Articles 33/34
Ryan Wise
Todd O. Burger
I would like to add my name to those thanking the Cluster Housing Study Group for their work and posts on Article 34. But I would also like to make to make clear that there appears to be a real diversity of opinion about the inclusion or exclusion of the CBD from Article 34. I, for one, feel it is critical to keep the CBD in Article 34, even though those acres do not count toward the MBTA Housing Choice requirement since Article 34 requires them to have commercial on the 1st floor:
Here are a few reasons why:
- The CBD, if included, will more likely result in being among the first proposed multifamily projects, given the assurance of immediate rental revenue, and the desirability of being near shops in the center, and close to our transportation hub.
- Such projects will likely significantly increase transit usage, being on both the MBTA route and having access to LexPress hub.
- The center needs a jolt. We certainly have enough banks and
real estate offices in the center, but a reinvigorated center,
with more shoppers and diners, will help broaden the business
variety there, and strengthen the ones already there that we
want to keep, and maybe encourage ones just barely hanging on to
stay.
- The condition of many of the buildings in the center (take a
tour of the basement levels or 2nd floors of some of these
buildings and you will get an idea of the lack of attention some
have received from some of the property owners who lease these
buildings to our local businesses. Even a number of the
storefronts look "tired" and would benefit from new constructed,
more environmentally sound 21st century construction, with
exteriors suited to our historic town.
- The HDC will be involved in these projects with its CBD oversight and any rebuilding will be likely to tasteful and result in an even better CBD.
- Inclusion of the CBD will get us more quickly to a rethinking of CBD parking solutions - and there are solutions.
- Inclusion of the CBD demonstrates a more holistic approach and
a town wide commitment to the values driving Article 34.
-Todd Burger
Precinct 9
Harry Forsdick
Harry,Thank you for the correction. We are still very concerned about the impact of Article 34 on our town.--Susan Erdos
- Whatever solution we come up with, it must satisfy the requirements of the MBTA-Communities Act.
- We must follow the existing Lexington Zoning Bylaws or be prepared to amend them.
- Improve the vitality of Lexington Center. For many years people have complained about how Lexington Center is not attracting business and as a result, is declining in diversity of businesses as well as being a difficult location to run a retail business.
- Mandate that new construction projects be built in a way that protects the environment.
- Reverse the trend where developers are incentivized to tear down smaller houses and build larger, expensive houses on the same lots.
- Increase economic diversity of our population.
Harry,Thank you for the correction. We are still very concerned about the impact of Article 34 on our town.--Susan ErdosOn Friday, March 24, 2023 at 09:15:18 AM EDT, Harry Forsdick <ha...@forsdick.com> wrote:Susan,Thank you for your message regarding Lexington Town Meeting Article 34.I wanted to make one correction to your comments: It is a requirement of the Massachusetts MBTA-Communities Act that the development be By Right. Your message says:
- ...
- Most development projects require Special Permits. There is no reason that any building under Article 34 does not require this. Defining the standard as By Right limits the town’s ability to evaluate construction proposals under the Article. This is especially important since the new construction defined in the article will not be comparable to current housing. Each new project should be considered carefully and on a one-by-one basis.
- ...
Multi-family zoning requirement for MBTA-Communities (Section 3A of MGL c. 40A)This new law requires that an MBTA community shall have at least one zoning district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right and meets other criteria set forth in the statute:
- Minimum gross density of 15 units per acre
- Located not more than 0.5 miles from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station, if applicable
- No age restrictions and suitable for families with children
Removing the By Right requirement from Article 34 will not comply with the MBTA-Communities Act.Regards,-- HarryOn Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 4:53 PM Susan Erdos <masd...@yahoo.com> wrote:As longtime residents of Lexington, we support expanded multi-family housing in Lexington as mandated by the state. However we have concerns regarding the proposed Article 34.
- The article currently proposes too extensive a plan for this mandate. Care and caution must be taken in having the Town Meeting members approve Article 34 as written. In proposing the article, the Planning Board believes that its adoption will have a slow and limited evolution, and that it can be amended as time goes on if needed, particularly if it is determined that it went too far. We believe it is wiser to begin at a slower pace and expand the Article if it seems practical. While assessing Article 34 requires a simple majority vote, amending it would require a 2/3 majority. It is always difficult to pull back on rights that have been provided. Builders would fight any changes that would restrict their rights under Article 34 as presented. As a result, the town would probably find itself embroiled in expensive litigation.
- Most development projects require Special Permits. There is no reason that any building under Article 34 does not require this. Defining the standard as By Right limits the town’s ability to evaluate construction proposals under the Article. This is especially important since the new construction defined in the article will not be comparable to current housing. Each new project should be considered carefully and on a one-by-one basis.
- We are concerned that this expansive article will change the town’s character and aesthetics, the tax base, and the school budget in unknown ways. Before this article is passed there should be an analysis regarding the impact on Lexington residents and on this historical town that we are all proud of.
A goal of Article 34 should be to enhance the town, carefully and sensibly. We urge this article be rejected as currently proposed.
Susan ErdosMark Alimansky65 Fifer LanePrecinct 7
Mark Andersen
My past experience suggests an amendment which limits the scope to what is required by the state would be more likely than an outright rejection.
Since article 34 goes beyond state-mandated scope it has a "pork barrel" feel, as the article does not let town meeting vote on what is required for compliance without accepting broader scope and consequences.
We do a *disservice* to the community by accepting a so-called MBTA proposal when the town has sub-par MBTA service and thereby requires people to own cars to live and work in Lexington.
Support mixed use development and public transportation to make Lexington vibrant and accessible.
Precinct 9
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CABKvzKqOVUQaMDvgTjVq3C39NpPcF_tMQK0nYpZ96cNexbJ%2BEA%40mail.gmail.com.
Valerie Overton
- Do we want to just comply with the letter of the law, and do so in a way that brings about minimal change? Or do we want to comply with the spirit of the law, and do so in a way that produces a meaningful number of housing units? Note that the analysis of the Lexington Cluster Housing Study Group projects that the current version of Article 34 might produce 600-700 units of housing over 10 years. That seems reasonable to me: an amount that makes a difference without overwhelming us.
- Do we want to uphold related goals that the community has prioritized, as documented in our new Comprehensive Plan? Article 34 serves to comply with the spirit (as well as letter) of state law while also supporting the possibility of a greater diversity of housing and mixed-use areas--so places like Lexington Center can become more vibrant as so many of us have wished for.
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2023 11:28 AM
To: Harry Forsdick <ha...@forsdick.com>
Cc: Susan Erdos <masd...@yahoo.com>; Town Meeting Members <lex...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [LexTMMA] Re: Article 34
Michael Martignetti
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/BL0PR04MB4769A9D737FBFB30210B827AF0859%40BL0PR04MB4769.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
Glenn Parker
On 25 Mar 2023, at 12:06, 'Valerie Overton' via LexTMMA wrote:
Do we want to just comply with the letter of the law, and do so in a way that brings about minimal change? Or do we want to comply with the spirit of the law, and do so in a way that produces a meaningful number of housing units?
I think Valerie asks a reasonable question, but I would like to make it less abstract.
Zoning bylaws are a means to an end, albeit a means with some uncertainty in the timing and effectiveness of the results. I see a lot of arguing about the “means”, but we’re skipping right past the desired “ends”.
It would shorten the debate and clarify a lot of fuzzy arguments if we each opened with a clear statement of our position regarding the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, Lexington NEXT. If you have not yet done so, please take some time to read it (at least the 10-page Executive Summary). Yes, now… and then consider your response.
The Comprehensive Plan adopts an optimistic tone, but there is some strong medicine buried in it. Not everyone will enjoy the taste. Without placing blame, the Comprehensive Plan points to some serious ailments that we have allowed to fester for a long time:
- Skyrocketing housing prices and a lack of socio-economic diversity
- Challenging retail business environment
- Systemic racism and a lack of racial diversity
- Climate change
These ailments are synergistic: “Lexington’s history of exclusion with high housing costs, one-family housing, and lack of public transportation have contributed to Lexington’s current lack of racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity.”
Lexington NEXT is timely, and it examines the issues that Lexington residents consider to be important right now. It offers a path to repair some of the damage and to steer our development in a new direction.
Do you support the goals and objectives laid out in this document? If not, what would you change or remove? Rather than nitpicking the bylaw, let’s begin by re-affirming the ultimate goals of the bylaw.
I find serious fault with one aspect of Lexington NEXT: it is profoundly inward-looking. When the surround region is mentioned, it is usually to highlight some superlative aspect of Lexington. Lexington is portrayed as an island with few connections to the surrounding region, even in the area of transportation. But Lexington is hardly an island. Much of what we enjoy about Lexington arises from our location within a culturally and economically thriving collection of communities. IMHO, the communities we rely on the most exhibit far greater socio-economic diversity. To put it bluntly, we stand out like a sore thumb.
Why is this important? Because housing is very much a regional issue. Simply increasing the housing stock in any way, even with the kind of pseudo-affordable housing that some folks have pooh-poohed here, creates measurable benefits for the entire region. A report from the Brookings Institute, Fixing Greater Boston’s housing crisis starts with legalizing apartments near transit, recommends support transit-adjacent housing and rental subsidies, but it also concludes:
- “Additionally, a statewide upzoning that allows developers to build in the most affluent, exclusive communities would take some of the pressure off moderate-income neighborhoods such as East Boston and Malden, which have been providing much of the region’s new housing. Allowing new construction in affluent, mostly white communities is one of the most effective ways to reduce the risk of gentrification and displacement in lower-income Black and Latino or Hispanic communities.”
What we do here in our own back yards directly affects the economics of housing in other communities.
Our next move should be evaluated in this regional context. Without a thriving region Lexington will falter.
Glenn P. Parker, Pct. 3
glenn....@lexingtontmma.org
Todd O. Burger
Valerie and Glenn, et. al.,
Well said below. For all of those reasons,
I think we should be including the CBD in Article 34. And we
should not pit one neighborhood against another by including
only half of the parcels that the Planning Board recommended.
However, I do believe that it would make
sense to phase in Article 34, with the CBD and half of the other
parcels in the first traunch, and the balance 3-5 years later
when all are satisfied that the sky is not falling and that, in
fact, what is being built is both tasteful, beneficial and can
be managed by our schools. We could decide in 5 years time that
the development should be slowed or that we feel the state has
not done its part to fix transportation issues in the region to
support this growth and hold off on the second traunch.
Now that we have enlarged the CBD to include the critical parking areas, it would seem ill-advised to turn around and exclude the CBD from Article 34, one step forward, one step back. Keeping the CBD in the first traunch increases the likelihood that we have a balanced and sensible outcome in the center, with re-invigorated businesses. With the town potentially retaining ownership of the land in the parking area, the town may be able to exert some downward pressure on rents across the entire center by making new store lots available at modest rents. The town is close to authorizing hundreds of millions of dollars for a new high school. Do we think our young people who will benefit from that school investment find today's CBD, filled as it is with banks and real estate agencies, meeting their needs? Probably not. Let's keep the CBD in Article 34.
I moved my family here for the schools and the center 32 years ago. They can be even better. Let's commit to this path now.
Todd Burger, Precinct 9
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/6BF614F3-5CAC-4F16-B8AB-40EED5F30974%40comcast.net.
Alan Levine
My first concern is the rather limited setbacks and absence of step-backs in the proposal, particularly in the VO districts and, to a lesser extent, in the MFO districts. My concern is high buildings close to residential lots, e.g., single-family houses, that are either in or abut an overlay district. It appears that a building 52 feet in height could be built as close as 15 feet from the lot line and that there could even be circumstances where a building 60 feet tall could be built 15 feet from a lot line that abuts a lot with a single family home or other sensitive property. Perhaps the Planning Board could address this concern by informing us how they can deal with it reliably in the site plan review process.
My second and more important concern is with the large area of 227 acres in the proposed overlay districts. The Lexington Cluster Housing Study Group has done a nice analysis (thank you very much!) and has estimated that, on average, developments would have densities of about 20 units per acre. They also conclude that the rate of development will be limited by a number of factors so that one might expect 500 to 700 units to be built over the next ten years. I found their analysis to be reasonable and I don’t have a reason to argue with it, except that I will note that their analysis tacitly assumes that the development environment and important limiting factors will remain similar to those that prevail at present. We need to be aware that, in the future, things could change that could affect the rate of development of new buildings. In any case, I don’t object to the development of 700 units spread over ten years.
If Article 34 passes as is, I don’t see any reason to expect development of multifamily buildings to cease at the ten year mark. The process of teardowns of single family houses and resulting mansionization has been going on for many more than 10 years, perhaps even more than 30 years, and it doesn’t appear to be stopping or even slowing down. So we better look ahead more than 10 years in regard to the implications of the present proposal. There doesn’t appear to be much in the way of economics that will ultimately stop the development of 3 or 4 (or 5?) story multifamily buildings except perhaps in Lexington Center or in the VHO district where commercial buildings including lab space in the VHO district may be more profitable. I therefore infer that, if Article 34 in its present form is approved, development of multifamily housing will proceed, and it may take a number of decades, until most of the 227 acres is covered with multifamily buildings. If, for example, 175 acres is developed with 20 units per acre, that would be 3500 units. At 2.5 persons per unit that would be 8750 people; at 3 persons per unit that would be 10,500 people. These units would undoubtedly be good homes and would diversify Lexington in many ways and that would be wonderful. But, that degree of development would have implications for our schools which might be hard to manage since there is no suitable land for additional schools. Such development would also exacerbate the traffic situation and would likely mean many more traffic signals. Furthermore, it may mean that new water mains, new sewer mains, new electric utility infrastructure and communication infrastructure would be needed. A lot of the facilities and infrastructure that we are paying to improve nowadays could become inadequate.
If development seems to be going too far (whatever that is deemed to mean), then a future town meeting could reverse the zoning bylaw allowances for new multifamily buildings. That could go against state law, would likely require a two-thirds vote, and it could make the buildings that were already built nonconforming. It seems better to put limits up front on the number of units that could ultimately be built. In an apparent rush to get units built quickly, the present article is missing such limits.
I will also argue that Town Meeting should be able to vote up or down on separate parts of the current proposal in separate articles over a span of time that would cover multiple town meetings. The first part (I’ll call it part (a)) should be an article to comply more or less minimally with the MBTA Communities law. This part is timely now through late 2024. It should cover an area not much more than the 50 acre requirement. I would support such an action.
Another part (part (b)) should be allowing mixed use buildings in Lexington Center. I favor this, but would like it to be voted on separately.
Part (c) would be to expand the overlay district areas beyond those covered in parts (a) and (b). I propose that this be acted upon only after a number of years so that we can be guided by experience as to the rate and character of the units that are built in putting together extensions of the overlay district map. In short, we shouldn’t dive into a pond when we have no idea of its depth.
In this context there would be several different ways to limit the total number of units that could be developed. One would be to make the provisions of parts (b) and (c) subject to special permits rather than by right. Another would be to limit the area of the overlay districts such that full development of multifamily buildings in them would clearly not have difficult-to-manage consequences.
It’s not clear what the goals are in terms of numbers of multifamily dwelling units. We need to make those goals explicit and consider how to get to them without going far beyond them. I’d be happy to vote for 1000 units, but I won’t vote now to allow 3000 or more units.
I will oppose Article 34 unless it is heavily amended or someone convinces me that there are ways to effectively manage these potential problems. Taking a few more months to sort out these issues and propose an article that won’t cause forseeable problems down the road would be very worthwhile.
Alan Levine
Precinct 8
Todd O. Burger
Alan,
I too had concerns about step backs (actually the lack of them), but for me, the particular concern was in the CBD/MFO. However, many of the parcels are considered part of the Historic District and I understand still subject to HDC regulations. #17 and #18 of those regulations appear to give them authority over decks and balconies. I have a question to the HDC asking about this, but it appears to me that HDC would have an opportunity in the MFO and in other parcels within the HDC's responsibility to suggest or even enforce a requirement for the 4th floor to have an 8' step back, but allow that area excluded from interior space, to be a deck area with unobtrusive cable railing. The result would provide value to the 4th floor units, possibly enough to offset loss of interior square footage and make for some nice parade viewing, while reducing shadowing (which I have also looked at and appears to be modest with this change). So I don't think we need to modify Article 34 in this area, subject to what I learn from HDC.
Todd Burger Precinct 9
gjb...@rcn.com
Avram Baskin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/1685973352.58491215.1679791224652.JavaMail.zimbra%40rcn.com.
gjb...@rcn.com
Kathryn Roy
To “summarize the summaries” — the vast majority of studies have found that affordable housing does not depress neighboring property values, and may even raise them in some cases. Overall, the research suggests that neighbors should have little to fear from the type of attractive and modestly sized developments that constitute the bulk of newly produced affordable housing today.
Kathryn Roy
Precinct 4
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/444115726.58521763.1679793051828.JavaMail.zimbra%40rcn.com.
Avram Baskin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/444115726.58521763.1679793051828.JavaMail.zimbra%40rcn.com.
RODNEY COLE
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/C69D2AA3-35C4-4102-A930-837964CC11E1%40icloud.com.
Glenn Parker
On 25 Mar 2023, at 17:06, Alan Levine wrote:
There doesn’t appear to be much in the way of economics that will ultimately stop the development of 3 or 4 (or 5?) story multifamily buildings…
I agree with Alan that development won’t come to a halt after 10 years, and I think that’s probably a good thing. However, basic economics, good old supply and demand, are always at work. Home developers will slow down when they run low on home buyers. There are at least two ways that could happen in the coming decades, and we will likely see a combination of both.
The first driver is increased supply, and this is the more desirable path, IMHO. A significant increase in the regional supply of housing would lead to a reduction in acute demand. Economics tells us there will never be a perfect balance, but bringing the regional housing market closer to equilibrium will reduce many of the problems we suffer from now, and it would reduce the incentives for building new homes.
If increased supply is the carrot, then decreased demand is the stick. Housing demand is weakened by a declining population, and right now Greater Boston is losing its people. Many of those moving out have cited the high cost of housing as a key reason for leaving. Some of them are fortunate enough to have Work-From-Home options, others are just starting over.
Boston is also a city with a constant influx of new immigrants, and until recently the flight from the city was compensated for with new arrivals. That balance of in-migration versus out-migration has now shifted to the negative. This issue is discussed in the latest housing report from The Boston Foundation.
When population falls, it generally takes everything else with it. Could that happen to Lexington, where the boom never ends? Let’s ask Pittsfield or Lowell.
Our housing crisis is like a kind of arthritis for the entire region, effectively reducing wages, squandering output, and limiting opportunities. It just makes everything harder, slower, and more painful. Decades of exclusive zoning in Lexington have contributed to this situation. When people ask, “Why should we do more than the absolute minimum?”, I think about what we have been doing up until now.
