During a special session Monday, Town Meeting delayed voting on Article 2, which is based on a citizen petition that calls to limit the construction of multifamily housing in Lexington, to March 17. Now, the town can hold a public hearing before considering the article.
The motion calls for Lexington to remove some of the town’s land from section 7.5 of its zoning bylaw — that is, land designated for village and multifamily dwellings — and reduce the capacity for dwelling units in remaining zones. It also calls for the town to re-examine section 7.5 of Lexington’s zoning law, regardless of how Town Meeting votes on the article.
Carol Sacerdote, an organizer of the petition, said it was born out of concern that Lexington is hastily considering adding a lot of multifamily housing to the town, which petitioners worry could put stress on town services and infrastructure.
“We want to alleviate the housing shortage,” she told LexObserver. “We just don’t want to go overboard and we want to give the town time to do planning for a larger population.”
The motion proposes the town continue pursuing nine new multifamily projects in its pipeline — one of which is already under construction. The Planning Board imagines those projects could bring over 1,100 dwellings to town.
That’s just a few units shy of the state’s original minimum requirement of 1,231 new dwelling units across at least 50 acres in Lexington, set by the Massachusetts’ Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, or EOHLC, to comply with the MBTA Communities Act.
The Act calls for Massachusetts’ 177 municipalities served by (or bordering municipalities served by) the MBTA to encourage the development of multifamily housing near transit corridors. The state’s goal with the law is to mitigate the housing shortage and reduce vehicle dependency.
Lexington, which hosts two MBTA bus routes, was one of the first Massachusetts municipalities to have its MBTA Communities Act plan approved by the state at the end of 2023.
That plan exceeds the minimum requirements to include 253 acres of land in the new zoning districts. The EOHLC determined that with that commitment, Lexington could potentially host up to 12,546 new dwelling units.
Sacerdote worries that allowing for more developments than what the state originally deemed necessary could put costly pressure on town infrastructure and services such as schools, police, and fire personnel.
“Once you start having a huge amount of housing built in a short time, both services and infrastructure come under pressure and we need to do planning for that,” she said. “So the idea of the petition is to slow down the rate of growth so that we could have time to do proper planning.”
Michael Schanbacher, chair of Lexington’s Planning Board, told LexObserver it is very unlikely the town would come close to adding 12,546 new dwellings, even if Article 2 does not pass.
To curb the number of dwellings that could come to Lexington, the motion asks the town to limit the number of dwellings that can be built in two areas that fall under section 7.5 of the zoning bylaw: a zone near Concord Ave. and Waltham St. and a zone in East Lexington. The petition specifically asks the town to limit the capacity for multifamily dwellings in those areas to 15 units per acre.
It also asks the town to remove section 7.5 zones near Bedford St. and Worthen Road, Bedford St. and Reed St., Bedford St. and the Minuteman Bike Path, Marrett Road and Waltham St., Marrett Road and Spring St., Lexington Center, north Bedford St., Hartwell Ave. and Westview St., Maguire Road, and Hartwell Ave. and Wood St.
“People feel the town has gone too far,” she said. “I think as people have seen the buildings go up, they have a much better idea of what the consequences are.”
The motion also calls for the town to re-examine its section 7.5 land, regardless of whether or not it votes to reduce the capacity of and remove some of that designated land.
Schanbacher said “no matter the result of what happens in Special Town Meeting,” he is “committed to revisiting [Lexington’s zoning], refining it, and bringing that to Town Meeting at some point in the foreseeable future.”
“I do think that it is important that Lexington sets a good example, or potentially even a great example, for how we solve the housing crisis,” he said.
The town received Sacerdote’s petition on Dec. 23. Under state law, the Select Board is required to address a petition within 45 days of it being submitted, which is why Town Meeting met on Monday. But because the motion suggests amending the zoning bylaw, the town must hold a public hearing before Town Meeting can vote on it, per state law.
The Planning Board will hold two public hearings, on Feb. 12 and Feb. 26, both at 6 pm, to hear residents’ opinions on what this article calls for.
Douglas Lucente, chair of the Select Board, encouraged Town Meeting members and residents to attend the Planning Board’s upcoming public hearings regarding the petition during Monday’s Special Town Meeting session.
“The developments being proposed under the MBTA zoning law present challenges for Lexington, particularly in terms of municipal services, school capacity, and infrastructure,” he said during Monday night’s special Town Meeting. “The upcoming discussion in March will be critical in determining how we move forward in a way that balances state requirements with Lexington’s long term needs.”
The entire Planning Board must be held accountable for its significant failures. While I recognize that board members are volunteers, the stakes are too high to overlook the consequences of their actions. Critical mistakes have been made, and regardless of intent, those responsible can no longer serve Lexington in this capacity. Mr. Schanbacher’s responses in this article clearly show that he fails to grasp the severity of these miscalculations and exhibits little urgency to address them. In particular, his comment that “it is very unlikely the town would come close to adding 12,546 new dwellings, even if Article 2 does not pass,” is deeply concerning. Nearly 10% of that figure was proposed in just over a year, which will place immense strain on the town’s finances and services. If another 10% were added, the town could face bankruptcy—and yet his response focuses on the unlikely nature of 12,000 new units being built. This lack of foresight and responsibility is unacceptable.
Mr Schanbacher is correct. It is extremely unlikely that 12,546 new dwelling units will be built because that number is not a real-world buildout estimate. It’s the output of a spreadsheet formula used by the state housing agency to measure compliance. It’s necessarily over-simplified and ignores a number of factors that influence what can actually be built. The number of proposed units we’ve seen so far represent a some large, previously underperforming parcels that were ripe for development. For a good percentage of the remaining acreage the difficulty curve eventually starts to get very steep, approaching impossible for some properties.
You’re also incorrect that any of this represents “failure”, “critical mistakes”, or “severe miscalculations”. The town has long had a goal of more housing and a wider variety of housing choices. That’s why we rezoned more than the bare minimal requirement the state was asking for. We wanted multifamily housing. We’re getting it faster than expected and it’s perfectly legit for us to want to manage the growth.
Mr Luker, weren’t you and Tom Shiple the ones that projected we would only get 400 to 800 units in 5 to 10 years under Article 34? Respectfully, why would I trust you now?
https://www.lexclusterhousing.org/
Thank you Teresa for calling them out.
So appreciative that concerned citizens have stepped forward before the over-adoption of the so-called MBTA communities bill gets out of hand.
Our current schools do not have capacity to absorb a doubling of housing units in Lexington. The Planning Board refuses to consider the impact of their zoning proposals on school enrollment.
Doubling the Lexington housing would impact both operating and capital budgets and cause overrides beyond the near term LHS debt exclusion. Town meeting needs to ensure thorough medium and long term planning.
At this time, Lexington has demonstrated its leadership in expanding housing with 1099 new units in process already; we are leading the state. Let us not become victims of our own success.
Citizens should learn the positions of people running for Selectboard, Planning Board, School Committee, and town meeting. Become involved. Your voice matters.
Our town often embraces ambitious projects with the best of intentions—but sometimes to an extreme. You want MBTA housing? We approve far more units than required—amounting to a third of the entire state’s total. You want a new high school? We authorize the most expensive one in U.S. history! The good intentions lead to budget-busting choices that will cost the town for decades. We need more prudent management with construction levels the town can afford. Cut the scope of MBTA housing and find ways to cut construction costs on Bloom.
I keep seeing references to housing happening “too fast” and “stress on town services and infrastructure” – but *very* little data on exactly what awful things are supposed to happen when we have denser housing in these carefully-chosen areas. The only real data I’ve seen on the effects of development is the School Department’s enrollment predictions for the apartments already permitted, which are primarily 1-bedroom units which have a negligible effect on school enrollment. What exactly are we so afraid of?
Lexington isn’t a little rural hamlet, and 253 acres is a tiny sliver of the town. We are a community of more than 34,000 people less than 15 miles from Boston, and we have 1/4 the population density per square mile as Arlington next door – which has a much smaller business tax base, yet manages to educate their children and build new schools.
What are we afraid of?
Afraid? I wouldn’t characterize it that way. What concerns me is that hundreds on new students from rental units not paying taxes will add an even greater burden to our property taxes.
I support the reduction of this plan to the most minimal requirements as well as a residential tax exemption.
Meg – your logic is deeply flawed and quite dangerous as a Town Meeting member. You say, “253 acres is a tiny sliver of town.” The 253 acres have no density limits! Prior to this rezoning, you could build 1-3 homes on 1 acre in Lexington. We are now seeing developments on this tiny sliver of town at 60 homes per acre! That’s a 20x increase in density! Please don’t act like this isn’t a drastic change to Lexington. Please move to Arlington if you would like to live in a denser community.
JT, we live in an extremely high-opportunity area, close to jobs, transit and amenities. We’re in the midst of a housing and climate crises. We’re losing productive workers, high paying jobs to other states because they’re building housing and we aren’t. Building 1-3 homes on 1 acre in Lexington is no longer environmentally or economically sustainable. There are a lot of residents who understand this and want to make Lexington better.
Jay – you’re obscuring the facts. Developments are getting built with a density of 60 units per acre. There is a HUGE difference between 3 units and 60 units per acre. Nobody but developers and their surrogates want that level of density. Which one are you? The extreme viewpoints being pushed by you, Mr. Shiple, and Ms. Katzenbach in an attempt to singlehandedly solve Massachusetts’ housing, economic, and environmental issues are downright dangerous for the finances and quality of life for Lexington residents. Thankfully, residents are finally becoming aware of these policies being voted on by out-of-touch Town Meeting Members that have significant unaccounted for costs. I look forward to new representation in our Town Meeting after next month’s election.
Yeah OK JT. I think smart readers can figure out who’s the mouthpiece here repeating the baloney narrative.
Housing is good, a growing tax base is good, and new neighbors are good for local businesses. Kudos to the town for keeping things moving in the right direction.
My children attend Estabrook; last year, my daughter was in a third-grade class of 27 students, while this year, my son’s fourth-grade class has 24 students. When I expressed my concerns to our “cartel”/School Committee, they were dismissed outright, showing little care for the issues at hand( state limit is 31, so not their problem), they seem indifferent to the struggles faced by our kids and teachers.
This increase in Estabrook class sizes directly results from the townhouses built on Jefferson Drive, which necessitated a dedicated bus for elementary students for just that one association. Now, let’s turn to the MBTA housing and the ludicrous projections the planning board approved – who believes in this story about no kids and small 1 BDR apartments???. These must be rolled back immediately, and the members who supported them should be voted out.
The Town needs to perform an independent financial analysis of MBTA zoning development projections and how the new units will impact the tax base, school enrollment (every school in each district, not just the high school), and other infrastructure. The work done by town officials and boards on Article 34 was grossly inadequate. Further Town Meeting Members and Select Board members should state their financial links to the real estate effected.
Lexington has a AAA Bond credit rating – that’s it, it can’t really get better than that. It’s an exceptionally fiscally responsible town. Even the latest school budget shortfall is some tiny percentage of the overall budget (maybe 1%?) and considering rising costs all over the world since the pandemic, even less surprising. Think of your personal budget – how do you cope with a variation as small as 1%? These problems are solvable with level-heads clear of faulty heuristics, and we will solve them. People should continue asking questions and participating, while doing their best to be civil and not share unvetted information.
In my view, the MBTA Communities Act is a well intentioned, but misguided attempt to address the housing issue that broadly applies requirements to include communities with inadequate public transportation such as Lexington. Public transportation in Lexington includes only limited bus service and even more limited Lexpress service that is not useful for most residents. In the case of Lexington, the contention that “MBTA communities with no transit stations within their boundaries benefit from proximity to transit stations in nearby communities” is flawed as using the commuter rail stations in adjacent towns is impractical. Unfortunately, there have been many missed opportunities to improve practical public transportation along the Route 2 corridor, such as extending the MBTA Red Line.
It seems to me that in rushing to be among the first communities to comply with the MBTA Community Act, Lexington did not make appropriate rezoning decisions, particularly in the area of Piper Road and Concord Avenue near Waltham Street. Projects already approved in this area will introduce high-density residential development onto sites with potential access and traffic issues. Residents of these developments will be car dependent as there are virtually no shopping or other services within a reasonable walking distance; the only public transit option is Lexpress, which has limited service and little practical utility. Given the car dependency, the proposed developments are likely to have insufficient parking for residents and visitors that could result in overflow parking onto adjacent roads.
As proposed by the citizen petition, the Town should revisit the current zoning for multifamily housing to avoid previous mistakes and focus on locations with adequate supporting infrastructure and access to viable public transportation.
It’s not just adding 1,000 units, or many more, it’s adding them all at once. If you look at the designated intersections, and imagine large construction projects in process at all or most of them at the same time, it’s likely we will experience massive gridlock, and safety issues as traffic diverts to residential streets. Instead of planning and pacing, we’ve been simply reacting to and accommodating the land rush by developers.
Lexington should not be gullible to The MBTA Communities Act. What morons at the state level think that a few busses could handle the influx in residents without additional capacity. We as a town should not be gullible to the naive thinking at the state level passing their problems onto our towns.
Re: JT Davis- 10% of that figure was proposed in just over a year, which will place immense strain on the town’s finances and services. If another 10% were added, the town could face bankruptcy— Yes, Show us a simulation that bankrupts will NOT happen!
My main concern is that Lexington is planning to build far too much new housing that we’re not ready for. I understand the need for housing, but the town needs to have all the services in place to support it, including effective transit (what we have now is sorely lacking), space in schools, and basic infrastructure like water, electricity, and recreation/green space.
Also, we should consider impacts on current residents — in terms of over-crowding and increased costs/taxes. It would be very unfortunate if the plans for excessive new housing were to drive out many current residents. Why does the Lexington housing plan go so far above what is required by the new law?
I strongly recommend an independent study so that the town can plan for EVERYTHING that we would need to support new residents. How much would current residents have to pay in new taxes for a low, medium, or high level of new housing and related infrastructure and services? How much would the town need to pay? What can we expect in terms of other changes to the town? Is there a way to phase in new housing so that we can make adjustments and decisions as we go?
What an irony: on the eve of celebrating 250 years of Lexington, the birthplace of the American Revolution, inept State government plans to build 12,546 dwellings in Lex, to destroy the Town. I agree with JTDavis even 1100 dwellings # – 10% growth for Lex is a disaster. How to build huge buildings – 44 units at 217 – 241 Mass Ave on the edge of Bike Pass with no space for cars parking ?
What an irony: on the eve of celebrating 250 years of Lexington, the birthplace of the American Revolution, inept State government plans to build 12,546 dwellings in Lex, to destroy the Town. I agree with JTDavis even 1100 dwellings # – 10% growth for Lex is a disaster. How to build huge buildings – 44 units at 217 – 241 Mass Ave on the edge of Bike Pass with no space for cars parking ?
The MBTA communities act ignored the fact that Massachusetts is the third most densely populated state in the nation, after New Jersey (#1), and Rhode Island. I’ve lived in Lexington as an adult since 1999. Back then, it was easy to drive into Boston, and traffic was a minor problem on 128. These days, I don’t get into my car without checking google maps, and even within Lexington, traffic can be stressful. With thousands more people in Lexington, it will only get worse.
Additionally, the amount of wildlife is declining in Lexington. I used to see swallowtail and monarch butterflies multiple times a week during summers. Now, I can go weeks in summer without seeing any.
Everyone please do your homework.
Which Town Meeting reps from your precinct voted for the 228 acre MBTA set aside? If this doesn’t align with your vision for Lexington, determine which candidates want to roll this action back to preserve our town and vote for these candidates on March 3rd.
I have been told that only 15% of registered voters turn out for the Town elections. That is unacceptable. This is a critical election which will either preserve our town or start the Cambridgization of our town with much higher property taxes.
Also, in the interest of transparency, I am not a Town Meeting member, just a concerned resident of Lexington since 1958.
It was mentioned above that Lexington has 1/4the population density per square mile of its neighbor, Arlington, which has a much smaller business tax base yet still manages to educate its children and build new schools. However, Arlington has had to pass 3 tax overrides in the last 15 years to address structural deficits, partly due to rapid growth in school enrollment.
The most recent was a $7 million override in 2023, following a $5.5 million override in 2019 and a $6.5 million override in 2011. The 2011 override lasted as long as it did because, in 2012, Arlington moved town employees onto the state’s healthcare plan, and an improving economy allowed the state to increase funding through unrestricted general government aid.
While taxpayers shoulder the cost of these overrides to sustain town infrastructure and schools, we must be mindful of overextending our financial resources—especially if the town has no immediate revenue source beyond tax overrides to accommodate rapid housing developments and overcrowded schools resulting from the 228-acre MBTA over-zoning.
Please cast your vote as a responsible member of Lexington on March 3rd.
Over 200 residents participated in the Planning Board meeting last night.
This included concerned residents and housing advocates.
The issue is not a NIMBY issue – it is an issue of doing the right thing for the town’s financial stability.
The sponsor of Article 2 said “I am an idealist but we have to be pragmatic”. That captures the debate essentially – both sides want more housing, but one side would not attend to real world consequences (one person said they don’t mind 30 children in classrooms, the teachers make up for it; and there is no answer on building additional elementary and middle schools) – the other side wants housing but under a more controlled process where developers are not making buildings so tall with such little setbacks that they are shading the towns existing solar panels on low income housing. Smart growth, not growth at all costs.
Learn more – get involved – these hearings are long – but voters have the opportunity to watch them in person or after the fact. The stakes in the March election could not be higher.
Below is my testimony at the Feb 12 Planning Board hearing.
Like Carol Sacredote, who sponsored Article 2, I also support the MBTA Communities Act. It is important to increase housing supplies, and the State’s requirements for Lexington were reasonable. While the state has prescribed the right medicine, Article 34 proposed by the planning board gave Lexington a mega overdose.
Article 2 is the much-needed detox, and I admire the courage and hard work of Carol, John, Alan and Dawn. I had the honor of working with John and Alan on the Appropriation Committee for a few years, and I want to tell you that I am so proud of you.
Unfortunately, damages have already been done, and much of it is NOT reversible.
How can we maximize our lessons learned from this process and find ways to mitigate the damages?
First, I respectfully ask each member of the Planning Board to reflect on your role—both as a board and as an individual in this overdose — whether you have been doing a service or a disservice to the town. And what you should do to take the responsibility. The residents will have to live with the consequence of this overdose and each member of the Planning Board should have your consequence too.
Second, regarding the approved projects, what can we do to ensure that developers bear their fair share of increased burden of infrastructure and service to the town? It’s simply unfair to ask town residents to foot the bill while developers profit—especially as we face the unprecedented costs of the new high school project.
Finally, for those who claim good intentions, I want to say that good intentions alone are far from enough. The proverb says: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We also need common sense to go with the good intentions.
Thank you.
Lexington is a very unique and special place. Small, tree lined streets with great housing stock and a very vibrant downtown that’s retained a small town feel. Everyone still knows each other for the most part. It would be lump-in-your-throat sad to see that disappear in favor of a urban, dense construction replete with increased traffic and related ills. This isn’t your typical NIMBY case, the people of Lexington have a responsibility to pass on the great town that was left for them with all of its remarkable and special history. No one would turn old Ironsides into a commuter ferry just because a ferry is needed.