Fact vs Fiction

Lexington had to pass Article 34 to complying with the state's MBTA Community Act. No we did not.

When Article 34 was proposed in the spring of 2023, Lexington had 1 1/2 years until 12/2024 to work out a more reasonable proposal and comply with state's MBTA Zoning Act. 

Article 34 resulted in Lexington being the only town that over complied by ten folds (1,000%). Other communities have complied very differently with more balanced proposals. Below are some examples: 


a) Other MBTA communities select zoning areas of an appropriate size to meet the state's acreage requirement. (See list of municipalities' compliance data in the Overview page.) 


In this way these other municipalities have the flexibility to pursue additional zoning relaxation (1/2 votes required) and is not put in a difficult position to roll back over-compliance (2/3 votes required). 


b) Other MBTA communities set upper limit in density and/or site coverage in the multifamily zones (Concord, Framingham's proposal, Action, Warpole, Abington, Braintree, Andover, Ashland (using FAR- floor to area ratio), Lincoln, ... and many more)


They recognize the significant value of density and "by-right" approval process to applicants, and do not yield unnecessary, additional bonus on height, unlimited density, reduced setbacks, etc. 


c) Some communities set a goal for the number of additional units per year, or in total, and reserve the right to stop accepting applications. Arlington VA is an example outside the Commonwealth: "Annual Development Cap: Adding consideration of an annual cap of up to 58 permits for additional housing types with a distribution method to be determined by the County Board in March; Adding consideration of a five-year sunset of the annual cap." 


.... among other potential tools.

Article 2 in this Special Town Meeting will  make Lexington not compliant to the state's MBTA Zoning Act. Untrue, Article 2 will enable Lexington to comply and exceed the state's requirements.

Multiple sources have independently applied the Compliance Model and verified Article 2's compliance.

"Town Meeting overwhelmingly approved MBTA zoning in 2023, so it is the will of the whole community." Untrue.

Many residents were unaware of the consequential zoning change in 2023. Town Meeting Members and the public were not given critical information or adequate time before the 4/12/2023 vote. 

Town Meeting members approved Article 34 MBTA by 63% (below the traditionally required 2/3 or super majority threshold for zoning changes) in a rushed and confusing process:

1) No notification to abutters or residents town-wide for this consequential zoning change

2) Parcels continued to be added until a month before the Town Meeting was to commence

3) The number of acreage was mentioned three times in earlier presentations but disappeared in subsequent presentations. The next time the total acreage appeared was 3/14/2023, 6 days before the Town Meeting was to commence.

4) The Planning Board and staff refused to give an estimate of potential units throughout the process until 3/14/2023, one week before the Town Meeting was to commence

5) The 13,421 unit capacity number (or a similar estimate based on the Compliance Model from the state) had never been disclosed before the 4/12/2023 Town Meeting vote. 

6) An estimate of 400-800 units without backup analysis was published for the first time on 3/14/2023, 6 days before the Town Meeting was to commence; Town Meeting Member Tom Shiple, candidate for the Planning Board and member of the private "Cluster Housing Study Group", published their own estimate of "500-700 units in 10 years" on 3/22/2023. 

7) Concerns on fiscal impact raised by residents were dismissed

8) Images of Planned Development projects (requiring approval by Town Meeting) were presented as examples in the by-right MBTA zoning

9) Expectation to narrow down the proposed locations/acreage was never realized

10) Racism claims were made when a compromise McKenna Amendment was brought by 13 Town Meeting members

Read details here.

"The Planning Board did extensive analysis before bringing the proposal to town meeting." The community was being presented a fast shifting/expanding proposal.

Acreage continued to be added from 12/2022 to 2/2023, parcels continued to be changed during the three public hearings between 2/1/2023 to 2/15/2023, one month before the Annual Town Meeting was to commence. See more here.

"Just sign up for the Planning Board email list and you will get all the information you need." Transparency is more than long hours of meetings and missing information.

Many residents have busy lives and do not have time to attend or watch hours of meetings. Consequential zoning changes such as Article 34 deserved clear, town-wide notification than the rushed and confusing process in 2023. 

"Housing in the MBTA zoning is for the teachers, restaurant workers, etc." Not really.

161 units in the 1,094 proposed units as of 1/2025 are for inclusionary housing. 85% of the units are market rate. The purpose of MBTA Communities zoning is to add housing stock in general, not affordable housing. Communities in MA have used other zoning tools to add inclusionary housing at 20%, 25%, or higher percentage.

"The financial projections are based on fear-mongering." No, they are real.

See the memorandum by the Appropriation Committee on 2/14/2025 and similar analysis by two residents independently in 2023 and 2024.

"'Site plan review' is enough to get the community a great project." No.

All MBTA projects are by-right, which means the town is not allowed to disapprove a project if it complies with minimum requirements set in the bylaws and regulations. Site Plan Reviews are to ensure compliance only. The town and community have no right to ask for more than what is legally required.

We can always stop it, let the Planning Board make a better proposal than Article 2. Bad idea.

Before the citizens' petition of Article 2, citizens had sounded alarm and asked the Planning Board for change. The Planning Board refused and had not planned any proposal for amendment. 

Article 2 is only a start of the process to give the town time to adjust to the challenges from the unplanned rapid growth. 

If Aricle 2 does not get approved at this Town Meeting, the town will potentially face serious problems. 

Is MBTA Communities Multi-family Zoning the only way to add diverse housing stock in Lexington? No.

Lexington has been adding multi-family units over the past decades with zoning tools such as special permits and planned developments, 23.4% of dwelling units are townhouses, condos, or apartments. Additionally there are other zoning tools the town has yet to explore or utilize more, such as:

Must Lexington taxpayers bear the burden of budget shortfall from dense developments? No. 

MBTA Communities Multi-family Zoning Act is reasonable in asking only 10% of potential increase of housing stock in Lexington, because ultimately it is an unfunded state mandate and many communities may not be able to afford to go beyond 10%.


It has been shown by this UMass Dartmouth study that new developments can generate additional income taxes for the state while burdening local communities with school cost. "Only 31 percent of the net new state tax revenue generated by the developments would be needed to completely offset the negative fiscal impacts experienced by three of the six communities."


Which is why that there exist programs such as 40R and 40S that when a community adds multi-family units, the state will provide  compensation for the additional students.


Lexington needs to examine more fiscally responsible zoning alternatives to MBTA zoning in adding housing.

Does responsible planning perpetuate systemic racism? No.

When people were trying to figure out if and why apartment rentals are taxed differently and at lower rate than condos of the same size, a member of the Lexington Cluster Housing Study Group wrote on a Town Meeting Member email list:


"I think it’s also critical to point out that discriminating against rental housing on this basis represents a form of systemic racism."


This racism statement is consistent with the claims in the 4/6/2023 Planning Board's report on the McKenna Amendment that attempted to compromise and scale down Article 34 MBTA Zoning moderately from the quadruple compliance to double compliance of the state's requirement. The Planning Board's words are:


"Isolating multi-family housing at the edges of Town near the highways epitomizes traditionally exclusionary zoning practices;" "Not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s stated goals for diversity and inclusion;" "Not consistent with 2020 Town Meeting’s adopted Article 8 Systemic Racism Resolution."


Fact: Nearly half (43.2%) of Lexington's current residents are people of color according to recent US census. A great percentage of property owners are people of color, so are apartment renters. Whether and how any town policy decisions could potentially be affected by a fact-finding discussion, along with many other critical factors, is up to the diverse community. There was no discrimination or bias implied against renters vs owners, people of color or otherwise, but merely including a data point to be part of the analysis.

Lexington can deal with a population boom just like it did in 1950s-70s.  Maybe, with major tax hikes for infrastructures and municipal service.

Number of Lexington residents through the years:

1950: 17,335

1960: 27,691

1970: 31,886

1980: 29,479

1990: 28,974

2000: 30,355

2010: 31,394

2020: 34,454


a) There was no Proposition 2 1/2 at the time, property tax levy could increase at a higher rate 


b)  Additional housing units could have added new tax growth in proportion to the existing units


c) Students went to school in two sessions every day, grade levels were reshuffled from  k-5, 6-8, 9-12 to k-6, 7-9, 10-12 (based on recollection by residents)


These historical solutions, except the grade shuffling, are more challenging to do in today's world. This is in addition to the fact that education cost, quality and expectations have risen significantly.


Post-War Housing Boom and Infrastructure Development in Lexington

(2/17/2025 post by John Zhao, Precinct 5 Town Meeting Member)


Post War Housing Growth in Lexington 

Year Housing Units Population Housing +% Population +%

1940 2,938 13,113

1950 4,314 17,335 47% 32%

1960 7,183 27,691 67% 60%

Accumulative growth 144% 111%


The town website documented the infrastructure development during that period. Here is a quick list:

- Transportation Network: Opening of Lexington's section of Route 128 in 1951 and later expansions of both Rt 128 and Rt 2 in the 1960s.

- Schools: Several new schools were built. The LHS construction began in 1951 and the second phase was completed in 1957, Harrington School and a large addition to the Fiske Elementary School in 1954; Maria Hastings Elementary School in 1955, the Franklin School addition in 1957, William Diamond Junior High School in 1959, Estabrook School in 1961, and the Bridge School in 1966.

- Fire and Police Stations: New fire stations were built at the Center in 1947 and at East Lexington in 1951, and a Police Station was built in 1958.

- Recreational Facilities: The Hayden Recreation Center was dedicated in 1958.

- Churches: Several religious congregations were established, and existing facilities were expanded or rebuilt, including Hancock Church, Methodist Church, and Temple Isaiah.

While we are in a different era,  we must discuss and plan how to cope with the anticipated rapid housing development.

Data sources:

·         1950 census of housing - https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1950/hc-1/hc-1-28.pdf

·         1960 census of housing - https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1960/housing-hc-a1/42017035ch1.pdf

·         Post 1940 Period of Lexington - https://www.lexingtonma.gov/916/Post-1940-Period

The town managed well during population increase after the years 2000s? Yes, with multiple tax increases.

a) We had school crowding; 


b) Overrides (2001, 2004 2005, 2007, 2008) and debt exclusions (2000, 2005-Fiske and Harrington, 2008, 2013-Bridge, Bowman, Estabrook, 2018-Children's Place and Hastings, 2023) for meeting educational goals, expanding school buildings and modular classrooms, and other operational and infrastructures needs.