improvement of at least five arterials in the last 10 -15 years, though these im- provements have not had a significant impact (and in no case included additional lanes). 1 :22 Federal, State & Regional Water & Sewer Investment Proarams f Nothing in the way of water supply. Approximately $1.25 million spent E water pollution control projects from 1969 -1974 - approximately 55% paid for by the Federal Water Quality Administration and 25% by the Massachusetts Department of Water Resources (Division of Water Pollution Control). The I following projects allowed the Town to comply with clean water standards: refurbishing of the North Lexington Pumping Station, construction of the Hamilton Road relief sewer and Valley Road force main. Lexington's com- mitment to sewerage has provided a moderate incentive to growth. 1.23 Housing: Since 1968- Lexington has benefited the housing needs of the low - moderate income elderly through participation in - State 667 when the Town constructed_Cree -le-y Villege, consisting -o€ one: hundred -_gone bedroom units, and in 1973, built Vinebrook Villege accomodating forty eight one bedroon,udits. Lexington has continued to serve the low-moderate.income community. by enrollments•in.State 705 I Rehabilitation Program-being awarded $ 350.,000.00 for same.:Undex_-:105. II the.Town -.was granted $1,000,000 for. scattered- rsite;housing twenty -fsvL­ family homes on tax title lots. Unfortunately both 705 program funds commitments are currently frozen by State authority owing to State budget considerations. The Town has: ten units enrolled under State 707 rental assistance program, two of which are funded through the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency. From the time of its initial enrollments into State rental housing programs Lexington has maintained nearly 100% rental achievements. St. Brigid's Church of Lexington, acting under or together with The Office of Urban Affairs of Boston, Massachusetts, with Chapter 40 B and Chapter 774, was granted a decision by the Department of Community Affairs Housing Appeals Committee for the issuance of a comprehensive permit for the construction of sixteen townhouse units totaling forty eight bedrooms.Construction has not yet begun. The Town of Lexington's Goals & Objectives Committee acting under the authority given it by Town Meeting Action approval of Article 86,1974, was formed to evaluate the Town's future direction and commitments. Emerging from this study.was concern to further encourage housing policies and zoning ordinances which would provide - greater opportunity for social & economic heterogeneity in the community through housing accomodations for low- moderate income people including the elderly, young marrieds, and town employees. Specific methods to accomplish these goals & objectives have not been developed. 1:24 ` Zoning: When was the last substantial revision to your zoning done? 1974 d 8:25 Does your present zoning bylaw or ordinance include any of the following (check as many as are appropriate): N // Flood plain provisions. ❑ Phased or timed growth provisions.. ` V provisions. ❑ Ep�,_-tcific nsferrahle development rights. ° t_Planned unit development provisions. o plan review. �pecific wetlands districts or restrictions. restrictions near water bodies, VConservancy districts. rivers, streams, or coastal areas. ❑ Other important provisions: agricultural land protection. 1:26 Do� , es�your zoning presently (check as many as apply): Co Allow apartments in specific districts. ❑ Allow commercial development along major ❑ Allow apartments generally throughout the arterials.("strip commercial develop - community. yy ment). ❑ Allow apartments only on special permit €!'Allow commercial development only in speci- _ (as an "exception "). fic well- defined areas. ❑ Not allow apartments. ❑ Regarding commercial development, other,' ❑ Regarding apartments, other: ❑ For most of the undeveloped land, allow ❑ Have large undeveloped areas zoned for housing only at very low densities / industry. (one acre or more per dwelling). €�f'Nave limited areas (mostly already devel— F r a significant amount of the undevel- oped) zoned for industry. oped land, allow housing at a medium ❑ Regarding industria €'development, other: density (less than one acre per dwell- ing). ❑ Other key use regulations: . ❑ Regarding single - family development, other: _ 1:27 Has your community's zoning been relatively successful in avoiding "detrimental" development, yet allowing (or encouraging) "sound development "? It is the opinion of the Lexington Growth and Development Policy Committee that Lexington's zoning has been relatively successful in avoiding "detrimental" development. However, one criticism is that more emphasis should have been directed to commercial areas. 1:28 Subdivision Regulations: When was the last major revision to your subdivision regulations done? January, 1967. 1:29 Has vour community's subdivision regulations been relatively successful in avoidi "detrimental" development. vet allowing "sound" development? Generally, yes. Some feel the Planning Board waives its subdivision regulations too freely without obtaining concessions from the developer that would improve the quality of the development in ways that are not required by subdivision control. 1:30 Open Space Acquisition See 1:20. In the past 10-15 years ten cluster subdivisions (PUD's)-fiave been built yielding a combined total of 60 acres of open space. Within the-past 10.years two new elementary schools and one new junior high have been built. Four new tennis courts and other recreational lands are available to the pub- lic as adjuncts to the schools. Other minor public lands of various types have been purchased by the Town,.though.the vast majority of open space ac- ` quisitions predate the time frame. The Conservation Commission, in addition to regular purchases, does hold ease- iaents_under­various arrangements. Of the $1,079,592 spent on conservation land from 1964 to 1974, $466,012 was financed by the Town; $278,174 by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and $335,406 by the federal government. 0 1.31 Historic Preservation: The Lexington Historic District Commission was established under charter by The Acts of 1956, Chapter 447, thereafter amended by Chapter 185 of 1958 and Chapter 579 of 1966. The Lexington Historic Districts Commission was established to promote the educational, cultural, economic, and general welfare of the public through the preservation, protection, and maintenance of historic buildings, places, and districts. The Commission consists of five members and two associate members. Initially the Lexington Historic Districts included three districts known as Battle Green, Hancock-Clark, and Munroe Tavern, and in 1966 the East Villege District was included. All the districts are shown and appropriately delineated on Lexington's official zoning map being superimposed over other districts and otherwise described within the aforementioned recorded instruments. The total land area of the districts consists of over two hundred acres and more than two miles of roads, several hundred structures includin churches, libraries, and other public buildings. The zoning within the Districts affecting the uses and occupancies of said land includes both single & multi-family residence, general and central business districts. An effective and operative commission since.1956,..the--Lexington Historic District Commission has experienced increasing numbers of applications for determinations on certificates of appropriateness. Since 1971 the Commission has-received over one hundred and sixty applications affecting amoung them such uses as homes, churches, restuarants, bakery & ice cream shops, travel agency, gas station, motor inn, stationer, arts & crafts shop, cinemas, an auto dealer, insurance & real estate firms banks, and many others. Legally enrolled in The National Register of Historic Places are the Buckman.Tavern,.Uancock-Clare. House, and the Hancock School. Pending - applications-before The National Register are the Simonds Tavern, Munroe Tavern, Sanderson House, Follen Church, East Branch of Lexington Library, and all buildings and to the Lexington Green. 1:32 Vrban Renewal: Has yo ur community undertaken any urban renewal activities? NO 401:33 _4ave there been any other actions taken by your community to prevent/dis- courage_ negative growth, dis - investment, or the deterioration of existing develop- went? ..... NO ° 411:34 Comprehensive Planning: Has your community undertaken any comprehensive planning efforts in the recent past (e.g. a master plan)? Yes, but not in the recent past. Updating is now underway: Goals and Objectives Study. 401:35 Planning Staff: Does your community have professional planning staff? Yes, full time (4). Has your community utilized planning consultants? Yes, intermittently. 1:36 have the comprehensive planning studies and vour professional staff been effective in influencing decisions make by your community, or in some other respect ?... Opinion is mixed on the influence of planning studies and staff on community decisions. Certain items, such as the Metcalf & Eddy Report, have been used as a constructive guide by Town Meeting members, boards and committees, etc., for quite a few years and provided a common, solid base for decision- making. The failures of planning influences have been spectacular, as in the thwarted com- pletion of Emerson and Worthen roads, and one can always see the triumph of emotion over reason every time Lexington Center parking is discussed by Town Meeting. On balance, the Town probably acts in accord with the planners` recommendations more than it rejects their positions. 1:37 Other Local Actions: Have there been any other significant actions taken ]jy the community in response to the issues (or potential issues) raised by growth, development, and change ?.... An active conservation land purchase program, adoption of a new multi - housing zoning category to ensure better control by the town for improved land use development, and enforcement by the conservation commission of the wetlands protection act have been significant actions taken by the community in response to growth related issues, 1:38 F would you rate the overall effectiveness of these local responses to growth related issues? Relatively successful as a whole. 1:39 What have been the major reasons behind what your community has done (and hasn't done) in the past to control growth and development? X61 Existence (sue -laek) of professional planning staff. (4 checked) #2 Concern for permitting only those uses which would have a positive impact (that is., lower) the local property tax rate. (2 checked) #3 Environmental concerns. (8 checked) #4 Concern for allowing individuals to decide the "best`® use for their own land. (2 checked) #5 Economic development (2 checked) #6 Social values (5 checked) #7 Availability of money to achieve desired goal (2 checked) #8 Efforts to maintain the "status quo relative to other nearby communities (2 checked) X69 Preserving the character of the community (7 checked) #10 Restrictive State laws (1 checked) #11 Lack of sufficient State laws (I checked) OF NINE RESPONSES Which of these has been most important? !Preserving character of community J Money Preserving the community's character has prevailed, although tax and economic 1conderns have been strong influences toward commercial development. Preserving the charater & identity of the community, efforts to maintain status quo, environmental concerns, availability of money to achieve these goals. I Environmental concerns. Preserving the character of the Town. I Efforts to maintain status quo. 1:40 Problems and Opportunities Presented by Past Growth, Development, and Change: The Committee feels that two major problems, of equal importance, posed by growth and development and change over the last ten to fifteen years are schools and lack of open space. Next in importance is lack of housing for low and moderate income families and lack of transportation. Other problems include traffic, solid waste, wetlands protection, police and fire protection, and overloading of recreational facilities. Comments - Part I The most urgent problem facing Lexington is the need for a permanent solu- tion for the disposal of solid waste. Ultimate and significant decisions will -have to be made on a regional basis. Potential expansion of air traffic into Hanscom Air base could be an urgent concern for Lexington. Again, any significant action will be affected by coordinated planning and input with other involved communities. Protection of wetlands, sup - port for open land acquisition conservation and are ongoing - opportunities of the community to achieve a proper balance between open space and developed land. Past residential growth has seen the development of primarily high cost single family homes. While the con- cept of low and moderate income housing has been a stated goal of Lexing- ton, it has not been achieved. A more "heterogeneous" housing mix will be needed in order to respond to the overall housing needs of the region. Other segments of the community have been excluded in housing opportuni- ties, i.e., young married and the retired citizen all in need of moderate - ly priced multi -unit dwellingm- Cluster zoning (PUD) seems to offer best prospect for preserving open space and the new RU zoning permits the Town - to maintain control over development proposals. These could be opportuni- ties for positive growth. While critical decisions concerning transporta- tion appear outside the jurisdiction of a town (Red Line), planning for the possible impact as well as alternatives should be developed at the local level. PART II 2:1 Assets and Liabilities: In terms of where your community is now and what it could become, what are your community's most significant assets and liabilities? List up to six of each. Although there is no most significant overwhelming concensus on Lexington's assets, there are some clear trends of opinion. Most respondents (5 of 7) listed open space or a variation thereof (good control of environment, country atmosphere). Nearly half (3) considered good schools, recreation, and an active, concerned, talented citizenry as significant assets. More than one (2) person listed zoning controls, character of community, accessibility to highways, proximity to Boston, and historical significance.; Several public services (police, sewer, water) public facilities, and economic good health received one vote each. There was much more diffusion in the perception of Lexington's significant liabilities. Four of seven replies mentioned transportation - either public or overloaded streets, but no other item received more than one mention. Some of these others were special needs housing, present waste disposal system, proximity to Hanscom Field, lack of industry and jobs in service related industry,and high cost of homes. Also, strangely enough (in view of the asset listing), the following were all listed as significant liabilities: poor land condition, quality of the environment, wetlands, vulnerability to overdevelopment, and limited open space. 2:2 NO ANSWERS 2:3 Because of its place in American history, Lexington has a strong sense of local identity which influences many of its values and goals. When functioning as an asset this sense of identity reinforces maintaining the rural open character of the town and thus is a spur to an active commitment to conservation and historic preservation. This same sense of identity has a tendency to be a liability in that it limits responsiveness to contemporary design, no matter how high the quality and reinforces the proliferation of phony Colonial subdivisions. It also functions to obstruct careful consideration of the implications of the size of Lexington's population in relation to its need for a commercial and industrial mix to supplement the residential tax base. 2:4 General Description of Expectations for the Future: Describe below what appears to you to be most likely to happen to your community over the next twenty years, in terms of growth, development,and change. 2.4 Conserning what appears to us to be most likely to happen in Lexington in the way of growth, development and change over the next twenty years, the growth committee believed: a. Commercial and industrial growth will gradually cease as the community completes its physical growth and as a predominantly residential town, exerts more effective resistance toward the expansion of such activities. b. Residential "growth will probably be primarily in the areas of multiple housing and condominiums. C. The population will stabilize primarily with older or more affluent residents with fewer children. d. In character Lexington will become a bedroom town for Boston. e. Affluent residents will lead to a greater demand for services resulting in high tax rates in spite of probably high assessments. f. A gradual reduction of the amount of farm and open land can be expected. g. The committee foresees relatively little control of design or other control measures that would be of long -range benefit. h. Generally, the committee believes there will be relatively little growth to a "terminal suburb" for escapees from more densely populated areas. 2:5 In what important respects could a range of things occur? Are there certain aspects of the description above for which there are a wide range of possibilities? 2'.5 The committee believes that the, following estimates of growth for the following factors are relatively uncertain: a. Extension of Red Line through Lexington. b. Expansion of shopping malls in the immediate vicinity of Lexington. C. Successful revitalization of the Boston inner city. These areas are generally beyond town control. One area within the control of the town is possible major expansion of apartment construction which, if permitted might have a considerable impact on the town's character. 2:6 What are the most significant factors which might influence the future growth, development, and changes to occur to your community? How would those factors affect growth within the range of things outlined above (see 2:5)? Which of those factors are within the control (or influence) of your community? 2..6 The most significant factors that might influence the future growth development and change in Lexington include the following: (1) Factors within town control. a. Tax rate, i.e., spending policies. b. Zoning. C. Open land acquisitions. Factors beyond town control. a. Birth rate. b. Social makeup of town, C. Red Line extension. d. Development of Hanscom Field. (3) Generally speaking, the town's maturity results in a lack of potential for a radically different type of growth and hence the maintenance of the status quo can be expected. .0 2:7 The Impact of the "MOST LIKELY Future": What would be the probable impact of that most likely future (see question 2:4) on your community? In particular, comment its impact on the community's assets and liabilities (see Question 2:1). Would those impacts be Positive of negative for the community? What problems and/or opportunities would that "most likely future" present for your community? 2:7 These responses to these questions are too conflicting to summarize. The problem can not be resolved until there is agreement on the reply to what `is the most likely future. (2.4). 0 2:8 « comment on (if not covered above) the overall impact of that "most likely future" on various issues of concern to the community........... 2:8 These responses to these questions are too conflicting to summarize. The problem can not be resolved until thre is agreement on the reply to what is the most likely future. (2.4). 0 2:9 How would the - community be able to reasonably meet the "needs" of that "most ' likely" growth and development, such as in terms of water supply, sewerage facilities, solid waste disposal, schools, other public facilities, and so on? Would this be likely to require some form of multi-community (regional), wction? 2:9 Regional action will be needed on transportation, and on solid waste disposal after our present sanitary land fill site is exhausted. Schools should remain under local control although with outreach programs such as METCO in- corporated fully. Vocational education as well as water and sewerage are already handled on a regional basis. 2:10 Would there likely be an appropriate mix of jobs and housing, within or nearby to the community? 2:10 In Lexington itself no. Including nearby Towns yes. However, if gasoline price increases limit the use of the automobile for commuting to work before public transportation is adequately improved there could be a problem. 2:11 Of the impacts discussed above, which are the most important? What is the 1° best" (most positive) and "worst" things about that "most likely future "? 2:11 These responses to these questions are too conflicting to summarize. The problem can not be resolved until there is agreement on the reply to what is the most likely futurep(2.4). 2:12 Would you say that the overall impact of that "most likely" future for vour community would be (check one) 2:12 Mixed. 2:13 Rapid Growth Potential: Does your community have the potential for what you might consider "rapid gro " ? m NO (Go on to Question 2:17) 2:17 Negative- Growth Potential: Does your community have the potential for "negative" growth or dis - investment? The majority of the Committee feels that Lexington does not have a Potential for "negative" growth or dis - investment. 2:18 lihat would be the impact of that negative growth were it to occur? What problems and/or opportunities would it present to your community? Only one member answered this question, and felt that negative growth would split the community. 2:19 What steps, anv_would vour community consider to avoid that negative growth? - - . - Again, only one committee member to this question, and stated that good planning would be one to avoid negative growth. 2:20 If that negative growth were to occur, what steps, if any, would your community consider in response to the problems and /or opportunities posed by negative growth? The only response received in answer to this question was also ° P good planning,". 2:21 Potential for Substantially. Different Types of Growth: Doeg your community have the potential for a substantially different type of growth or development, relative to what has occurred in the past? ~.- Seven respondents: four yes, two no, without further comment. One claims potential for slightly increased commercial and industrial growth, seen as desireable. 2:22 What would be the impact of that different type of growth were it to occur? What problems and /or opportunities would it present to your �om�uni .t_v Four respondents: Answers base on 2:21 suggest growth potential seen in terms of residential use. Two respondents see impact of growth as being higher density housing. Problems foreseen are congestion, higher taxes, need for more services, change in town's character; benefits are "good opportunities" for whom or of what nature un- specified, and social and economic class mix. ® 2:23 What steps, if any, would your community consider to avoid or encourage that different tvpe of growth? Four respondents: Three suggest changes in- zoning, one suggests "good planning" policies unspecified. 2:24 J If that different growth were to occur, what steps, if any, would your community consider in response to the Droblems and /or opportunities posed by such different growth? ..NO ANSWERS 2:25 Are there any other contingencies or uncertainties which your community might face in the future? Describe briefly. Five respondents: one answer was simply " ?" Two name impact of rapid transit or Red line extension and espansion of Hanscom Field, one names impact of rapid transit alone, one sees future uncertaintes related to national economy and priorities. 2:26 Description of DESIRED Future: Given the range of things which could happen, what would you like to see in terms of your community's future growth, development and change. In particular, how is this different from the "most likely future" described above (2:4)? Controlled growth - more job opportunities for young marrieds. Also, housing for young and older persons, open space purchases wherever possible. Purchase development rights where possible. 2:27 In what respects and for what reasons, is the desired future preferable? Less crowding, less traffic, aesthetics. More desirable town to live and work in. 2:28 Actions necessary to Achieve DESIRED Future: What kinds of actions would be necessary in order to encourge the future growth, development, change of-your community to more closely resemble the desired future? By whom? What would it take? In particular, differentiate between actions by the community and actions by others? Zoning and good planning. Planning for entire Town not just neighborhood associations. 2:29 Would vour community consider multi - community actions to promote that desired future? Under what conditions? Summarial Answer: Yes. Multi - community or regional actions will be necessary to facilitate solutions in the areas of public transportation and solid waste disposal. Inter- community planning for open land at town peripheries could be innovative and of great value to all participating towns. 0 2 :30 'ghat would you propose right now in order to move your community towards achieving that desired future? Summarial Answer: Form a multi - community committee meeting to find an effective means of accomplishing the following: 1. Structure State wetlands restrictive zoning. 2. Increase public transportation via Red Line or some other means. 3. Acquisition of open space, possibly through State funding for land purchase. 4. Legislation to abate airport noise. PART III 3:1 Inter - Relationships Among Municipalities: Do you feel that develoument- related decisions in neighboring communities could have an impact on your community? Yes, regarding: Hanscom Airport, Red Line extension, Burlington Mall, Burlington Arcade, and industrial development in Burlington. 3:2 Similarly, is it likely that development - related decisions in your community have had an impact on neighboring communities? Yes, development in Lexington wetlands increases runoff and flood risks in downstream communities. Development in Tophet Swamp could affect the quality of Bedford's and Burlington's water supply. Lexington has approved industrial zoning along Cambridge Reservoir over M.A.P.C. objections. 3:3 Are some of the problems and opportunities which your community faces affected by actions in neighboring communities? Yes, MDC water supply comes from other communities and may have to be expanded in a manner adversely affecting other communities. Sewerage treatment is also dependent on the MDC facilities in other communities. With the rapid loss of agricultural land in Lexington, we are more dependent on neighboring communities for fresh farm produce. 3:4 Regional Inter - Action: Please give your impressions as to how the residents and activities in your community relate to those in other communities,.... a.!- Most residents work outside of Lexington, in the Cambridge /Boston area and in the 128 complexes. b. Most erployees in Lexington live outside the town; many in the Bedford and Burlington areas, but some as far away as Somerville and Nei-ton. c. While some residents shop locally, the majority shop outside of Lexington in the various shopping; malls. d. Most local shoppers are Lexington residents, supplemented by° a small percentage of tourists. e. Nhile recreation facilities are limited, and certain sports like boating and skiing are not available, most recreation facilities are heavily used by local residents. If sightseeing can be con- sidered a recreation, then many others come from all over the world as tourists. f. :v'hile cultural activities within Lexington are limited, what we do have is good. i-Yi.th the proximity of Boston, i:e have available a wealth of additional cultural activities. 3:4 Regional Inter - Activity (cont'd) e g" food educational activities are available. h. 11hile Lexington has no hospital within town lines, good health services are readily available through marry fine doctors a dentists and medical laboratories. i` The historical significance of Lexington attracts tourists from all over the worlds: 3:5 The Regional Development Pattern: How is the future growth, development, and change of your community related to.the overall pattern and shape of development within the larger region of which you are a part? The Growth Policy Committee agreed that regional development affects us only in a general way. We depend on regional well- being, its economic good health, though we are probably less affected than other area communities. Lexington depends almost entirely on other communities for jobs, higher education, utilities, transportation. The only specific effect on Lexington due to regional development appears to be the increased traffic generated by neighboring communities. 0 3:6 How would you define that region? In the opinion of the Committee, the definition of the surrounding region depends on the effect in question and can range all the way from a neighboring town to the whole Eastern seaboard. 3:7 In particular. relative to economic development, what would be the impact upon vour community of the overall economic development of that region? The impact on Lexington of the overall development of the region appeared to be primarily pressure to make Lexington a bedroom town and thus, increase property and home values. Also identified were effects on educational, technical and professional areas of employment. 3:8 Pared ResDonsibities, Costs, and Benefits: Do you feel that there are issues which your community faces which are shared by some of vour surrounding neighbors ?..... Yes, costs and benefits could be shared, solid waste, public transportation, etc. Highways, sewage and water are now on a regional basis. ® 3:9 Are there costs and benefits associated with growth and development which spill over municipal boundaries ?... Yes, shopping malls and industrial parks could be placed jointly (this probably in reality, could never be accomplished). 3:10 Developments of Regional Impact: Some recent land use legislation has proposed-special regulations. for developments of regional impact. Have there been in the past, or do you see the possibility in the future for such develop- ments of regional impact within the vicinity of your community? There-would be little or no benefit to Lexington through land use legislation. Zoning and the Historic Districts Commission can take care of the situation if properly implemented. 3:11 Areas of Critical Plannin g�Concern: Recent land use legislation (including the _Martha's Vineyard Act) has also aroposed special regulation for areas of critical planning concern........ An act of this type would not be applicable to Lexington in general. Adequate protection for the watersheds of Cambridge Reservoir and the Shawsheen River, as well as the Great Meadows and Tophet Swamp, can be handled through present mechanisms. 3:12 Statewide Roles and Responsibilities: Do existing state laws, programs or policies have a_ significant_imp.act__on__ the __zrowth...an.d__devel,opmen, t of your community ?....... Six respondents: one answered " ? ". Highways, school policies appear in two res- ponses, health, with exception of "mobile source air pollutants" control in one, sewer and water systems in one, low -cost housing, seen as detrimental to the Town, in one. One response critical of state policies naming Chapter 90 insensitivity, Chapter 72 bias. Same respondent cites potential impact of new state zoning laws. One respondent sees state policies as "leveling" and therefore detrimental to the community. Specific state policies, with exception of effect on schools, not cited by this respondent. 3:13 There are presently a variety of state regulatory programs......... _which influence local decisions...,... impact on growth and development of your community? The state has unwisely overturned several protective orders of the Conservation Commission under the Wetlands Protection Act. A grossly undesirable housing development near Young St. is still pending before D.C.A., under Ch. 774 appeal. 3:14 The State has invested sizable sums of money for transportation, including highways. rail lines, and regional transit systems. What has been (or could,be) ,,,. � - - , the impact of these investments on your community, both in terms of growth and development. and in terms of traveling convenience? The construction of Route 128 and the reconstruction of Route 2 have had a great impact on both industrial growth and travel patterns of the Town. Rail and regional transit systems have had minimal effect on the community. if the Redline were to be extended to Lexington, the Town officials generally feel that it could have a major impact on the Town. 3:15 The heavy reliance on the local property tax has often been cited as a prime cause for many of the effects of growth and development. Do you agree with thi If local revenue could be raised from other than local property taxes it is probable that expenditures for conservation, preservation, planning, schools, recreation - i.e. for obvious amenities which offer no direct return in tax dollars, would be substantially improved. Less emphasis would be made on the "necessity" of develop- ment to improve the town. 3:16 Agricultural land has been declining throughout the Commonwealth at a substantial rate over the last several decades_._ Do you see_this as a statewide concern? What sort of action by the Stat wou ld you support to address this issu Seven respondents: Four specifically see problem as a state concern, one by implication in suggested remedies. One respondent cites causes (poor market, interstate shipping) rather than addressing possible solution, one with no opinion. Suggested state actions include tax breaks (four respondents), zoning (two), inclusion in wetlands (one), purchase of development rights (two), trans- ferable development rights (one), and less harassment by neighborhood groups (one). 3:17 What other specific growth- related issues do you see as having particular statewide significance? Four respondents: Issues named are transportation (one), policy on water (one), wetlands (one), open space (one, energy dependence on other parts of the country (one), and decline of ports, airports and rail service (one). Latter response could4reflect concern with transportation or with decline of commercial and industrial networks. 3:18 What could the State Legislature do to make it easier for your community to achieve its goals, and to assist you in guiding overall growth and development? What old laws hinder your community and what new laws are needed? Four respondents: Three call for review of existing policies, related to conser- vation and zoning; e.g. Hatch Act review (one), restructure of zoning policies dependent on clearer definition of enabling acts (one), limit on grandfather clause on undersized lots (one). Fourth respondent takes broader regional view and suggests establishment of elected county- regional body to deal with area -wide problems such as jobs, transportation and housing. PART IV SUMMARY 4 ' 4:1 Goals /Objectives /Values: What are the major goals, objectives and values which your community feels should_guide the future growth, development and change t f your community of your region, and of the State as a whole? The primary objective of local growth policy in Lexington as identified by most responding committee members is to preserve the character of the Town. Factors contributing to the Town's character were specified as the quality of the school system, its active and responsible citizens, its efficient public services, its program'of land conservation and its present residential character and density. In order to achieve this objective it seems clear that committee members support active conservation efforts to acquire open land or to limit its development, as well as participate in programs to support continuing operation of the few remain- ing farms in Town and stringent controls for protection of wetlands. Implicit also is support of the school system in its search for excellence. Because Lexington ® s developable land is largely used up, growth is expected to be limited in the near future. We anticipate that the present proportion of 881 of our building permits for new units being issued for single family dwellings will continue. Thus housing stock available in the Town will continue to be predomin- ately single family. U.S. census figures for 1970 reveal that the median cost then was $37,000. No doubt it has risen since 1970. Clearly, this predicates a town ii.r,hich only the affluent can afford to live, a growth expectation in conflict with the expressed values of many on the committee. Many felt that it is neither healthy for the Town nor morally acceptable to permit such limited, homogeneous development, thus closing out the young - including our own children should they want to stay, the elderly - many of whom have lived here all their lives, and town employees who must not become alienated strangers to the rest of the Town. Thus one objective of a growth policy would be to find ways to encour- age a more heterogeneous mix in the town population by an active moderate and low - income housing program. Lexington has a responsibility to the region to provide a mix of adequate housing for a variety of income levels. Some growth in both commercial and industrial uses is desirable to offset the predominantly residential tax -base. Lexington's perception of itself as a resi- dential suburb is partially inaccurate. Industry has been attracted to the Rte.2 and Rte. 128 corridors, eighteen new companies settling in Town in the last ten years, the majority since 1970. We have been absorbing new industries with little observable impact. Commercial diversification in the center was seen as desirable, the present mix of travel agencies, shoe stores, cut -rate drugstores and banks being inadequate to sustain the vitality of the center as a local community focus. Perhaps the physi- cal boundaries of the center, which are essentially the same as those one hundred years ago when the Town was one fifteenth its present population, ought to be re- considered as well. Smaller neighborhood areas for shops and local services are considered desirable, particularly if linked to recreational areas and schools so that a neighborhood gathering place is created. Finally, in preserving the character of the Town, it was suggested that the roads be kept as, "rural ", i.e. as tree- lined, shady and lovely as is consistent with safety. 'Intertown traffic might be rerouted to major arteries such as Rte. 2 and Rte. 128 and be discouraged from going through the center. Regionally, better public transportation networks created by a more efficient META .were seen as a major goal. Co- ordination of bus and train schedules for greatest efficiency, and evaluation of the proposed Red -line extension were cited as neces- sary objectives. Job access in the region would be improved by diminished reliance on the private automobile. Connections with other suburbs were considered to be as significant as connection with the Boston /Cambridge core city. other regional goals were containment of Hanscom Field air activities and the development of a solid waste disposal facility. It was also felt that a stronger regional economy ought to be developed by the encouragement of business and indus- trial growth in selected areas in the region. Goals for the state's future included a streamlining of state government to reduce the burden on taxpayers, better education and job opportunities particularly for the disadvantaged, a strengthened state economy, and tax reform to reduce community dependence on the local property tax. Finally, a state environmental policy which respected responsible local conservation decisions and contained a state wide land use plan which ensured environmental quality was considered important. 4:2 Major Growth Related Issues: What are the major growth related issues (both positive and negative) facing your community? Local growth related issues were identified as the probable impact on remaining open land should population pressures increase. Thus growth would raise the problem l "of optimum use of Lexington's remaining open land. How much land should be left open, and for what purposes under what kind of ownership are questions needing serious planning in the Town. Directly related to this issue is that of providing a housing mix which will in- crease the heterogeneity of the Town. Increased density in combination with protec- tion of farm land and increased conservation land acquisitions on the Town peripheries is a possible solution. The vitality of Lexington Center was also seen as an issue. If growth is scattered evenly over the total area of the Town, the Center, being beyond walking distance for most residents, will have increasingly difficult traffic problems. Since the Center ought to provide commercial opportunities in specialty shops, good restaurants and lively cultural opportunities which would draw people to it, solving the traffic problem in the Center by failing to provide the shopping or cultural activities any citizen can expect in a viable town is scarcely an acceptable solution. Regional improvement of the transportation network, although seen as a desirable goal also creates growth related problems. Improved transportation means better access to jobs and to other areas in the region. Historically all major improvements in transportation, beginning with the local railroad in 1846, =. -ve contributed to population growth. Thus what we need and seek becomes the instrument of what we would like to limit and control. Actions of other towns in the region which will have impact on Lexington were also considered to be issues as was the future of Hanscom Field. Finally, the develop- ment of a solid waste disposal facility to serve the area is an issue needing prompt resolution. 4:3 Issue Resolution: In terms of resolving or addressing the above issues, what actions would be necessary? By whom? What constraints are there in seeing those issues resolved? Town Meeting, local boards, and Town officials have sufficient power to direct resolution of specifically local issues such as conservation land acquisition, wet- land protection, continued farm operation, creation of a suitable housing mix and maintenance of quality education. Improvement in the vitality of Lexington Center as a suitable commercial area is partly a zoning problem but also depends very much on the decisions of property owners in the Center. It should be remembered that local decisions can also be constrained by regional and state policies. For example,.restrictions on snob zoning by the state, state man- dates affecting housing policy, and state decisions on highway construction can have an impact on local patterns beyond the control of local decision making. On the other hand, state policies can be helpful in assisting the Town to meet local and regional goals. State and federal assistance in planning and implementing an improved mass transportation system, state policies to encourage operating farms to continue, non - political state conservation policies which would support local wetlands and conservation decisions are among the areas in which state aid would be welcome. Regional goals will require co- operation among affected towns in planning and imple- menting programs. Such issues as solid waste disposal, adequate mass transportation, and desirable policies for use of Hanscom Field will require Lexington's active participation in regional decision making. Only by regional participation and demonstration of a willingness to arrive at the best regional solution can we hope to have these issues resolved in the most desirable possible way for the Town. 4 :4 Programmatic and Institutional Changes Proposed: Are there changes in existing programs or in existing institutions (e.g. regional bodies) which would facilitate, the resolution of those.growth related issues? The programmetric and institutional changes proposed by the Growth Policy Committee were varied and do not necessarily represent a consensus by the committee as a whole. Cqncerns developed in the following areas: 1. New Housing: State development objectives, to accommodate new growth and to respond to the overall housing needs of the state and the region, must cater to a variety of clients and incomes and offer wider choices of residential environments. New housing should also encourage heterogeneous social and class mixing. The "New Town" concept should be examined. Legislative alternatives should be developed which would permit such towns and provide for either private or public front -end captial. 2. Improvement of Educational Opportunities: Development of a new institutional mechanism w�iereby the more affluent suburbs within the region can help critical inner city areas without losing their own values and identity. 3. Environmental Quality: Reduce the authority of the State Dept. of Environmental Quality and Engineering to weaken Wetland Protection orders of local conservation commissions. A second recommendation was that the Town write their own wetland protection act, eliminating state jurisdiction over a local problem. 4. Transportation: Program changes should be developed to improve efficiency and personnel productivity of the MBTA, with better services provided at affordable prices. 5. Regional Planning: Development of a regional perspective by the Town to promote intercommunity cooperation and coordination of planning for area wide concerns such as solid waste disposal, transportation, parks and recreational facilities. Because the existing thirteen regional planning agencies of the State lack authority, per- haps a re- organized regional system serving, and elected by an area wide constit- uency could have effective planning for the delivery of these services and other governmental services that may not be within the capabilities of local communities to perform. 4:5 Additional Comments: Are there other findings made by your committee upon which you would base recommendations? Responses to this section of the question- naire have been incorporated in Section 4:6 - Recommendations. 4 :6 Recommendations: 1. Land -Use Local Initiative 1. Strengthen enforcement of present zoning by -laws. 2. Continuously update zoning by -laws. 3. Acquire more open space. 4. Intensify dialogue with owners of large parcels of land to map out best combination of land development and land conservation. 5. Putchase development rights for agricultural land. 6. Zone for cluster development, conservation easements, agricultural land and some new commercial and industrial development. 7. Zone for balanced community /housing mix. 8..Provide low cost, subsidized housing for local people. 9. Carefully control any new high density housing. 10. Exercise more stringent controls over siting and use in new commercial zones. State Initiative 1. Strengthen State support of local conservation decisions. 2. Reduce Dept. of Environmental Quality's authority to weaken the Conservation Commission's Wetland Protection orders. 3. Preserve agricultural land use by assisting small farmers. 4. Permit each town to write its own wetland protection by -laws. 5. Maintain a mix of housing patterns (urban, suburban and rural) within the region without usurping local authority. 6. Develop legislative proposal for "new towns ". 7. In order to effect better land use policies, State Agencies should thoroughly re-- evaluate current policies for transportation, economic development, funding programs in education (e.g. Ch.70), housing assistance, and environmental controls. II Transportation Local Initiative 1. Oppose Red Line extension into Lexington at present time. 2. Evaluate Red Line extension - if desirable, work to minimize adverse impact on Lexington. Regional Initiative 1. Increase aid for regional mass transportation 2> Provide regional highway links to minimize use of Town sheets for intertown travel. III Solid Waste Disposal Local Initiative 1. Promote regional solid waste disposal system. 2. Locate regional solid waste transfer station in Lexington. Regional Initiative 1. Strengthen regional refuse committee. State Initiative 1. Construct Hartwell Avenue -Rte. 128 Connector. IV Hansc6m Field Regional Initiative 1. Prevent increases in traffic pending use of quieter jet engines. State Initiative 1. Enact strict airport noise legislation. V. Lexington Center Local Initiative 1. Establish committee for revitalization and beautification to improve shopping services. VI Regional Planning State I$itiative 1. Strengthen regional planning authorities. 2. Reorganize the regional planning system, using elected representatives, to plan and provide areawide services such as recreation, subsidized housing, transportation and solid waste disposal. 3. Provide for more regional participation in Boston's educational system. 4:7, Next Steps: Are there some specific '"NEXT STEPS" which should be taken iu order to further these recommendations? By whom? The original Goals and Objectives Committee of Lexington, established before the Growth Policy Committee, could assume the responsibility for periodic review of the Town's goals and objectives as developed by the Growth Polccy Committee for the purpose of developing a mechanism in the planning process to provide for an ongoing re-evaluation of policies for growth and change in the community. 10.7.76